Static and dynamic roof crush simulation using LS-DYNA3D

Mao, Mingzhi; Chirwa, E C; Chen, Tongtong; Latchford, J

doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0305

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bathe et al 26 proposed that a speed of 0.5 mph can obtain the reasonable results compared with the one with 10 mph for vehicle roof crush. Recently, it was reported that both the simulation results and the physical test 27,28 are available for velocity of 5 mph (2335.2 mm/s) for comparison. It is also concluded that the speed is reasonable for roof crush if the ratio of kinetic energy to strain energy is less than 15%.…”

Section: Roof Crush Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crashworthiness-based lightweight design problem via new robust design method considering two sources of uncertainties

Zhang

Zhu

Chen

2012

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metamodel-based robust design methods are commonly used to mitigate the influence of parametric uncertainty associated in sheet gauges and material properties in crashworthiness-based vehicle lightweight design. Since the crash performances are highly nonlinear and high-dimensional responses, the prediction error of metamodels inevitably introduces the so-called metamodeling uncertainty in robust design that may mislead to a wrong solution. In this article, a new robust design method considering both parametric uncertainty and metamodeling uncertainty is proposed in the autobody lightweight design problem. Six crash responses in side impact and roof crush are defined as the constraint responses. The results demonstrate that the proposed robust design method is superior to the conservative-surrogate-based robust design method. The final confirmed robust solution achieves 14.39% weight reduction. The method provides an efficient way to reduce the risk of constraint violation and avoids an over-conservative design due to metamodel uncertainty in crashworthiness-based lightweight design problems.

show abstract

Section: Roof Crush Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crashworthiness-based lightweight design problem via new robust design method considering two sources of uncertainties

Zhang

Zhu

Chen

2012

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finite element (FE) model was initially developed in RADIOSS and translated into LS-DYNA by BAARG; it has already been used in some virtual tests. 11,13,14 In order to improve the precision of the FE model and the running efficiency, the original whole-car FE model was simplified and refined for use in the roof crush tests. The chassis assembly including the engine and the suspension system were initially removed.…”

Section: Finite Element Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the purpose of assessing the contributions of the resistance force of the vehicle body parts to the roof strength, the windscreen was excluded from the FE model because it makes a variable contribution to the roof strength subjected to different loading scenarios. 3,4,11,16 As shown in Figure 2(a), the final FE model for use in the roof crush tests is the 'body in white' (BIW), car door and spot welds, accounting for a total of 170,301 elements. The side structure of the body in Figure 2(b) depicts three layers which include the inner plate, the reinforcing plate and the outer plate incorporating the A-pillar and the B-pillar.…”

Section: Finite Element Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Friedman and Nash 10 proposed an angle combination of a roll angle of 45°a nd a pitch angle of 7.5°. The studies by Chirwa and co-workers [11][12][13][14] on a single-sided roof crush indicated that the combination of a roll angle of 45°(and not 25°) and a pitch angle of 10°(and not 5°) constituted the worst-case loading condition that represents the smallest strength. The Centre for Injury Research 15 developed another protocol code named M216 which is a quasi-static roof crush test conducted sequentially on both sides of the roof over the A-pillars at a pitch angle of 10°and roll angles of 25°and 40°respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Virtual testing for the assessment of a double-sided roof crush based on the newly updated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216

Qian

Chirwa

Yang

et al. 2012

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The newly updated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 enhances the requirements of the roof crush behaviour as it particularly focuses on the double-sided test protocol. This test will be mandatory from the year 2012 and will replace the single-sided test. The research presented herein aims at investigating the behaviour of a small European vehicle subjected to this newly updated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 and at assessing the effect of the variation in the loading combination of the pitch angle and the roll angle on the roof crush strength to quantify the difference in the performances. A Ford Fiesta FE model developed at the University of Bolton was refined and validated against the roof crush test. Thereafter a full factorial method was employed to the design of the experiment based on varying the pitch angle and the roll angle. The response functions concerning the resistance force of the double-sided roof were hence constructed with the results from a series of virtual tests based on nine levels of the roll angle and four levels of the pitch angle. Parametric studies were then conducted with respect to the effects of the body structural components, the windscreen and the variations in the roll angle and the pitch angle on the roof strength. The results show that the roll angle and the pitch angle are functions of the roof strength. In general, the roof on the near side performs in a stronger way than the roof on the far side and greatly influences the overall collapse behaviour. Within a crush distance of 127 mm (5 in), the strengths on both sides of the roof decrease as the roll angle varies from 10° to 45°. The variation in the pitch angle influences the resistance force. In addition, the windscreen is found to contribute significantly to the roof strength on the far side, hence demonstrating a strength which is artificially high, not quantifiable and not observed in real-world rollover crashes. From the virtual parametric analysis carried out, it shows once again that the recommended loading-angle combinations in the newly updated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 roof crush test should be a roll angle of 45° (and not 25°) and a pitch angle of 10° (and not 5°) for both near-side and far-side roof load application.

show abstract

“…In 2001, Ward et al utilized MADYMO to evaluate occupant motions and injury measures under inverted impact conditions [24]. In 2004, Mao et al described finite element modeling of static and dynamic roof crush analyses [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restrained occupant protection performance under rollover conditions using an intelligent rollover protection subsystem

Friedman¹,

Hutchinson²,

Mihora³

2007

International Journal of Crashworthiness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluation of the biomechanical performance that can be expected by restrained occupants from the incorporation of an intelligent rollover protection subsystem (IRPS) into a production vehicle has been conducted. This paper reports on the evaluation of such a system based on finite element modeling. Finite element models of vehicle designs and the Hybrid III dummy were used to evaluate the subsystem under manufacturer-created rollover conditions for a production roof structure. Results from a rollover crash test of a production vehicle were utilized to validate the model, using the production vehicle crash test. The IRPS design was then integrated with the production vehicle and the results were compared with the baseline neck biomechanical injury measures. Neck loads were utilized to validate the model against the test results. The results of the study show that the IRPS resulted in substantial reduction of head and neck loads with the production roof and even greater reductions with a strengthened roof. The results illustrate opportunities available to improve rollover crashworthiness performance for restrained occupants.

show abstract

Static and dynamic roof crush simulation using LS-DYNA3D

Cited by 21 publications

References 7 publications

Crashworthiness-based lightweight design problem via new robust design method considering two sources of uncertainties

Crashworthiness-based lightweight design problem via new robust design method considering two sources of uncertainties

Virtual testing for the assessment of a double-sided roof crush based on the newly updated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216

Restrained occupant protection performance under rollover conditions using an intelligent rollover protection subsystem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About