Contact Information

Introduction to Vehicle Crashworthiness Lecture -1 1

CE 264 Non-linear Finite Element Modeling and Simulation

Office Phone: Office: Email: Office Hours: Web:

Pradeep Mohan (703)726-8538 Research 2, 302 E pradeep@ncac.gwu.edu 2:00 to 4:00 PM on Tuesdays and by appointment http://crash.ncac.gwu.edu/pradeep/

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #2

Objective

What is Non-Linear FEM and why study it?

FEM is a numerical analysis technique for obtaining approximate solutions to a wide variety of engineering problems for which an analytical solution does not exist Material
Stress-strain behavior

Safety Standards

Non-linearities

CE 264 Non-linear Finite Element Modeling and Simulation

Geometry
Change in geometry have a significant effect on the load deformation behavior

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #3

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (Part 571)

Frontal Impact Regulatory Requirements

Active Safety / Crash Avoidance - 100 Series

Pre-Crash Phase Crash Avoidance & security

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 old

Braking (ABS), electronic stability control (ESC), lighting and signalling

Passive Safety / Crashworthiness - 200 Series

Crash Phase Minimize risk of injury to occupants, combines the reciprocal aims of absorbing impact and ensuring a survival space

208 Occupant Crash Protection 214 Side Impact Protection 216 Roof Crush Resistance

Fire-related - 300 Series

30 mph ( 48 kph) into a fixed barrier 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy in front driver and passenger seats Uses dummy injury measures for regulation Chest Gs <= 60 HIC <= 1000 Femur Loads <= 10 KN Protection must be automatic

Post-Crash Phase Interior Trim Flammability and fuel system integrity

301 Fuel System Integrity

Purpose of this test is to evaluate the performance of the occupant restraint systems (seat belts, airbags, etc.)
Slide #6

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #5

CE 264, Lecture 1

FMVSS 208 New Regulation

FMVSS 208 New Regulation

The first stage phase-in ,9/1/03-8/31/06, requires vehicles to be certified as passing:

The second stage phase-in, 9/1/ 2007-8/31/2010, requires vehicles to be certified as passing:

Unbelted test requirements for both the 5th percentile adult f d lt female and 50th percentile adult male d l d til d lt l dummies i i in a 40 km/h (25 mph) rigid barrier crash Belted test requirements for the same two dummies in a rigid barrier crash with a maximum test speed of 48km/h (30 mph) Include technologies that will minimize risk for young children and small adults
De-powered Airbags Occupant sensing system

Maximum test speed for the belted rigid barrier test will increase from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56km/h (35 mph) in tests with the 50th percentile adult male dummy only

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #7

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #8

FMVSS 208 New Regulation

Test requirements to improve occupant protection for different size occupants, belted and unbelted

FMVSS 208 New Regulation

Test requirements to minimize the risk to infants, children, and other occupants from injuries and deaths caused by airbags

50th precentile adult male dummies

5th percentile adult female dummy 40% offset frontal deformable barrier test

Rear facing child safety with 1 year old dummy

3-year-old and 6-year-old child dummies

5th percentile adult female dummy (driver position)

Rigid Barrier Test

Rigid Barrier Test

Unbelted Driver and Passenger P 20-25 mph

Belted Driver and Passenger P 0-35 mph

Unbelted Driver and Passenger P 20-25 mph

Belted Driver and Passenger P 0-30 mph

Belted Driver and Passenger P 0-25 mph

Suppression (presence)

Suppression (presence)

Suppression (out of position)

Low risk deployment

Suppression (out of position) Low risk deployment Low risk deployment

Perpendicular and up to 30 degrees Oblique

CE 264, Lecture 1

Perpendicular

Perpendicular

Perpendicular

Left Side Impact

Slide #9

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #10

FMVSS 208 Advanced occupant protection

Frontal Impact Consumer Tests

FMVSS 208 drove design changes to adjust the deployment of the front airbags to enhance protection for front-seat occupants using

New Car Assessment Program, NCAP 35 mph (56 kph) into a fixed rigid barrier 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy in p g front driver and passenger seats Star rating used to assess probability of serious injury Head and chest injury data are combined into a single rating and reflected by the number of stars

crash severity sensors seat belt usage sensors dual-stage driver and front-passenger airbags driver's seat position sensor front outboard safety belt pre-tensioners etc.,

= 10% or less chance of serious injury = 11% to 20% chance of serious injury = 21% to 35% chance of serious injury j y = 36% to 45% chance of serious injury = 46% or greater chance of serious injury

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #11

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #12

Frontal Impact - Consumer Tests

Side Impact Regulatory Requirements

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214

40% offset 40 mph (64 kph) into a deformable barrier 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy in front driver seat Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Poor ratings to assess vehicles overall crashworthiness Rating based on: Dummy Injury measures Structural performance Restraints/dummy kinematics

Evaluates the structural performance of the vehicle

33.5 mph (54kph) crabbed impact Impactor mass - 3015 lb US SID dummy in front and rear seats Uses dummy injury measures for regulation TTI(d) <= 85g for LTVs and 4 door passenger cars TTI(d) <= 90g for 2 door p passenger cars g Pelvic Acceleration <= 130g TTI(d) = 0.5 X (Gr + Gs) Gr = Max. Rib Acc. Gs = Lower spine Acc

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #13

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #14

Side Impact - Consumer Tests

Side Impact - Consumer Tests

NHTSA issued an NPRM for side impact on May 19, 2004

Lateral/Side Impact New Car Assessment Program (LINCAP or SINCAP)

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

38.5 mph (62kph) crabbed impact 3015 lb (1370 Kg) impactor mass SID dummy in front and rear seats (SID/HIII for vehicles with side airbags) Star rating based on TTI Pelvic Acceleration <= 130g
Thoracic Trauma Index 5 Stars <=52 57-72 4 Stars 72-91 3 Stars 91-98 2 Stars 98 >= 1 Star

59% of fatalities in side impact p had a brain injury Promote head protection for all vehicle classes 20mph closing speed at 750 anticlockwise angle of approach into a rigid pole* SID-IIs will be tested with the moving barrier and the oblique pole* ES-2re ES 2re to replace US DOT SID

New test implemented in Fall 2003 Impactor mass - 1,500 Kg Impactor shape derived from Ford F150 front profile 50 km/h perpendicular impact SIDIIs driver and rear passenger dummies Seated using UMTRI seating position

* Most likely

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #15

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #16

Side Impact - Consumer Tests

Rear Impact Regulatory Requirements

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301

Purpose is to represent crash condition that poses greatest risk to occupants (Pick-up/SUV as striking vehicle) Promote head protection
Slide #17

The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes 30 mph ( 48 kph) with a rigid rear moving barrier 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy in front driver and passenger seats Vehicle is rotated on its longitudinal axis to each successive increment of 900 and fuel spill is measured

CE 264, Lecture 1

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #18

Finite Element Method

Brief Introduction to Finite Element Methods

CE 264 Non-linear Finite Element Modeling and Simulation

Many problems in engineering and applied science are governed by differential or integral equations. The l i Th solutions to these equations would provide an h i ld id exact, closed-form solution to the particular problem being studied. However, complexities in the geometry, properties and in the boundary conditions that are seen in most real-world problems usually means that an exact solution cannot be obtained or obtained in a reasonable amount of time.
Slide #20

Source: Finite Element Primer for Engineers Mike Barton & S. D. Rajan (Arizona state univ.)

CE 264, Lecture 1

Finite Element Method

Finite Element Method

Current product design cycle times imply that engineers must obtain design solutions in a short amount of time. They are content to obtain approximate solutions that can be readily obtained in a reasonable time frame, and with reasonable effort. The FEM is one such approximate solution technique. The FEM is a numerical procedure for obtaining approximate solutions to many of the problems encountered in engineering analysis.
Slide #21

In the FEM, a complex region defining a continuum is discretized into simple geometric shapes called elements. The properties and the governing relationships are assumed over o er these elements and e pressed mathematicall in terms expressed mathematically of unknown values at specific points in the elements called nodes. An assembly process is used to link the individual elements to the given system. When the effects of loads and boundary conditions are considered, a set of linear or nonlinear algebraic equations is usually obtained obtained. Solution of these equations gives the approximate behavior of the continuum or system.

CE 264, Lecture 1

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #22

Finite Element Method

Finite Element Method

The continuum has an infinite number of degrees-of-freedom (DOF), while the discretized model has a finite number of DOF. This is the origin of the name, finite element method. The number of equations is usually rather large for most realworld applications of the FEM, and requires the computational power of a super computer. The FEM has little practical value if super computers were not available. Advances in and ready availability of computers and software has brought th FEM within reach of engineers working i h b ht the ithi h f i ki in small industries, and even students.

Two features of the finite element method are worth noting.

The piecewise approximation of the physical field (continuum) on finite elements provides good precision even with simple approximating functions. Simply increasing the number of elements can achieve increasing precision. The locality of the approximation leads to sparse equation systems f a discretized problem. Thi i for di i d bl This helps to ease the solution of problems having very large numbers of nodal unknowns. It is not uncommon today to solve systems containing a million primary unknowns.
Slide #24

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #23

CE 264, Lecture 1

Origin of FEM

Origin of FEM

It is difficult to document the exact origin of the FEM, because the basic concepts have evolved over a period of 150 or more years. The term finite element was first coined by Clough in 1960. In the early 1960s, engineers used the method for approximate solution of problems in stress analysis, fluid flow, heat transfer, and other areas. The first book on the FEM by Zienkiewicz and Chung was published in 1967. bli h d i 1967 In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the FEM was applied to a wide variety of engineering problems.
Slide #25

The 1970s marked advances in mathematical treatments, including the development of new elements, and convergence studies. Most commercial FEM software packages originated in the 1970s (ABAQUS, ADINA, ANSYS, MARK, PAFEC) and 1980s (FENRIS, LARSTRAN 80, SESAM 80.) The FEM is one of the most important developments in computational methods to occur in the 20th century. In just a few decades, th method h evolved f f d d the th d has l d from one with ith applications in structural engineering to a widely utilized and richly varied computational approach for many scientific and technological areas.
Slide #26

CE 264, Lecture 1

CE 264, Lecture 1

Advantages of FEM

Sources of Error in FEM

The FEM offers many important advantages to the design engineer: Easily applied to complex, irregular-shaped objects composed of se eral different materials and having complex boundary several ha ing comple bo ndar conditions. Applicable to steady-state, time dependent and eigenvalue problems.

The three main sources of error in a typical FEM solution are discretization errors, formulation errors and numerical errors.

Applicable to linear and nonlinear problems. One method can solve a wide variety of problems, including problems in solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, chemical reactions, electromagnetics, biomechanics, heat transfer and acoustics, to name a few.
Slide #27

Discretization error results from transforming the physical system (continuum) into a finite element model, and can be related to modeling the boundary shape, the boundary conditions, etc. Formulation error results from the use of elements that don't precisely describe the behavior of the physical problem. h i l bl Numerical error occurs as a result of numerical calculation procedures, and includes truncation errors and round off errors
Slide #28

CE 264, Lecture 1

CE 264, Lecture 1

General FEA Process

General FEA Process

Post-processing: Results Analysis

Model Development - Pre-processing

Discretize Geometry: Nodes/Elements Geometry properties: Thickness/Cross-section Material properties Loading conditions Constraints Boundary conditions Numerical solution of equations of motion

Deformed geometry Displacements, velocities, accelerations Stress and strain Reaction forces Energies Update Model based on the analysis results Iterative process until objectives achieved

FE Model Improvement

Solver - Solution processing

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #29

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #30

General FEA Process

Background and History of LS-DYNA

Model Development - Pre-processing

1976

LS-INGRID, FEM-B I-DEAS, True-Grid, EasiCrash , , PATRAN, HyperMesh

DYNA3D developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by John Hallquist Low velocity i L l it impact of h t f heavy, solid structures, military lid t t ilit applications DYNA3D ported on Cray-1 Improved sliding interface Order of magnitude faster New material models - Explosive-structure, Soilstructure Impacts of penetration projectiles
Slide #32

Solver - Solution processing

LS-DYNA, PamCrash, RADIOSS NASTRAN, ANSYS, Algor LS-TAURUS, LS-POST HyperMesh

1979

Results Analysis - Post-processing y p g

1981

CE 264, Lecture 1 Slide #31

CE 264, Lecture 1

Background and History of LS-DYNA

Background and History of LS-DYNA

1986

Beams, Shells, Rigid Bodies Single Surface Contact Support for Multiple Computer Platforms Automotive Applications Support LS-DYNA Full Commercial Version LSTC

1993

1988

Keyword Format Automatic Single Surface Contact 1st International LS-DYNA User Conference Training Lab Established at West Coast - LSTC Training Class Started at East Coast - NCAC/GWU Release of Version LS971, Many New Features
Slide #34

1995

1989

1997

Today

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #33

CE 264, Lecture 1

General Capabilities

Applications

Transient dynamics Quasi-static simulations Flexible and rigid bodies g Nonlinear material behavior More than 80 constitutive relationships More than 40 element formulation Finite strain and finite rotation General contact algorithm Thermal Analysis Explicit and implicit analyses

Automotive, train, ship, and aerospace crashworthiness Sheet and bulk forming process sim lation b lk simulation Engine blade containment and bird strike analysis Seismic safety simulation Weapons design and explosive detonation simulation Biomechanics simulation Industrial accidents simulation Drop and impact analysis of consumer product Roadside Hardware Analysis Virtual proving ground simulation
Slide #36

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #35

CE 264, Lecture 1

LS-DYNA Input File Format

Keyword Format Input File

*KEYWORD *TITLE SAMPLE INPUT FILE *CONTROL_TERMINATION 0.1000000 0 0.0000000 0 0.0000000 *DATABASE_BINARY_D3PLOT 1.00000-3 0 *DATABASE_BINARY_D3THDT 1.00000-3 *MAT_ELASTIC 1 7.89000-9 2.00000+5 0.3000000 *SECTION_SOLID 1 0 *SECTION_SHELL 1 2 1.0000000 1 0000000 1 0000000 1 0000000 0 0000000 1 0000000 1.0000000 1.0000000 1.0000000 0.0000000 *PART PART NAME 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 *NODE 1 0.000000000E+00 0.000000000E+00 0.000000000E+00 2 7.000000000E+00 0.000000000E+00 0.000000000E+00 3 0.000000000E+00 7.000000000E+00 0.000000000E+00 4 7.000000000E+00 7.000000000E+00 0.000000000E+00 5 0.000000000E+00 0.000000000E+00 7.000000000E+00 6 7.000000000E+00 0.000000000E+00 7.000000000E+00 7 0.000000000E+00 7.000000000E+00 7.000000000E+00 8 7.000000000E+00 7.000000000E+00 7.000000000E+00 *ELEMENT_SOLID 1 1 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 *PART PART NAME 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 *ELEMENT_SHELL 1 2 1 2 4 3 *END

Structured Input Format

Original Format Organized by Entities Fixed Format Fi d F t Started 1993 More Flexible Easy to Modify Input Deck

Keyword Input Format

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #37

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #38

Keyword Format Input File

Keyword Format Input File

Sections

Control, Material, Equation of State, Element, Parts, etc.

The * followed by keyword indicate beginning of a section block. The $ used for Comment Cards Data blocks begin with keyword followed by data pertaining to the keyword Multiple Blocks with the same keyword are p y permissible Material and Contact types are defined by name Keywords are alphabetically organized in manual
Slide #39

*NODE *ELEMENT *PART *MAT_ELASTIC *EOS *HOURGLASS

NID x

EID PID N1 N2 N3 PID SID MID EOSID HGID MID RO E PR DA DB EOSID HGID

*SECTION_SHELL SID ELFORM SHRF NIP PROPT QR ICOMP

CE 264, Lecture 1

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #40

10

LS-DYNA Execution

LS-DYNA Execution

Command Line

Example
ls-dyna i=inputfile ls940 r=d3dump01 memory=12000000 ls971s i= inputfile

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #41

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #42

LS-DYNA Output Files

d3hsp message d3plot,d3plot01, d3thdt,d3thdt01, d3dump01, runrsf Ascii files (glstat, nodout, deforc, ..etc) (g )

CAE Influence on Vehicle Development Process (VDP)

CE 264 Non-linear Finite Element Modeling and Simulation

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #43

11

History of Numerical Simulations

History of Numerical Simulations

Explicit FE codes were developed in the 60s and 70s at the Defense Labs in the US First full vehicle car crash models were built and analyzed i th mid 80 as a research project l d in the id 80s h j t Introduction of supercomputers (cray) made it possible to run a full vehicle crash model Development of the codes continue to make numerical solutions stable and accurate Numerical simulation has become a fully integrated tool in the vehicle development process in the last decade

Difficult to conceive a vehicle design with todays constraints of regulations and safety without any simulation at all Accurate and robust analytical tools using state of state-ofthe-art in computational mechanics and computer hardware are indispensable for crash simulations The contribution of simulation lies in that it complements a testing facility by preventing unnecessary work from being done y g The ideal picture is indeed one of a design, heavily supported by analysis, resulting in building of only those prototypes that are almost certain to pass all final verification testing
Slide #46

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #45

CE 264, Lecture 1

Evolution of CAE in Crashworthiness

Year 1985 Regulatory Requirements 1 Reduce Injuries & Fatalities FE Model Size (elem) 10000 Prototypes reqd. for crash testing 150

Engineering Analysis Methods

Engineering Analysis

M Made possible by su upercomputers

1990

Signi ificant cost savings

20000

120

Classical methods

Numerical methods

1995

80000

100

Exact

Approximate

Energy

Boundary Finite Finite Element Difference Elements

2000

0.5M 0 5M

50

CAE: Uses Engineering analysis tools primarily FE, BE and FD methods Linear / Non-Linear: based on material, loading Static / Dynamic: Temporal variation in loading, boundary conditions Quasi Static /Transient are sub-cases of above
Slide #47 CE 264, Lecture 1 Slide #48

Today
All numbers shown here are estimates only, and should be treated as such

>20

>1M

<20

CE 264, Lecture 1

12

FE Crashworthiness

Automotive CAE requirements

Validation of Structure: Component, Subsystem and System
Ride Comfort: NVH, Cabin Acoustics, Passenger Efforts (eg: Door opening) Handling: Vehicle Dynamics Analysis, Kinematics Safety: Crash (Front, Rear, Side, Roof) Durability: Life of components during real-life vehicle loading of variable severity, Fatigue life-cycle analysis Fuel Economy, Aerodynamics Cross-functional as well as individual optimizations for cost, weight and investment (CWI)

FE crashworthiness analysis of vehicles in particular, is among the most challenging nonlinear problems in structural mechanics Vehicle structures are typically manufactured from many stamped thin shell parts and subsequently assembled by various welding and fastening techniques The body-in-white may contain steel of various strength g g grades, aluminum and/or composite materials

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #49

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #50

Automotive CAE Tools

Preprocessing (FE modeling): Hypermesh: Standard for Automotive CAE modeling ( good for solid modeling, auto/manual meshing edits and all quality checks) ANSA: Superior to HM for Shell meshing and assembly but inferior for solid models Others: Easi-Crash, LS-Pre, Oasys, I-DEAS, PATRAN Solvers: MSC NASTRAN: Best in class for Linear, dynamic and optimization type analyses (best for NVH, Durability) LS-DYNA: Non-Linear, large deformation, Crash type analysis ADAMS: Vehicle dynamics MADYMO: Occupant simulation Other: ANSYS (multi-physics problems) Post-processing: LS-POST, Hyperview, Easi-Crash etc.,
CE 264, Lecture 1 Slide #51

48 month VDP
Strategic Direction Confirm Concept Selection Program Program & Major Hardpoints Theme Theme Start Selection Confirmation Prototype S0 Start Vision Approval: S1 Start Volume Prod.

Week 208 WBVP

Reference Baseline Digital Mule

Week 150

DOR+ Digital Prototype

Week 80

Theme DORs

Post S0 Refinement

PreProgram Phase
Program name (sample): 02LH

Main window for Digital/Virtual Vehicle development

1st physical Validation prototype

Validation Phase

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #52

13

48 month VDP
Program Program Strategic Definition Implement P1 Direction PD Theme Decision TD Program Confirm PC Program Redesign PR Prototype Confirm Design CP

Influence on Vehicle Safety

S0

LR

J1

Month 48

Month 37 43
Architecture Selected

33

27
Structural Prototype SP

24

21

17

7
Engineering & Manufacturing sign off

Clay model complete

2001 Model Year

Design Alternatives j Major Architectural Changes High Design Freedom High CAE contributions Limited Vehicle specific data Design specs available Minor modifications to design Lower design freedom More of optimization following redesign to targets Full Design specs available Tuning with prototype testing Proving ground data CAE in reactive and correlation mode

2004 Model Year

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #53

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #54

Crashworthiness Model Requirements

Structure Design for Crashworthiness

The models should satisfy at a minimum the following overall requirements:

Accuracy the model should be able to yield reasonably accurate p y predictions of the essential features being sought Speed the model should be executable with a reasonable turnaround time, not to exceed 12 hours regardless of its size, to allow for iterations and parameter studies Robustness small variations in model parameters should not yield large variations in model responses Development time the model should be built in a reasonably short period of time, not to exceed two weeks
Slide #55 CE 264, Lecture 1 Slide #56

CE 264, Lecture 1

14

Automotive Body - Structure

Two types of body structures (Body-In-White)

Unibody (passenger car) Ladder frame (trucks/SUV)

Automotive Body

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #57

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #58

Automotive Structure - Unibody

Automotive Structure Ladder Frame

Unit-body structures comprise most passenger cars introduced in the U.S. since the early 1980 s 1980s Body, frame, and front sheet metal combined into a single unit constructed from stamped sheet metal and assembled by spot welding or other fastening methods Enhance whole vehicle rigidity and provide for weight reduction

The ladder frame supports the engine, transmission, powertrain, suspension and accessories In frontal impact, the frame and front sheet metal absorb most of the crash energy by plastic deformation Structural modules are bolted together to form the vehicle structure The vehicle body is attached to the frame by shock absorbing body mounts, designed to isolate high frequency vibrations
Slide #60

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #59

CE 264, Lecture 1

15

Body-In-White (BWI)
Occupant Compartment

Body-In-White (BWI)
Front End

Firewall separates engine from compartment Center Tunnel accommodates the exhaust d t th h t pipes and drive-shaft Sills Profiled longitudinal beams designed in two shell construction Side Frame A,B,C and D pillars Side Panel External side panels Floor Assembly forms the back-bone for the entire body Roof
Slide #61

Underframe/Cradle

Used as an engine and/or suspension mount Provides torsional stiffness to the structure Bolted through vibration dampers to the front rails Strong welded steel or magnesium structure (or single cast piece) Transfers energy to the opposite side in the event of a severe side or angular collision
Slide #62

Cross member

CE 264, Lecture 1

CE 264, Lecture 1

Body-In-White (BWI)

Body-In-White (BWI)

Front End Front rails

Front End Wheel Houses

most important part in the front end structure Absorb a great deal of the energy in a frontal crash (typically about 40 KN/rail for compact cars) Complex and strong interaction with FBHP, firewall, etc.. Have crush initiators and deformation aids to crush in a controlled manner

Extremely strong by virtue of their shape Incorporate strengtheners, beads, and offsets

Deformation Aid

Upper side member

Crush Initiators

Positioned along the entire length of the wheel house Absorbs additional energy during severe frontal collisions Incorporate reinforcements

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #63

CE 264, Lecture 1

Slide #64

16

Body-In-White (BIW)
Rear End

Simpler design compared to front Based on a closed box design Rails are incorporated to dissipate energy Panels around the wheelhouse provide additional support Side Protection
Strong B-pillars Door beams positioned to engage the barrier Door trims have foam padding to minimize hard contact points on impact
Slide #65

CE 264, Lecture 1

17