Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3368

Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011

G. De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. Müller (eds.)
ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4

Realistic model of a car crash against a building concrete column

Ferrer B.1, Ivorra S.1, Irles R. 1, Mas D.2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Univ. Alicante, PO Box 99, 03080 Alicante (Spain)
2
Institute of Physics Applied to the Sciences and Technologies, Univ. Alicante, PO Box 99, 03080 Alicante (Spain)
email: belen.ferrer@ua.es; sivorra@ua.es; ramon.irles@ua.es; david.mas@ua.es

ABSTRACT: Accidental actions due to impacts against a structure are taken into account in the latest versions of most
important building codes. These codes make some recommendations about the equivalent static load that must be considered.
However, application criteria are confusing and given values are dispersive. In this work we make a critical analysis of low
speed impacts against reinforced concrete building columns through finite element modelling and using a realistic car model.
Contact forces, equivalent static loads and peak dynamic forces are obtained for a typical car model using different values of car
velocity and carried mass. With our simulations we obtain reliable values of the equivalent static load and show the lack of
reliability of many building codes.

KEY WORDS: Vehicle impact; Reinforced concrete column; Building codes; Equivalent static load; Low velocity.

1 INTRODUCTION in these calculations. In both static and dynamic calculations,

Dynamic analysis of structures is a complex task. When the the column supported the loads originated from the building
dynamic action is produced by the impact of a vehicle, the above. Additionally, in static calculations a horizontal static
only way to obtain an accurate solution is by means of a Finite load was added to the column following the indications given
Element Model (FEM). However, this model is also hard to in EUROCODE 1 [4] (figure 1B).
build, specially the part corresponding to the car. In order to
simplify this calculation, frequently an Equivalent Static Load
(ESL) is used. This load brings the same maximum
displacement in the structure than the maximum experienced
during the impact by the structure.
Latest building codes include this way to represent the
effects of a vehicle crash against a structure. However, the
values given in the international related codes for ESL under
the same conditions of impact are very different [1].
The problem was already analyzed and discussed for the
case of a steel column [2]. A FEM permitted a detailed
analysis of the impact under a theoretical point of view. The
authors showed there that Spanish code [3] and some part of
the Eurocode 1 [4] underestimate the ESL and, consequently,
Figure 1. (A) Reinforced concrete section. (B) Impact and
their recommendations are not in the safe side. For that reason
static load direction and area of applied static load.
we think that it is worth to consider the problem for a
reinforced concrete column. This study is even more In dynamic calculations this static load was replaced for a
interesting that the previous one since concrete is a more vehicle model with an initial velocity towards the column to
common material used in building constructions. induce the crash. Different initial velocities were taken in the
car, i.e. 10, 20 and 30 km/h. The mass of the vehicle was also
2 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION modified in order to take into account different situations and
A reinforced concrete column was considered in this study. values of 1800 kg and 3000 kg has been considered.
This column is located in the basement of a 6 floors building Combination of these parameters gives 6 different scenes. If
thus supporting an axial load of 3436 kN and a moment of we try to use the latest related codes for these situations,
4.58 kN∙m. A detailed description of the building can be obtained values for the same impact are dispersive, as it is
found in [2]. The reinforced concrete column was 2.75 m high shown in table 1. Comparison between these values and
and had the section described in figure 1A. The unconfined results obtained with FEM will be done in later sections.
compression stress of the concrete was 30 MPa and the yield
limit of the steel was 500 MPa.
Two different kinds of calculations, static and dynamic
were done through FEM. The ESL was calculated by
comparing the maximum displacement of the column obtained
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3369

Table 1. ESL (kN) according to different building codes vehicle models have been checked through tests with the real
applied to our parameters. vehicles. Specifically, the model used in this work was
checked by Zaouk et al. [16] using the results of two collision
Mass (kg) 1800 3000 tests. The results show that there is a good agreement between
Velocity (km/h) 10 20 30 10 20 30
analysis and tests, both in displacement, velocity and
CTE [3] 50 50 50 50 50 50 acceleration.
EC1 1.7 General [4] 50 50 50 50 50 50 We selected a 1994 Chevrolet pick-up model named “C-
Annex C EC1 1.7 [4] 65 129 194 83 167 250 2500 reduced model” in the database. This model has 41,062
EC1 2.7 [5] 40 40 40 40 40 40 nodes and 10,500 elements arranged in 61 parts. Figure 2
DIN 1055-9 [6] 40 40 40 100 100 100 show a three-dimensional, top and bottom views of the C-
2500.
Additionally, intermediate velocities were used to obtain
extra information regarding the variation of ESL with velocity
but, for the sake of simplicity, only the necessary results for
these scenes will be presented.

3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

Two different commercial codes were used to develop the
models, in order to improve the efficiency of the computation:
ANSYS [7] and LSDYNA [8]. Main difference between them
is the time integration they were developed for. Despite of
both are capable of using any time integration, ANSYS was
developed for implicit time integration while LSDYNA was
for explicit time integration. Therefore, each of those codes is
more competent in the time integration it was developed for.
Difference between those time integration is the way to
make the calculations. In an explicit time integration
displacement are obtained from acceleration results; this
requires very small time steps to ensure stability of solution,
but the calculation of each step is fast and efficient. In an
implicit time integration the stiffness matrix has to be inverted
each step, what implies that the time to calculate each step is
long. Otherwise, the solution is very stable thus allowing Figure 2. Three-dimensional view of the truck model (up), top
longer time steps than for an explicit time. view (left down) and bottom view (right down).
Those reasons make recommendable explicit time
integration for impacts or non linear events of short duration, The original mass of the car was 1800 kg but, in order to
while implicit time integration is useful for static or quasi- perform calculations with different values of vehicle mass, a
static simulations [9]. box was put in the rear part of the car. With this modification,
In this work we use ANSYS for static calculations and the total mass of the car was 3000 kg.
LSDYNA for dynamic calculations. Static model includes
only the column, but in dynamic model a vehicle is included 3.2 Column model
to act as projectile. Two kinds of model were developed for static and dynamic
simulations respectively, but geometry, mesh and boundary
3.1 Vehicle model conditions are coincident between them. Both models use
hexahedral elements with lateral size of 50 mm. After the
The vehicle model was obtained from the database of the meshing process, the column had approximately 5,300
National Crash Analysis Centre [10] which includes several elements and 6,500 nodes. As boundary conditions, all
FEM of vehicles developed with high fidelity to reproduce movements of all nodes located in the lower face of the
both geometry and mechanical characteristics of vehicle column and the horizontal movements of the nodes in the
materials. The vehicles from this database were developed and upper face of the column were set to zero.
validated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) For the static simulations the column was modelled using
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the element SOLID65 [7], which is the only one that supports
(NHTSA) to be freely used for any researcher in the fields of the used material model “Concrete”. This element is shaped
car safety or crashworthiness. These American agencies hexahedral and is defined by 8 nodes with 3 degrees of
develop three-dimensional high fidelity car models through freedom per node; it has the capacity of creep, crack and crush
the digitalization of the car geometry and modelling with and reproduces the specific characteristics of the concrete
finite element code. Structural parts and connections have [17]. The “Concrete” material model uses Willam and Warnke
been tested and modelled like elastic-plastic, rigid and rate failure criterion [16]. An ultimate uniaxial compressive
dependent and rubber materials. strength of 30 MPa was used and, according to Eurocode 2
The models from this database are generally accepted and [19], the ultimate uniaxial tensile strength was 2 MPa and the
used in research works [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Some of the
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3370

elastic modulus 33 MPa. Density of this material was 2500 on the column will be very similar for simulations with
kg/m3 and Poisson number 0.2. The parameters to define different mass but the same velocity.
Willam and Warnke failure criterion in ANSYS code are
listed in table 2.

Table 2. Parameters for Willam and Warnke failure criterion

used in ANSYS.
Parameter Value (MPa)
Ultimate uniaxial tensile strength ( ft ) 2
Ultimate uniaxial compressive strength ( f c ) 30
Figure 3. Maximum deformation in the car in each simulation.
Ultimate biaxial compressive strength ( f cb ) 36
Ultimate compressive strength for a state of On the other hand, contact force were calculated in each
43.5 simulation and obtained results for length of contact, time to
biaxial compression ( f1 ) reach the maximum load and this maximum load are shown in
Ultimate compressive strength for a state of table 3. As it was expected, the maximum load is similar for
51.75 the same velocity. The difference in simulations with different
uniaxial compression ( f 2 )
mass is the length of contact, which is higher in simulations
with higher mass of the car. Moreover, the increase in velocity
In the static model the reinforcement was modelled as
decreases the total time of contact.
speared into the concrete. A ratio between the reinforcement
and concrete, called “volumetric ratio” is needed for this Table 3. Main characteristics of contact load
representation and in this model was set in
5.263e-3, which corresponds with the section shown in figure Length of Time to Maximum
1A. Yield limit for steel was 500 MPa, elastic modulus 210 Simulation contact maximum contact
GPa, density 7850 kg/ m3 and Poisson number 0.3. (s) (s) force (kN)
1800 kg – 10 km/h 0.17 0.03 40
For dynamic simulations, SOLID element was
1800 kg – 20 km/h 0.13 0.08 180
selected (also called “brick element”). This element is shaped
1800 kg – 30 km/h 0.11 0.07 250
hexahedral and it is defined by 8 nodes with 3 degrees of
3000 kg – 10 km/h 0.24 0.04 40
freedom per node. The reinforcement was modelled as
3000 kg – 20 km/h 0.16 0.11 180
discrete, using a BEAM Hughes-Liu element. This element
3000 kg – 30 km/h 0.14 0.07 250
consists of 2 nodes and 3 degrees of freedom per node and it
is compatible with the brick elements because it is based on a
Distribution of displacements in the impact direction in the
degenerated brick element formulation [8]. In this case, the
column were similar in both static and dynamic simulations
size of mesh in reinforcement coincides with the size of brick
(figure 4), supporting the validity of the comparison done
elements. This allows join the movements of coincident nodes
between them. Additionally no points were found beyond the
between concrete and steel by merging them.
yield limit in any simulations, both dynamic and static. This
The material model for dynamic calculations was elastic-
fact endorses the validity of the elastic-plastic material model
plastic in both concrete and reinforcement. Values for the
used for concrete in dynamic simulations.
yield limit, elastic modulus, density and Poisson number, were
the same than those used in static simulations. In spite that an
elastic-plastic material is not enough to represent the
behaviour of the real concrete beyond the yield limit, it can be
used until this point, as same researchers have done [11, 13]
but taking care to ensure that the yield limit is not exceeded.

4 SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The maximum deformation in the car show how important is
the use of a real car in the study of the impact instead of a
rigid body. For a high velocity this is obvious, but for low
velocity impact the point is not so clear.
Figure 3 shows the instant of maximum deformation in each
simulation. For 30 km/h the deformation is really significant,
while for 10 km/h only the most frontal part is affected. In any
case, plastic deformations exist. Moreover, the change in the Figure 4. Distribution of displacements (mm) in the impact
car mass has very small influence on the maximum direction, left in dynamic simulation and right in static
deformation suffered by the vehicle. This fact means that simulation.
transmitted load and consequently the response to the impact
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
Points with the largest displacement are located at 130 mm
high in the column. Movement of a point belonging to the axis
of the column and located at 130 mm was analyzed.
Maximum displacement of this point is shown in table 4.
Equivalent static load for each considered case was found
through static simulations with different values for the static
load (figure 1B). Results for the ESL are shown in table 4.
Table 4. Maximum displacement and Equivalent Static Load.
Maximum Equivalent Static
Simulation displacement Load
(mm) (kN)
1800 kg – 10 km/h 0.035 40
1800 kg – 20 km/h 0.17 204
1800 kg – 30 km/h 0.25 300
3000 kg – 10 km/h 0.035 40
3000 kg – 20 km/h 0.16 192
3000 kg – 30 km/h 0.27 324
By comparing the calculated values of ESL with those
obtained from related codes (figure 10), it is clear that the
values obtained on this work are higher than all other for a
velocity higher than 15 km/h. The increase in vehicle mass
gives a growth in the slope both for values from Annex C of
Eurocode 1, Part 1.7, and for calculated values, although in
this late case the increase is smaller. Therefore, values given
by Eurocode 1 in Parts 1.7 and 2.7, Spanish and German
building codes are highly discouraged for a velocity impact
higher than 15 km/h. Values given by Annex C of Eurocode 1,
Part 1.7 are closer than those obtained on this work, but still
they are not in the safe side.
Figure 5. Comparison between calculated ESL and values
given by related codes, for a vehicle mass of 1800 kg (left)
and 3000 kg (right)
5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The study of low velocity car impact against a building
column was addressed by means of some finite element
modelling. The study focuses on reinforced concrete column
belonging to a car park. Additionally a review of the related
codes was done and their recommendations were compared
with the obtained results.
With a realistic car model, mass and velocity variations
were taken into account to obtain information about its
influence on the ESL. The use of the same car in all cases
allows keeping separate the influence of the damping
characteristics of different cars in the results.
The found deformations in the car showed the importance
of using real car models in the study of impacts, even at low
3371
velocity. We found that variations on mass did not provide
any significant difference on the maximum value for contact
load or on the shape of this load. Only the duration of contact
was affected by the change on mass.
Through static simulations the ESL was found for each
studied case and the obtained results could be adjusted to a
straight line. In most cases these values were higher than those
recommended by the analyzed related codes thus indicating
that many of them are not in the safe side. Specifically, values
given by Eurocode 1 Part 1.7, Eurocode 1 Part 2.7, DIN 1055-
9:2003 and Spanish Building Code have no variation with car
velocity and are lower than those obtained in this work for
velocities higher than 10 km/h. The values given by Annex C
of Eurocode 1 Part 1.7 and Annex A Eurocode 1 Part 2.7 also
follow a straight line but the slope of this line is smaller than
the slope of the obtained results. This means that for velocity
higher than 15 km/h the values given by Annex C of EC1 1.7
and Annex A EC1 2.7 underestimate the ESL.
Furthermore, the obtained values had not a high variation
with the mass of the car. Therefore, a single line can be used
to find the ESL for velocities ranging from 10 to 30 km/h,
regardless the mass of the car.
REFERENCES
[1] Ferrer B., Ivorra S., Irles R., Low velocity vehicle impact against
building strucutres: an outline of relevant codes, Revista de la
Construcción, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2010)
[2] Ferrer B., Ivorra S., Segovia E., Irles R., Tridimensional modelization of
the impact of a vehicle against a metallic parking column at a low speed,
Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1986-1992.
[3] Código Técnico de la Edificación (Spanish Code of Building),
Ministerio de Vivienda, March 2006, (in spanish).
[4] Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-7: General actions –
Accidental actions, Final Project Team Draft (Stage 34), Draft prEN
1991-1-7, Comité Europeo de Normalización, March 2003
[5] “Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 2-7: Accidental actions due to
impact and explosions”, ENV 1991-2-7, European committee for
Standardization, June 1998
[6] DIN 1055-9 (2003), “Actions on structures - Part 9: Accidental actions”,
Deutsches Institut für Normung eV., August 2003
[7] “ANSYS theory reference 10.0” ANSYS Inc., 2004
[8] “LS-DYNA Theory Manual”, John O. Hallquist, March 2006
[9] “ANSYS LS-DYNA User’s Guide”, ANSYS Release 9.0, Noviembre
2004
[10] “Finite element model” Available in: http://www.ncac.gwu.edu
/vml/models.html [accessed on 27 Oct 2007]
[11] Sherif El-Tawil, P.E., M. ASCE; Edward Severino; Priscilla Fonseca,
“Vehicle collision with Bridge Piers”, Journal of Bridge Engineering,
ASCE/MAY/JUNE 2005, p. 345-353
[12] Y. Itoh, T. Ohno, C. Liu, “Behaviour of steel piers subjected to vehicle
collision impact” Proceedings of international conference on steel and
aluminium structures, Espoo, Finland, 1999. p. 821-828
[13] Lu Xin-zheng, Zhang Yan-sheng, Jiang Jian-jing, Ren Ai-zhu, Ning
Jing, “Nonlinear Finite Element Simulation for the Impact between
Over-high Truck and Bridge-Superestructure”, Proc. 7th. Int. Conf.
Shock & Impact Loads on Superestructures, Beijing, 2007, 387-394
[14] Bi, J., Fang, H., Weggel, D.C., “Finite element modelling of cable
median barriers under vehicular impacts”, 11th International Conference
on Structures Under Shock and Impact”, Wessex Institute of
Technology, UK, 2010, 219-230
[15] M. Borovinsek, M. Vesenjak, M. Ulbin, Z. Ren, “Simulation of crash
test for high containment levels of road safety barriers” Engineering
Failure Analysis 14, 2007, 1711-1718
[16] Zaouk, A. K., Bedewi, N. E., Kan, C. D., Marzoughi, D., Validation of a
non-linear finite element vehicle model using multiple impact data,
Crashworthiness and occupant protection in transportation systems,
AMD-Vol. 218, ASME, New York, 1996, 91-106
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3372

[17] Evaluation of parameters effective in FRP shear strengthening of RC

beams using FE Method, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (building
and housing) Vol. 7, nº 3, 2006, pages 249-257
[18] Willam, K. J., Warnke, E.D., “Constitutive Model for the Triaxial
Behavior of Concrete” Proceedings, International Association for
Bridge and Structural Engineering, Vol. 19, ISMES, Bergamo, Italy, p.
174, 1975
[19] “Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings” European comité for Standardization, April 2004