See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274313880

Vehicle Crash Can FEA Model Simulation and

Validation with Experiment Data

Article · March 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 185

1 author:

Sekhar Reddy Biddala Reddy

Tesla Motors
7 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sekhar Reddy Biddala Reddy on 01 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vehicle Crash Can FEA Model Simulation and Validation with
Experiment Data

Thomas Bayley*, Sekhar Reddy, Mohammad Fard

School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University,

Melbourne, Australia,
E-mail: s3185226@student.rmit.edu.au

Vehicle crash-can transfers the kinetic energy into strain energy stored in the
structure via a sequential deformation wall crushing process. In this paper,

The performance of the crash can FEA model and its ability of predicting
mechanical behaviours in a crash event is assessed and verified via the FEA
analysis and corresponding experiment data. Compression tests are performed to
validate the FEA simulation results. Wall tolerance sensitivity is also investigated
via FEA simulation in order to examine if and how the manufacturing defect
could impose impact on crash can energy absorption capability. It is found that
the performance of crash-can with manufacturing tolerances can be predicted by
the FEA model derived in this paper. Internal energy analysis indicates the wall
thickness is tolerance insensitive and manufacturing defect can be disregarded
under the manufacturing tolerance standards.

Keywords: crash can, compression test, FEA, energy absorption, tolerance

sensitivity
1. Introduction

Vehicle crash can is designed as an energy management device in the low speed (under
54 km/h) vehicle collision. It is treated as a replaceable energy control device to handle
the impact energy and prevent the damage to the main rail. The kinetic energy
possessed by the moving vehicle will be converted into strain energy (internal energy)
and stored in the crash can via sequential deformation behaviour. As a result, extra
damage to the main rail will be prevented and high speed crashworthiness
characteristics will be preserved. Since the vehicle collision is a transient event
involving highly non-linear loading, large scale deformation and high volume of energy
transfer, the performance of the crash can has been an interesting area for researchers.
As the DANNER/TIC insurance ratings was introduced into the automotive industry,
consumers’ cost of ownership and purchase selection may be driven and influenced in
the Europe market and an effort to reduce the crash repair cost from the insurance
company [1], various geometries and configurations of crash can have been studied and
evaluated.

Wierzbicki introduced the self-consistency theory describing the crashing

behaviour of a class of thin-walled structures in 1983 [2]. A basic folding mechanism
was constructed to represent the main features of folds and wrinkles on typical standard
sheet metal structures. The researches on topology options have been done by Abbasi et
al [3], Omar et al [4] and Chen, and Wierzbicki [5] about the energy absorption
capability with various geometry configurations. Lu & Yu [6] continued to study
geometry options for energy absorption devices in conjunction with material
alternatives. Various types of energy absorbing tubes have been tested and studied with
different cross section areas, such as circular tubes, square tubes, honeycomb tubes and
taper tubes for automotive applications. Energy absorption capability of square tubes
made of dual phase and martensitic steels have been investigated by Yan, Kantner, Zhu
and Nadkarni [7]. An increased energy absorbing performance has been reported
comparing with high strength low alloy steel (HSLA). An investigation of extruded
aluminium alloy AA5754 crash can under different topologies has been carried out to
study the specific energy absorbing capability by Faruque and Saha [4]. Hexagon and
octagon tubes are reported as the most efficient geometry followed by the square tube
under single cell structure. A comparative study of energy absorption of foam-filled and
multi-cell square columns has been conducted by Zhang, and Cheng [9]. The results
showed that a 50-100% higher energy absorption was observed with multi-cell square
columns comparing to foam-filled ones. Abramowicz and Jones [11] carried out a
dynamic axial crushing on square tubes on a drop hammer test rig. Four deformation
modes governing the behaviour for different ranges of cross section are theoretically
predicted. An investigation of stress/strain behaviour of aluminium alloys (AA6 and
AA7 family in T6 temper) at low to medium strain rates has been done by Chen,
Clausen, Hopperstad and Langseth [8]. The results demonstrated the strain rate of
studied aluminium alloys are insensitive at low to medium strain rates ranging from 0.1
to approximate 2000 s-1.

The numerical process such as finite element method is an invaluable tool to

assess the crash behaviour and the energy management. It also dramatically reduces the
cost of conducting physical test but delivers highly reliable results to predict the
mechanical behaviour for vehicle crashworthiness. Lee et al [12] investigated the high
velocity impact loading of thin walled structure by 3D FEA method correlating to test.
The simulation results yielded a similar correlation to the test results. A non-linear FEA
analysis of quasi static axial collapse response of cylindrical tubes by multiple identical
rings was carried out by Salehghaffari et al [13]. They developed a global meta model
for mean crush force and energy absorption.

In order to obtain accurate simulation result for the design and development of
crash can, a reliable FEA model becomes crucial to the automotive industry. In this
article, a FEA model was built from crash can CAD file used by current automotive
industry with some reasonable simplifications. Physical axial loading test was
conducted to verify the simulation results for the purpose of validating the accuracy of
FEA model. The mechanical behaviours of crash can was also investigated to
demonstrate the crashing modes in different stages. Tolerance sensitivity of FEA model
and crash can were studied with the aim of analysing manufacturing feasibility.

2. Method
2.1 Crash Can Structure

The automotive crash can which is used in this research is shown in Figure 1. This crash
can is a thin-walled structure derived from square tube, which consist of two double-
layer and two single-layer side walls. On each double-layer side, there is a connecting
fin locating on the centre line between the two walls shown in Figure 1(c). In vehicle,
the crash can is connected to the bumper beam (bumper reinforce) as shown in Figure 1.
The crash initiators are considered on both upper and lower sides of the crash can. The
crash initiators are used to generate initial sequential deformation.
○
1

(b)

(a)
(c)
Figure 1. Crash can and location

2.2 Tension Test

The strain rate sensitivity of the crash-can material was examined using tensile test. Tensile
test samples were made of aluminium alloy AA6060 temper T6 (a commonly used alloy in the
automotive industry) with a nominal chemical composition shown in Table 1. The samples
were obtained directly from crash cans via cutting and machining performed by CNC lathe
under the specification instruction from American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
Fifteen test samples were prepared for the tensile test.
Table 1: Chemical composition of aluminium alloy AA6060-T6 (values in percentage)

Si Fe Mg Mn Cu Ti B Zn Al

0.44 0.22 0.48 0.016 0.003 0.007 0.001 0.01 Balance

Tensile test was performed in the room temperature to determine the strain rate
sensitivity of crash can material. Five test speeds were considered for obtaining the strain rate
sensitivity of the crash-can material as shown in Table 2. Therefore, the fifteen test samples
have been divided into five groups with three in each shown in Figure 2. The thickness and
width of each sample within the gauge length were measured to obtain the cross-section area
shown in Table 2. The tensile test was carried out on Instron 2716-020 testing machine as
shown in Figure 2. The load magnitude was then recorded against the strain. The
corresponding stress was calculated using load and cross-section values. Therefore, the stress-
strain curve was drafted to analyse the strain rate sensitivity.

Figure 2: Tensile test samples

Table 2: Tensile test groups

Sample Thickness Width Cross-section

2
(mm) (mm) area (mm )

Group A 1 1.726 8.972 15.4857

2 2.503 8.975 22.4644
(1mm/min)
3 1.892 8.998 17.0242
Group B 1 1.859 8.945 16.6288
2 1.910 8.976 17.1442
(100mm/min)
3 1.699 8.958 15.2196
Group C 1 1.835 8.975 16.4691
2 1.806 8.963 16.1872
(200mm/min)
3 1.664 8.962 14.9128
Group D 1 1.716 8.955 15.3668
2 1.812 8.990 16.2899
(300mm/min)
3 1.845 8.952 16.5164

Figure 3: Tensile test platform

2.3 Crash Can Compression Test

Crash can compression test was conducted to collect the data for the validation of crash can
simulation results. The test was conducted on MTS 311.31S compression testing machine as shown
in Figure 3. The force magnitude was recorded against the displacement. Two crash cans were
tested: one with 100 mm/s and the other with 150 mm/s.

Figure 4: MTS 311.31s compression test system

2.4 Crash Can FEA Modelling

The FEA model of crash can was developed based on the mid-surface extracted from the CAD file in
a global Cartesian coordinate system as shown in Figure 5. The general modelling techniques, in
automotive industry, were used to build up the crash can FEA model.

The crash can body was meshed with Belytschko-Lin-Tsay shell element which provides
computational efficiency while maintaining the result accuracy [10]. In order to control the
computing cost in a reasonably acceptable scope with a relatively high accuracy of simulation result,
the range of the element size is set from 3 mm to 5 mm. Elastic plastic material type is applied to the
crash can with properties shown in Table 3.

Two planes were created to comply with the test set-up shown in Figure 5(b). One plane is
placed on top of the crash can to manipulate the impactor and the other one is attached to the
bottom of crash can as the platform. The area for both of them was set at 300mm × 300mm which is
bigger than the cross section area of the crash can so that purely axial force is preserved at the
interface. Rigid material type is assigned to both of them and properties are shown in Table 3. A
mass element of 800kg which is equal to half of the vehicle mass is allocated to the top plane to
preserve the inertia effect as well as a prescribed velocity is defined to represent the crashing
direction along the +X direction.
Table 3. Property of material

Type Density Yield strength Young’s modulus Poison ratio

(kg/mm3) (GPa) (GPa)

Aluminium 6060-T6 MAT 24 2.7×10-6 0.24 59 0.33

Steel MAT 20 7.8×10-6 n/a 210 0.33

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 5. FEA model of crash can

According to the test condition, all six degrees of freedom at the interface of bottom plane and
crash can must be clarified. Since the crash can is vertically placed on the test platform without any
side support, the bottom boundary conditions of the FEA model are detailed in Table 4 with respect
to the coordinate system shown in Figure 5.
 Table 4: The boundary conditions of the bottom of the crash can for FEA crash analysis (µ1 is static coefficient of
friction; µ2 is dynamic coefficient of friction).

Degree of freedom Boundary condition

X translation free

Y translation µ1 = µ2 = 0.3

Z translation µ1 = µ2 = 0.3

X rotation µ1 = µ2 = 0.3

Y rotation constrained

Z rotation constrained

The crash can body is divided into five parts for measurement and a nominal definition of each
part is clarified in Figure 6. The measurement for each part was conducted four times and all the
values were recorded in Table 5. The average value is assigned to each wall as thickness for
simulation and the minimum and maximum values are used for tolerance sensitivity investigation
illustrated in a later section. Since the connecting fin and inside wall join two walls on double-layer
side, a small continuous thickness increase occurs at both ends. As the thickness change is in a very
small scale, the fin thickness is assumed to be constant and the thickness along the corner line
adopts neighbour value.
Connecting Fin

DW2
DW1
SW12
SW2

Figure 6. Nominal definition of crash can side wall

Table 5. Wall thickness measurement (unit in mm)

DW1 DW2 SW1 SW2 Connecting fin

1st Measurement 1.78 1.98 2.60 1.80 1.96

2nd Measurement 1.76 1.90 2.82 1.94 2.02

3rd Measurement 1.72 1.98 2.56 1.88 2.04

4th Measurement 1.84 1.98 2.70 1.92 1.98

Average 1.775 1.960 2.670 1.885 2.00

Minimum 1.72 1.90 2.56 1.80 1.96

Maximum 1.84 1.98 2.82 1.94 2.04

3. Results
3.1 Tensile Test Results

The tests were successfully done, so that all test samples, after reasonable elongations, were broken
within the gauge length area under the axial loading (Figure 7). The stress-strain curve of the test
samples for 1, 100, 200, and 300 mm/min velocities are shown in Figure 8. Each graph is an
arithmetic mean of the three test runs.

Figure 7. Tensile sample after test

Figure 8: Aluminium alloy AA6060-T6 stress-strain curve under static axial loading

The maximum strain value reduces each time corresponding to a higher test speed due to the
inertia effect. The maximum and minimum strain reaches 0.15335 and 0.9158 under the speed of 1
mm/min and 300 mm/min respectively. The yield strength and ultimate tensile strength are both
around 250MPa. Hence, according to the characteristics of aluminium family, it can be concluded
that the stress-strain curve depicted above delivers confident and accurate data reflecting the
property of aluminium alloy AA6060-T6.
 The maximum and minimum peak stress occurs at 257.824MPa and 248.329MPa under the
speed of 1 mm/min and 300 mm/min respectively. The stress difference can be calculated as 3.7%
indicating aluminium alloy AA6060-T6 is strain rate insensitive which comply with the result
concluded by Y. Chen, A.H. Clausen, O.S. Hopperstad and M. Langseth [8]. As a result, only static
compression test is needed to be conducted instead of various dynamic tests in terms of the
validation of FEA model accuracy.

According to the 0.2% offset yield criterion, the yield strength can be calculated as 240MPa and
the Young's Modulus can be obtained as 59GPa. They will be used as material properties together
with the stress-strain curve in the simulation.

3.2 Compression Test Results

The samples after the compression test are shown in Figure 9. It can be depicted that the crash
initiators successfully developed a sequential deformation pattern. The crashing force was managed
in a controlled manner and was transferred progressively into the adjacent wall. Thus, the bottom
part which was not reached by crashing force was maintained in its original square shape. However,
the crash can body tears along the four corner lines, which indicates a reduced upward resistance
force at the interface.

(1a) (2a)

(1b) (2b)
 Figure 9. Crashing samples after compression test

The force-time curve is represented in Figure 10(a). The maximum interface force occurs
approximately 0.3s earlier in case one than in case two due to a faster test speed. However, the
magnitude of both these forces are nearly the same which were recorded as 142.878kN and
144.372kN for 150 mm/s and 100 mm/s respectively. The variation patterns of interface force for
both cases are similar regardless of the test speeds which is illustrated in Figure 10(b). Moreover, the
sequential deformation is reflected by the fluctuation of trend lines. The interface force performs a
more severe fluctuation at 100 mm/s than at 150 mm/s.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Force-displacement curve at the test speed of 100 mm/s and 150 mm/s

3.3 Simulation Results

Crash can simulation is performed by the transient dynamic nonlinear solver Ls-Dyna. The simulation
results were filtered by 10Hz frequency filter so as to reduce the high frequency ambient noise and
provide a smooth curve for analysis. The crash initiators successfully generated the sequential
deformation pattern indicated by the wave shaped curves shown in the two figures below.
Case 1 (150 mm/s) crash can correlation
Case one simulation was conducted under the speed of 150 mm/s and force-displacement
curve is plotted in Figure 11. The simulation result yields a good correlation to test and predicts
every mechanical behaviour of crash can. The simulation precisely predicts each peak force at 21.88
mm, 70.03 mm, 80.97 mm, 102.86 mm and 116.72 mm corresponding to each displacement in the
test. The maximum interface force obtained at 70.03 mm is 142.961 kN which is 0.06% higher
comparing with the test value 142.878 kN.

Figure 11. Force-displacement curve at the speed 150 mm/s

Since the tearing occurred along the four corner lines, the test result yields a lower force value
than the simulation result almost across the entire range. Before the interface force reaches its
maximum value, the structural integrity of the crash can is well maintained so that a good
correlation to test is preserved. However, interface force is obtained at about 10% lower comparing
with the simulation result as severe tearing occurs subsequently.

Case 2 (100 mm/s) crash can correlation

Case two simulation was conducted under the speed of 100 mm/s and force-displacement
curve is reported in Figure 12. The correlation is little coarser than that in case one, but the accuracy
is still well preserved. Each peak force is predicted at the specific location with an acceptable
displacement deviation. The maximum interface forces are 143.492 kN and 144.361 kN at 79.821
mm in the test and 75.503 mm in the simulation respectively.

Tearing also occurred along the four corner lines, but the structural integrity of the crash can is
better maintained than the previous case due to the lower test speed. The test result influenced by
tearing starts to deflect the simulation at 106.098 mm. A continuous increased force difference
between test and simulation was reported.

Figure 12. Force-displacement curve at the speed 100 mm/s

Tolerance sensitivity investigation

Due to the imperfection of manufacturing process, tolerance deviation will be introduced into
the final product. The wall thickness of the crash can will be influenced by such
manufacturing defect so that cross section area is altered. Since the stress is determined by
the external load and cross section area, it becomes a variable quantity with the cross section
area. As a result, the strain energy (internal energy) that the crash can is able to accumulate
may shift subsequently. The internal energy analysis approach will be adopted to determine
the tolerance sensitivity in the following section.
The internal energy with respect to time is shown in Figure 13. Both graphs indicate a
significant fast energy increase in a very short time. Since the kinetic energy possessed in
case one is larger than that in case two, the maximum internal energy reaches a higher value
in case one. The maximum energy difference and deviation are calculated with respect to the
common case and listed in table 6. Considering the reasonable simplification of boundary
condition at the bottom of crash can and the GM manufacturing standard, the energy
deviation is evaluated in an acceptable extent. As a result, the wall thickness is treated as
tolerance insensitive.

(a) Case 1 (b) Case 2

Figure 13. Internal energy-time curves

Table 6. Internal energy analysis

Max upper (J) Max lower (J) Max common (J) Max energy Max deviation
difference (J)

Case 1 22778.7 20877.1 21167.7 1611.0 7.6%

Case 2 18417.3 16801.7 17434.8 1615.6 9.3%

4. Conclusions
Tensile test results reveal that aluminium alloy AA6060-T6 is strain rate in sensitive so that only
static compression test is needed in terms of verification of crash can FEA model. Young's modulus is
obtained as 59 GPa and yield strength is calculated as 240 MPa from the stress-strain curve.
Compression test is conducted at two different speeds of 150 mm/s and 100 mm/s respectively. The
test result indicates both of them reach a similar maximum force regardless of the test speed.
However, tearing occurred along the four corner lines for both cases. Crash initiators successfully
generate the sequential deformation in both compression test and simulation. The simulation force-
displacement curves are well correlated with the physical test data. So the crash can FEA model is
functional to predict the mechanical behaviours during crashing event. Tolerance sensitivity
 investigation reveals the wall thickness is tolerance insensitive so that the manufacturing defect
introduced into the final product can be ignored.

References
[1]. A. Mamalis, D. Manolakos, A. Baldoukas, G. Viegelahn (1991), Energy dissipation and
associated failure modes when axially loading polygonal thin-walled cylinders, Thin-
Walled Structures, 12 (1991) 17-34.
[2]. T. Wierzbicki (1983), On the crushing mechanics of thin-walled structures, Journal of
Mechanics, Vol. 50/727
[3]. M. Abbasi, A. Ghafari-Nazari, S. Reddy, M. Fard (2014), A new approach for optimizing
automotive crashworthiness: concurrent usage of ANFIS and Taguchi method, Structural
and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 485-499
[4]. Omar Faruque, Nripen Saha (2008), Extruded aluminium crash can topology for
maximizing specific energy absorption, SAE Technical Paper, 2008-01-1500
[5]. W. Chen, T. Wierzbicki (2001), Relative merits of single-cell, multi-cell and foam-filled
thin-walled structures in energy absorption, Thin-Walled Structures, 39 (2001) 287-306
[6]. Lu G, Yu Tongxi (2003), Energy absorption of structures and materials, Woodhead
Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK
[7]. B. Yan, C. Kantner, H. Zhu, G. Nadkarni (2005), Evaluation of crash performance of a
hat section component using dual phase and martensitic steels, SAE Technical Paper
2005-01-0837
[8]. Y. Chen, A.H. Clausen, O.S. Hopperstad, M. Langseth (2009), Stress-strain behaviour of
aluminium alloys at a wide range of strain rates, International Journal of Solids and
Structures 46 (2009), 3825-3835
[9]. X. Zhang, G. Cheng (2007), A comparative study of energy absorption characteristics of
foam-filled and multi-cell square columns, International Journal of Impact Engineering,
34 (2007) 1739-1752
[10]. O.S. Hopperstad, T. Berstad, H. Ilstad, O.-G. Lademo, M. Langseth (1998), Effects of
the yield criterion on local deformations in numerical simulation of profile forming,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 80-81 (1998) 551-555

View publication stats