Master HH Crash Worthiness P 1

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
Computational Mechanics for Car Body Design I
Crash Simulation of Car Bodies

with FEM – Part 1
Fabian Duddeck
f.duddeck@qmul.ac.uk
June 2007 Crashworthiness, 1 Fabian Duddeck

First Motor Cars, 1886
Carl Benz
(1844 – 1929)
Benz Car (1886)

First Pedestrian Fatality, 1896
Mrs. Bridgette Driscol of Croyden was the first person

killed by a car when she left the Crystal Palace in London.

First Crash Tests, 1937
• The AUTO UNION AG, based in

Chemnitz, Germany, was the first
car manufacturer to develop an
empirical crash program in
1937/38.
• They performed frontal, side, pole
impacts and rollover tests.
• The rollovers were captured in a
test film, the other tests were too
fast. The cars were dropped
sideways from a ramp.
• The intention was to test the
strength of the bodies as part of the
development program for the
introduction of plastic or wooden
structures.
• The studies were motivated by the
aim to replace metal for car
structures by wood or plastics
without loosing crashworthiness. DKW Auto-Union, 1937/38
First Biomechanics, 1944
• In 1944, John Stapp started

research in aerospace medicine
for the U.S. air force.
• The first rocket-sled deceleration
research program at Edwards Air
Force Base on the Mojave Desert
was Stapp's first project related to
passive safety.
• His assignment was to determine
human tolerance to deceleration
and protection from crash forces.
• John Stapp started to be concerned
not with the structure but with the
human body.
• Often, he himself was the test
object.
John Paul Stapp, 1944

First Biomechanics, 1944
• The rocket-sled accelerated 400 m on

tracks to attain aircraft landing speeds,
then was subjected to aircraft crash
deceleration. Metal scoops beneath
the sled plowed into a trough of water
for the slow-down.
• Thirty-two rocket runs were made with
a dummy passenger before Stapp took
his first ride in Dec. 1947. By
May 1948 he had taken 16 rides in
the backward-facing position, with
stresses up to 35 times the pull of
gravity. This was double the stress
that had previously been set as the
limit of human tolerance.
• These experiments proved that
backward-facing seats would give air
transport passengers optimum crash
protection.
John Paul Stapp, 1944
First Conferences on Passive Safety, 1955
• The first Car Crash Conferences

were organized in 1955 by
John P. Stapp.
• He presented at the Holloman Air
Base sled tests and auto crash
tests; aspects of automotive design
and safety features were discussed.
• Many of the safety features
discussed and recommended were John Paul Stapp
passed along to traffic experts and
automotive engineers, e.g.:
50th Stapp Car
- moving dashboards Crash
- energy absorbing padding; Conference
- fitting doors with safety locks;
- removing rear window shelves; November 6-8,
2006
- fastening seats
- bumper design;
http://www.stapp.org
Accident Analysis
Is this a safe vehicle? Is this a safe vehicle?

First Sled Tests, 1950s
Insights:
• The possibility to survive in a crash
with 50 km/h was almost zero;
• 25% of the fatalities happened
because the occupants were thrown
out of the vehicles;
• The design of the interior is not
adequate to prevent severe head
injuries;
• The steering wheel and the
instrumental board should be
adopted to head and chest impacts.
• Nils Bohlin invented the three-point
belt and introduced it into the Volvo
cars in 1959.
• The belting systems are really
improving safety;
Mercedes Benz

Crash Crumble Zone, 1951
Béla Barényi, 1907 – 1997
Patent for
the Crash
Crumble
Zone,
1951
Crash-safe Door Lock, 1961

Safety Steering Wheel, 1963

Safety Steering Wheel, 1963
Béla Barényi

Rocket Wagon for Crash Tests, 1962
• For acceleration (14 m/s²), a hot

water rocket wagon was developed
(pressurized container, fast opening
valve, ejection nozzle).
• The container is filled with water
and heated up (temperature: 260°
C, 50 at). After opening of the valve,
the water is vaporizing outside of
the container.
• It was not possible to integrate the
rocket into the vehicle itself without
modifying the structure remarkably.

Full Car Crash Tests, 1960s
Barrier tests Car-to-car and roll-over tests
Mercedes-Benz
New Acceleration Method for Crash Tests, 1970s
• New acceleration method based

on an electric linear motor that
runs underneath the vehicles
along a 100-meter trench.
• New video and lightning systems
have been developed.
• Deformable and non-deformable
barriers were used.

Current Test Tracks, 2005
UTAC, Paris
Current Crash Tests, 2005

Causes of Fatalities
50.0%
Total number of fatalities
in Germany (1989):
40.0% 697,730
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Respiratory
Nervous
causes
Cancer
Digestive
Accidents
system
and crime
Circulation
Other
organs
system
organs

Causes of Fatalities (Accident and Crime)
40.0%
Total number of fatalities in traffic
accidents in Germany (1989):
7,812 (=1,12 %)
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% Sport and

accidents
Domestic
accidents
accidents
accidents
Suicide
Violence
leisure
Traffic
Other
Work

Road Fatalities, 2005
France Germany UK U.S.A.

(2005) (2005) (2005) (2005)
Persons killed 5,318 5,361 3,201 43,443
Persons seriously
39,811 76,952 28,954 -
injured
Child fatalities 143 159 141 2,348
Motorcyclists fatalities 1,237 982 569 4,553
Cyclists fatalities 180 575 148 784
Pedestrians fatalities 635 686 671 4,881
Registered accidents - 2 253 992 - -
http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/index.htm http://www.dft.gov.uk/
http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov
http://www.destatis.de/ http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Traffic deaths per 100,000 population since 1970

Fatalities and Road Traffic (Germany)
Germany
54.1 million
Number of vehicles
33.8
million
Accidents with injuries
15,050
Fatalities due to road traffic 5,361
But: NHTSA (USA) 22nd August, 2006:

Rise in Motorcycle and Pedestrian Deaths Led to Increase
in Overall Highway Fatality Rate in 2005

Active and Passive Safety
Human being Vehicle Environment
Active Safety : Avoid accidents

safety instructions, stable driving conditions, traffic steering,
safety informations, intuitive control, road construction,
medicine, “intelligent” driving systems, laws,
legal security optimal perception accident recording
Passive Safety : Mitigate the consequences of accidents

motivation to use
low danger roads,
safety items, auto-protection,
securing of the
rescue facilities, partner protection
accident places
assurances

Active and Passive Safety
Automotive Safety
Accident Avoidance Mitigation of Injuries
Human Vehicle Environment During the After the

Accident Accident
Condition
(physical, Vision, Lights Weather
Self Partner Rescue
psych.) Protection Protection Capability
Braking, Traffic,
Perception Routing Protection Protection of Protection
Acceleration
of own the other of Two-Wheeler
Occupants Occupants and Pedestrian
Handling, Comfort,
(Driver – Acoustics, Traffic Occupant Prevention of
Vehicle – Climate, Density Protection Sharp-edged
Environment) Spring-Damper Body Parts
Occupant Cell
(Steering Wheel,
Handling Dashboard, etc.)
Traffic Control
Characte- Medical Care
Signal Deformation
ristics
Characteristics
Information Restraint Bumper and Prevention

System Systems Hood Design of fire

Percentiles of Car-to-Car Collisions
Side Door Impact

• Frontal impact is the dominating Type V / VI: 21.6% Frontal Offset
type (ca. 56 %); Side Impact Type II / IV: 34.1%
Type VII/VIII:
• Second probable type is the lateral 16.1%
impact with ca. 38 %;
• Rear impact is happening rather
seldom (ca. 6 %);
• Until some years ago, the frontal
impact was the most dangerous of Rear Impact
Type IX / XI: 4.0%
all impact types; Rear Offset
Frontal Impact
Type I / III: 21.7%
• Due to new restraint systems, Type X / XII: 2.5%
frontal crash becomes less severe

while the percentage of fatal side
impacts is rising. The risk of being
severely injured or killed by a side
impact is much higher than in the
frontal crashes.
1998

Passive Safety
Roof
Interior
Head restraint
Dashboard
Pedestrian protection
Rear impact
Belt system
Frontal impact
Bumper Lateral impact Seats
Steering wheel
http://www.easi.de

Rising Complexity of Passive Safety
Current Rollover
product line Side air bags
Sensor system
Trim parts
Suspension and
Euro NCAP
steering column
US LINCAP Head impact
FE dummies
Right-hand drive car crash
Pole impact AZT / Danner tests
Rear impact IIHS side impact
US side ECE side impact
AMS
Offset impact
against rigid wall
FMVSS-208
US NCAP
Old
product line

Frontal Impact – Case Study
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov

Frontal Impact – Case Study
V1 - First vehicle
• Honda Civic, 1997, m=1064 kg,
Δv1 = 63.4 km/h
• 53 year old male, weight = 90kg,
height = 160 cm, unrestrained,
airbag;
V2 - Second vehicle
• Ford Taurus, 1992, m=1430 kg,
Δv2 = 47.1 km/h
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov, John H. Siegel

Frontal Intrusion – Honda Civic

Frontal Impact – Principle Tests
Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier
FMVSS: v=48.3 km/h

ECE-R 12: v=48.3 km/h
US-NCAP: v=56.0 km/h.
Type 2: Offset (40 %),

deformable barrier (ODB)
ECE-R 94: v=56.0 km/h

AMS, ADAC v=64.0 km/h
EuroNCAP v=64.0 km/h
Frontal Impact – Principle Tests
Type 3: Frontal pole test (tree)
In-house v=30.0 km/h
Type 4: Danner test (AZT test)

Insurance
AZT: v=16.0 km/h

Frontal Impact – Full Width Test
Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier
FMVSS: v=48.3 km/h

ECE-R 12: v=48.3 km/h
NCAP: v=56.0 km/h.
• The integrity of the occupant
compartment should be assured
(safety cage);
• The rebound (negative velocity)
shows that 10% of the deformation is
elastic; the total change in velocity is
higher than the original velocity.
• The deceleration of the occupants is
very high (special demand of the
restraint systems). Deceleration, velocity, and deformation as a function of time.
Seiffert and Wech, 2003

40 % Offset Test, Deformable Barrier (ODB)
Type 2: Offset (40 %), ODB
ECE-R 94: v=56.0 km/h

AMS, ADAC v=64.0 km/h
EuroNCAP v=64.0 km/h
• Only one side of the front end hits the
barrier; a smaller area of the structure
must manage the crash energy.
• The front end on the struck side
crushes more than in a full-width test
(higher intrusion).
• Full-width tests are especially
Deceleration, velocity, and deformation
demanding of restraints but less
as a function of time. For different types
demanding of structure,
of crash. Seiffert and Wech, 2003
while the reverse is true in offsets.
Consumer Tests – NHTSA Star Ratings
• In 1994, the U.S. National Probability of life-threatening injury

Highway Traffic Safety
Less than 10 % 5 stars
Administration (NHTSA)
changed the way they rated 10 – 19 % 4 stars
frontal crash test performance.
20 – 34 % 3 stars
• Instead of a numerical scale, they
created a 5-star rating system. 35 – 45 % 2 stars
More than 45 % 1 star
Frontal Crash (NHTSA)
Driver Passenger
Head injury
criterion 847 670
(HIC)
Chest
46 47
deceleration
Femur load 538/664 697/699

BMW Z4 tested by the NHTSA, 2004
Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP
maximal 16
points
maximal 16
points
+ 2 points for the

Good
head protection
Adequate
system
Marginal
Weak
Poor
Front
Side
+ maximal 6
credits

frontal impact side impact
good Frontal impact (max. 16 points)

adequate + side impact (max. 16 points)
marginal
+ pole impact (max. 2 points)
weak
poor + 6 additional credits
33 - 40 points
25 - 32 points Head and Neck 4 points
17 - 24 points Chest 4 points
9 - 16 points Knee, Femur, Pelvis 4 points
1-8 points Leg and Foot 4 points
0 points -
The only value taken from the structure
(100 – 200 mm intrusion into the footwell)


www.euroncap.com Occupant Child Pedestrian

BMW 3-Series protection protection protection
5 stars 4 stars 1 star
28th June, 2005
Deformable Barriers
• For the Euro-NCAP frontal impact

(64 km/h, 40% offset) a deformable
barrier was developed.
• The barrier's deformable face is
made of aluminum honeycomb,
which makes the forces in the test
similar to those involved in a frontal
offset crash between two vehicles of
the same weight, each going just
less than 64 km/h.
Honeycomb structure
Continuum model

Crash Barrier - Repeatability ?
Low strength
honeycomb
(large cell
size)
High strength
honeycomb
(small cell
size)
FE-model with solid elements and

constitutive model for honeycomb
Lateral Impact – Case Study
Isuzu Hombre:
• Driver: 56-year-old male
• 173 cm (5’ 7.5 ”), 111kg ( 245 lb)
• 3-point belt worn
• Driver airbag non-deployed
• MAIS: 4
• ISS: 36
• Change in velocity: Δv = 21 mph
Isuzu Hombre
• Head: AIS 2 1999
Loss of consciousness <10 min.
• Abdomen: AIS 4
Laceration, major left kidney
• Thorax: AIS
Contusion, bilateral lungs w/ left 4 star side impact rating (LINCAP)
hemopneumothorax
Impacting car:
1995 Chevrolet Camaro

Lateral Impact – Case Study
49 cm of maximum crush Armrest deformed and cracked

Case Occupant Outcome General reasons for injuries
• Left nephrectomy • Variability in driver and passenger
• Weight bearing on right at responses
discharge • Poor relation between the injury
• Toe-touch weight bearing on left criteria (TTI) and other injury
• Rehabilitating at parents’ home out tolerances (HIC)
of state • Many injuries not measured or
• Separated from wife accounted for (neck, abdomen,
pelvis)
• High injury acceptance rate
Lateral Impact Tests
FMVSS 214: 54 km/h

LINCAP: 62 km/h
m=1,368 kg
54
k m/
h
ECE-R 95: 50 km/h

EU-NCAP: 50 km/h
m=950 kg
50 km/h

Lateral Impact Tests
29 km/h
rigid
IIHS: 54 km/h
m=1500 kg

Rear Impact Tests
FMVSS 301 (2005) Offset

Deformable Barrier with a mass of
1,368 kg and a velocity 80 km/h.
40% overlap Renault

15 km/h

Rear Impact Tests
For the rear impact load case, the

structure is normally not very much
loaded, because of the low relative
velocities in accidents. In addition,
most vehicles have a sufficiently large
deformation zone to absorb energy.
Almost rigid structures like the engine
for the frontal impact are missing.
Renault ULSAB Advanced Vehicle Concepts 2001

Rollover
Type of %
2001 2002
Vehicle Change
Persons
10,157 10,666 +5.0%
Killed
Passenger
4,559 4,768 +4.6%
Car
Van 786 698 -11%
SUV 2,149 2,448 +14%
Pickup
2,651 2,742 +3.4%
Truck
Persons
243,000 228,000 -6.2%
Injured
Passenger
109,000 106,000 -2.8%
Car
Van 17,000 14,000 -18%
SUV 60,000 58,000 -3.3%
Pickup
56,000 48,000 -14%
Truck
Rollover – Quasistatic Roof Test
ULSAB Roof Fall Test, DaimlerChrysler.

Rollover - Numerical Simulation
FMVSS 208
In Europe, there are no legislations concerning rollover, whereas in the U.S. two
standardized test procedures are prescribed. These are the quasi-static roof-
compression test (FMVSS 216) and the dynamic roll over test.
Head Impact, FMVSS 201
v = 24.1 km/h Head impactor (6.8 kg)

v = 19.0 km/h on a pendulum Acceleration
(vehicle with against seat and a < 80g / 3ms
Energy instrumental board
air bag)
absorption in
the interior Free flying head
Acceleration (HIC)
impactor (6.8 kg)
v = 24.1 km/h (free motion head
against interior
form)
parts
FMVSS: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

Load Impact
Geigl et. al. 2002

Compatibility
• The crashworthiness of a car is not

sufficiently evaluated by a crash
against a rigid or deformable barrier.
• The override problem is not regarded
in barrier tests.
• The bumper mismatch problem is
neglected (Danner test).
DaimlerChrysler

Voluntary Agreement of the Car Manufacturers
Before February 11th, 2003:
Self-initiated, independent action by
manufacturers to develop vehicle-to-
vehicle crash compatibility
Feb. 13th, 2003:
Commitment of industry to work
together on crash compatibility
The Working Groups are tasked to:
• Develop performance criteria for near-
term countermeasures
• Develop test and investigation plans
necessary to support development of
performance criteria for longer-term
countermeasures
Near-term Voluntary Agreement with
Performance Criteria for enhancing
crash compatibility :
• Front-to-Side Crashes
• Front-to-Front Crashes

Compatibility
Injury risk: very low low

medium high very high
Compatibility crash between Kia Sorrento (left, m=2270 kg)

and VW Golf (right, m=1480 kg), ADAC motorwelt 7/2004.
Compatibility
Injury risk: very low low

medium high very high
Compatibility crash between Volvo XC90 (left, m=2340 kg)

and VW Golf (right, m=1480 kg), ADAC motorwelt 7/2004.
Compatibility – Numerical Simulation
•Real car-to-car crashes have to be

performed and analyzed numerically
•Numerical studies are feasible
because of the rapid rising computer
resources:
-A single FE-model of a vehicle
has currently about 1,200,000
finite elements.
-The CPU time (8 CPUs) ranges
between 12 and 30 hours.
-On a cluster of 128 CPUs,
models of about 8 million
elements can be analyzed in
about 10 hours.

Aggressivity
undeformed deformed
unfavorable favorable
•Aggressive form •Imprint of cradles is •Homogeneous load

leads to high peaks still visible distribution
•Engine cradles act •Load is distributed •No particular risk

like spear heads over a larger area zones

Aggressivity
Progressive Deformable Barrier (UTAC)

Aggressivity

Aggressivity

Simulation and Reality (Chrysler)

Simulation and Reality




Master HH Crash Worthiness P 1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Master HH Crash Worthiness P 1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences

Computational Mechanics for Car Body Design I

Crash Simulation of Car Bodies

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 1 Fabian Duddeck

Benz Car (1886)

Mrs. Bridgette Driscol of Croyden was the first person

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 3 Fabian Duddeck

• The AUTO UNION AG, based in

• In 1944, John Stapp started

John Paul Stapp, 1944

• The rocket-sled accelerated 400 m on

• The first Car Crash Conferences

Is this a safe vehicle? Is this a safe vehicle?

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 9 Fabian Duddeck

Béla Barényi, 1907 – 1997

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 11 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 12 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 13 Fabian Duddeck

• For acceleration (14 m/s²), a hot

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 14 Fabian Duddeck

Barrier tests Car-to-car and roll-over tests

• New acceleration method based

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 16 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 18 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 19 Fabian Duddeck

0.0% Sport and

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 20 Fabian Duddeck

France Germany UK U.S.A.

Motorcyclists fatalities 1,237 982 569 4,553

Cyclists fatalities 180 575 148 784

Pedestrians fatalities 635 686 671 4,881

Registered accidents - 2 253 992 - -

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 21 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 22 Fabian Duddeck

Fatalities due to road traffic 5,361

But: NHTSA (USA) 22nd August, 2006:

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 23 Fabian Duddeck

Human being Vehicle Environment

Active Safety : Avoid accidents

Passive Safety : Mitigate the consequences of accidents

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 24 Fabian Duddeck

Human Vehicle Environment During the After the

Information Restraint Bumper and Prevention

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 25 Fabian Duddeck

Side Door Impact

frontal crash becomes less severe

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 26 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 27 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 28 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 29 Fabian Duddeck

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov, John H. Siegel

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 30 Fabian Duddeck

June 2007 Crashworthiness, 31 Fabian Duddeck

Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier

FMVSS: v=48.3 km/h

Type 2: Offset (40 %),

ECE-R 94: v=56.0 km/h

Type 3: Frontal pole test (tree)

In-house v=30.0 km/h

Type 4: Danner test (AZT test)

AZT: v=16.0 km/h

Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier

FMVSS: v=48.3 km/h