ME 513 Auto Body Structure

Mini Group Project

Presented By:

Chamal Abeysekera Anupam Garge Alphonso King Jr. Vishnu Nair Javier Somoza

1 of 32

Group 6

Table of Contents

Problem Statement and Project Scope .................................................................3 Steps in the design process..................................................................................4 Preliminary Styling Concepts ................................................................................5 Body Structure Concept........................................................................................7 Design for Bending ...............................................................................................9 Torsional Stiffness ..............................................................................................11 Crash Worthiness ...............................................................................................12 Future Work ........................................................................................................16 Appendix 1: Mass Calculations...........................................................................17 Appendix 2: Bending...........................................................................................19 Appendix 3: Torsion ............................................................................................26 Appendix 4: Crash Worthiness ...........................................................................29

2 of 32

Group 6

Problem Statement and Project Scope

Project Objective

Design a two passenger car, which is targeted to a single individual looking for an affordable new car with a target Price 15,000 USD The design must make a statement, stylish but affordable. It may be compared to a used car. We must apply the first order models present in class on creating and sizing a body structure for specific vehicle. Giving the restraints we have to design within the context of a real vehicle.

Scope

Styling Design for bending strength and stiffness Design for Torsional strength and stiffness Design for frontal, side and rollover impact Size all important structural members assuming rectangular sections

3 of 32

Group 6

Steps in the design process

1. Translate the customer preferences to design guidelines

- Easy to manufacture Affordable (15,000 USD) - minimize the use of costly materials (high strength steels) -Bold styling Design should make a statement -Work as much as possible without sacrificing styling (satisfying safety and stiffness requirements at the same time) - Maximize bending and torsional stiffness Sporty within the budget - Low centre of gravity - light Other Reduced trim Increased NVH Tolerance

2. Make preliminary styling concept sketches 3. Refine them based on practicality and ease of incorporation of structural requirements (front and side impact, headroom, shoulder room etc) 4. Develop chassis concepts that will help meet structural requirement (example: monocoque with central tunnel for maximum stiffness). Select the best one based on cost, stiffness, crashworthiness etc 5. Estimate the vehicle mass of a nominal or typical vehicle.(Appendix1) 6. Adjust the nominal mass found in step 5 for the unique customer needs by using the mass compounding computations to predict the particular vehicle mass. ((Appendix1) 7. Using this mass, Calculate static, dynamic, front and rear towing bending moments and size elements by the H point bend test (strength and stiffness) 8. Calculate Twist Ditch torque and check whether the body designed in step 7 meets requirements for torsional strength and stiffness. Resize any structural element if required 9. Design for crash worthiness (resize any member as required) i. ii. iii. Front impact Side impact A pillar Rollover test

4 of 32

Group 6

Preliminary Styling Concepts

Initial concept sketches

5 of 32

Group 6

Final styling concept

The decision was made to go in for a hatchback body style given the extremely compact dimensions of the car. A fastback or any other body-style that that involved a sloping roofline would have severely impacted headroom and ease of ingress and egress. Also a hatch back would make the car very practical in terms of luggage space, enough to carry one passenger some luggage and even a pet if the owner had one.

To make the design interesting and sporty, the car was given a high beltline with a shallow glass area and steeply raked windshield. The high beltline enabled us to raise the roofline without giving the car an ungainly Tall look. The resulting increase in the door height of 100mm above the minimum specified would add to the headroom inside the car and aid easy ingress and egress. The steeply raked A pillar meant a low angle between the A pillar and the roof rail, increasing the stiffness of the joint and helping with excellent performance in the A pillar rollover test.

6 of 32

Group 6

Body Structure Concept

Monocoque with a Backbone Structure The monocoque structure is the one most commonly used for passenger cars all over the world. The monocoque frame structural members around the window and door frames are built by folding the skin material. Compared to older techniques, in which a body is bolted to a frame, the monocoque is lighter and can be designed for higher bending and torsional stiffness. It is less expensive and suitable for mass production. Monocoque design is so sophisticated that our windshield and rear window glass now often make an important contribution to the designed structural strength of vehicle. Unfortunately, when a vehicle with a monocoque body design is involved in a serious accident, it may be more difficult to repair than a vehicle with a full frame. The frame will have a hydroformed section

7 of 32

Group 6

Backbone or the central tunnel Our design incorporates a backbone that has a cross-section of a rectangular box that runs along the center of our vehicle occupying the space between the seats. This box generally divides at the front, running along each side of the gearbox and engine up to the cross-member to which the front suspension pieces are attached. At the rear a similar triangular frame encloses the finaldrive housing and provides attaching points for our rear suspension. Light weight combined with high torsional rigidity is the feature of our frame design. Also, by choosing the backbone frame it will lower the load path to react torsion body-on-frame and by having the backbone structure tube/rail it will provide no or a very small amount of bending of the chassis and superstructure therefore: there is a safe and trouble-free transport of sensitive loads, special bodies or superstructures, high ride comfort, faster drive off-road, and long life of the chassis. If we had a rear wheel car the drive shafts and other components leading to the rear of the car is protected inside of the back bone structure tube. In our design we could have our chassis to operate in a frameless sense, which will make it possible to fix certain bodies directly to the chassis cross members.

Durability Rust is also more of a problem, since the structural metal is much thinner, making it more vulnerable, and must be repaired by cutting-out and welding rather than by simply bolting on new parts (as would be the case for a separate chassis). Older cars with separate chassis can still pass vehicle inspection tests with quite advanced rust in the sills (rocker panels) and pillars, whereas in more modern cars these parts are structural and would lead to a test failure. In our design it is very important to have the least amount of test failure because we have a two door car with essentially no B pillar.

8 of 32

Group 6

Design for Bending

* For all detailed calculations/ formulae, screenshots of simulations, refer appendix 2

Type of loading Static loads Dynamic effects Front Tow Rear Tow

Maximum Bending Moment 0.8 E6 N/mm 1.6 E6 N/mm 2.6 E6 N/mm 2.7 E6 N/mm

Compute resultant force at the H point that will 1. Produce the maximum bending moment of the above cases 2. Envelop the Bending moment diagrams of all the above cases And select the larger among them In our case, the second criterion determined the resulting equivalent force Feq= 11 ,770 N We took the following dimensions based on a typical vehicle and calculated the bending stiffness using the FEM Program

Beam Hinge pillar A pillar Roof rail Rocker Upper B pillar Lower B pillar

Height (mm) 100 35 25 120 150 80

Width (mm) 50 35 40 100 75 50

Thickness (mm) 1 1 1 2 1 1

The weight of one side frame is 14.26 KG

Assuming that there is no central tunnel, and assuming that half of Feq= 11 ,770 N ie 5885N acting on the H point of each of the side frames, The FEM program gave the following results.

9 of 32

Group 6

The maximum stresses were much lower than 207 N/mm2 (the yield stress of steel that is used) The stiffness of the side frame = 4,987 N/mm The joint rates were taken from the course pack. We found that the stiff ness of the panels was principally affected by the joint stiffness more than stiffness of the individual beams.

The bending stiffness of central tunnel is = 82,188 N/mm

1100 400 100

400

All dimensions are in mm

The central tunnel and the two side frames can be considered as three beams that are in parallel. Assuming that the cross members are very stiff, the deflection of the three beams would be equal and the load would be shared in the ratio of their stiffnesses.

Hence the central tunnel takes 90% of the load. Two cross members are provided to distribute the load between the central tunnel and the sideframes. The total bending stiffness of the structure is the sum of the stiffnesses of the three beams = 92,000 N/mm2.

Note: this value does not take into account the deflection of the cross members and the joint rates at the point where the central tunnel is welded to the front and rear panels. Nevertheless the high theoretical value shows the soundness of the concept.

Also the central tunnel was tested for buckling. (Calculations- appendix 2) The compressive stress on the top when 100% of the bending moment is taken by it= 60N/mm2 The critical buckling stress is 74 N/mm2.

When the body is designed for manufacturing, a few longitudinal ribs may be incorporated on the upper surface of the beam (with negligible increase in weight and cost) to drastically increase the bending stiffness.

10 of 32

Group 6

Torsional Stiffness
*For all detailed calculations/ formulae, screenshots of simulations, refer appendix 3

The Torsional stiffness of the passenger compartment was calculated using the excel program

The front and read windshield panel Gteff was taken from the course pack assuming (The stiffness contribution due to adhesive and glass was taken into account)

The roof panel was assumed to be crowned and decrease in Gteff was factored in. The side panel Gteff was calculated by applying a shear load on the roof and calculating deflection.

The torsional stiffness of the side frame was 14,744 Nmm/degree The torsional stiffness of the central beam was calculated to be 5.765E6 Nmm/degree. Since the two sideframes and central tunnel are in parallel, the torsional loads are divided in ratio of the stiffnesses and thus the central tunnel takes 99% 100% of the load. Hence the other members need not be designed for torsion.

The resistance to buckling of the central beam can be further increased by providing diagonal ribs on the side of the beam.

11 of 32

Group 6

Crash Worthiness
*Refer appendix 4 for detailed calculations and screenshots of simulations

Designing the body for crash worthiness

The front crash members transfer the impact load through a split load path under the body of the car so that the passenger compartment suffers minimum damage. The branched mid-rail transfers part of the impact load from the front crash member to the rocker and a part to the central tunnel whose sides are stiffened to prevent buckling.

Split load path for transmitting frontal impact loads (branched midrails)

Purpose built cross Member at bumper height to absorb side impact

While designing the front crash members, we have to achieve a b/t ratio > 62.5 because the members should fail by buckling and not yield. Each of the beams have to absorb an average force of 40,000N and the beam has to fit in the given space between the engine and wheel/tire envelope (hence it has to a square with a side of maximum length of 50mm). With a b/t ratio > 62.5 we could not find steel in North America with the yield strength high enough to withstand an average force of 40,000N. The steel with the highest yield strength that we found has strength of 980MPa. Even when using this, if b<50 and b/t>62.5, the beam cannot absorb 40,000N. If thickness in increased so that the beam can absorb 40,000N, b/t<62.5 and the beam fails by yield.

12 of 32

Group 6

The realistic width of the beam would be 80mm employing high strength steel of yield stress of 580 MPa. For this the suspension will have to be redesigned or the car will have to be widened by a total of 60mm to make the extra space for the crash members.

We tried calculating the strength of the midrails by limit analysis. The rail does not lie in the single plain and hence the angular displacement in three dimensional space will have to be calculated. But since there is interaction of the different members as they branch out and join, the limit analysis with he Mp values used in class would result in errors.

13 of 32

Group 6

Side impact

To increase the resistance to side impacts, a purpose built transverse beam is provided behind the passenger seats at bumper height. This increases the force that can be taken by the body during side impact. We have used a conservative estimate of Fside=82,144N based on the buckling load of this member alone. Considering the B pillar and the rocker, the value of Fside will be even higher. With the value Fside=82,144N, we get the change in velocity of the body of the person Vb as 10.91 (m/sec) which is very good for a car of this size.

We also designed a web on the B pillar Rocker joint that would make it very stiff. It will also tie in the transverse side impact beam with the Rocker, sharing the impact loads increasing Fside even higher.

Extra thickness to tie in the cross member to the Rocker and provide extra stiffness to the B pillar
Roof Crush

Purpose built beam at bumper height to absorb side impact

The roof crush requirement (FMVSS 216) requires that the A pillar-Rocker joint only cave in by 5 inches when a load equal to 1.5 times the vehicle weight is applied to the joint.

The steeply raked A-pillar means that the angle between the A-pillar and the rocker is only about 30 degrees. Hence a higher joint stiffness can be assumed. Even with the standard joint stiff ness of .38E7 Nmm/rad, when applying 1.5 times the vehicle weight of 1027 Kg (15,097N), the deformation was only 0.26 inches

14 of 32

Group 6

Depending on the nature of the impact and the vehicle involved, different criteria are used to determine the crashworthiness of the structure. We determined our structure to have a crashworthiness of 20g. The reason why we chose our crashworthiness from the chart solely depended on previous computer models or experiments, or retrospectively by analyzing crash outcomes. Several criteria are used to assess crashworthiness prospectively, including the deformation patterns of the vehicle structure, the acceleration experienced by the vehicle during an impact, and the probability of injury predicted by human body models. Injury probability is defined using injury criteria, which are mechanical parameters (e.g., force, acceleration, or deformation) that correlate with injury risk. A common injury criterion is the Head Injury criterion that we have to follow in this project. Crashworthiness is assessed retrospectively by analyzing injury risk in real-world crashes, often using regression or other statistical techniques to control for the myriad of confounders that are present in crashes. After calculations, we found that our crash efficiency to be around 75%. By having a crash efficiency of 75% we think that our car is considered to be safe when it is involved in an accident at a speed of 35 mph. See Figure below.

15 of 32

Group 6

Future Work
For meeting the front crash requirements, the design has to be altered so that there is more space between the engine and the tire envelope. All design had been presently done with members with rectangular sections. Cross sections have to be designed in detail Joints have to be designed so as to have maximum joint stiffness. (Different options like filling critical joints with foam to increase stiffness can be considered) NVH Co Detailed cost analysis has to be performed

16 of 32

Group 6

Appendix 1: Mass Calculations

Estimating Mass of the Structure
Donald E. Malen, 2003

Historical Fraction of GVM for Small Cars

Initial Mass Estimate 201.9 158.7 23.3 22.0 26.7 107.3 50.8 45.6 10.5 53.8 22.1 11.6 19.8 Passengers and Cargo 140.0 82.5 Plan View Area m2 5.865 790.6 1013.1 140.0 82.5 754.1 976.6

Body Non-structural Body Structural Ft Susp Rr Susp Brakes Engine Trans&Dr Shafts Fuel System&exhaust Steering Wheels &Tires Electrical Cooling bumpers&brackets passengers @70kg each cargo CURB (kg) GVM (kg)

0.1993 0.1566 0.0230 0.0217 0.0263 0.1059 0.0501 0.0450 0.0104 0.0531 0.0218 0.0114 0.0196 0.2098 0.0458 0.7360 Kg 1.0000 Kg

Donald E. Malen, 2003

Iteration Number for Compounding Historic Influence Coefficients for Small Cars Initial Mass Estimate 201.9 158.7 23.3 22.0 26.7 107.3 50.8 45.6 10.5 53.8 22.1 11.6 19.8 140.0 82.5 754.1 0.42 976.6 Initial New Mass 190.0 200.0 23.3 22.0 26.7 107.3 50.8 45.6 10.5 53.8 22.1 11.6 19.8 140.0 82.5 783.5 1006.0

1 190.0 204.9 24.2 22.4 27.2 110.3 51.7 45.6 11.4 54.5 22.3 11.6 20.0 140 82.5 795.9 1018.4

2 190.0 206.9 24.5 22.5 27.3 111.5 52.1 45.6 11.8 54.8 22.3 11.6 20.1 140 82.5 801.1 1023.6

3 190.0 207.8 24.7 22.6 27.4 112.0 52.3 45.6 12.0 54.9 22.4 11.6 20.1 140 82.5 803.2 1025.7

4 190.0 208.2 24.7 22.6 27.5 112.2 52.4 45.6 12.0 54.9 22.4 11.6 20.1 140 82.5 804.2 1026.7

5 190.0 208.3 24.8 22.6 27.5 112.3 52.4 45.6 12.1 54.9 22.4 11.6 20.1 140 82.5 804.5 1027.0

6 190.0 208.4 24.8 22.6 27.5 112.4 52.4 45.6 12.1 55.0 22.4 11.6 20.1 140 82.5 804.7 1027.2

7 190.0 208.4 24.8 22.6 27.5 112.4 52.4 45.6 12.1 55.0 22.4 11.6 20.1 140 82.5 804.8 1027.3

Body Non-structural Body Structural Ft Susp Rr Susp Brakes Engine Trans&Dr Shafts Fuel System&exhaust Steering Wheels &Tires Electrical Cooling bumpers&brackets passengers @70kg each cargo CURB (kg) GVM (kg)

0 0.166 0.029 0.012 0.016 0.1 0.032 0 0.031 0.022 0.006 0 0.006 0 0

17 of 32

Group 6

GVW is 1027kg after 7 iterations Curb Weight is 804.8 after 7 iterations

Note: Body structural mass was increased due to the high stiffness requirements The Trim mass was deceased since this car is built to a price and NVH tolerance is higher for the consumer segment.

18 of 32

Group 6

Appendix 2: Bending
Static Load Diagrams

Length Increm ent Front End C oordinate Front Support Position R ear Support Position End C oordinate

100 m m 0 800 2900 3500

Front Support Load R ear Support Load Total W eight

5000 0 -5000 -10000

Load (N)

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Shear (N)
4000 2000 0 -2000 -4000
Shear (N)

373.58 553.11 732.65 912.18 1091.7 1271.3 1976.6 2681.9 -2419.6

-2240 -2060.5 -1880.9 -1701.4 -1521.9

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Moment (Nmm)
Bending Moment (Nmm)

0.E+00

4.E+04

9.E+04

2.E+05

3.E+05

4.E+05

5.E+05

7.E+05

1.E+06

7.E+05

5.E+05

3.E+05

1.E+05

-7.E+04

2.E+06 1.E+06 5.E+05 0.E+00 -5.E+05 -1.E+06

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

19 of 32

Group 6

Front Towing

Length Increment Front End Coordinate Front Support Position Rear Support Position End Coordinate

100 mm 0 0 2900 3500

Front Support Load Rear Support Load Total Weight

3824.1 N 6512.1 N 10336.3 N

5000 0 -5000 -10000

5000 0

L o a d (N )

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Shear (N)
S h e a r (N )

-3450.6

-3271 -3091.5

-2912 -2732.4 -2552.9 -1847.6 -1142.3 -962.74 -783.2 -603.66 -424.13 -244.59 -65.055

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

-5000
0.E+00 -3.E+05 -7.E+05 -1.E+06 -1.E+06 -2.E+06 -2.E+06 -2.E+06 -2.E+06 -2.E+06 -2.E+06 -2.E+06 -2.E+06 -2.E+06

Moment (Nmm)
B e n d in g M o m e n t (N m m ) 1.E+06 0.E+00 -1.E+06 -2.E+06 -3.E+06
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

20 of 32

Group 6

Rear Towing
Length Increment Front End Coordinate Front Support Position Rear Support Position End Coordinate 100 mm 0 800 3500 3500

Front Support Load Rear Support Load Total Weight

6404.4 N 3931.9 N 10336.3 N

5000 0 -5000 -10000

5000

L o ad (N )

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Shear (N)
S h e a r (N )

373.58 553.11 732.65 912.18 1091.7 1271.3 1976.6 2681.9

-3543 -3363.4 -3183.9 -3004.3 -2824.8 -2645.3

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

-5000

Moment (Nmm)
2.E+06 1.E+06 0.E+00 -1.E+06 -2.E+06 -3.E+06
B e n d in g M o m e n t (N m m )

0.E+00

4.E+04

9.E+04

2.E+05

3.E+05

4.E+05

5.E+05

7.E+05

1.E+06

6.E+05

3.E+05

-5.E+04

-4.E+05

-6.E+05

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Equivalent Load

Front End Coordinate Front Support Position Rear Support Position End Coordinate

0 0 3500 3500

Front Support Load Rear Support Load Total Weight

3136.0 N 3724.0 N 6860.0 N

21 of 32

Group 6

Load (N)

10000 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

-10000
-3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136 -3136

Shear (N)
Shear (N)
5000 0 -5000
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Moment (Nmm)
Bending M om ent (Nm m )
4.E+06 2.E+06 0.E+00 -2.E+06 -4.E+06 -6.E+06 -8.E+06

0.E+00

-3.E+05

-6.E+05

-9.E+05

-1.E+06

-2.E+06

-2.E+06

-2.E+06

-3.E+06

-3.E+06

-3.E+06

-3.E+06

-4.E+06

-4.E+06

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Figure

Bending Strength Load for the H point Bending Test

To find the bending strength load for H we made several assumptions. First we drew the load bending moment diagrams for static load, by taking into account the motor, chassis, gas tank, electrical components, etc. Then we found the moment due to all of these components. To take into account the dynamic loading we assume that the static moment is doubled similarly, we drew the bending moment diagrams for the front towing and the rear towing. Then considering the entire chassis as a simply supported beam we find the position and also the magnitude of a single force so that there resulting bending moment at any point due to it is greater than the bending moment of the one above. We find that the value of the moment is 6 MN/mm and the resulting force is 11770N. See Calculations below for the force at point H.

a*b * F = 6 x106 N * mm a+b 6 x106 N * mm *(2050mm) F= (1100*950)mm F = 11770N

22 of 32

Group 6

Bending Stiffness and Strength analysis of side panel Structure

Roof Rail h= w= t= Kj= 3.80E+06 Nmm/rad h= w= t= 35 35 1 Izz= A= mass= 2.86E+04 140 0.822

25 40 1

Izz= A= mass=

1.51E+04 130 0.661635 Kj= 1.00E+10 Nmm/rad

w h w h w h

h= w= t=

150 75 1

Izz= A= mass=

1.41E+06 450 1.624

y Kj= 2.80E+07 Nmm/rad h= w= t= 100 50 1 Izz= A= mass= 4.17E+05 300 1.527

h w w h

x
h w

Kj= 1.00E+10 Nmm/rad h= w= t= 80 50 1 Izz= A= mass= 2.45E+05 260 1.358

Kj= 3.50E+07 Nmm/rad ROCKER h= w= t= w is width into screen (mm) h is section height (mm) t is thickness (mm) mass in Kg 120 100 2 Izz= A= mass= 2.02E+06 880 8.26848

Kj= 1.00E+10 Nmm/rad

U PDATE MODEL

SOLVE MODEL

Beam Mass= (one side)

14.26 Kg

23 of 32

Group 6

The Central Tunnel/ Backbone

F 1100 400 100 400

All dimensions are in mm

The stiff ness of the central tunnel is

3EIL a 2b 2 E = 200, 000 N / mm 2 K= I= (b + t )(h + t )3 (b t )(h t )3 12 12 3 2 h hb I t( + ) = 1.87 107 mm 4 6 2 K = 82,188 N / mm 2

Designing stiff ness of the side frame

The first iteration for bending stiff ness was performed with realistic values for the joint stiffness (refer appendix 1), and practical values for the dimensions of the beams (appendix 1). The stiffness of the side frame thus obtained was 4987N/mm

Hence if Msf is the moment taken by each of the side frame and Mt the moment taken by the tunnel then
Mt Stiffness of the Tunnel 82,188 = = 2 M sf 2 Stiffness of the side frame 2 4985

24 of 32

Group 6

Hence the tunnel takes 90% of the load

The Bending stress is MZ = I Assuming that the tunnel takes 50% Bending Moment

2.79 106 200 = 1.87 107 = 29.84 N / mm 2 Assuming that the tunnel takes 100% of the Bending Moment

2.79 2 106 200 1.87 107 = 59.68 N / mm 2 The Buckling stress for the beam is 748355 748355 Buckling = = = 74.84 N / mm 2 2 2 b 100 t 1 Hence even if the tunnel takes 100% of the bending moment, it will not buckle

25 of 32

Group 6

Appendix 3: Torsion
Computing shear loads on the various panels of the passenger compartment

Computing GT Effective of the side panel

26 of 32

Group 6

Computing the Torsional stiffness of the passenger compartment Omitting the central tunnel

Twist ditch torque

1 = track Waxle 2 1 = 1400(mm) 5281( N ) 2 = 3.7 106 Nmm

27 of 32

Group 6

Now this is divided between the passenger compartment and the central tunnel

The stiff ness of the Passenger compartment = 14744 Nmm/degree

Stiff ness of the central tunnel

GJ eff L 4 A2t 4(400 100) 2 t = = = 3.3E8( Nmm / Rad ) = 5.765 E 6( Nmm / deg ree) 1000 S

J eff

Hence the central beam takes 99.5 ie 100% of the torsional load.

1500 400 100

All dimensions are in mm

28 of 32

Group 6

Appendix 4: Crash Worthiness

Front Impact
Crush Space ( ) = 600mm Velocity (v) = 13.3m/sec (35 mph) Assume amax = 20g

amax

v2 1 1 = i i 2

=75.2% which is well within achievable

Fmax = amax M Fmax = 20 9.8 1027 Fmax = 2154,931( N ) Favg = Fmax Favg = 161, 620( N )
The crush load taken by each of the font 2 crash members is 25% of Favg = 40,405N, and discussed in the report, given that the space constraints restrict the width of the members to 50 mm, it sis not possible to design the beams even with the highest quality steel with yield of 980mpa.

29 of 32

Group 6

The design that we could come up with high strength steel of reasonable yield strength of 580 N/mm2 is of width 80mm. Hence as discussed the vehicle will have to be repackaged.

Roof Crush

The Roof crush load = 1.5 times the vehicle weight =1.5x1027(kg) =15.097 N Applied at the joint between the A pillar and the roof rail. Maximum Permissible deflection= 5 inches By the FEM analysis the deflection In vertical direction= 5.01mm In Horizontal direction= 4.27mm Therefore total deflection= 6.6mm= .26 inches (<<5 inches)

30 of 32

Group 6

Roof Rail h= w= t= Kj= 3.80E+06 Nmm/rad h= w= t= 35 35 1 Izz= A= mass= 2.86E+04 140 0.822

25 40 1

Izz= A= mass=

1.51E+04 130 0.661635 Kj= 1.00E+10 Nmm/rad

w h w h w h

h= w= t=

150 75 1

Izz= A= mass=

1.41E+06 450 1.624

y Kj= 2.80E+07 Nmm/rad h= w= t= 100 50 1 Izz= A= mass= 4.17E+05 300 1.527

h w w h

x
h w

Kj= 1.00E+10 Nmm/rad h= w= t= 80 50 1 Izz= A= mass= 2.45E+05 260 1.358

Kj= 3.50E+07 Nmm/rad ROCKER h= w= t= 120 100 2 Izz= A= mass= 2.02E+06 880 8.26848

Kj= 1.00E+10 Nmm/rad

31 of 32

Group 6

Side impact

Fside was increased to 82,144N from 60,000N based on the crush strength on the transverse crash beam alone. This is a conservative vale ignoring all the other members.

32 of 32

Group 6