This article was downloaded by: [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola]

On: 08 October 2014, At: 19:40

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Crashworthiness

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Bus rollover crashworthiness under European standard:

an optimal analysis of superstructure strength using
successive response surface method
a a
Cho-Chung Liang & Giang-Nam Le
a
Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering , Da-Yeh University , No. 112,
Shanjiao Road, Dacun, Changhua, Taiwan, 51591, Republic of China
Published online: 30 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Cho-Chung Liang & Giang-Nam Le (2009) Bus rollover crashworthiness under European standard:
an optimal analysis of superstructure strength using successive response surface method, International Journal of
Crashworthiness, 14:6, 623-639, DOI: 10.1080/13588260902920670

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588260902920670

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Vol. 14, No. 6, December 2009, 623639

Bus rollover crashworthiness under European standard: an optimal analysis of superstructure

strength using successive response surface method
Cho-Chung Liang and Giang-Nam Le
Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering, Da-Yeh University, No. 112, Shanjiao Road, Dacun, Changhua, Taiwan 51591,
Republic of China
(Received 22 December 2008; nal version received 25 March 2009)

Bus rollover is one of the most serious of accidents. Strengthening bus frames to maintain survivor space and reduce occupant
injury is necessary following the issue of Regulation No. 66 by the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE R66). Whilst
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014

increasing bus weight is unlikely because of production costs and fuel economy, this paper presents an optimal method of
bus rollover crashworthiness design. In this study a full-scale, validated, nite element (FE) model of the vehicle was used.
Optimisation was performed by the successive response surface method (SRSM) with LS-OPT, a design variable analysis
method based on the parameterisation of the energy absorption ability of bus frame components. LS-DYNA was used as the
FE solver. An optimal prototype of the vehicle was obtained with crashworthiness following ECE R66 and vehicle weight
at the existing level was maintained with the improvement in the lower displacement by 49.2% and upper displacement by
39.4% of bus frames versus bus survivor space. This paper presents a procedure for bus rollover crashworthiness design
related to vehicle weight, with a robust and effective method using an optimal technique combining LS-DYNA and LS-OPT.
Keywords: bus rollover; energy absorption; survivor space; LS-DYNA; LS-OPT; ECE R66

1. Introduction which study the structural and rollover strength of buses

There are many tragic bus accidents. Although bus rollovers
are not as common as other kinds of accidents, they are
very serious (Table 1). According to the worldwide rollover
accident statistics from 1973 to present, there have been
more than 570 bus rollover accidents [23]. For this reason,
the Economic Commission for Europe enforced Regula-
tion No. 66 for the Bus Strength of Superstructure in 1987
(ECE R66) in order to provide protection to bus and coach
occupants during rollover accidents through the provision
of a survival space [11, 12]. Nowadays, ECE R66 is al-
most a gold standard for all motor coaches. It allows bus
manufacturers to assess crashworthiness in rollover events
in real tests or by computer simulation [12]. Thus, the de-
sign requirement must strictly satisfy ECE R66 while the
vehicles structural design has to carry the required load
with minimum component weight without fail. The pro-
cess of producing the best bus superstructure has been
called structural optimisation. With the advances both in
computer technology and structural analysis via the nite
element method, this paper, based on ECE R66 procedure,
presents an optimal study of bus rollover strength using
successive response surface method (SRSM) performed by
LS-OPT with respect to the ability of energy absorption.
In recent years, automotive industries have concentrated
more on vehicle rollovers. Literature offers many papers
but only a few have studied the optimal structural design of
bus rollovers. The rollover of a bus is simulated with a full
nite element analysis (FEA) program and the researchers
[3, 7, 8, 15, 19] showed good agreement between the test and
the analysis technique. The optimisation studies are based
on an analysis of FE bus model for the maximum stiffness
involving torsional stiffness and bending stiffness of the full
structure while maintaining the weight at the same level of
the specic bus [13, 14]. Lan et al. [16] comparatively anal-
ysed bus side structures and lightweight optimisation. An
ANSYS solver was used. Sensitivity studies and structural
optimisation were performed to reduce body weight without
loss of the overall strength and rigidity. Lin and Nian [17]
built a CAE model and used HYPERSTUDY for the sen-
sitivity and optimisation analysis methodology to study the
relationship between the lowest shear mode and the weight
of the bus, to nd out the optimised parameters for building
a new model meeting the ECE R66 requirements. Boada
et al. [2] combined ANSYS and MATLAB for a structural
optimisation of a simplied bus structure in terms of weight
and torsional stiffness with a genetic algorithm.
The optimisation process may be performed by de-
signers calculation or by trial and error, or possibly by
the use of the automated optimisation analysis method.
Although many studies have been done on bus structure

Corresponding author. Email: ccliang@mail.dyu.edu.tw
ISSN: 1358-8265
Copyright 
C 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13588260902920670
http://www.informaworld.com
 624 C.-C. Liang and G.-N. Le

Table 1. Motorcoach crashes and fatalities by most harmful 3-D, dynamic FE computer code LS-DYNA. The calcu-
event of 48 crashes and 146 fatalities (FARS 19962005). lation technique has been checked by the verication of
calculation tests applied to a breast knot of the side-body
Motorcoach crashes Motorcoach fatalities
and on a roof-edge knot of the vehicle, and subsequent
Event Quantity Rate (%) Quantity Rate (%) numerical simulations were performed. A high degree of
theoretical and experimental correlation is obtained, which
Rollover 14 29 49 34
Roadside 15 31 53 36 conrms its validity [6]. With an assessed method in the
Multi-vehicle 17 36 20 14 ECE R66, a complete vehicle rollover test simulation was
Other 2 4 24 16 carried out and the deformation results with respect to the
residual space were observed. It infers the structural status
of the bus following the required regulations. This numer-
strength for lightweight vehicles, only a few studies have in- ical study also inferred the absorbed energy distribution
vestigated the optimum design of bus superstructure based throughout the whole bus, and then found and focused on
on ECE R66. Only Lin and Nian [17] have carried out re- the highest energy absorption region. The investigation of
search relating to ECE R66. That study, however, is still the absorbed energy distribution there and reorganisation
limited to the body section. Thus, this paper will present an of the energy absorption ability of that region produce the
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014

optimal structure for the whole bus based on the ECE R66
process and SRSM using LS-DYNA for the FE solver and
LS-OPT for optimisation analysis.
In this paper, an ECE R66 calculation procedure per-
formed for a certain bus is described. This bus is 12.6 m
long (see Figure 1) and is constructed in a steel material
with special reinforcements of bars and places on the roof-
side and side-oor joins where large displacements happen
[20]. The FE modelling is done by the pre-processing Finite
Element Builder (FEMB) of LS-DYNA software, and cal-
culations are made by the means of a non-linear, explicit,
set of bus frame thickness parameters for optimal analysis
of the design. Optimal analysis with LS-OPT, a prototype
of bus with optimised thickness, was found to satisfy ECE
R66.
This paper presents an optimisation technique based
on SRSM and LS-OPT procedure where design variables
are obtained from the reorganisation manner of the en-
ergy absorption ability on the highest energy absorption
region of the bus superstructure. We found improvement of
bus frames in the upper displacement by 39.4% and lower
displacement by 49.2% versus the bus survivor space while

Figure 1. The full-scale bus model and bus frame sections.

 International Journal of Crashworthiness
maintaining the bus weight at the existing level. This is a
contribution to the automotive industry in an effort to re-
duce the production cost and the occupant injury through
passive safety of the rollover event.
2. ECE R66 regulation
The ECE R66 regulation was issued on 30 January 1987
and enforced by the Economic Commission of Europe, in
response to the serious problem of rollover accidents. It ap-
plies to all single-decked vehicles constructed for carrying
more than 22 passengers, whether seated or standing, in ad-
dition to the driver and the crew. Superstructure refers to
the parts of a vehicle structure that contribute to the strength
of the vehicle in the event of rollover accidents.
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
2.1. Residual space
The purpose of the ECE R66 regulation is to ensure that
the vehicle superstructure has sufcient strength so that the
residual space during and after the rollover test on the com-
plete vehicle remains undamaged. This means that no part
of the vehicle that is outside the residual space at the start
of the rollover, like luggage, is intruding into the residual
space and no part of the residual space projects outside the
deformed structure. The envelope of the vehicles residual
space is dened by creation of a vertical transverse plane
within the vehicle, which has the periphery described in
Figure 2. The SR point is located on the seatback, 500 mm
Figure 2. The residual space, measured in millimetres (mm) [22]. Reprinted with permission.
625
above the oor under the seat, 150 mm and 250 mm from
the inside surface of the side wall [11, 12].
2.2. Rollover test
This regulation is continuously updated on the basis of
actual requirements and it is used as an international bus
rollover regulation. The current version was issued on 22
February 2006. The rollover test is a lateral tilting test, as
shown in Figure 3. The complete vehicle stands on a tilting
platform with blocked suspension and is tilted slowly to
an unstable equilibrium position. If the vehicle type is not
tted with occupant restraints, it will be tested at an unladen
curb mass. If the vehicle is tted with occupant restraints, it
will be tested at the total effective vehicle mass. The rollover
test starts in this unstable vehicle position with zero angular
velocity, and the axis of rotation passes through the wheel-
ground contact points. The vehicle tips over into a ditch
which has a horizontal, dry and smooth concrete ground
surface with a nominal depth of 800 mm [11, 12].
The rollover test is carried out on the side of the vehicle
that is more dangerous with respect to the residual space.
This decision was made by the technical service on the basis
of the manufacturers proposals and in consideration of the
following:
r The lateral eccentricity of the centre of gravity and its
effect on the reference energy in the unstable starting
position of the vehicle
 626 C.-C. Liang and G.-N. Le
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
Figure 3. The rollover test process [22]. Reprinted with permission.
r The asymmetry of the residual space
r The different asymmetrical construction features of the
two sides of the vehicle, and the support given by the
partition or inner boxes (e.g. wardrobe, toilet and kitch-
enette)
The side with less support is chosen as the direction of
the rollover test.
2.3. Test methods
The latest version of ECE R66, version 2006, detailing the
above requirements, describes a test to be chosen from these
ve different methods:
1. Complete vehicle rollover test
2. Body section rollover test
3. Body section test with quasi-static load
4. Component testing based on quasi-static calculation
5. Complete vehicle rollover test based on computer sim-
ulation
Method (1) was accepted as the standard method. Others
are equivalent methods. Amongst them, methods (3) and
(4) are new methods in ECE R66, version 2006. Methods
(1)(3) are experimental methods based on the real test.
Method (5) is ofcially accepted with full-scale computer
simulation [12]. In this paper, method (5) is used to perform
the numerical analysis.
2.4. Computer simulation of a rollover test
Computer simulation of a rollover test on a complete vehicle
is an equivalent approval method. It allows manufacturers
to test designs and safety features virtually in the crash
scenario until they obtain a safe and optimal design while
saving time and money in developing costly prototypes.
The analysis processes are as follows:
1. Constructing the testing model from a full-scale bus
model and tilting platform model;
2. On the basis of testing conditions, setting up the material
card, boundary condition card, contact card and applying
load on this testing model;
3. Determination of the already tilting angle to reduce com-
puting time;
4. Use of numerical analysis software to carry out the sim-
ulation of a rollover accident of this testing model;
5. Evaluation of the status of the testing model after nish-
ing rollover based on the obtained simulation results.
3. Computational model
The FE vehicle model used for simulation is based on the
full-scale bus model developed at Da-Yeh University, Tai-
wan, for rollover crashworthiness investigation and evalu-
ation of reinforcement structures [46]. It included 69,155
elements. Those comprise 69,056 of two types of element
shells, 68,142 quadrilateral elements, 914 triangular ele-
ments and 99 mass. All deformable parts were modelled
with the 4-noded Belytschko-Tsay shell elements with
three integration points through the shell thickness. The
shell elements formulation is based on Belytschko-Lin-
Tsay formulation with reduced integration available in LS-
DYNA [9, 18]. This element is generally considered to be
computationally efcient and accurate. The shell element
that has been, and still remains, the basis of all crashwor-
thiness simulation is the 4-noded Belytschko-Tsay shell.
The centre of gravity (CG) of the vehicle was measured
by means of a test platform at the Automotive Research &
 International Journal of Crashworthiness 627

Testing Centre, Taiwan, R.O.C (ARTC). The measured val-
ues were in good agreement with the ones coming from
the FEA model. To match the measures and calculated
CG exactly, the CG of the engine, gearbox and axles was
ne-tuned in the FEA model. The unloaded vehicle weight
is 7716.5 kg (7.7165 tons) and its capacity is 49 passen-
gers. The vehicle size and its position of CG are shown in
Figure 1.
The FE modelling was done by the FEMB of LS-DYNA,
and calculations were made by means of a non-linear, ex-
plicit, 3-D, dynamic FE computer code LS-DYNA. The
calculation technique was checked by the verication of
calculation tests applied to a breast knot of the side-body
(Figure 4a), on a roof-edge knot (Figure 4b) and on a oor-
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
pillar knot (Figure 4c), which were extracted from the ve-
hicle superstructure. Those three separate specimens were
subjected to certain boundary conditions and quasi-static
loads at ARTC. The same test scenarios were simulated by
the use of LS-DYNA. Forcedeection curves for both the
experiment and simulation were compared and a good cor-
relation was seen between the experiment and simulation
results (Figure 4).
3.1. Survivor space denition
For estimation of ECE R66 requirements, the survivor
space was specied in FEMB in line with the statement
in ECE R66. Throughout the whole vehicle, the SR points

Figure 4. Tests, simulations and results of the body knot for model validation.
 628 C.-C. Liang and G.-N. Le

are located on the seatback of each outer forward or rear-
ward facing seat, 500 mm above the oor under the seat
and 150 mm from the inside surfaces of the side walls of
the vehicle. The model of the survivor space consists of
a rigid shell frame in each section along the vehicle inte-
rior (Figure 2), rigidly mounted in the stiff region under
the oor. There is no stiff connection between these rigid
shell frames because these shell elements are modelled with
NUL MATERIAL for visualisation only.
3.2. Material and contact models
To obtain the material data, tension tests were applied
to several specimens at ARTC facilities [6]. The true
stressstrain curves were obtained and imposed in LS-
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
the surface of another body. This contact type is easy to
use because no contact or target surface denitions are
required. It is efcient for self-contacting problems or
large deformation problems where general areas of con-
tact are not known beforehand. This contact was used for
simulating the contacting mode of the vehicle and the
tilting plate in rollover tests. The contact called CON-
TACT AUTOMATIC SURFACE TO SURFACE is estab-
lished when a surface of one body penetrates the surface
of another body. This is commonly used for arbitrary bod-
ies that have large contact areas and is very efcient for
bodies that experience large amounts of relative sliding
with friction, such as block sliding on a plane. This con-
tact was used for simulating the contacting mode of the
bus frame with some reinforcements. The contact called
CONTACT RIGID WALL PLANAR was used to set the

DYNA accordingly. The material model for the deformable

structure in LS-DYNA was the MAT TYPE 024, PIECE-
WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC PLASTICITY [9, 18]. This
is an elastic plastic material model which uses the Youngs
modulus if stresses are below the yield stress, and the mea-
sured stressstrain curve if the stresses are above the yield
stress. Rigid parts (engine, gear box, tilting platform for
ECE R66 test, etc.) were modelled with MAT TYPE 001,
RIGID MATERIAL. And MAT TYPE 020, ELASTIC
MATERIAL was simulated for the vehicle tyres. Material
models used for modelling are summarised in Table 2a.
For explicit analysis, there are no contact elements. We
simply indicate the contact surfaces, the type of contact
between them and other parameters related to the contact
type. Owing to complicated large deformation dynamics or
quasi-statics which typically occur during an explicit anal-
ysis, determining contact between components in a model
can be extremely difcult. For this reason, special features
have been included in the LS-DYNA program to make
dening contact between surfaces as efcient as possible.
All contacts are dened in LS-DYNA through the use of the
CONTACT pull-down menu. The contact-impact models
used for modelling are summarised in Table 2b. The contact
called CONTACT AUTOMATIC SINGLE SURFACE is
established when a surface of one body contacts itself or
contacting mode of the vehicle and ground.
4. ECE R66 simulation and numerical study
This paper uses FE software to carry out the bus rollover
simulation. The behaviour of bus rollover simulation be-
longs to the transient, dynamic, non-linear and large de-
formed problems. The FEA code, LS-DYNA, is a favourite
tool for this problem which often includes contact and im-
pact. For a best design of the bus frame during strengthening
of bus superstructure in rollover conditions, another tool,
LS-OPT, is used for optimisation.
4.1. LS-DYNA and LS-OPT general description
LS-DYNA and LS-OPT were developed by LSTC (Liv-
ermore Software Technology Cooperation). LS-DYNA is a
multifunctional applicable explicit and implicit FE program
to simulate and analyse highly non-linear physical phe-
nomena pertaining to real-world problems. Usually those
phenomena are subjected to large deformations within a
short time duration, e.g. crashworthiness simulations. The
signicant features of LS-DYNA are the fully automatic
denitions of contact areas; the large library of constitutive

Table 2. Contact-impact and material models for modelling computational model.

Vehicle components Material models in LS-DYNA

(a) Material models for modelling

Deformable structures MAT TYPE 024, PIECEWISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC PLASTICITY
Rigid part (engine, gear box, etc.) MAT TYPE 001, RIGID MATERIAL
Vehicle tyres MAT TYPE 020, ELASTIC MATERIAL
Survivor space MAT TYPE 009, NUL MATERIAL
(b) Contact-impact models for modelling
Contact positions Contact-impact models in LS-DYNA
Vehicle and tilting plate CONTACT AUTOMATIC SINGLE SURFACE
Bus frame and reinforcements CONTACT AUTOMATIC SURFACE TO SURFACE
Vehicle and ground RIGIDWALL PLANER
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
Figure 5. The LS-DYNA process.
models; the large library of element types; and the special
implementation for the automobile industry [9, 18].
LS-OPT is a stand-alone optimisation software and can
be linked to any simulation code. It is perfectly suitable
in combination with LS-DYNA, and provides a clearly
arranged graphical user interface (GUI) for denition of
optimisation and stochastic analysis problems. LS-OPT is
available for Linux, Windows and some UNIX platforms
[21].
Numerous design optimisation software tools have been
introduced during the last few years. These tools can be
Figure 6. The tilting platform model.
629
divided into two categories: topology optimisation tools
and parameter optimisation tools. Topology optimisation
determines an optimal distribution of material with respect
to given package space, loads and boundary conditions.
Parameter optimisation tools nd optima for scalar values,
e.g. sizing values like diameter or sheet metal thickness.
Changes of the shape of a mechanical structure can also be
quantied with scalar values. Hence parameter optimisation
is suitable for sizing and shape optimisation. LS-OPT is a
favourite tool for this problem.
Figure 7. The absorbed energies of bus frame components versus
time.
 630 C.-C. Liang and G.-N. Le
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014

Figure 8. Components of side wall section considered for changing thickness.

4.2. LS-DYNA solution procedure For non-linear problems solved by explicit solutions,
The numerical study is based on the LS-DYNA FEA. The a lumped mass matrix is required for simple inversion.
LS-DYNA software contains a pre-processing FE builder, The equations become uncoupled and can be solved di-
an LS-DYNA solver and a post-processing LS-PREPOST rectly (explicitly). No inversion of the stiffness matrix is
[9, 18]. With LS-DYNA, the standard input such as geom- required. All nonlinearities (including contact) are included
etry, mesh density, materials, element properties, boundary in the internal force vector. The major computational ex-
conditions and contact modes can be used. The LS-DYNA pense is in calculating the internal forces. No conver-
solver will perform solutions. The output results such as gence checks are needed since the equations are uncoupled.
stress and strain of elements, displacement, velocity and Very small time-steps are required to maintain the stability
acceleration of nodes, and energy distribution, etc., can limit.
be shown clearly through the user interface [9,18]. The
main solution is based on explicit time integration. The
LS-DYNA solution procedure is shown in Figure 5. 4.3. ECE R66 simulations
The explicit method was originally developed, and is The testing model is established by the full-scale bus model
primarily used, to solve dynamic problems involving de- as shown in Figure 1 and the tilting platform model as shown
formable bodies. Accelerations and velocities at a particu- in Figure 6. According to ECE R66, the initial condition
lar point in time are assumed to be constant during a time is that the angular velocity of the tilting platform must not
increment and are used to solve for the next point in time.
For the explicit method, a central difference time integra-
tion method is used. The word implicit here refers to the
method by which the state of an FE model is updated from
time t to t +
t. A fully implicit procedure means that the
state at t +
t is determined according to information at
time t +
t, while the explicit method solves for t +
t
according to information at time t [1, 9, 18].
With the explicit FE method, the solver equations can
be solved directly to determine the solution without iter-
ation, thus providing an alternative, more robust method.
Harewood and McHugh [10] showed that for simpler load-
ing conditions the implicit method had a shorter solution
time. In the case of loading conditions involving contact,
the explicit method proved to be the preferred choice.
Moreover, the explicit method displayed constantly high
levels of parallelisation efciency compared with the im-
plicit method for analyses solved with multiple processors. Figure 9. Principle of creating an approximation with RSM.
 International Journal of Crashworthiness 631

Table 3. Energy absorption of the vehicle and vehicle section. Table 4. Energy absorption of the side wall section and its
components.
Followed ECE R66
Absorbed energy, Weight, Ability,
Vehicle and section Ea (kJ) Rate (%) Components Ea (KJ) m (kg) A (kJ/kg)

Whole vehicle 63.08 100 Side wall section 37.86 445.10 85.06E-3
Front section 5.69 9.02 WDP group 9.47 37.35 253.55E-3
Rear section 7.10 11.26 SWP group 9.90 50.68 195.30E-3
Roof section 12.12 19.21 Others 18.49 357.07 51.79E-3
Side wall section 37.86 60.02
Others 0.31 0.49

4.4. Investigation of vehicle distortion

conguration following absorbed energy
Absorbed energy of the different components of the vehicle
can be obtained by computing the material internal energies
exceed 5 /s (0.087 rad/s) [12]. To reduce the computing
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014

of the model. The internal energy of the materials is the sum

time, the testing model can be rotated in advance to reach
a point just before unstable position. The boundary condi-
tion is that the vehicle model is tilted without rocking and
without dynamic effects until it reaches unstable equilib-
rium and commences its rollover. The contact solution is as
given in Section 3.2. The solving algorithm for that contact
and this ECE R66 simulation are based on an explicit LS-
DYNA solver. The problem time is 5 s and a xed time-step
of 0.9 ms is used. This simulation is carried out by the LS-
DYNA version 971 with the 4-Nodes Window Cluster. The
CPU time for each ECE R66 simulation is about 13 h.
of the plastic strain energy and the elastic strain energy [9,
18].
4.4.1. Distortion conguration of vehicle following
absorbed energy
During a rollover test, according to ECE R66 the bus super-
structure is impacted in the corner where the lateral and the
roof are connected. This produces much strain on the struc-
ture, and so the structure must be able to absorb enough

Figure 10. Successive approximation scheme.

 632 C.-C. Liang and G.-N. Le
Figure 11. Relevant points on the bus frame for ECE R66 test.
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
energy to stop the vehicle rollover. The side wall section
and the roof section are the most important regions of the
superstructure that will absorb those energies, as shown
in Figure 7. The absorbed energy rate of each component
is displayed in Table 3, where the side wall section will
be especially considered because of its energy absorption
behaviour which obtained the biggest energy absorption
(60.02%) of the whole vehicle.
4.4.2. Distortion conguration of side wall section fol-
lowing absorbed energy
The side wall sections were constructed by window pil-
lars (WDPs), and the side truss included side wall pillars
(SWPs), diagonal bars and longitudinal bars, as seen in
Figure 8. The absorbed energies of the side wall sections
major components under rollover conditions are displayed
in Table 4, where the energy absorption ability (A) is the
components absorbed energy over its component weight,
Ai = Eai /mi . The high A caused high sensibility of the
energy absorption. Thus, the WDPs and SWPs of the side
Figure 12. Geometric conguration of WDPs and SWPs.
wall section are the major components and have the highest
energy absorption ability as shown in Table 4. Therefore,
the thicknesses of the WDPs and SWPs are the objects
considered for design variable analysis of optimal design.
5. Optimisation of superstructure strength
following ECE R66
5.1. Successive response surface method
Response surface method (RSM) is a statistical method
for constructing smooth approximations of the objective
function in the multi-dimensional parameter space. For
illustration purposes, see Figure 9. So-called experimen-
tal design points (variable sets) are selected within a pre-
dened design space. For these points, the dened model
responses are calculated. In a subsequent step, polynomial
functions are tted to these experimental design points in or-
der to substitute for the original response. The tting of the
polynomial function is done by the use of regression anal-
ysis. Least-squares approximations are commonly used for
this purpose. In the last step, an optimum point (minimum
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
Figure 13. LS-OPT optimisation process.
or maximum) is determined on the approximated response
surface. Gradient methods are used for this purpose [21].
In LS-OPT a modication of RSM called successive
response surface method (SRSM) is used to optimise de-
signs. For the SRSM in a rst iteration, a sub-region of
the entire design space is dened as the region of interest.
633
The sub-region is approximated and the optimum is deter-
mined on the approximated response surface. For the next
iteration, a new region of interest is dened and the centre
is located on the previous successive optimum. Progress
is made by moving the centre of the region of interest as
well as reducing its size, as shown in Figure 10. The iter-
ation process is continued until the objective function or
the design variables reach the dened convergence criteria
[21].
5.2. The optimisation problem
The strengthening of the bus superstructure with the ef-
fective use of material, especially for a welded structure,
where all the parts have the same material, needs to be op-
timally analysed. In this study, as stated in Section 4.3.2,
the thicknesses of the WDPs and the SWPs were used as
design variables because of their sensitivity to absorbed
energy of the whole bus. The thicknesses of these 16
parts were changed to evaluate the side wall displacement
in line with ECE R66. The side wall displacements at
concerned points, as shown in Figure 11, are constraint
functions, and the weight of the vehicle is the objective
function. The optimisation problem can be formulated as
follows:
Minimise: F (xi ) = W0 + Wi xi , i = 1, 2, . . . , 16,
Subject to: y1k (xi ) 150 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , 8,
y2k (xi ) 400 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , 8,
where
xi is the vector of design variables including thicknesses of
seven WDPs and nine SWPs,
W0 is the unvarying weight of vehicle while considering 16
design variables,
Wi is the weight constant of each considered part and
y1k , y2k are constraint functions of the side wall displace-
ments for upper and lower space versus survivor space
at concerned points, as shown in Figure 11.
5.3. Design variable analysis
Sixteen variable problems are very expensive. In this paper,
therefore, the optimisation problem was simplied by con-
sidering the correlation of 16 design variables with energy
absorption. The members of the WDPs and the SWPs are
shown in Figure 8. During the rollover, there was impact at
the corner where the lateral and the roof are connected. The
WDPs were rst affected and then the SWPs. Therefore
16 design variables could be considered in two groups: the
WDP group and the SWP group.
In each group, the correlation among group members
was considered on the basis of the reorganisation of the
 634 C.-C. Liang and G.-N. Le

Table 5. Reorganisation of energy absorption ability and specication of design variable.

Pre-design Energy absorption Reorganisation of energy Design variable (DV)

(Bi , Li , Hi , ti ) ability absorption ability Re-design and parameterisation
Concerned
parts group Vi Si ti Eai mi Ai Ki Ai mi Vi Si ti ki ti

Part i Eai /mi Ai /Amin Ai /Ki Eai /Ai mi /p Si Vi /Si ti /ti DV ki
i = 1n = Eai /(Ai /Ki )
= (Eai /Ai )Ki
= mi Ki

Note: Ea , absorbed energy; m, weight of component part; A, energy absorption ability; K, relation factor; , material density; k, thickness parameter;
Amin , Min {Ai , i = 1n}; n, number of concerned parts in each group; m , weight of component part after reorganisation; A , energy absorption
ability after reorganisation; DV, design variable for concerned parts group; V  , S  , t  volume, square area and thickness for re-design.

energy absorption ability of each member so that all group tion ability and the way to parameterise to obtain de-
members, after reorganisation, would be able to achieve sign variables for the relevant groups are summarised in
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014

the same energy absorption ability as the lowest one. The Table 5.
review of geometric conguration and characteristics of With p as design variable for the WDP group and i =
the shell element displayed are shown in Figure 12, and 1, 2, . . . , 7 for seven WDPs, the results obtained for the
the methodology of the reorganisation of energy absorp- WDP group are summarised in Table 6. With q as design

Table 6. Parameters of and design variable for WDP group.

Reorganisation Design
Pre-design Energy absorption of energy variable (p) and
(Bi , Li , Hi , ti ) ability (A) absorption ability Re-design parameterisation

WDP- Vi mi Ai mi
group (m3 ) Si (m )2
ti (m) Eai (kJ) (kg) (kJ/kg) Ki Ai (kg) Vi (m3 ) Si (m2 ) ti (m) ki ti (m)

WDP1 6.70E-4 3.35E-1 2E-3 8.76E-1 5.25 0.167 1.00 0.167 5.24 6.70E-4 3.35E-1 2.00E-3 1.00 p k1
WDP2 6.78E-4 3.39E-1 2E-3 9.84E-1 5.31 0.185 1.11 0.167 5.89 7.53E-4 3.39E-1 2.22E-3 1.11 p k2
WDP3 6.78E-4 3.39E-1 2E-3 1.18E+0 5.31 0.221 1.33 0.167 7.04 8.99E-4 3.39E-1 2.65E-3 1.33 p k3
WDP4 6.78E-4 3.39E-1 2E-3 1.19E+0 5.31 0.224 1.34 0.167 7.13 9.10E-4 3.39E-1 2.68E-3 1.34 p k4
WDP5 7.16E-4 3.58E-1 2E-3 1.67E+0 5.61 0.298 1.79 0.167 10.00 1.28E-3 3.58E-1 3.57E-3 1.79 p k5
WDP6 6.78E-4 3.39E-1 2E-3 2.40E+0 5.31 0.451 2.70 0.167 14.40 1.83E-3 3.39E-1 5.41E-3 2.70 p k6
WDP7 6.70E-4 3.35E-1 2E-3 1.17E+0 5.25 0.223 1.34 0.167 7.02 8.97E-4 3.35E-1 2.68E-3 1.34 p k7

p: Design variable for WDP group.

Table 7. Parameters of and design variable for SWP group.

Re-organisation
Pre-design Energy absorption of energy Design
(Bj , Lj , Hj , tj ) ability (A) absorption ability Re-design variable (q) and
parameterisation
SWP- Vj mj Aj mj Vj
group (m3 ) Sj (m2 ) ti (m) Eaj (kJ) (kg) (kJ/kg) Kj Aj (kg) (m3 ) Sj (m2 ) tj (m) kj tj (m)

SWP1 1.17E-3 5.87E-1 2E-3 01.50E+0 09.19 0.163 1.37 0.119 12.59 16.08E-4 5.87E-1 2.73 1.36 q k1
SWP2 4.52E-4 2.26E-1 2E-3 01.32E+0 03.54 0.373 3.14 0.119 11.11 14.18E-4 2.26E-1 6.25 3.13 q k2
SWP3 4.30E-4 2.15E-1 2E-3 88.43E-2 03.36 0.263 2.21 0.119 7.43 09.49 E-4 2.15E-1 4.40 2.20 q k3
SWP4 4.30E-4 2.15E-1 2E-3 97.21E-2 03.36 0.289 2.43 0.119 8.17 10.43E-4 2.15E-1 4.84 2.42 q k4
SWP5 4.30E-4 2.15E-1 2E-3 86.40E-2 03.36 0.257 2.16 0.119 7.26 09.27 E-4 2.15E-1 4.30 2.15 q k5
SWP6 1.14E-3 5.68E-1 2E-3 01.26E+0 08.89 0.142 1.19 0.119 10.58 13.51E-4 5.68E-1 2.37 1.18 q k6
SWP7 6.76E-4 3.38E-1 2E-3 01.20E+0 05.29 0.227 1.91 0.119 10.09 12.88E-4 3.38E-1 3.80 1.90 q k7
SWP8 6.26E-4 3.13E-1 2E-3 84.80E-2 04.90 0.173 1.45 0.119 7.13 09.10E-4 3.13E-1 2.90 1.45 q k8
SWP9 11.27E-4 5.61E-1 2E-3 01.05E+0 08.79 0.119 1.00 0.119 8.82 11.27E-4 5.61E-1 2.00 1.00 q k9

q: Design variable for SWP group.

 International Journal of Crashworthiness
variable for the SWP group, and replacement of i dummy
by j dummy with j = 1, 2, . . . , 9 for nine SWPs, results
obtained for this group are summarised in Table 7. The
multi-variable problem is, therefore, made simple and is
now a two-variable optimisation problem, formulated as
follows:
Minimise: F (x) = W0 + Wp p + Wq q,
Subject to: y1k (p, q) 150 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , 8,
y2k (p, q) 400 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , 8,
where
p, q are the design variables for the WDP and the SWP
groups, respectively,
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
W0 is the unvarying weight of the vehicle while considering
the WDPs and the SWPs,
Wp is the weight constant with respect to parts in the WDP
group,
Wq is the weight constant with respect to parts in the SWP
group and
y1k , y2k are constraint functions of the side wall displace-
ments for upper and lower space versus survivor space
at concerned points, as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 14. Manager interface of LS-OPT.
635
Solution was reached by the use of LS-OPT and LS-
DYNA combination for optimisation analysis; the optimi-
sation method is SRSM, as presented in Section 5.1.
5.4. Optimisation process
The optimisation process of LS-OPT is shown in Figure 13.
Preparation of inputs included design variables, range of de-
sign variables, FE solver, parameterised FE le for gener-
ating the inputs of simulation jobs automatically inside the
optimisation process as well as sampling type of design of
experiment (DOE), constraint and objective functions, etc.
All of them were managed by the LS-OPT main menu, as
shown in Figure 14. Program les for automatic execution
included COM, LSOPT INPUT and LSOPT DB les that
are automatically generated for standard input of LS-OPT
processing from preparation data. The output of the opti-
misation process was an LSOPT REPORT le. Other ways
of output can be displayed in the viewer tab of LS-OPTs
main menu.
5.5. Verication of design
Figure 15 displays the optimisation history of the objec-
tive. Optimal value is obtained after the seventh iteration at
 636 C.-C. Liang and G.-N. Le

Figure 15. Optimisation history of objective.

Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014

7840 kg of vehicle weight. Figure 16 shows the maximum

constraint violation history, which shows that the obtained
design satised the ECE R66 requirements because upper
and lower displacements of side wall did not intrude into
survivor space during the rollover after iteration number
1. Figure 17 shows histories of p and q variables and dis-
plays the optimised values of design parameters of the WDP
group (p = 2.15974) and the SWP group (q = 1.89493).
Figures 18 and 19 respectively show the constraint histo-
ries of WDPs and SWPs, and clearly show that pillar A and
pillar E were the weakest members of the side wall section.
The results of the ECE R66 evaluation were the up-
per displacement maximum of 399.07 mm and the lower
displacement maximum of 135.1 mm. Compared with the Figure 17. Design variables and bounds histories.
values of the original model (upper displacement maxi-
mum of 658.74 mm and lower displacement maximum
of 265.97 mm), there was an improvement of 49.2% for 6. Results and discussion
lower displacement and 39.4% for upper displacement of
Figures 20 and 21 show the maximum displacements of
bus frame structure, with only 1.6% increase in the vehicle
the bus superstructure for the optimisation and the origi-
weight and a 11.7 mm increase in the height of CG.
nal in rollover condition following ECE R66. The ndings
presented a signicant reduction in bus body (49.2% for
lower displacement and 39.4% for upper displacement of
bus frame structure) without signicantly increasing bus
weight (only 1.6% increase in the vehicle weight). This is
consistent with earlier ndings suggesting that the SRSM
is a strong and effective optimisation analysis method, and
is used for optimal design of structure, especially complex
ones like bus superstructure. This study, as well as that of
Lin and Nian [17], performed the investigation according
to ECE R66. Lin and Nian [17] stated that the studied struc-
ture could show 5355% reduction in displacement with a
2.11% increase in the structure weight. The strengthening
and optimal weight study of Lin and Nian [17] was, how-
ever, concerned only with the body section of the bus. In this
study, the whole bus was investigated. The ndings were
concerned with both the upper and lower displacements of
Figure 16. Maximum constraint violation history. the bus frame versus survivor space in line with ECE R66.
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
Figure 18. Eight constraints for upper displacement.
The ndings of the optimal design of bus superstructure
were a set of optimal thicknesses of the WDPs and the SWPs
with the design variable p = 2.15974, q = 1.89493 for a
bus prototype satisfying the ECE R66 (Tables 6 and 7). The
whole side wall section was investigated and multi-design
variable problem was simplied by the absorbed energy
relevant as shown in Table 5. The different thicknesses of
each WDP and SWP imply that the optimal design of a
bus frame is relevant not only to the weakest body section
because the ability of the energy absorption is different in
each component. This study, as well as that of Lan et al.
637
[16] and Kim [13, 14], investigates the whole bus. Lan et al.
[16] stated the lightest possible weight of bus structure
by removal of the supporting bars and optimisation of the
side frame thickness by maintaining torsional rigidity and
fundamental torsional frequency. Kim [13 ,14] observed
maximum stiffness involving torsional stiffness and bend-
ing stiffness of full structure while maintaining the weight at
the same level as the specic bus. Neither of them, however,
stated that the studied bus structure satised the rollover
safety standard ECE R66, the strict requirement of a bus
superstructure.
 638 C.-C. Liang and G.-N. Le
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014

Figure 19. Eight constraints for lower displacement.

Figure 20. Upper displacement of bus frame: optimisation versus Figure 21. Lower displacement of bus frame: optimisation versus
original. original.
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
7. Conclusions
This study was performed to determine the best design
of the bus frame during strengthening of bus superstruc-
ture in rollover conditions. The optimisation process was
performed by an automated optimisation analysis method,
where the SRSM was performed by LS-OPT, and FE sim-
ulation jobs were solved by LS-DYNA. In the light of the
numerical investigation presented in this paper, the follow-
ing conclusions may be drawn:
(1) The crashworthiness design procedure for the bus su-
perstructure has been presented by means of an optimi-
sation analysis via combined LS-DYNA and LS-OPT.
In this procedure, thicknesses of bus frames were con-
sidered throughout in accordance with the ability of
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 19:40 08 October 2014
energy absorption.
(2) The investigation of the ability of energy absorption
was a good way to investigate the components rela-
tion, which is the basis for reducing design variables to
simplify the optimisation problem.
(3) This paper presented an effective and robust method to
enhance bus superstructure strength in rollover condi-
tions. From the results of this study, it was seen that
the deformation of the bus frame could be reduced by
49.2% for lower and 39.4% for upper side frames while
only increasing bus weight by 1.6% using the optimi-
sation analysis method presented.
(4) The methodology outlined in this paper can also be used
to reduce further the weight of a bus that meets required
safety standards when combined with consideration of
the highest and lowest energy absorption regions.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Automotive Research & Test-
ing Centre, Taiwan, R.O.C. The authors are grateful to Dr Sabi
Ashraf, Department of English Language, Da-Yeh University, for
her correction of the manuscript.
References
[1] T.B. Belytschko, J.I. Lin, and C.S. Tsay, Explicit algorithm
for the nonlinear dynamics of shells, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 43 (1984), pp. 251276.
[2] B.L. Boada, A. Gauchia, M.J.L. Boada, and V. Diaz, A
genetic-based optimization of a bus structure as a design
methodology, Paper presented at the 12th IFToMM World
Congress, Besancon, France, 2007.
[3] L. Castejon, A. Miravete, and E. Larrode, Intercity bus
rollover simulation, Int. J. Vehicle Design 26 (2001), pp.
204217.
[4] Y.-X. Chai, Numerical simulation and analysis of bus
rollover, Masters Thesis, Da-Yeh University, 2005.
[5] R.-H. Chang, A study on increasing structural strength of
buses, Masters Thesis, Da-Yeh University, 2006.
[6] X.-T. Chiu, The design and evaluation of reinforcement
structure for bus frames, Masters Thesis, Da-Yeh University,
2007.
639
[7] K. Elitok, M. Guler, F.H. Avci, and U. Stelzmann, Bus
rollover simulation, validation of a new safety concept. Pa-
per presented at the 23rd CADFEM Users Meeting, In-
ternational Congress on FEM Technology, Bonn, Germany,
2005.
[8] K. Elitok, M.A. Guler, F.H. Avci, and U. Stelzmann, Reg-
ulatory bus roll-over crash analysis using LSDYNA. Paper
presented at the Conference for Computer-Aided Engineer-
ing and System Modeling, Istanbul, Turkey, 2005.
[9] J.O. Hallquist, LS-DYNA Theoretical Manual, version 971,
Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore,
CA, 2006.
[10] F.J. Harewood and P.E. McHugh, Comparison of the implicit
and explicit nite element methods using crystal plasticity,
Comput. Mater. Sci. 39 (2007), pp. 481494.
[11] Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center
(JASIC), ECE Regulation No.66 S1 - Strength of Super
Structure, Report of the Automotive Regulation Information
of Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center,
Tokyo, Japan, 1998.
[12] Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center
(JASIC), ECE Regulation No.66 01 Strength of Superstruc-
ture, Report of the Automotive Regulation Information of
Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center,
Tokyo, Japan, 2006.
[13] T. Kim, Study on the optimization of bus body structure, So-
ciety of Automotive Engineers, SAE Technical Paper Series
923953, 1992.
[14] T. Kim, Study on the stiffness improvement of bus structure,
Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Technical Paper Se-
ries 931995, 1993.
[15] K. Kumagai, Y. Kabeshita, H. Enomoto, and S. Shimojima,
An analysis method for rollover strength of bus structures.
Paper presented at the 14th International Technical Confer-
ence on Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Munich, Germany,
1994.
[16] K. Lan, J. Chen, and J. Lin, Comparative analysis for bus side
structures and lightweight optimization, Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng., Part D: J. Automotive Eng. 218 (2004), pp. 1067
1075.
[17] Y.-C. Lin and H.-C. Nian, Structural design optimization
of the body section using the nite element method, paper
presented at SAE 2006 World Congress, SAE Technical
Paper Series 2006-01-0954, Detroit, MI, 2006.
[18] Livermore Software Technology Corporation, LS-DYNA
Keyword Users Manual, version 971, California, USA,
2007.
[19] N. Niii and K. Nakagawa, Rollover analysis method of a
large-sized bus, paper presented at the 15th International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles,
Melbourne, Australia, 1996.
[20] T. Roca, J. Arbiol, and S. Ruiz, Development of rollover-
resistant bus structures, Society of Automotive Engineers,
SAE Technical Paper Series 970581, 1997.
[21] N. Stander, W. Roux, T. Goel, T. Eggreston, and K. Craig,
LS-OPT Users Manual: A Design Optimization and Prob-
abilistic Analysis Tool for the Engineering Analyst, version
3.3, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Liver-
more, California, USA, 2008.
[22] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Strength
of the Superstructure of large passenger vehicles, Reg. 66-
Rev. 1. Available at www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/
wp29regs 61-80.html?expandable=0&subexpandable=0.
[23] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-
ECE), GRSG-93-4, Report of the IG-R.66 meeting, 93rd
GRSG, Prague, 2007.