2004-01-1177
Vehicle Door Latch Safety Measures Based on System
Copyright © 2004 SAE International
ABSTRACT
The governments of many countries have established
regulations that address the issue of vehicle door safety
during crash events. Depending on the regulation or
specification, analytical tools may be acceptable for
verifying the crashworthiness of a latching system. In
those instances where actual test crashes are required
for verification, analytical methods can still be used to
help predict the outcome of a crash test. Two relevant
analytical approaches for multibody dynamics
computation are discussed in the paper. One is related
to monitoring the effects of constant 30G inertia loading
in all directions (spherical analysis) and another
addresses inertia pulse loading of specified G levels in
certain directions. In some crash situations, the latch
system compliance with the regulations may be
insufficient to prevent door release. To secure the door
in the latched position additional safety devices can be
deployed in various locations of the door latch system.
One group of such devices relies on using inertia catch
levers triggered by specific acceleration of vehicle door.
The development and tuning of the inertia catch devices
is done by analytical means followed by latch system
validation during crash tests.
INTRODUCTION
The governments of many countries have established
regulations that address the issue of vehicle door safety
during crash events. The inertial portions of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206 [1] and 214 [2]
require that doors will remain latched during crashes of
certain types and speeds. Depending on the regulation
or specification, analytical tools may be acceptable for
verifying the crashworthiness of a latching system. In
those instances where actual test crashes are required
for verification, analytical methods can still be used to
help predict the outcome of a crash test. Multibody
dynamics methods [3] are well established and are
widely used for such tasks. Among the commercially
available multibody dynamics software packages MSC
ADAMS and LMS DADS are the most popular tools in
automotive Computer Aided Engineering.
Dynamics
Krystof P. Jankowski and Ehab Kamal
Intier Automotive
Two relevant analytical approaches for multibody
dynamics computation of latch systems are discussed in
the paper. One is related to monitoring the effects of
constant 30G inertia loading in all directions (spherical
analysis) and another addresses inertia pulse loading up
to 500G in certain directions. In many actual crash
situations, the latch system compliance with the
regulations mentioned above appears to be insufficient
to prevent door release. Specifically, extremely high
accelerations during crash or sheet metal buckling can
cause inadvertent latch release. There are various
alternative designs that can help secure the door in the
latched position. Among these alternatives are passive
entry systems, separate pivot axes for locking and
latching features, physical blockage mechanisms, or
inertia catch devices. The inertia catch functioning will
be addressed in this paper. These devices can be
installed inside of the latch or at the outside or inside
door handles. When engaged, the inertia catch blocks
latch system motion toward door release.
CONSTANT 30G INERTIA LOADING
FMVSS 206 [1] requires that hinged side doors must not
unlatch when subjected to an inertia load of 30G in the
longitudinal or transverse direction. SAE Recommended
Practice [4] provides details for the analytical procedure
to be used for inertia computations. Many car
manufacturers are extending the scope of the analysis
by increasing the inertia load vector (35G or 36G are
currently used and 60G is suggested as a standard for
the future) and by considering an all direction loading
(spherical analysis). Based on these requirements, two
procedures have been established for analytical inertia
loading effects analyses. First relies on multibody
dynamics simulation of latch systems in MSC ADAMS.
The second implements static equilibrium computations
of the latch system in MS Excel.
MULTIBODY DYNAMICS APPROACH
The multibody system model used for inertia studies is a
modified version of the base latch system model built in
MSC ADAMS. The latch system is oriented as in the
actual vehicle setting. All friction is removed from the
system, meaning that the ratchet (a key latch element in
contact with the striker) does not oppose the release
motion of the pawl (or detente lever). All springs in the
model are converted to the average minimum torque (or
force) setting defined as
TAvMin = (1 − t spr / 100) * (Tinst − Trel ) / 2 ,
where tspr is the spring tolerance (with minus sign for
springs that cause latching and plus sign for rarely used
unlatching springs), Tinst is the spring installed torque,
and Trel is the spring torque at the instant when the
ratchet is released. As seen, the method evaluates the
system at most adverse conditions to provide additional
factors of safety.
The moment balance at the pawl is monitored, with all
latching forces contributing to positive moment and
unlatching forces to negative moment. A negative result
indicates the possibility of unlatching.
The procedure is calling for constant inertia loading and
therefore a static equilibrium analysis with gravity
acceleration appropriately set could theoretically be
carried out. However, it was observed that for many
multibody system packages, this type of analysis poses
significant numerical challenges and convergence to a
reliable solution cannot be found. The gaps in the
kinematic chain of real latch systems and multiple
contacts between parts are the main causes for these
problems. For this reason, an alternative approach was
adopted that relies on running a dynamic analysis, with
the system being accelerated in the direction opposite to
the inertia vector direction. A smooth acceleration profile
can be adopted, starting at 0G and increasing to 30G (or
other value) during a fixed time period (0.02 seconds
was enough for many practical latch systems). The total
simulation time should be adjusted after checking how
fast the system settles after initial transients.
Figure 1: Inertia loading vector orientation
To carry out the analysis in every direction, the
orientation of the inertia vector is defined with two angles
φ and θ as depicted in Figure 1. To cover the sphere
surface, a 10° sampling of orientation angles has been
adopted. Of course, not all combinations of the two
angles are necessary to consider. The angle φ has to
vary from 0 to 350° (36 values), and the angle θ should
vary from 10° to 170° (17 values). Moreover, for θ = 0
and θ = 180° (+Z and –Z directions), only one value of φ
should be assigned, since for this special case the angle
φ does not influence the inertia vector orientation. This
scheme produces the total of 614 combinations for the
two angles.
The model transition from the base setting to the one
(1) needed for 30G spherical analysis can be automated
with a macro. The system model has to be appropriately
set for the transition with the macro. All latch elements
have to be attached to one base part (directly or
indirectly). The base part should originally be fixed to the
ground part using one constraint that later on will be
removed by the macro. The base model undergoes a
series of modifications when the macro is executed.
Three design variables to be varied during analysis are
created (the angles φ and θ and the specified G level),
together with lists of their allowed values. Next, a
translational joint between the ground part and the base
part is created, with parametric orientation defined by
the angles φ and θ. To execute a specified acceleration
profile in the translational joint, a smooth function is used
ramping up at the specified G level. Also, an objective
function is created to monitor the final simulated value of
the torque at the pawl. In the final steps, the elements
not needed for the 30G spherical analysis are
deactivated, springs are modified to the average
minimum torque, and all friction elements are removed.
The 30G spherical analysis can now be launched using
the Design of Experiments utility found in most multibody
dynamics software packages. The orientation angles φ
and θ are the design variables. There are 36 levels for
the DOE study although only 17 values of θ are used.
The number of runs equals 614 (see above). The tabular
report of DOE session results shows the values of the
design objective (moment balance at the pawl) for all
614 cases. The plot of objective value versus the case
number can be used to visualize the results.
Alternatively, a contour map with the angles φ and θ on
the horizontal and vertical axes and colored levels of the
design objective can be produced. The design objective
lower than zero would indicate the system not satisfying
30G inertia requirements in a particular direction. To find
a threshold G level for that direction, another DOE
analysis with fixed angles φ and θ but with varying the
acceleration level can be launched.
The inertia analysis guidelines require including
gravitational effects during analysis only when gravity
contributes to unlatching. The most straightforward way
of implementing this is by making two DOE runs: one
with gravity acceleration set to zero and another with the
real value of the gravity acceleration. In the next step,
both sets of DOE results have to be compared with the
aim of finding, for each of the 614 inertia loading cases,
the lower value of the torque balance at the pawl.
To illustrate the application of the above methodology,
consider an exemplary latch system consisting of the
latch, inside handle connected to the latch with a cable,
and an outside handle with connecting rod as presented
in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Latch system model used for 35G inertia studies
The results of 35G spherical analysis for this system are
shown in Figure 3. As it can be seen, the moment
balance at the pawl is positive for all 614 inertia vector
directions and therefore, the system is 35G compliant.
Figure 3: Plot of the moment balance at the pawl vs case number for
35G spherical analysis
Figure 4: Exemplary part information worksheet
EXCEL BASED INERTIA COMPUTATIONS
An exemplary inertia loading analysis included in SAE
Recommended Practice [4] relies on static equilibrium
computations across a latch system using free body
diagrams. This approach may be appropriate for simple
latch designs but it becomes more cumbersome for
contemporary complex latch systems. In order to keep
the benefits of the free body approach (transparency,
easy third party verification) and at the same time
conduct effective error free computations an automated
analysis using spreadsheet or other Windows based
programs can be implemented. In this section an MS
Excel based inertia computation is described.
The latch system is divided into a number of assemblies
(e.g., O/S Handle, I/S Handle, and Latch) because each
assembly may have a different orientation with respect
to the vehicle coordinate system. A transformation
matrix is used to apply the inertia loading to the local
reference frame at each assembly. The worksheets for
particular assemblies require detailed information about
the parts such as mass, center of mass location, pivot
location, contact point locations with other parts. All this
information comes from the CAD model of the system.
An exemplary part drawing is shown in Figure 4.
Almost all latch springs can be assumed acting in the
latching direction but this rule should be adjusted if the
opposite is true (a rare case). General rules of static
should be applied to all subsystems (action/reaction
principle for transmitted forces, direction of contact
forces between two bodies perpendicular to the contact
plane, and so on). Gravitational force acting on a part is
included if it contributes to unlatching, otherwise it is not
included. Either minimum or maximum mass of each
part in the system is taken depending on which one
contributes more to unlatching.
CM
The user has to identify whether the transmitted forces
will cause latching or unlatching and also is it a direct
(both ways) connection or the force is only transmitted
when the system is unlatching. When a component has
a direct link to another component, the connection is
more complex to model. If the first component has a
resultant unlatching force, it will always transmit to the
next component. If the first component has a resultant
positive (latching) moment, it will only transmit this force
if the second component has a resultant negative
(unlatching) moment before including the interaction
between the two components. In order to simplify the
calculations, the negative moment is assumed to always
transmit. This is justified because if the second
component already has a positive latching moment,
adding an additional positive moment (which actually
does not transmit) still keeps the total moment positive
and not transmitting to the next component.
The calculation worksheet has all the formulas to
calculate the moment balance at the pawl. See Figure 5
Figure 5: Calculation worksheet for a latch subassembly
Figure 6: Contour plot of threshold accelerations for spherical inertia loading case
for an example of calculation worksheet for one
subassembly of a latch system. In one version of the
program, the user enters the G level he wants to
consider and the inertia loading direction (±X, ±Y or ±Z
that are opposite to the vehicle door acceleration).
When all the worksheets are filled, the moment balance
at the pawl is displayed. The G level and direction can
be varied to see the resultant moment at the pawl for
different cases. Another version of the Excel program
provides all direction (spherical) computations similar to
those described in the previous section. In addition, the
analysis was automated to produce the maximum values
of system accelerations for which the moment balance
at the pawl is still positive (threshold accelerations). A
contour map with the angles φ and θ on the horizontal
and vertical axes and colored levels of the threshold
accelerations can be produced. An exemplary diagram
in Figure 6 shows a typical output for all 614 inertia
loading directions resulting from 10° sampling of
orientation angles.
LATERAL INERTIA PULSE ANALYSIS
Another group of safety regulations (FMVSS 214 [2] and
certain government and automobile insurance
guidelines) contain dynamic crash test procedures and
requirements for vehicle side doors. The dynamic
requirements of FMVSS 214 are to be addressed in
inertia pulse analytical procedure. As opposed to
constant 30G inertia loading, vehicle acceleration varies
with time for this analysis.
Acceleration inputs to the inertia pulse analysis usually
come from two sources: they can be actual crash
accelerometer data or generic sine wave accelerations.
FEA generated accelerations could also be used, but the
correlation between them and physical tests seems to
be difficult to achieve. In this paper, the focus will be on
generic sine wave accelerations although the
methodology could be applied as well with actual crash
accelerations.
The acceleration will act in a single vehicle direction only
(for a side door, along Y axis, and for a rear door,
separately along X and Y axes). A family of curves can
be provided as defined in Equation (2), with each curve’s
duration dependent upon its amplitude:
 πt 
aY , X = AG sin   (for t < T),
T 
and aY , X = 0 (for t ≥ T). (2)
Typically, the largest pulse magnitude AG has the
shortest time duration T and the lowest pulse lasts for
the longest time period. The range of 50G to 500G is
often used for AG and the time duration T is set from 10
ms to 30 ms. Usually, only inboard accelerations are
considered reflecting impact side latch behavior.
Sometimes non-impact side scenarios are of interest, in
which case the outboard accelerations provide the input
to the system.
As in the previous section, the multibody system model
used for inertia pulse studies is a modified version of the
base latch system model built in MSC ADAMS. To be on
a safer side, all friction is removed from the system and
the ratchet is deactivated. This way, the seal load (the
force that the striker applies to the ratchet in primary
latched position) is not used in the pulse analysis since it
is possible that the seal load can go to zero during a
crash event. Minimum values are used for spring
installed forces or torques, together with the typical
nominal rates and no damping.
A latch system or subsystem is considered to have failed
the pulse analysis for a given pulse magnitude and time
duration if during simulation it moves enough to reach
80% of the minimum travel required to release the latch.
This is another measure aimed at increasing the safety
margin. Based on crash test results, the required levels
of accelerations necessary to pass are much lower for
the outboard accelerations than for inboard
accelerations.
The inertia pulse analysis, by its definition, requires
dynamic analysis within the multibody dynamics
software used. Sufficient time should be allowed for the
system to respond to the acceleration pulse. The model
transition from the base setting to the inertia pulse
analysis can be automated with a macro similar to the
one described in the previous section. The base model
undergoes a similar set of modifications as for the
constant 30G studies. Some of the differences are as
follows. This time four variables are created (the angles
φ and θ, the pulse amplitude, and its time duration). The
angles φ and θ are each set to 90º, orienting the
translational joint axis along +Y global axis for side
impact scenarios (see Figure 1). Alternatively, φ is set to
0º and θ to 90º to orient the joint along +X global axis for
rear door impact studies. Two objective functions are
used, one to monitor the maximum value of the pawl
angle and another one to monitor the minimum value of
the contact force between the pawl and its support. For
pulse studies, springs are modified to include minimum
installation forces or torques.
The inertia pulse analysis can now be launched using
the Design of Experiments utility. The amplitude pulse
AG and the time duration T that are treated as design
variables can be set as described above, with
appropriate signs for AG depending on the side of the
vehicle and the inboard / outboard direction. Usually 12
levels of design variables are used corresponding to 6
AG values for each positive or negative accelerations.
The tabular report of the DOE session shows the values
of the design objectives for all 6 cases (or 12 cases for
combined inboard / outboard studies). Plots of design
objectives versus time can be used to visualize the
results. A pawl angle lower than its 80% threshold
indicates the system passing inertia pulse of given
amplitude and time duration.
To illustrate the application of the above methodology an
exemplary rear door latch system is considered as
presented in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Rear door latch system model used for inertia pulse studies
Inertia pulses resulting from side impact are considered.
The results of the lateral pulse analysis are presented in
Figure 8. With the inertia loading in the positive global Y
direction (i.e., acceleration in –Y direction), the pawl
looses contact with the housing in four cases. However,
for the 150G pulse, the pawl rotates to a maximum of
1.8º. With its threshold value of 4.2º, the pawl angle is
within the limit imposed for this type of analysis.
Figure 8: Plots of the pawl angle vs time for 12 cases of the lateral pulse inertia loading
INERTIA CATCH DEVICES
In many actual crash situations, the latch system
compliance with the regulations mentioned above
appears to be insufficient to prevent door release.
Specifically, extremely high accelerations during crash
or sheet metal buckling can cause inadvertent latch
release. To secure the door in the latched position
inertia catch devices can be deployed in various
locations of the door latch system. One group of inertia
catch devices relies on using inertia catch lever triggered
by specific acceleration of vehicle door. The inertia lever
can be installed inside of the latch or at the outside or
inside door handles. When engaged, the inertia catch
device blocks system motion toward door release. The
development and tuning of the inertia catch devices is
done first by analytical means using multibody dynamics
software. The final step involves latch system validation
during crash tests.
The functioning of the lateral inertia catch relies on the
rotation of the inertia lever toward the engagement
position with the outside release lever (see Fig. 9) when
the latch is subjected to a lateral pulse input of a
specified magnitude. The engagement prevents the O/S
release lever rotation in the unlatching direction that is
caused, for example, by inertia forces acting on the
outside handle. Latch element positions and
Therefore, the system passes the lateral inertia pulse of
150G (20 ms duration) in +Y direction. With the inertia
loading in the negative global Y direction, the pawl does
not loose contact with the housing in any case. This
means that the system passes 450G in the –Y direction.
accelerometer signal measurements from side impact
tests provide the information at what time from the
beginning of the side impact event the unlatching may
occur and what is the latch lateral acceleration amplitude
during that period. Based on these observations, the
inertia catch device can be tuned to be operational
within the appropriate time when subjected to the lateral
inertia pulse of specified amplitude. For a successful
engagement to occur, the rotation of the outside release
lever during that time period should be smaller than a
certain angle identified from the latch CAD model and
system tolerance analysis.
Outside Release Lever
Inertia Lever
Inertia Lever
Figure 9: Latch system with inertia catch device
The mass and center of mass location of the inertia lever
as well as spring stiffness should be appropriately
chosen to ensure secure engagement. To this end, the
multibody system model was subjected to a series of
optimization runs. Similarly to the lateral inertia pulse
studies, either the measured or a generic sinusoidal
acceleration pulse shape may be adopted as inputs to
the system. The optimization runs were also helpful in
determining general requirements for the optimum
inertia catch system performance.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, the application of multibody dynamics
methodologies for efficient vehicle door latch system
modeling and analysis are discussed. Safety
considerations are adding a special importance for
reliable simulations and diagnostics of latch system
performance. Two approaches developed to analyze
inertia loading effects on latch systems are described.
One is related to monitoring the effects of constant 30G
(or any other G level) inertia loading in all directions
(spherical analysis) and another addresses inertia pulse
loading of specified G levels in certain directions. They
meet government requirements to determine the
performance of the vehicle door latch system subject to
crash events prior to vehicle homologation. These
analyses have to be carried out for every new or
modified latch system. As it is shown in the paper, the
constant G level inertia loading analyses can be carried
out using either the full multibody dynamics approach or
the set of static equilibrium computations with the free
body diagrams for all parts across the system. The
former approach was based on MSC ADAMS and the
latter was implemented in MS Excel.
Since in some crash situations the latch system
compliance with the government regulations may be
insufficient to prevent door release, the functioning of
one group of additional safety devices has been
considered. To secure the door in the latched position
inertia catch devices can be deployed in various
locations of the door latch system. They rely on using
inertia catch levers triggered by specific acceleration of
vehicle door. The development and tuning of the inertia
catch devices is done by analytical means followed by
latch system validation during crash tests.
The developed methodologies are currently in use at
Intier Automotive to ensure safety of vehicle door latch
systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution
of other group members in developing Intier Automotive
Inertia Analysis Standards. Michelle Kramer developed
Excel based spreadsheet for inertia computations.
REFERENCES
1. “Door locks and door retention components”,
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, MVSS 206,
USA, Reissued September 1998.
2. “Side impact protection”, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard, MVSS 214, USA, Reissued
December 1998.Type any references over these
paragraphs.
3. W. Schiehlen, “Multibody system dynamics: Roots
and perspectives”, Multibody System Dynamics, Vol.
1, pp. 149-188 (1997).
4. “Passenger car side door latch systems”, Surface
Vehicle Recommended Practice, SAE J839 (1991).