Design – Case study: Bonnet and boot lid

Table of contents
6 Case study: Bonnet and boot lid .................................................................................................. 2 
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2 
6.1.1 Purpose of a Bonnet system ........................................................................................... 2 
6.1.2 Purpose of a Boot lid ..................................................................................................... 3 
6.2 Design Aspects ................................................................................................................... 3 
6.2.1 Design Boundary Conditions for Bonnet and Boot Lid ..................................................... 3 
6.2.2 Requirements for Bonnet components ............................................................................ 8 
6.2.3 Prioritisation Matrix for Outer Skin Panel ..................................................................... 10 
6.2.4 Conclusions:............................................................................................................... 17 
6.2.5 Overall conclusions of concept evaluation..................................................................... 20 
6.2.6 Comparison of “state of the art” systems ....................................................................... 21 
6.3 Conclusions from bonnet and boot lid case study ................................................................. 25 

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 1

6 Case study: Bonnet and boot lid

6.1 Introduction
Bonnet and Boot lid form a sub-segment of vehicle “closures”, which also contains doors and
tail gate. Bonnet and boot lid usually do not directly open onto the passenger cell which
greatly reduces the importance (weighting) of certain of the functional requirements normally
associated with closures such as passenger safety, air tightness, low cycle fatigue strength
etc.

Legislation for new vehicle registrations in Europe, the United States of America and Japan all
include requirements for pedestrian safety. EuroNCAP (European New Car Assessment
Program) and other independent vehicle assessment bodies have been instrumental in
increasing public awareness of the effectiveness of design for pedestrian safety. Additionally,
their test results are factored into the insurance ratings that are delivered for new vehicles.
The objective of these measures is to reduce the number of road accident fatalities and the
severity of injuries sustained by pedestrians involved in a collision with a vehicle in urban
traffic.

Impact frequency and seriousness of injury has been studied for many years, resulting in
rating systems and improved design. One such study based on 246 passenger car /
pedestrian collisions (Bosch Automotive Handbook 4th Edition 1998) clearly shows that the
bonnet zone accounts for a substantial proportion of the risk associated with pedestrian
safety.

This is the major difference between bonnet and boot lid safety functional requirements.

Bonnet and boot lid systems influence the following performance measures:
 Overall vehicle mass
 Fore / aft weight distribution
 Height of vehicle centre of gravity (the bonnet and the boot lid are usually located
above the C of G of the vehicle, hence weight reduction is beneficial)
 Vehicle drive-by noise intensity.

6.1.1 Purpose of a Bonnet system

The bonnet system is an access panel to the engine compartment to enable maintenance of
power train, drive belts, battery, fluid levels and lamp units.

It is fundamentally a reinforced skin panel with many safety and quality requirements.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 2

6.1.2 Purpose of a Boot lid

The boot lid system is an access panel to a rear storage compartment often enabling access
to auxiliary systems such as spare wheel, tool box, jack and rear light units.

It is fundamentally an opening reinforced skin panel.

6.2 Design Aspects

6.2.1 Design Boundary Conditions for Bonnet and Boot Lid

The boundary conditions for commencing a new design process using aluminium can be
identified and analysed by grouping together requirements using affinity matrix methods.
Bonnet and boot lid are treated separately and are then compared to highlight major
differences.

Bonnet (Hood)

Pedestrian Vehicle quality Occupant Styling Manufacturing

Safety Safety

Child Head Impact Torsional Stiffness Frontal Crash Tight radii on Paint drain features
Criterion Collapse hemmed panel
edges

Adult Head Impact Flutter Resistance Frontal Crash Excellent painted Outer panel
Criterion (Bending stiffness) Maintain integrity surface quality Dent resistance
with hinges etc. during assembly

Bonnet Leading Dent Resistance Frontal Crash Stretch Flanges Outer panel
Edge geometry (Palm Print) Retention of loosed Clean sheared
components edges

Dent Resistance Good Shape: Low Outer panel

(Hail Stone and strain doubly curved No Lüder lines or
Stone Chip) surfaces other visual defects
resulting from
Corrosion stretch forming
Resistance
Inner panel
Gauling resistance
Low mass
(Ease of opening)

Low mass
Weight distribution

Low mass
Vehicle Centre of
Gravity

Noise Attenuation

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 3

 Boot (Trunk lid)

Auxilliary Vehicle quality Occupant Styling Manufacturing

Safety

Electrical resistance Torsional Stiffness RearCrash Tight radii on Paint drain features
Lighting earth return Collapse hemmed panel
edges

Dent Resistance Excellent surface Outer panel

(Palm Print) quality Dent resistance
during assembly

Corrosion Stretch Flanges Outer panel

Resistance Clean sheared
General edges

Corrosion Good Shape: Low Outer panel

resistance strain doubly curved No Lüder lines or
Seal Surface surfaces other visual defects
resulting from
Corrosion stretch forming
resistance
Cut edges & holes Inner panel
Gauling resistance
Low mass
(Ease of opening)

Low mass
Vehicle Centre of
Gravity

Pedestrian Vehicle Occupant Styling Manufacturing Bonnet (Hood)

Safety quality Safety

Child Head Impact Torsional Stiffness Frontal Crash Tight radii on Paint drain
Criterion Collapse hemmed panel features
edges

Adult Head Impact Flutter Resistance Frontal Crash Excellent painted Outer panel
Criterion (Bending stiffness) Maintain integrity surface quality Dent resistance
with hinges etc. during assembly

Bonnet Leading Dent Resistance Frontal Crash Stretch Flanges Outer panel
Edge geometry (Palm Print) Retention of Clean sheared
loosed edges
components
Dent Resistance Good Shape: Low Outer panel
(Hail Stone and strain doubly No Lüder lines or
Stone Chip) curved surfaces other visual
defects resulting
Corrosion from stretch
Resistance forming

Inner panel
Low mass Gauling resistance
(Ease of opening)
Boot (Trunk lid)
Low mass
Weight distribution Auxilliary Vehicle Occupant Styling Manufacturing
quality Safety
Low mass
Vehicle Centre of
Gravity Electrical Torsional Stiffness RearCrash Tight radii on Paint drain
resistance Collapse hemmed panel features
Lighting earth edges
Noise Attenuation
return
Dent Resistance Excellent surface Outer panel
(Palm Print) quality Dent resistance
during assembly

Corrosion Stretch Flanges Outer panel

Resistance Clean sheared
General edges

Corrosion Good Shape: Low Outer panel

resistance strain doubly No Lüder lines or
Seal Surface curved surfaces other visual
defects resulting
Corrosion from stretch
resistance forming
Cut edges & holes
Inner panel
Low mass Gauling resistance
(Ease of opening)

Low mass
Vehicle Centre of
Gravity

Main functional differences between Bonnet and Boot Lid

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 4

Main conclusions from affinity matrix analysis:

 The bonnet has more safety (pedestrian and passenger) and vehicle quality
(manufacturing and in-service performance) requirements than the boot lid.
 An aluminium bonnet may improve fore / aft weight distribution
 Both seem to have similar manufacturing boundary conditions

From this point onwards we will just focus on the bonnet system.

Design options assessment

Aluminium enjoys the advantage of being available in a wide range of product forms that may
closely represent the output from topological optimisation tools. Each product form possibility
may be combined with the intrinsic properties of aluminium in order to identify the most
suitable design space for this application.

Herring-bone diagrams are a good way to start to develop a Design Failure Modes and
Effects Analysis (DFMEA). They are also a good starting point for identification of the key
design requirements, wishes and constraints in order to assist the selection of candidate
materials, product forms and assembly methods, etc.

Bonnet (Hood)

Material Characteristics Shape Characteristics Manufacturing

Elastic limit Swages Tooling cost

Potential
Corrosion resistance Stamping solutions
Section collapse
N-value Initiation features Blanking & punching
« Bird Beak »
R-value
Stretched Skin
Face Spot Welds
Outer panel
Total elongation
Self Pierce Rivet 6xxx
Surf ace hardness Drawn inner panel
Adhesive bonding Laminated 6/7XXX
Stretcher Strain defects Anti-f lutter mastic
Sheet Steel
Flanged holes Finishing
Surf ace quality post forming Inner panel
Lubricated and non-lubricated
5xxx
Flat hem flanged front
f riction co-ef ficients
edges skin panel
Electro Coating 6xxx
Conversion coating Laminated
Rope hem f langed upper
edge skin panel
Painting 5/5/7XXX
Surf ace Roughness
High performance
Paint Bake Response Plastic /
Hem f lange capabilities Composites
Fatigue resistance
Thin-walled Casting
Sheet Steel
Low density Flanged panel edges Cycle Time

Desired characteristics and manufacturing techniques arranged in a herring-bone

diagram.

Whole vehicle system considerations

Pedestrian impact energy is absorbed by a sequence of different mechanisms. In most cases,

the leg of the pedestrian is first impacted by the bumper system (lower leg impact is a safety
critical load case for the pedestrian that is entirely managed by the bumper system). Initial
contact with the pedestrian is therefore at a point below the centre of gravity of the head and
torso causing rotation. At relatively low velocity impacts (<= 40km/h) the tendency is for the
head to impact the bonnet or the lower part of the windscreen.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 5

The height, weight and age of the pedestrian all play a role in the kinematics of the event and
in his ability to survive. Most fatalities for the younger population are related to brain damage
caused by head impact on the bonnet. For older people additional risks include rupture of
arteries in the lower limbs and pelvis from bumper and bonnet leading edges.

All major insurance and regulating authorities have studied this topic in order to put in place a
range of measures to reduce mortality rates and the severity of injury resulting from
pedestrian impacts. These studies have produced test procedures and systems to rank and
regulate vehicles for pedestrian safety.

Evaluation of pedestrian safety for a bonnet must be carried out in the context of its
surrounding elements:
 Vehicle styling, size (wrap around distance “WAD”) and under bonnet clearance to
other elements (considered as hard points).
 Local bonnet stiffness is influenced by mounting point stiffness such as hinges, bump
stops and latches.
 This is better understood by superimposing the kinematics of a dummy onto the test
conditions.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 6

 Source: Institut für Kraftfahrzeuge, RWTH Aachen University, Dr J Bovenkerk

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 7

6.2.2 Requirements for Bonnet components

The functional requirements, the design options and the system considerations have now
been formalised. Each element of the design may now be assessed for materials’ selection
using a simple prioritisation matrix. In this case study, we first consider the system
requirements, then the requirements of each constituent part separately.

A prioritisation matrix enables the most important materials’ characteristics to be identified

and also the clear conflicts that must be handled by the adjoining elements in the system.

Prioritisation Matrix

Ultimate Tensile strength (UTS)

Total Tensile Elongation (A80)

BONNET SYSTEM

Uniform Tensile Elongation

Tensile Yield Strength (  y)

Ductile Brittle Transision

Strain rate sensitivity

Corrosion resistance
Temperature (DBTT)
Elastic Modulus (E)

Bondability
Resistivity

Castabilty
R- Value
N-Value

Density
(Ag)

kgm- -1 ohm-
Gpa Mpa Mpa % % S
3 metres

Functional Requirements
Pedestrian Child Head Impact Criterion Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Min. Min. Max. Max. Max.
Safety
Adult Head Impact Criterion Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Min. Min. Max. Max. Max.
Bonnet Leading edge Min. Max. Max. Max. Min. Min. Max.
Vehicle Torsional Stiffness Max. Max. Max. Max. Max.
Quality
Flutter resistance Max. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Dent resistance - Palm Print Min. Max. Min. Max.
Dent resistance - Hail /Stone chip Min. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Corrosion Resistance Max.
Low mass - Ease of opening Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Low mass - Weight distribution Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Low mass - Vehicle C of G Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Noise attenuation Max. Max.
Occupant Collapse - Frontal Impact Max. Max. Min. Min. Max.
Safety
System integrity - Impact Max. Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Retention - Impact Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Styling Tight hem flanges Min. Max. Max.
Painted surface quality Max.
Stretch flanges Min. Max. Max. Max. Max.
Shape in low strained areas Max. Min. Max. Max. Max.
Manufacturing Paint drain features Max. Max. Max. Max.
Outer panel dent resistance Max. Min.
Clean sheared edges Max. Max. Min.
Surface quality post forming Max. Max.
Galling resistance - inner panel Max. Min.

The prioritisation matrix is constructed by listing all of the candidate materials properties and
characteristics in columns. The functional requirements obtained from the affinity matrix are
listed as rows. Each of the properties and functional requirements is then assessed as not
being linked (blank) or as requiring a minimum or maximum value of the related property to
obtain the best functional performance.

At this stage, we may have a wide range of materials and product forms in mind.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 8

Some parameters such as ‘r’ and ‘n’ value may enable deeper sections or tighter features to
be stamped into sheet material. If extra depth is feasible from the packaging constraints, then
these columns may well influence torsional stiffness and head impact performance, in which
case, a maximum value is desired, but if packaging is limited, then these parameters may not
be considered linked for such a stamping.

DBTT can be a serious problem for certain grades of steel undergoing large deformation at
low temperature. Since our main focus here is on designing with aluminium, this column can
be ignored.

In this case the resistivity column is totally blank. The judgement (or result of experience /
analysis or test) indicates that this property does not apply for the load cases or product
requirements that have been identified for this part. Blank columns may be collapsed to
enable other conclusions to be obtained.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 9

6.2.3 Prioritisation Matrix for Outer Skin Panel

The outer skins of the bonnet and boot lid are very shallow, doubly curved shell surfaces. The
stiffness behaviour of the unsupported areas of theses panels to loading is dominated by their
elastic modulus and thickness.

Flat sheet "Oil Canning" stiffness ~ E * t2

Flat sheet bending / buckling stiffness ~ E * t3

Out of plane sheet stiffness from the above relationships is not high enough to provide useful
energy absorption for head impact.

Most of the initial phase of impact energy absorption from a pedestrian head form is delivered
through dynamic effects. A second phase includes more complex effects as time progresses
such as panel buckling, stress stiffening of the panel in tension and engagement of the inner
panel. Transient dynamic Finite Element analysis techniques are used to model the complex
interactions between a validated head-form model and bonnet system. However, some basic
principles can be derived from simple mechanics that is helpful in understanding why
aluminium hoods are so effective for pedestrian protection.

Phase I
A well known criterion (HIC - Head Injury Criterion), is used to study the relationship between
head impact severity and the probability of injury. HIC takes into account the progression of
the resultant head acceleration curve with time. It is used to evaluate the pedestrian
protection performance of vehicles.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 10

A theoretically optimal head impact pulse (“figure, left”) to achieve a minimum HIC can be
derived from the HIC equation itself. If realistic parameters are used, however, it can be
modified into a practical “optimal” waveform for pedestrian impact situations. Comparing
various simplified waveforms (“figure, right”), the triangular pulse with an early peak seems to
correlate best with the practical “optimal” waveform.

Optimal head impact acceleration for minimum HIC and comparison of acceleration
forms
Source: Jianping Wu, Brian Beaudet; “Optimization of Head Impact Waveform to
Minimize HIC”; 2007-01-0759, SAE International

Combining this study with the experience obtained from tests with head impactors, a certain
peak at the beginning of the head impact due to inertia effects is found to be positive for
reducing the HIC value and necessary deformation space. Moreover, an increase of the
acceleration at the end of the impact, e.g. because of secondary impact on the bonnet
underlying structures, is not favourable and leads to high HIC values. Hence, in order for the
best HIC performance to be obtained from the bonnet system, it is absolutely essential to
ensure adequate clearance for deformation of the bonnet outer skin to any hard spots below it

Aluminium generally requires a greater under bonnet clearance than an identically designed
steel bonnet system. This problem has been addressed in three ways:
1. Hard points are lowered or bonnet and front wings are raised in order to generate
more under-bonnet clearance.
2. Special inner bonnet designs have been developed to improve the bonnet
performance and hence, to reduce the under-bonnet clearance requirement (e.g.
Mercedes SLS AMG and Mazda shock cone).
3. Active lift (pop-up) system: sensors at the front of the vehicle (that detect a potential
head impact) send a signal to a control system that actuates a lift mechanism moving
the bonnet in such a way as to increase under-bonnet clearance before impact
occurs.

Initial dynamic reaction force is dependent on the progression of the stress wave in the outer
panel. Since the speed of the stress wave is a function of the modulus and the density, the
speed through steel and aluminium is approximately equal when elastic. The engaged mass
is then a function of thickness and density of the material in contact with the head-form. The
effective or engaged mass (Meff) increases with time, as the head-form is decelerated (A),
until rebound commences.

Dynamic reaction force ≈ Masseff * Acceleration

≈ Thickness * Area accelerated * Density * Acceleration

Energy absorbed by bonnet = Reaction Force * Distance travelled

≈ Masseff * Acceleration * Distance travelled

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 11

Phase II
One of the interesting properties of aluminium is its low elastic modulus. This property can be
very useful if it delays the onset of plastic deformation which has a much lower tangent
modulus than elastic deformation. When the impacted area of the outer panel starts to stretch
locally, the ratio of elastic to plastic strain plays an important role in the reaction force
generated and hence the energy absorbed.

Overall bonnet stiffness is derived from the inner and outer panels and their local
reinforcements and hinges. Considering the bonnet alone, the inner panel contributes most to
the stiffness from its section properties.

The Mercedes SLS AMG demonstrates well the high pressure differential that can be seen on
long bonnets. They have succeeded in limiting the deformation to a smooth band toward the
rear third of the bonnet.

Mercedes SLS AMG - Role of stiffness when subjected to air pressure loading
Source: Aachen Body Engineering Days 2009: Carsten Pech - Daimler AG

Other factors specific to aluminium

Hemming

Hemming is routinely carried out in aluminium and steel bonnet manufacture. Specially
prepared versions of standard automotive alloys are used for panels requiring flat hemming
(bonnets, boot lids and doors).

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 12

The outer and inner panels of the bonnet and boot lid are typically attached together using a
hemming operation at the edges. The front and upper edges are always hemmed by folding
the outer panel around the inner panel. For the left and right edges design solutions exist
where the inner panel is folded around the outer panel.

During hemming the outer surface of the material is plastically stretched. The plastic strain
coming from the hemming operation adds to any existing strain introduced into the flange
region during the panel stamping operations (pre-strain). As the total plastic strain increases,
the visible surface of the bent material progressively roughens until, for regions with high
levels of stamping strain, fine surface cracks become visible.

The internal bend radius is one of the most critical factors influencing the level of plastic strain
introduced by hemming.

Visual quality of the hemmed edge is also a function of its orientation with respect to the
rolling direction of the blank. For this reason, alloys are usually assessed at three or more
different angles to the rolling direction for a range of internal bend radii and levels of pre-
strain.

Design considerations for visible hemmed edges

1. Select only specially prepared alloys that deliver guaranteed hemming performance.
2. Avoid high forming strains (10-15%) in region of panel to be hemmed.
3. The thinner the panel to be hem-formed the better the appearance of the edge.
4. Lower strength alloys tend to deliver better hemming performance
5. Clad and fusion cast materials combine excellent hemming performance with high
strength core materials.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 13

 Source: Aachen Body Engineering Days 2009:C. Bassi - Novelis Fusion Technology
(for cladding aluminium)

Hemming Performance Improvement possible from Cladding technologies

Source: Bad Nauheim 2009 - C. Lahaye Aleris Clad Technology

Dent Resistance

Dent resistance is split into two categories; quasi-static and dynamic.

Quasi-static (very low speed) dent resistance is necessary to avoid plastic deformation from
handling operations in the assembly plant and from palm or finger tip pressure during normal
opening and closing operations.

Dynamic dent resistance is necessary to limit or eliminate local dents from high speed
impacts of free road surface stone chips and other flying objects.

Quasi-static (QS) dent resistance is the more important of the two because it directly
influences manufacturing costs and scrap rates of skin panels.

QS dent resistance of a product can be defined as the force needed to create a permanent
dent (with a depth of 0.1 mm for example). One test set up forces a spherical punch into the

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 14

surface of a stamped cup which has been arranged to have a curved surface in contact with
the punch. The yield strength of the surface to be tested is a function of forming strain and
artificial ageing condition. The force required to produce the specified permanent residual
deformation is quoted as its dent resistance.

Test set up for ranking QS dent resistance

Source: Dr C Lahaye for Aleris Aluminium Duffel BVBA

For 6xxx alloys the following relationship was derived between the mechanical properties of
the material, the geometry of the product and the static dent resistance:

Static dent resistance  0.113 * t 1.431 * R p 0.2

1.349
* r 0.071

Work hardening and artificial ageing from a typical automotive paint bake cycle can increase
the yield stress of a typical 6016 grade by 100MPa or more, resulting in a dent resistance two
to three times higher than is available from the initial blank.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 15

 450

400 6xxx
6xxx, bake hardened
350
Static dent resistance (N)
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

1 . 349
0 . 113 * t 1 . 431 * R p 0 .2 * r 0 . 071

Correlation of test with predicted values holds good (dashed red lines indicate ±5% of
perfect correlation) for both pre- and post-aged 6xxx grades.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 16

6.2.4 Conclusions:

Dent resistance
 Thickness is more beneficial than elastic modulus for dent resistance of all sorts.
 Paint bake response significantly improves QS dent resistance of 6xxx alloys.
Pedestrian safety
 Maximise available under bonnet clearance
 Engage inner panel mass and stiffness as soon as possible
 Low modulus can be beneficial for energy absorption

We are now ready to construct a priority matrix for the outer skin of the bonnet system.

Prioritisation Matrix

Uniform Tensile Elongation

Tensile Yield Strength (  y)
Ultimate Tensile strength

Maliability (Compressive
Total Tensile Elongation
BONNET OUTER PANEL

Stretcher Strain (Lüder

Strain rate sensitivity

Corrosion resistance
Internal Bend radius
Elastic Modulus (E)

Line) control
Elongation)

Bondability
Weldability
R- Value
N-Value

Density
(UTS)

(A80)
(Ag)

kgm- -1
Gpa Mpa Mpa % % % mm S
3

Functional Requirements
Pedestrian Child Head Impact Criterion Min. Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max. Max.
Safety Adult Head Impact Criterion Min. Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max. Max.
Bonnet Leading edge Min. Max. Min.
Vehicle Quality Torsional Stiffness Max. Max.
Flutter resistance Max. Max. Max.
Dent resistance - Palm Print Min. Max. Min. Max.
Dent resistance - Hail /Stone chip Min. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Corrosion Resistance Max.
Low mass - Ease of opening Max. Max. Min. Max.
Low mass - Weight distribution Max. Max. Min. Max.
Low mass - Vehicle C of G Max. Max. Min. Max.
Noise attenuation Max.
Occupant Collapse - Frontal Impact Min.
Safety System integrity - Impact
Retention - Impact
Styling Tight hem flanges Min. Max. Max. Min.
Painted surface quality Min. Max. Max.
Stretch flanges Min. Max. Max. Max. Max. Min. Max.
Shape in low strained areas Max. Min. Max.
Manufacturing Max. Max. Max.
Outer panel dent resistance Min. Max. Min.
Clean sheared edges Max. Min.
Surface quality post forming Max. Max.

Conclusions from Priority Matrix for Bonnet Outer Skin Panel

Safety
 UTS, Ag, A80, corrosion resistance, bondability should all be as high as possible.
 Density should be high to maximise dynamic reaction force. This effect is most
important for the first few micro-seconds of head impact, and only for a localised
patch of material that is engaged in the event when the acceleration of the bonnet

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 17

 skin is at its peak. This can be achieved more efficiently through engagement of the
inner panel mass. Other effects dominate the energy absorption afterwards, hence
low density is usually judged more beneficial for weight reduction.
 Low, as-delivered, yield strength is usually accompanied by a high n- value (work
hardening exponent); both are beneficial for good final panel geometry.
 Yield strength is increased by forming strain and age hardening of 6xxx alloys during
the paint bake cycle. High post forming yield strength is beneficial for the most
severe cases of head impact. N-value and BH parameters should be maximised for
the outer skin.

Quality
 6xxx alloys are recommended for ‘A’ class painted surfaces in order to avoid the
formation of stretcher strain (Lüder line) marks.
 E and Yield strength requirements for global vehicle stiffness
◦ Global vehicle torsional and bending stiffness is decoupled from the bonnet
system.
 Bonnet stiffness is obtained through section properties and material thickness.
◦ Vibration stiffness is obtained from careful design of bonnet inner panel and anti-
flutter mastic connecting it to the outer surface. Mastic properties and bead size
are chosen so as to avoid print through or witness marks on the visible painted
surface. The resulting stiffness is designed to be high enough to avoid visible
flutter resulting from aerodynamic effects.

Considering the priority matrix for the inner panel of the bonnet system.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 18

 Prioritisation Matrix

Tensile Yield Strength

Strain rate sensitivity

Corrosion resistance
Internal Bend radius
Elastic Modulus (E)
BONNET INNER PANEL

Friction coefficient
Elongation (A80)
Ultimate Tensile

Uniform Tensile
Elongation (Ag)
strength (UTS)

(Compressive
Total Tensile

Bondability
Weldability
Maliability
R- Value
N-Value

Density
( y)
kgm- -1
Gpa Mpa Mpa % % % mm S
3

Functional Requirements
Pedestrian Child Head Impact Criterion Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max. Max.
Safety Adult Head Impact Criterion Max. Max. Max. Min. Max. Max. Max.
Bonnet Leading edge Min. Max. Max. Max. Min.
Vehicle Torsional Stiffness Max. Max.
Quality Flutter resistance Max. Max.
Dent resistance - Palm Print Min. Max. Min. Max.
Dent resistance - Hail /Stone chip Min. Max. Min. Max.
Corrosion Resistance Max.
Low mass - Ease of opening Max. Max. Max. Max. Min. Max.
Low mass - Weight distribution Max. Max. Max. Max. Min. Max.
Low mass - Vehicle C of G Max. Max. Max. Max. Min. Max.
Noise attenuation Max.
Occupant Collapse - Frontal Impact Max. Max. Min.
Safety System integrity - Impact Max. Max. Max. Max. Max.
Retention - Impact Max. Max. Max. Max. Max.
Styling Tight hem flanges Min. Max. Max. Min.
Painted surface quality Max.
Stretch flanges Min. Max. Max. Max. Max. Min.
Shape in low strained areas Max. Min. Max. Max. Max.
Manufacturin Paint drain features Max. Max. Max. Max.
g Outer panel dent resistance Max. Min.
Clean sheared edges Max. Max. Min.
Surface quality post forming Max. Max.
Galling resistance - inner panel Max. Min. Min.

Conclusions from Priority Matrix for Bonnet Inner Panel

Safety
 UTS, Ag, A80, corrosion resistance, bondability should all be as high as possible.
 Low as delivered yield strength is usually accompanied by a high n- value (work
hardening exponent); both are beneficial for good stretch capability.
 Yield strength is increased by forming strain and age hardening of 6xxx alloys during
the paint bake cycle. High post forming yield strength is beneficial for the most
severe cases of head impact. N-value and BH parameters should be maximised if
possible for the inner panel, however, deeper sections may be possible for non-heat
treatable 5xxx alloys.
 R-value should be high for the draw operation, although these panels tend to be quite
shallow stampings.
Quality
 E and Yield strength requirements for global vehicle stiffness.
◦ Global vehicle torsional and bending stiffness is decoupled from the bonnet
system.
 Bonnet stiffness is obtained through section properties and material thickness.
◦ Vibration stiffness is obtained from careful design of bonnet inner panel and anti-
flutter mastic connecting it to the outer surface. Mastic properties and bead size
are chosen so as to avoid print through or witness marks on the visible painted
surface. The resulting stiffness is designed to be high enough to avoid visible
flutter resulting from aerodynamic effects.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 19

6.2.5 Overall conclusions of concept evaluation

Value Analysis

The bonnet system as a whole can now be evaluated according to the importance attached to
each function and the cost required to achieve it. Value can then be estimated by dividing the
importance of each function by the real or estimated cost.

Fictitious costs are used in the bonnet system case study to illustrate the principle.

BONNET MODULE COMPONENTS OF MODULE

Importance for Module

Anti-Flutter Mastic
Active Lift system

Latching points &

reinforcements

reinforcements

reinforcement

Bump Stops
Customer Requirements &

Inner panel

Bonet Stay
Skin Panel

Gas Struts

Palm Print
Functions

Hinges &
Paint

<= 40 km/h Protect Pedestrian 30 Medium Strong Strong Medium Medium

> 40 km/h Occupant Protection 10 Medium Strong Strong
Low Weight 30 Strong Strong Strong Weak Medium Strong Strong Medium Weak
Restraint when open 10 Medium Weak Strong Strong
Flutter resistance 20 Weak Strong Weak Strong Strong
Stone Chip Resistance 10 Strong
Hail stone dent resistance 10 Strong
Quasi-Static Dent resistance 20 Strong Medium
Electrical Noise Insultation 20 Strong Weak
Corrosion resistance 30 Strong Strong
Styling / Visual Aspect 30 Strong Strong
Aerodynamics 30 Strong Weak Weak
Weighting Column 3360 300 1010 480 300 180 280 200 50 210 190 160

Normalised column 100% 9% 30% 14% 9% 5% 8% 6% 1% 6% 6% 5%

Cost Target 211.00 30.00 25.00 30.00 60.00 23.00 10.00 23.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00
Real Cost 215.10 32.00 25.00 30.00 65.00 20.00 10.00 23.00 3.00 1.00 1.90 4.20
Value Column / Real Cost 0.1431 0.003 0.012 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.063 0.030 0.011

Normalised Value 100% 2% 8% 3% 1% 2% 6% 2% 3% 44% 21% 8%

Weighting
Strong 5
Medium 3
Weak 1

The weighting of the module components is ranked (in order of most to least important for the
functional requirements of the module) as follows:
1. Skin panel
2. Inner panel
3. Active lift system (if fitted)
4. Latch points and reinforcements
5. Gas struts, Palm print reinforcement and Anti-flutter mastic
6. Hinges (and reinforcements) and bump stops
7. Bonnet stay

The value gives a ranking that is strongly influenced by the cost of the mechanism. Fictitious
costs are used here.

This value analysis highlights the following points:

 Active lift system cost is a limiting factor for most vehicle platforms.
 Can gas strut and bonnet stay function be integrated?
 Palm print reinforcement and anti-flutter mastic are very cost effective solutions.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 20

6.2.6 Comparison of “state of the art” systems

This comparison will be limited to pedestrian safety and some aspects of stiffness since
vehicle manufacturers each have their own additional performance criteria that cannot be
considered in detail in this study.

Pedestrian safety is becoming an increasingly relevant topic for the passive safety of modern
vehicles. European laws, which define testing procedures with impactors for head, hip and leg
for the new vehicles, also encourage the developments in this area. Numerous patents
already exist in the area of pedestrian protection, some of which can find application in the
automotive industry. Two of the “state of the art systems” are compared in the following
paragraphs.

Two “State of the art” Aluminium designs

Citroën C6, is an example of a series production vehicle equipped with a ‘pop-up’ bonnet
system. Improved head protection is obtained by actively increasing the available deformation
space between the bonnet and the engine block underneath. It is the first vehicle to be
awarded a 4 star-rating in the EuroNCAP pedestrian safety test. The pivot point of the
bonnet is close to the bonnet lock, whereas the maximum gain of deformation space occurs in
the cowl area.

The contribution of the light weight material to the performance of the active bonnet system is
proven with this design. Light weight is very important in order to limit the magnitude of the
dynamic reaction force on the hinges and pivots when the bonnet is actuated and arrested
prior to impact. The aluminium bonnet with its steel local reinforcements and the pyrotechnic
actuator is shown “figure, left”.

The Mazda RX-8 utilizes a passive protection approach. A “Shock Cone Aluminium Bonnet"
design (“figure, right) delivers effective energy absorption capabilities across most of the
bonnet surface. The more commonly used framed structure delivers different levels of energy
absorption according to the location of the head impact.

Citroën C6 aluminium active bonnet and Mazda shock cone aluminium bonnet
Source: Institut für Kraftfahrzeuge, RWTH Aachen University, Dr J Bovenkerk

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 21

Comparing Aluminium with Steel bonnets

Test and analysis results show that the stiffness and the pedestrian protection potential of a
bonnet are linked. A study comparing an aluminium and a steel bonnet [Roberto Puppini,
Roger Hardy, et al., “Concepts of protection to address child and adult head impacts”,
APROSYS report AP-SP34-004R, Deliverable D3.4.2C] is referred to here in order to assess
the effect of different materials on the stiffness and pedestrian safety. This study compares
the Citroën C6 aluminium bonnet with the Fiat Stilo steel bonnet (“figure, upper”).

Different load cases have been studied for obtaining the lateral, transversal and torsional
stiffness values. The stiffness test results obtained by applying the defined loads to both the
outer and inner sheets of the two bonnets are shown in “figure, lower”.

By inspection it is clear that a higher stiffness is always obtained from the steel bonnet. The
steel bonnet, in contrast to the aluminium bonnet, has not been optimised for pedestrian
protection requirements.

The outstanding performance of the Citroën C6 in pedestrian protection results from a

combination of the aluminium material properties, optimised bonnet geometry and other
measures such as the active lift mechanism increasing the available deformation space.
Without structural optimisation for aluminium, the aluminium bonnet would deliver inferior
results in some areas, owing to a secondary head impact with the engine block.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 22

 C6 Stilo
Material Aluminium Material Steel
Outer 1.20 mm Outer 0.70 mm
sheet sheet
Inner 1.00 mm Inner 0.65 mm
sheet sheet

600
500
400
Force [N]

300
200
100 Lateral
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Deflection [mm]

600
500
Force [N]

400
300
200
100 Transversal
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Deflection [mm]

120
100
Force [N]

80
60
40
20 Torsional
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Deflection [mm]

Stiffness tests on Citroën C6 and Fiat Stilo bonnet

Source: Roberto Puppini, Roger Hardy, et al., “Concepts of protection to address child
and adult head impacts”, APROSYS report AP-SP34-004R, Deliverable D3.4.2C

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 23

Performance evaluation

A reference study was carried out on two identical bonnets, one made of aluminium, the other
of steel, in order to evaluate the pedestrian protection performance implications related to the
materials used.

The tests were conducted on a vehicle that was available at the time of the study with both
steel and aluminium bonnet versions, which enables a pure material comparison. The testing
procedure specified by EEVC-WG 17 was used with both child and adult head impactors to
assess the energy absorbing behaviour of the bonnets with the aim of determining which
material is most favourable. Unfortunately, the bonnet design was not optimised for
pedestrian impact.

While the steel bonnet consists of 0.7 mm thick IF-Rephos steel (outer) and 0.6 mm deep-
drawing steel (inner), the aluminium bonnet consists of 1.0 mm thick 6000 series aluminium
for both the outer and inner panels. Two test locations are compared for the steel and
aluminium bonnet.

Steel and aluminium acceleration curves for two specially chosen impact locations on
the bonnet
Source: Dominik Schwarz, Harald Bachem, Edward Opbroek; “Comparison of steel and
aluminium hood with same design in view of pedestrian head impact”; 2004-01-1605,
SAE International

A secondary impact on the underlying structure takes place during the impact of adult head
location 1 (AH-L-1). This leads to a higher first acceleration peak for the steel version and a
higher secondary acceleration peak for aluminium version. The aluminium version absorbs
less energy during the first impact peak than the steel version. As a result, the relative
velocity, acceleration and HIC in the secondary impact are higher for the aluminium version.

On the other hand, the impact of child head location M2 (CH-M-2) reveals no significant
secondary impact on the underlying structure. As for AH-L-1, there is a higher initial
acceleration peak for the steel version and more deformation for the aluminium version.
However, the calculated HIC value for the aluminium version is lower in this case because of
the absence of a secondary acceleration peak.

This study demonstrates the influence of a secondary impact with the underlying structure on
the HIC value.

When designing a bonnet with aluminium:

1. Ensure that sufficient deformation space is available in order to avoid significant
secondary impacts.
a. “Pop up” bonnet
b. Lower under bonnet “hard” points
2. Maximise bonnet static stiffness
a. Check for loss of stiffness
b. Avoid discontinuities in section stiffness.
3. Maximise bonnet dynamic stiffness
a. Maximise outer skin yield strength

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 24

 b. Involve inner structure mass as early as possible in most critical clearance
locations

6.3 Conclusions from bonnet and boot lid case study

A constructive solution can be found for both steel and aluminium.

The general assumption that either aluminium or steel bonnets is always better for pedestrian
head impact is proven to be invalid. The focus should be on optimising the structure
according to the material properties and the deformation space available.

Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 25