Sandeep VSS&I Assignment

M.S.
Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies

Postgraduate Engineering and Management Programmes (PEMP)
#470-P Peenya Industrial Area, 4
th
Phase, Bengaluru-560 058
Tel; 080 4906 5555, website: www.msrsas.org

ASSIGNMENT
Module Code APD 510
Module Name Structure, Safety and Impact
Course M.Sc in Automotive Product Design
Department Automotive and Aeronautical Engg.
Name of the Student Sandeep Nair
Reg. No BYB0910019
Batch Full-Time -2010 .
Module Leader Dr. Vinod K. Banthia

P
O
S
T
G
R
A
D
U
A
T
E

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

A
N
D

M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T

P
R
O
G
R
A
M
M
E

(
P
E
M
P
)

MSRSASPostgraduate Engineering and Management Programme- PEMP

Structure,Safety and Impact ii

Declaration Sheet
Student Name Sandeep Nair
Reg. No BYB0910019
Course Msc. Engg in APD Batch Full-Time -2010.
Batch Full Time-2010
Module Code APD-510
Module Title Structure, Safety and Impact
Module Date 01-08-2011
to
27.08.2011
Module Leader Dr. Vinod K. Banthia
Extension requests:
Extensions can only be granted by the Head of the Department in consultation with the module leader.
Extensions granted by any other person will not be accepted and hence the assignment will incur a penalty.
Extensions MUST be requested by using the Extension Request Form, which is available with the ARO.
A copy of the extension approval must be attached to the assignment submitted.
Penalty for late submission
Unless you have submitted proof of mitigating circumstances or have been granted an extension, the
penalties for a late submission of an assignment shall be as follows:
Up to one week late: Penalty of 5 marks
One-Two weeks late: Penalty of 10 marks
More than Two weeks late: Fail - 0% recorded (F)
All late assignments: must be submitted to Academic Records Office (ARO). It is your responsibility to
ensure that the receipt of a late assignment is recorded in the ARO. If an extension was agreed, the
authorization should be submitted to ARO during the submission of assignment.

To ensure assignment reports are written concisely, the length should be restricted to a limit
indicated in the assignment problem statement. Assignment reports greater than this length may
incur a penalty of one grade (5 marks). Each delegate is required to retain a copy of the
assignment report.
Declaration
The assignment submitted herewith is a result of my own investigations and that I have conformed to the
guidelines against plagiarism as laid out in the PEMP Student Handbook. All sections of the text and
results, which have been obtained from other sources, are fully referenced. I understand that cheating and
plagiarism constitute a breach of University regulations and will be dealt with accordingly.
Signature of the student Date
Submission date stamp
(by ARO)

Signature of the Module Leader and date Signature of Head of the Department and date


Structure,Safety and Impact iii

Contents
Declaration Sheet ..................................................................................................................... ii
Contents ................................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ ix
Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1
1. 1 Introduction: ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Stance Taken on the Statement: .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Importance Understanding the Physical Phenomenon: ................................................................. 1
1.3.1 Material Failure Modelling: ................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Mesh-Independent Fasteners: ................................................................................................ 2
1.3.3 Occupant Safety: .................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.4 Computing Performance: ....................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Advantage of using Simulation Software for Better crashworthiness design: .............................. 3
1.5 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Introduction: .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Deck Preparation For The simulation: .......................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Problem statement - Car model and Pole Barrier Specification: ........................................... 5
2.2.2 LS-Dyna Pre-processing
[]
: ..................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Simulation: .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.1 Impact with A-Pillar: ............................................................................................................. 7
2.3.2 Impact with B-Pillar: .............................................................................................................. 9
2.3.3 Impact with C-Pillar: ............................................................................................................ 11
2.4 Review and discussion of results: ............................................................................................... 12
2.4.1 Resultant contact forces: ...................................................................................................... 12

Structure,Safety and Impact iv

2.4.1.1 A-Pillar: ............................................................................................................................. 12
2.4.1.2 B-Pillar: ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.4.1.3 C-Pillar: ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.4.2 Review of Resultant Contact Force: .................................................................................... 14
2.4.3 Resultant Acceleration and Deformation: ............................................................................ 15
2.4.3.1 A-Pillar: ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.4.3.2 B-Pillar: ............................................................................................................................. 17
2.4.3.3 C-Pillar: ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.4.4 Review of Acceleration and Deformation Plots: ................................................................. 20
2.4.5 Energy Plots: ........................................................................................................................ 20
2.4.6 Comparison of Nature and Extent of Damage along the Vehicle side: ............................... 22
2.5 Maximum Intrusion Level and its effect on the occupants: ........................................................ 23
2.5.1 Maximum Intrusion Location in the Pole Impact at A-Pillar: ............................................. 23
2.5.2 Maximum Intrusion Location in the Pole Impact at B-Pillar: .............................................. 24
2.5.3 Maximum Intrusion Location in the Pole Impact at C-Pillar: .............................................. 24
2.5.4 Possible Effect on Occupants: .............................................................................................. 25
2.6 Possible Suggestion for reducing intrusion and its Simulation: .................................................. 27
2.6.1 Improved Design: ................................................................................................................. 27
2.6.2 Section: ................................................................................................................................ 27
2.6.3 Material: ............................................................................................................................... 27
2.6.4 Simulation for Modified A-Pillar: ........................................................................................ 28
2.6.5 Simulation Result Comparison: ........................................................................................... 28
2.7 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 30
3.1 Introduction: ................................................................................................................................ 30
3.2 Environment Modeling and Simulation: ..................................................................................... 30
3.3 Simulation without any Seat Belt: .............................................................................................. 31
3.3.1 Head Injury Criteria: ............................................................................................................ 32

Structure,Safety and Impact v

3.3.2 Head and Thorax Acceleration: ........................................................................................... 32
3.3.3 Chest Deflection: ................................................................................................................. 32
3.4 Simulation with Lap Belt: ........................................................................................................... 33
3.5 Simulation with Lap and Shoulder Belts: ................................................................................... 35
3.6 Comparison of Dummy Kinematics and Discussion: ................................................................. 37
3.6.1 Dummy Kinematics in Sled Test without any Belt: ............................................................. 37
3.6.2 Dummy Kinematics in Sled Test with Lap Belt: ................................................................. 38
3.6.3 Dummy Kinematics in Sled Test with Shoulder and Lap Belt: ........................................... 39
3.6.4 Comparison of Result and Discussion: ................................................................................ 40
3.7 Changes in Injury levels:............................................................................................................. 40
3.8 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................. 41
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 42
4.1 Module learning outcome: .......................................................................................................... 42
4.2 Summary and Conclusion: .......................................................................................................... 43
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 44


Structure,Safety and Impact vi

Abstract
Indian automobile industry is one of the worlds largest and fastest growing
automobile markets. The safety of the vehicle having the huge role in it in the side of
customers. Automobile safety is the study and practice of vehicle design, construction, and
equipment to minimize the occurrence and consequences of automobile accidents.
Crashworthiness testing has been used for decades to evaluate the safety of motor vehicles.
Computer crash simulations provide an efficient and economical approach to extending
safety testing to include children and a far greater number of crash scenarios. As a result the
vehicle with better safety (crashworthiness) can come out for the passenger
A brief literature survey on the understanding of physical phenomena for leading the
designer to better crash worthiness. The simulation software will help the automobile
manufacturers in reducing the huge costs involved in real crash testing procedures. However,
in some quarters, concern is being raised that just using simulation software without
understanding the physical phenomenon can lead to inefficient and inadequate designs.so the
stance is clear that for further innovation in and developments of design for automotive crash
safety, understanding the underlying physical phenomenon ,on the part of designers is
essential
In the second chapter B discussed about in an automobile, among all types of
accidents, side impact accidents place the driver and the occupants of the vehicle at higher
risk. Hence, understanding the performance of the components at different locations. A, B
and C pillars, along its length is very important to be able to come up with adequate design of
these components. Simulations of transient dynamic crash phenomena by LS-Dyna, in which
the components undergo non-linear deformation, provide designer information to assess
different design alternatives and their effect on the crashworthiness of the automobile.

In the third chapter C, after going through the exercise we understand the trend of
injury in an actual accident. The shoulder belt or three point belts will provide good safety to
the rear middle passenger. Even single lap belt is also providing effective safety in protecting
the rear middle occupant. Without belts there are chances for fatal injury for rear middle
passenger. By simulating through the sled test for rear middle seat the shoulder and lap belt is
effective safety for rear middle passengers.


Structure,Safety and Impact vii

List of Figures
Figure 2. 1 Impact & Pole Impact test. ................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. 2 Car model and Pole Barrier. ................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. 3 Pole Position for Impact with A-Pillar. ................................................................................ 7
Figure 2. 4 Pole Impact on the A-Pillar after 4ms. ................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. 5 Front View of Car Structure after Impact on A-Pillar with the Pole. ................................... 8
Figure 2. 6 Pole Position for Impact with B-Pillar. ................................................................................ 9
Figure 2. 7 Pole Impact on the B-Pillar after 4ms................................................................................... 9
Figure 2. 8 Car Structure Deformation at B-Pillar Area. ...................................................................... 10
Figure 2. 9 Front View of Car Structure after Impact on B-Pillar with the Pole. ................................. 10
Figure 2. 10 Pole Position for Impact with C-Pillar. ............................................................................ 11
Figure 2. 11 Pole Impact on the C-Pillar after 4ms............................................................................... 11
Figure 2. 12 Back View of Car Structure after Impact on C-Pillar with the Pole. ................................ 12
Figure 2. 13 Resultant Contact Force vs. Time for the Impact at A-Pillar. .......................................... 13
Figure 2. 14 Resultant Contact Force vs. Time for the Impact at B-Pillar. ........................................... 13
Figure 2. 15 Resultant Contact Force vs. Time for the Impact at C-Pillar. ........................................... 14
Figure 2. 16 Nodes Selected on A- Pillar for Plots. .............................................................................. 15
Figure 2. 17 Resultant Acceleration Plot for A-Pillar. .......................................................................... 16
Figure 2. 18 Deformation Nodal Plot at A-Pillar. ................................................................................. 16
Figure 2. 19 Nodes Selected on B-Pillar for Plots. ............................................................................... 17
Figure 2. 20 Resultant Acceleration Plot for B-Pillar. .......................................................................... 17
Figure 2. 21 Deformation Nodal Plot at B-Pillar. ................................................................................. 18
Figure 2. 22 Nodes Selected on C-Pillar for Plots. ............................................................................... 18
Figure 2. 23 Resultant Acceleration Plot for C-Pillar. .......................................................................... 19
Figure 2. 24 Deformation Nodal Plot at C-Pillar. ................................................................................. 19
Figure 2. 25 Energy plots for A-Pillar. ................................................................................................. 20
Figure 2. 26 Energy plots for B-Pillar. .................................................................................................. 21

Structure,Safety and Impact viii

Figure 2. 27 Energy plots for C-Pillar. .................................................................................................. 21
Figure 2. 28 Damage Comparison of Counters. .................................................................................... 22
Figure 2. 29 Couture and Plot for Maximum Intrusion for the Impact at A-Pillar. .............................. 23
Figure 2. 30 Couture and Plot for Maximum Intrusion for the Impact at B-Pillar. .............................. 24
Figure 2. 31 Couture and Plot for Maximum Intrusion for the Impact at C-Pillar. .............................. 25
Figure 2. 32 A-Pillar with Modified Section. ....................................................................................... 28
Figure 2. 33 Compression Plot for Resultant Displacement of Modified A-Pillar. .............................. 29
Figure 3. 1 Dummy with Modelled Environment. ................................................................................ 31
Figure 3. 2 HIC Value obtained by Simulation without any Belts. ...................................................... 32
Figure 3. 3 Head and Thorax Acceleration Plots with Kinematics of Dummy. ................................... 32
Figure 3. 4 Chest Displacement of the Dummy without Seat Belts. ..................................................... 33
Figure 3. 5 HIC Value obtained by Simulation with only Lap Belt...................................................... 34
Figure 3. 6 Head, Thorax Acceleration Plots with Kinematics of Dummy (Lap Belt). ........................ 34
Figure 3. 7 Chest Displacement of the Dummy with Lap Belts. .......................................................... 35
Figure 3. 8 HIC Value obtained by Simulation with Shoulder and Lap Belt. ...................................... 35
Figure 3. 9 Head, Thorax Acceleration Plots with Dummy of shoulder and Lap Belt. ........................ 36
Figure 3. 10 Chest Displacement of the Dummy with Shoulder and Lap Belts. .................................. 36
Figure 3. 11 Kinematics of Dummy without any Belts. ....................................................................... 37
Figure 3. 12 Kinematics of Dummy with Lap Belts. ............................................................................ 38
Figure 3. 13 Kinematics of Dummy with Lap and Shoulder Belts. ...................................................... 39
Figure 3. 14 Frequency of the injury criteria. ....................................................................................... 41


Structure,Safety and Impact ix

List of Tables
Table 2. 1 Material Properties of Pole Barrier. ....................................................................................... 5
Table 2. 2 Result Comparison of impact. .............................................................................................. 22
Table 2. 3 Injury Criteria. ..................................................................................................................... 26
Table 3. 1 Comparison of Result by Different Simulation. .................................................................. 40
Table 3. 2 Occupant Injury Comparison. .............................................................................................. 41


Structure,Safety and Impact x

Nomenclature

List of Symbols
NIL

Acronyms
FEA Finite Element Analysis
MADYMO Mathematical Dynamic Models
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
HIC Head Injury criteria.
3D Three Dimensional

M.S Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies Postgraduate Engineering and Management Programme (PEMP)

Structure,Safety and Impact 1 1

CHAPTER 1
Debate on Design Innovations in Crash and Safety
1. 1 Introduction:
Automobile safety is the study and practice of vehicle design, construction, and
equipment to minimize the occurrence and consequences of automobile accidents.
Improvements in roadway and automobile designs have steadily reduced injury and death
rates in all first world countries. For the past few decades, automobile manufacturers are keen
in developing or modifying their products with better crash worthiness. In this competitive
world the computer simulation holds vast, yet unrealized, potential to supplement vehicle
safety (crashworthiness) testing. Crashworthiness testing has been used for decades to
evaluate the safety of motor vehicles. Computer crash simulations provide an efficient and
economical approach to extending safety testing to include children and a far greater number
of crash scenarios. They have been used as a standard, validated tool by vehicle and restraint
manufacturers to evaluate the safety of new designs for occupants. The Nonlinear analysis is
majorly used for crash analysis of the car. The purpose of a crash analysis is to see how the
car will behave in a frontal or sideways collision. As a result the vehicle with better safety
(crashworthiness) can come out for the passenger. Therefore, the safety of an automobile
solely depends on crash test and simulations so the vehicle designer is also should know the
crash mechanics for the better design.
In this section this part of assignment the debate is carried out for innovation design to
know the physics phenomena is necessary or through the crash simulations softwares can be
design.
1.2 Stance Taken on the Statement:
Stand taken: For further innovation in and developments of designs for automotive
crash safety, understanding of the underlying physical phenomenon, on the part of the designers,
is essential. The arguments are listed to support the stand taken.
1.3 Importance Understanding the Physical Phenomenon:
Understanding of physical phenomena of a vehicle structure is very important in
a crash simulation. Simulating a vehicle's crashworthiness is one of the most difficult, yet
crucial, challenges facing automotive engineers today. The physical phenomena that

Structure,Safety and Impact 2

constitute a vehicle crash are extremely complex and the time frame of the event is brief.
Material deformation occurs in a split second and has life-or-death consequences. The
intent of crashworthiness simulation is to model, as realistically as possible, exactly what
happens during a vehicle impact. What happens is that parts and assemblies crush, buckle,
twist, shear, stretch and tear. Acceleration acts on the bodies of vehicle occupants. An
analysis model that accurately simulates the physics involved will contribute enormously to
vehicle safety. New technologies for crashworthiness simulation are continually being
invented by some developers of FEA software
[1]
.
1.3.1 Material Failure Modelling:
Automotive manufacturers are actively exploring the potential of new structural
materials to reduce vehicle weight and improve crashworthiness. The materials include
various aluminum and magnesium alloys, as well as advanced high-strength steels. But these
materials sometimes fail differently than the conventional portfolio of automotive structural
materials.
Take aluminum, for example. Experimental studies show that metal sheets and thin-
walled extrusions made of aluminum alloys may undergo ductile failure due to nucleation,
growth and coalescence of voids in the material. Cracks within shear bands may cause shear
failure. Other failures are caused by localized instabilities.
1.3.2 Mesh-Independent Fasteners:
Automotive assemblies often contain thousands of spot welds. The manner in which
spot welds undergo damage and fail during a crash can obviously influence a vehicle's
structural crashworthiness.
1.3.3 Occupant Safety:
To predict what will happen to the occupants of a vehicle during a crash, engineering
analysts model the interaction of crash dummies with automotive seats, seat belt restraint
systems and supplemental air bags.
1.3.4 Computing Performance:
To better support crash modeling and similarly complex simulations, has advanced its
parallel computing speed using the domain decomposition method. In the case of crash
simulation, which involves significant buckling behavior, very slight numerical differences
arising from the order in which information is exchanged between domains can lead to


noticeable inconsistencies in results when the same model is run using different numbers of
domains.
1.4 Advantage of using Simulation Software for Better crashworthiness
design:
Simulations have become an important design tool in improving the safety of
occupants in vehicles during a crash. Historically, the design process heavily relied on
experimental testing, which was dependent on the availability of parts, test facilities and man
power. Now with using the computing power crash simulation can perform which can same
as in real world. The use of simulation software like MADYMO has greatly assisted in the
investigation of restraint systems. MADYMO simulations have enabled the designer to have
a greater understanding in the impact behavior of complex biomechanical systems,
particularly if used in conjunction with experimental simulations
[2]
.
Calculation of non-linear physical phenomenon in short time duration such as large
deformations, elastic-plastic and dynamic contact that other non-linear dynamics
programs are not able to manage.
Adoption of explicit solver for time stamp history allows to support complicated
phenomenons such as crush, drop, plastic working, penetration/crack/fracture for
which the implicit solver does not offer sufficient capabilities.
A wide range of simulations and analysis, providing 2D/3D explicit scheme and 3D
implicit scheme.
At present so many accidents are taking place, by keeping this an idea the structure of
the automobile should be improved. The designer has to analyze the structure before
and after the impact and come up with the solution.
1.5 Conclusion:
A brief literature survey on the understanding of physical phenomena for leading the designer
to better crash worthiness. The simulation software will help the automobile manufacturers in
reducing the huge costs involved in real crash testing procedures. However, in some quarters,
concern is being raised that just using simulation software without understanding the physical
phenomenon can lead to inefficient and inadequate designs.so the stance is clear that for
further innovation in and developments of design for automotive crash safety, understanding
the underlying physical phenomenon ,on the part of designers is essential.


CHAPTER 2
Crashworthiness of the Automobile
2.1 Introduction:
Crashworthiness is one of the major criteria which have to be considered while
designing a vehicle. The automobile crashes involve frontal crash, side impact, rear impact,
offset crash etc. Of this frontal crash provides more injuries and fatalities to the occupants
mainly claiming lives. The percentage of side impact and rear impact crashes is less when
compared to the frontal crashes, but the side impact crashes makes more severe injuries and
deaths often because of less vehicle structure at the sides to absorb the impact energy rather
than at the front and rear causing high acceleration collision and very less deceleration time.
When it comes to a side impact collision, there is simply less machinery between the
passenger and the source of the impact. The side of a car is extremely vulnerable and leaves
both the driver and passengers open to injuries. Because of these facts, side impact collisions
are more likely to result in fatality than either front or rear end car crashes. Most vehicle
fatalities occur because of brain or head injury from impact with the side of the car or another
object that breaches the cabin. There are many types of crash test are carried out in
automotive industry like full frontal impact, offset frontal impact, rear impact and side impact
study the crashworthiness of the car structure.

Figure 2. 1 Impact & Pole Impact test.
Figure 2.1 showing the side impact test and the pole impact test carried out for the
optimum crash worthiness can be explained as the minimum level of risk for occupant injury
and high survival rate. In this part of the session includes, the study of car structure for A-
pillar, B-pillar and C-pillar regions by crash test simulation using through LS-DYNA
software. These simulations are carried out to understand the stiffness and deformation


characteristics of the A, B and C-pillar in a side impact of a car with a cylindrical pole. Based
on the simulation results; suggesting the possible design changes in A, B, C pillars and
changing the material to reduce the deformation through crash simulation.
2.2 Deck Preparation For The simulation:
2.2.1 Problem statement - Car model and Pole Barrier Specification:

Figure 2. 2 Car model and Pole Barrier.
The meshed model of the car structure assembly with its materials and the material
properties and the pole barrier model are given as shown in the Fig.2. 2. The material
properties of pole barrier given in the table 2.1.
Table 2. 1 Material Properties of Pole Barrier.
Material Section Density
Youngs
Modulus
Poissons
Ratio
Strain rate
parameter (C)
Strain rate
parameter (P)
Aluminium Cylinder 7. 89x10
-9

t/mm3
210 GPa 0.3 80 4.5
The pole barrier modelled with cylinder [radius=250mm, height=1150mm]
respectively. The car structure model material properties also taken as per the problem
statement.
In the problem car body assembled structure of a sedan car is given with an initial
relative velocity of 30 km/h and hitting a rigid pole sideways. The same analysis with
different kinds of loads acting on A, B and C pillar are carried out to find out the variation of
effects on the three pillars.
Pole Barrier Car Model


2.2.2 LS-Dyna Pre-processing
[3]
:
For the simulation of side impact car structure at A-pillar, B-pillar and C-pillar the
preprocessor of LS-DYNA software selected. The steps involved in the preprocessor given
below.
The given meshed car structure file is imported into LS-DYNA environment for the
simulation.
After that the cylinder was created with given dimensions in problem statement
(radius of 250mm and height 1150mm). By translating the pole which was placed
near to the A-pillar, same pole was created for B and C pillar. This is repeatedly done
by the three simulations for the different pillars.
Rigid material is assigned to the pole (Cylinder) so that it do not deform during the
impact of the car.
The car structure model is assigned with solid piecewise-linear plastic-material. This
material is assigned in order to model the deformation characteristics in the plastic
region of the stress strain curve.
In order to give the contact between cylinder and car structure the boxes sections are
created around the pole and the structure.
For giving the contact provided between the car structure and the cylinder pole which
allows contact between the two bodies. Automatic single surface to surface contact is
defined between the pole and the car .This contact makes relative position of parts
relative to each other cannot always be anticipated as the model undergoes large
deformations. Force transducer penalty is defined to the box that is modelled inside
the box and the car.
The next step is boundary conditions are applied to the cylinder and car structure. The
cylinder is constrained rigid for arresting the degrees of freedom, the relative
sideways velocity for the car structure is provided in Y direction of 30km/h (8.33m/s)
as per given input.
And the time interval for the binary plot set as 0.01 second (1ms).
The file has saved in .k file format for importing to LS-Dyna manager. In the solver
saved .k file has been imported. Then the d3plot and d3thdt options checked in then
the NCPU no set as 4 cores and the memory set as 100000000 bit. Then the simulation
did by using run button. And switching also done for reducing the analysis time.


This process repeated by changing the cylinder position to another places; the same
procedure followed for B-pillar and C-pillar simulations.
2.3 Simulation:
The imported .d3plot file is then loaded in the LS Post platform, where the simulation
is run and the results are compared with the expected behavior. The simulated animation can
run in this environment. The animation holds good accuracy with the real time situation. The
graphs are plotted to get deformation, resultant velocity, resultant contact force and the
energy plots. The results are obtained and checked with the expected behavior. The analyzed
contour plots also taken for the review of the results obtained. The obtained analysis results
given below.
2.3.1 Impact with A-Pillar:
The side impact in the A-pillar is most critical and significant due to the severity of
injury caused to the occupants during the crash. The stiffness and the deformation
characteristics of the A-pillars material stiffness and deformation characteristics should be
precisely monitored because of the thin cross-section of the pillar due to the visibility criteria;
and also, this pillar holds windshield and greenhouse of the car. For the occupant protection
the pillar materials values of youngs modules and the rigidity modules should have
optimum. The pole position for the impact and the simulation results by using LS-Dyna,
showed in Fig 2.3 and the behaviour of A-pillar after impact showed in further Fig 2.4 to 2.5
respectively.

Figure 2. 3 Pole Position for Impact with A-Pillar.



The pole barrier is positioned at the middle to the A-Pillar for getting the deformation
characteristics of the pillar material to as maximum as possible to the original value.

Figure 2. 4 Pole Impact on the A-Pillar after 4ms.

Figure 2. 5 Front View of Car Structure after Impact on A-Pillar with the Pole.



2.3.2 Impact with B-Pillar:
The B-pillar plays a key role providing strength to the midsection of the vehicle. It is
a primary support structure of the greenhouse and protects the occupant in the side impact
and roll over. The bending load acting on the B-pillar is higher than other pillars so that these
pillars made as thick for withstanding these bending loads. It is a thin walled, spot welded
closed section structure made from high strength steels. The parameters for analysis in LS-
Dyna, given for A- pillar had been kept unchanged for this analysis also. The main change in
this analysis is changed the pole barrier position to mid of the B-Pillar. The pole barrier is
positioned at the middle to the B-Pillar by translated the meshed geometry of the pole and the
boxes on which the contacts were assigned; this done for getting the deformation
characteristics of the pillar material to as maximum as possible to the original value.
The pole position for the impact and the simulation results by using LS-Dyna, showed
in Fig 2.6 and the behaviour of B-pillar after impact showed in further Fig 2.7 to 2.9
respectively.

Figure 2. 6 Pole Position for Impact with B-Pillar.

Figure 2. 7 Pole Impact on the B-Pillar after 4ms.



Figure 2. 8 Car Structure Deformation at B-Pillar Area.

Figure 2. 9 Front View of Car Structure after Impact on B-Pillar with the Pole.


2.3.3 Impact with C-Pillar:
The C-pillar is a pillar that supports the back window and the rear part of a vehicles
roof, C-Pillar is the 3rd pillar generally behind the passengers seat. From the point of view of
nomenclature, even if there appears to be no B-pillar between the front and rear doors of a
car, the rearmost pillar is generally labeled C. The deformation characteristics of C-Pillar also
significance to determine because of the rear seating position and the fuel tank in line with
this pillar. For the analysis rest of the parameters and methodology followed was same as that
of the previous analysis. The simulation results showed in fig 2.10 to 2.12.

Figure 2. 10 Pole Position for Impact with C-Pillar.

Figure 2. 11 Pole Impact on the C-Pillar after 4ms.



Figure 2. 12 Back View of Car Structure after Impact on C-Pillar with the Pole.
2.4 Review and discussion of results:
The resultant contact forces, acceleration, deformation and energy plots for impacts at
different locations, and compares the nature and extent of damage along the vehicle side;
reviewed by using different graphs. The different plotted graphs are given below.
2.4.1 Resultant contact forces:
2.4.1.1 A-Pillar:
The plot for resultant contact forces in the side impact vs. time, simulation carried out
at the A pillar. The resultant contact forces acting on the structure will be proportional to the
stiffness of the structure.
From the Fig 2.13 below the graph shows till the two surfaces come in contact the
value is zero and when the point reaches 1.5ms, the graph suddenly rises to 8KN and reaches
a peak value of 16.5KN at 3.7ms. The resultant force gradually reduces to a low value due to
reduction in the velocity after contact.


Figure 2. 13 Resultant Contact Force vs. Time for the Impact at A-Pillar.
2.4.1.2 B-Pillar:
at the B-Pillar position is shown in the fig 2.14.
In the below graph the maximum force acting on the B-Pillar during the impact is
approximately 24.5KN.There is no variation in the force until 1.3ms as there was no force
acting on the pillar. The force acting on the pillar increases as it deforms and reaches at
maximum force of 24.5KN at 1.7ms; then it gradually reduces to low value.

Figure 2. 14 Resultant Contact Force vs. Time for the Impact at B-Pillar.



2.4.1.3 C-Pillar:
at the C-Pillar position is shown in the fig 2.15.

Figure 2. 15 Resultant Contact Force vs. Time for the Impact at C-Pillar.
The C pillar area, the contact is very early when compared to the rest of the two
pillars. This is due to the contact with body panel and pole comes further penetrates inside
and deform the C-Pillar. The maximum force of 16.1KN at the time of 1.3ms. The magnitude
of the force is as low 16.1KN than other two pillars due to the fenders absorbing the
maximum energy before the C pillar comes into contact. Then the force is gradually reduces
to low value.
2.4.2 Review of Resultant Contact Force:
According to the observations B pillar receives maximum resultant contact force due
to the center of gravity. Normally the B pillars are made stiffer and are stronger than
the A and C pillar due to the support from roof rail and floor rail or the side sill.
The magnitude of force at the A and C pillars reduce to the rotation produced by the
rotation due to the offset center of gravity which is situated at the B pillar.
The point of contact is faster at B pillar due to the lack of any other structures like the
rear fenders as in case of the C pillar and front side fenders in case of A pillar.
The resultant contact forces at the various pillars are studied from the graph plotted
from the results obtained from the LS-Dyna software. From the plots it is understood that the
resultant force is maximum and sudden in the B pillar than at the A pillar and C pillar. The


magnitude of the resultant contact force is as high as 24.5KN in B pillar, while 16.5KN,
16.1KN at A pillar and C pillar respectively. The low values are due to the presence of other
sheet components (crumble zone) which reduces the force acting on the pillars. The lack of
presence of any such members to absorb energy makes the fatality rate in B pillar high when
compared to the other pillars. The cross section of the pole barrier also large so the contact
force also less in the thin walled pillars.
2.4.3 Resultant Acceleration and Deformation:
From the simulation of the side impact crash test of car structure parts, the prediction
of the behavior of the A, B and C pillars are done with the help of the resultant acceleration
and deformation plots. The plot is taken from the graphics interface tab from the LS Post,
History option. For determining the resultant acceleration and deformation the 5 nodes are
selected around the specified pillars on the counter of the car structure. The change in shape
or size of the structure on the application of any external force is termed as deformation. The
deformation of a certain node is compared with the non-deformed or zero deformation nodes.
The maximum deformation is obtained from the maximum deviated node. The magnitude of
maximum deformation is also termed as the level of Intrusion. The deformation can
determined by the displacement of the selected nodes; for evaluating this resultant
displacement plot was taken
2.4.3.1 A-Pillar:
The selected nodes on the A-Pillar and the corresponding acceleration and
deformation plots are shown in the Fig 2.16 to 2.18

Figure 2. 16 Nodes Selected on A- Pillar for Plots.



Figure 2. 17 Resultant Acceleration Plot for A-Pillar.
From the fig2.17 the structure offers resistance after undergoing a plastic deformation,
this reduces the acceleration of the structure. The acceleration is experienced high for the
node number 4992348 at the value of 6.04x10
8
mm/s
2
on 1ms and gradually reduces to value
to 0.5x10
8
mm/s
2
at 1.5ms. After 2.5 to 3ms all nods acceleration approximately experiencing
low, soon after the structure is at the low acceleration, there is a sudden rise in the
acceleration due to the maximum deformation of the structure.

Figure 2. 18 Deformation Nodal Plot at A-Pillar.
In the Fig 2.18 shown above the maximum deformation of 264mm was occurred to the node
E (4991553) at 4ms. Then the some nodes deformation remaining same to the last because of
the maximum contact area to the pole barrier. Other nodes displacement in increasing


manner due to the structure deformation.
2.4.3.2 B-Pillar:

Figure 2. 19 Nodes Selected on B-Pillar for Plots.

The selected nodes on the B-Pillar and the corresponding acceleration and
deformation plots are shown in the Fig 2.19 to 2.21

Figure 2. 20 Resultant Acceleration Plot for B-Pillar.
From above graph can see the acceleration is experienced high for the node number
4993199 at the value of 10x10
9
mm/s
2
on 2.5ms and gradually reduces the value to minimum.


Figure 2. 21 Deformation Nodal Plot at B-Pillar.
In the Fig 2. 21 shown above the maximum deformation of 256.88mm was occurred
to the node D (4993123) at 4ms.The maximum deformation at the end of impact with
approximately equal distance in displacement on nodes.
2.4.3.3 C-Pillar:
The selected nodes on the C-Pillar and the corresponding acceleration and
deformation plots are shown in the Fig 2.22 to 2.24.

Figure 2. 22 Nodes Selected on C-Pillar for Plots.



Figure 2. 23 Resultant Acceleration Plot for C-Pillar.
From above graph can see the acceleration is experienced high for the node number
4989277 at the value of 9.18x10
8
mm/s
2
on 3ms and gradually reduces the value to minimum.
We can also see that maximum displaced node (4989921), resultant acceleration is maximum
of 2.2x10
8
mm/s
2
and further experiencing decreasing manner; due to the maximum
deformation happened in the structure and acceleration is low at this point.

Figure 2. 24 Deformation Nodal Plot at C-Pillar.



In the Fig 2.24 shown above the maximum deformation of 250.98mm was occurred to
the node E (4989516) at 4ms.
2.4.4 Review of Acceleration and Deformation Plots:
From the above mentioned figures and studies the acceleration of the structure at A, B
C Pillars, due to collision with the rigid pole. We can see the low acceleration on the A-Pillar;
this is due to the huge deformation on it. The resistance offered by the vehicle structures also
makes the acceleration to reduce and bring down to low. The acceleration and the
deformation at the B pillar is very high and causes the very less deceleration time causing
sudden stopping resulting in whiplash and other fatal injuries. The B pillar is not supported
by any other parts other than the rigid roof frame and side sill. In the C-Pillar acceleration is
higher than A-Pillar but deformation is higher. It is less fatal at C pillar due to the presence of
other sheet components and fenders which forms a crumble zone increasing the deceleration
time.
2.4.5 Energy Plots:
Since the motion and crash are involved, there is a lot of energy transfer in the system.
The law of Physics state that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be
transformed from one form to the other. The kinetic energy, internal energy and total energy
experienced on the car structure by the impact with pole; plotted in one graph. In the impact
the transformation energy takes place and the total energy remains unchanged.

Figure 2. 25 Energy plots for A-Pillar.



Energy variation in the structure of side pole crash test at the A pillar area is plotted in
the Fig 2. 25, where the curve with A as the internal energy, the B as kinetic energy and C as
total energy. The figure shows that the initial kinetic energy is very large due to the relative
velocity (30km/h) of the structure. After 1.5ms the energy curve lowers down due to the
crash with the pole reducing the velocity. The energy is absorbed by the structure and is
converted to the internal energy of the structure. So when the kinetic energy reduces by an
amount, there is a proportionate increase in the internal energy for keeping the system in
equilibrium. Since there is equilibrium maintained the total energy remains the same for some
extent. The total energy of the system is also maintained at constant.

Figure 2. 26 Energy plots for B-Pillar.

Figure 2. 27 Energy plots for C-Pillar.



The energy plots for the B pillar and C pillar crash tests are given in the Fig 2. 29 and
Fig 2. 30 respectively. The kinetic energy reduces due to the reduction in velocity caused by
the resistance from the structural parts after the crash. The kinetic energy loss is compensated
by a rise in the internal energy making equilibrium in the system. In 3.5ms the kinetic and
internal energy crossed over and going reverse direction because of the bouncing back of the
car structure. The total energy of the system is also maintained.
2.4.6 Comparison of Nature and Extent of Damage along the Vehicle side:
Fig 2.28 showing the extent of damage occurred for the car structure on the impact at
different positions.

Figure 2. 28 Damage Comparison of Counters.
Table 2. 2 Result Comparison of impact.
Positions Contact Force Acceleration Deformation Energy(KE & IE)
A-Pillar 16.5KN 6.04x10
8
mm/s
2
264mm 4.286 x10
6

B-Pillar 24.5KN 10x10
9
mm/s
2
256.88mm 4.28x10
6

C-Pillar 16.1KN 9.18x10
8
mm/s
2
250.98mm 4.257x10
6
Comparing the deformation of the overall structure of the car body structure, the
impact at A-Pillar position shows highest deformation, and the extent of damage to the
structure will be higher in this case. In the case of the pole impact at the A-Pillar, rather than
the impact position, the other components has also undergone minor major deformations.


The car structure deforms due to the impact, causing the structure to buckle and the
rate is different in the three pillars. The C-Pillar is less deformed due to the presence of
fenders, and other internal structures supporting it. While the deformations are high in A-
Pillar and B-Pillar due to the direct impact and less or no supporting members in B-Pillar.
The structure rotates after some time gap due to the centre of gravity is situated offset in the
A pillar and C-Pillar regions. The B-Pillar crash is not having any rotation since the pillar and
the centre of gravity of the whole structure lies in the same line. The acceleration for A-Pillar
impact is low than others because of the more deformation on the structure. This is happened
because of the pillar was made by thin walled components.
2.5 Maximum Intrusion Level and its effect on the occupants:
The maximum intrusion level has been found out from the contour plot of Y-
Displacement, and finding the node with maximum value of displacement. The location of
maximum intrusion obtained, by each impact simulation result is given below.
2.5.1 Maximum Intrusion Location in the Pole Impact at A-Pillar:

Figure 2. 29 Couture and Plot for Maximum Intrusion for the Impact at A-Pillar.
The fig 2.29 showing the maximum intrusion on the structure while impact with A-Pillar.


And the plot showing the maximum nodal displacement along Y axis. The point is located on
the rocker panel. The maximum intrusion was occurred to the node 4994968 at 1.5ms then
maintained the same deformation showed in the graph. The maximum displacement occurred
to the point is 117.82mm.
2.5.2 Maximum Intrusion Location in the Pole Impact at B-Pillar:
The fig 2.30 showing the maximum intrusion on the structure while impact with A-Pillar.

Figure 2. 30 Couture and Plot for Maximum Intrusion for the Impact at B-Pillar.
The fig 2.30 showing the maximum intrusion on the structure while impact with B-
Pillar. And the plot showing the maximum nodal displacement along Y axis. The point is
located on the rocker panel. The maximum intrusion was occurred to the node 4992093 at
1.5ms then maintained the same deformation showed in the graph. The maximum
displacement occurred to the point is 112.87mm.
2.5.3 Maximum Intrusion Location in the Pole Impact at C-Pillar:
The fig 2.31 showing the maximum intrusion on the structure while impact with C-
Pillar.


Figure 2. 31 Couture and Plot for Maximum Intrusion for the Impact at C-Pillar.
The fig 2.31 showing the maximum intrusion on the structure while impact with C-
Pillar. And the plot showing the maximum nodal displacement along Y axis. The point is
located on the rocker panel. The maximum intrusion was occurred to the node 4989921 at
1.5ms then nodal displacement is gradually reduces to low value because of the deformation
on the rear fenders. It will reduce the maximum displacement of the node along y axis. The
maximum displacement occurred to the point is 89.26mm.
2.5.4 Possible Effect on Occupants:
The intrusion of car structure at A-Pillar can cause severe injury to the front
passengers, especially to the driver. The resultant deformation and the maximum
displacement of node along Y axis is 264,117.82mm respectively. So the injury for occupant
is more saviours because the A-pillar section is thinner for increasing the frontal visibility.
Due to this the deformation is maximum this will lead the deformation of the interior side
panels, dash board and the starring column area will cause the leg injury to the occupant due
to the leg will jam with this deformed area. Occupant head and pelvis injury also can happen


by hitting with side window and the A-Pillar is situated with roof so the deformation of the
roof also can lead to head injury. The pillar is also holds the wind shield so the breakage of
wind shield also can have a chance of saviour injury of occupant.
The resultant deformation and the maximum displacement at the B-Pillar was 256.88,
112.87mm respectively. Comparatively this is lesser than the A-Pillar deformation; even
though this impact also causes the injury to the occupants because this member is in the
center of the vehicle structure and also undergone maximum contact fore due to center of
gravity. The deformation on this area will cause the saviors injuries on the both front and the
rear occupants. Manly the head injuries will happen due to the deformed structure penetrates
the front seat then the head will it sideways direction and also the deformation of the roof
structure. Due to the large contact force the maximum inertia will effect on the occupant this
will leads the flying and hitting the body inside the cabin.
The resultant deformation and the maximum displacement at the C-Pillar were
250.98, 89.98mm respectively. This is comparatively lesser than the other two conditions
because of the presence of the side fenders. The maximum injury can happen in the rear
passengers. The deformation will happened the rear seat will leads the head injury and the
shoulder, ribs injury by hitting with side door. For rear occupants, the intrusion will be
affecting more to pelvis and head. The leg and knees also will caught injury by body impact
with side panels and the side wind shields.
From the above discussions the level of intrusion is more at the A pillar 264 mm
approximately which is more fatal for serious injuries. The intrusions are advisable up to the
centerline of the side seats. The magnitudes crossing the limit make the structure a failure
when safety is considered. According to NHTSA
[4]
(National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration) had issued regulations for ratings categorized of the side impact by intrusion.
Table 2. 3 Injury Criteria.
Level Intrusion Head Pelvis Highest Risk
HIC 36 Risk, R(%) Peak Gs Risk, R(%)
Level 1 < 3 cm 63 2.9% 18 0.6% 2.9%
Level 2
3-14 cm 135 12.3% 29 1.4% 12.3%
Level 3 15-45 cm 216 28.7% 35 2.1% 28.7%
Level 4 >45 cm 509 89.5% 111 84.5% 89.5%
According to the above table the intrusion is divided as for levels. The head injury,


Pelvis injury risk and the total injury risk are given. According to the simulated results
all pillars are comes its injury risk in under 3
rd
level. In this the resultant deformation on the
A-Pillar is 265mm. This falls under the intrusion level 3 and the injury risk associated with it
28.7% which is high. And the rest of the pillars 256.88, 250.98 mm displaced respectively. In
this the A-Pillar taken has the maximum deformed pillar and the suggestion for improved
design and the material discussed further.
2.6 Possible Suggestion for reducing intrusion and its Simulation:
The maximum intrusion is found in the A-Pillar which may cause severe injury to the
occupants. The structure safety in the side impact crashes implies how good the pillars
behave in the crash. For reducing the intrusion the following possible changes can make.
2.6.1 Improved Design:
The improved design changes can make better pillar with lesser intrusion. The pillar
structure has to be made stiffer by going for better pillar cross sections. The cars A-pillars
were bowed, the windshield more steeply raked and the roof was a shockingly complex array
of angles and flowing lines that seemed to connect the hood to the trunk lid. With this design
changes the cross section of the pillar can be made half round section having good stiffness
and less deformation. The other design like Intelligent A-Pillar have the potency that
allows the pillar to be slimmed down to only 23 mm (0.9 in), about three times thinner than a
typical pillar, while providing required crash energy-absorbing capability and a reduction of
roof intrusion
[5]
.
2.6.2 Section:
The structure of the A-Pillar mainly consists of three different layers. In order to
reduce the level of intrusion, the section thickness of these layers can make changes. For this
simulation the section thickness of the A-pillar layers made changes. For the layer CH-A-
PILLAR-I-R; thickness changed from 1.56 mm to 2.0 mm, CH-A-PILLAR-MID-R;
thickness changed from 1.58 mm to 2.0 mm and the outer layer CH-CBN-OUTER-R;
thickness changed from 0.82 mm to 1.3 mm respectively.
2.6.3 Material:
The properties of the material used in the structure affects the maximum intrusion
level. The having lower youngs modulus can cause the maximum intrusion. The stiffness of
the structure depends on the youngs modulus of the material. The other material with


relatively higher youngs moguls can use for reducing the intrusion level. The resistance of
the material to fracture depends upon the yield strength of a material. If the yield strength of
the material is increased, the probability of the fracture can be reduced. The using of different
type material can also possible like high strength grade steel with high grade aluminum can
also support it. The material like composites and carbon fibers can be used for the pillar has
to be more precise and materials with more strength.
2.6.4 Simulation for Modified A-Pillar:
The modified thickened A-Pillar model opened in the preprocessing environment of
LS DYNA for the simulation. The same procedure for the A-Pillar simulation carried out
with newly assigned component thickness for the pillar. Fig 2.32 showing the components
with newly assigned thickness.

Figure 2. 32 A-Pillar with Modified Section.
The file has saved in .k file format for importing to LS-Dyna manager. In the solver
saved .k file has been imported. Then the d3plot and d3thdt options checked for obtaining
plots. Then the comparison of the obtained intrusion with the previous intrusion level is as
given below.
2.6.5 Simulation Result Comparison:
For the comparison of the simulated results the resultant displacement plots for the A-
Pillar without modification and the A-Pillar with the modification are taken. Fig 2.33
showing the comparison of the resultant displacement of the nodes selected. This plots are
taken by in such a way that the nodes for the non-modified pillar and the same nodes for the
modifies resultant displacement value taken for comparison.
In this comparison of the both plots the resultant displacement of the A-Pillar is
264.38mm; maximum intrusion highlighted with the circle on the first graph. In the second
Plot the Resultant displacement came about 238.94mm. This also highlighted by the circle.


Figure 2. 33 Compression Plot for Resultant Displacement of Modified A-Pillar.
In the above graph we can see that the maximum resultant displacement was reduced
from 264.38mm to 238.94mm, after the modification, and this proves that, increasing the
section thickness can reduce the deformation and can increase the crash worthiness by
reducing the intrusion. It can be applied for the other pillars also for the better results. This
can be the main possible changes can done to reducing the intrusion level for the A-Pillar of
car structure.
2.7 Conclusion:
In an automobile, among all types of accidents, side impact accidents place the driver
and the occupants of the vehicle at higher risk. Hence, understanding the performance of the
components at different locations. A, B and C pillars, along its length is very important to be
able to come up with adequate design of these components. Simulations of transient dynamic
crash phenomena by LS-Dyna, in which the components undergo non-linear deformation,
provide designer information to assess different design alternatives and their effect on the
crashworthiness of the automobile.


CHAPTER 3
Simulation in MADIMO
3.1 Introduction:
In an automobile, among all types of accidents, place the driver and the occupants of
the vehicle at higher risk. For reducing this risk and give the safety to occupants so many
systems are incorporated, in these occupant restraint systems like seat belts are introduced in
vehicles to compensate this issue. The seat belt which is also known as the safety belt is a
safety harness for the safety of the vehicle occupant from a harmful sudden movement
produced by crash or sudden stopping. The main purpose of the seat belts is to retain the
occupant from moving forward and hitting the harder parts causing injury. It also prevents the
wearer from being thrown out of the vehicle. Mainly safety generally regarded as protecting
frontal passengers during crash and not much importance given for rear occupants.
In this section a study conducted to verify the injury level to the rear occupants using
MADYMO software. The simulation has been carried out to find the HIC values, Thorax
acceleration and Chest deflection of rear seat middle occupant position without belts, with lap
belt and with full belt (shoulder and lap belts).
3.2 Environment Modeling and Simulation:
The following methods are carried out for modeling the environment for the given
problem statement.
The dummy e_hyb350el from the MADYMO library is uploaded in the software
with having a 3 point seat belt and seat cushion and back support and a floor surface.
The surface planes are edited to the requirement, the foot plane; floor plane, seat
cushion and seat back are changed.
Two front seats with cushion and back support was created, so as the dummy would
seems to be seated on the centre of back seat.
As per the requirement foot plane and the stopit moved and positioned and also the
roof plane was created.
The position of the point objects of the shoulder belt and the lap belt were re
positioned so as to resemble seat belts of car
Contact MB for floor and shoe are redefined and updated.


In the System Model initial joint position, knee position, hip as well as the ankle
position are re-oriented.
The modeled environment with dummy for the simulation showed in the Fig 3.1.

Figure 3. 1 Dummy with Modelled Environment.
After creating the environment with dummy, then the contact was assigned in
between the dummy and surfaces were dummy was supposed to contact. This is done by the
grouping front seats and assigned contact with dummy. For sled preparation velocity of 50
km/hr was given in the form of acceleration pulse. For the decided simulation the seat belt,
lap belt, and the output belts were deleted whenever necessary.
After setting the all parameters and the procedure this file was saved with .xml
extension and submitted to the MADYMO solver. After normal termination of the
simulation, the output file, .kn3 was opened in Hyperview for animated kinematics of the
dummy on the sled test. The head acceleration plot and thorax acceleration plots were
obtained from the .lac file, opened in Hypergraph. The chest deflection plot was obtained
from .rds file, opened in Hypergraph. The HIC value was recorded in the .peak file.
3.3 Simulation without any Seat Belt:
This simulation is carried out in order to understand the behavior of the occupant
during a crash without any seat belts. The shoulder belt and the lap belt along the output belts
were deleted from the modified dummy model, and the dummy model along with the created
environment was submitted to MADYMO for simulation, and the simulation was terminated
normally. The results are given below as head Injury Criteria, head and Thorax Acceleration
and chest Deflection respectively.


3.3.1 Head Injury Criteria:
The HIC value obtained from the peak file having .peak extension opened as text file;
for the sled test, without any seat belts is 928.7, as shown in figure 3.2.

Figure 3. 2 HIC Value obtained by Simulation without any Belts.
3.3.2 Head and Thorax Acceleration:
The peak acceleration values of the head, thorax along with the position of dummy at
the maximum head acceleration showed in the fig 3. 3.This can be plotted using the hyper
view and hyper graph environment.

Figure 3. 3 Head and Thorax Acceleration Plots with Kinematics of Dummy.
In the above figure showed the kinematics of the dummy and the head, thorax
acceleration with in the time period of 120ms. The maximum head acceleration was recorded
at the 114.4ms with the maximum acceleration of 981.22 m/s
2
.
The maximum thorax acceleration was recorded at 87.2ms of the sled test with
approximately 794.18 m/s
2
.
3.3.3 Chest Deflection:
To knowing the chest deflection the relative displacement graph plotted in the hyper


Graph environment by opening the extension of .rds file. Fig 3.4 showing the relative
displacement graph for chest deflection.

Figure 3. 4 Chest Displacement of the Dummy without Seat Belts.
As per the above graph, the maximum chest deflection was recorded at 120ms of the
simulation and the corresponding deflection value is 37.3 mm.
3.4 Simulation with Lap Belt:
An occupant with only lap belt will experience lesser injuries compared with the
occupant without seat belts. For knowing this the simulation carried out with only lap belt,
the shoulder belt and related output belts were deleted from the model, the dummy model
along with the created environment was submitted to MADYMO for simulation, and the
simulation was terminated normally. The termination time of the simulation was 200
milliseconds. The results are given below as head Injury Criteria, head and Thorax
Acceleration and chest Deflection respectively.
The HIC value obtained from the peak file having .peak extension opened as text file;
for the sled test, without any seat belts HIC of 8193, as shown in figure 3.5.And highlighted
with the square block.


Figure 3. 5 HIC Value obtained by Simulation with only Lap Belt.
The peak acceleration values of the head, thorax along with the position of dummy
(with only lap belt) at the maximum head acceleration showed in the fig 3.6.

Figure 3. 6 Head, Thorax Acceleration Plots with Kinematics of Dummy (Lap Belt).
at the 130.6ms with the maximum acceleration of 6494.27m/s
2
.
2
.
To knowing the chest deflection the relative displacement graph was plotted. Fig 3.7
showing the relative displacement graph for chest deflection.
As per the below plotted graph, the maximum chest deflection was recorded at 126.3
ms of the simulation and the corresponding deflection value is 45.7 mm.


Figure 3. 7 Chest Displacement of the Dummy with Lap Belts.
3.5 Simulation with Lap and Shoulder Belts:
The occupant can effectively be protected from injuries in a crash if both shoulder and
lap belt distribute the forces over the body. For knowing this the simulation carried out with
lap belt and shoulder belt. The termination time of the simulation was 200 milliseconds. The
results are given below as head Injury Criteria, head and Thorax Acceleration and chest
Deflection respectively.
The results of sled test simulation with both the shoulder and lap belt are as follows.
The simulation was carried out for 200 milliseconds.

Figure 3. 8 HIC Value obtained by Simulation with Shoulder and Lap Belt.
For the sled test, with Shoulder and lap belt with HIC of 176.9, as shown in figure
3.8.And highlighted with the square block.



The peak acceleration values of the head, thorax along with the position of dummy
(with shoulder and lap belt) at the maximum head acceleration showed in the fig 3.9.

Figure 3. 9 Head, Thorax Acceleration Plots with Dummy of shoulder and Lap Belt.
at the 85.1ms with the maximum acceleration of 461.6m/s
2
.
2
.

Figure 3. 10 Chest Displacement of the Dummy with Shoulder and Lap Belts.



To knowing the chest deflection the relative displacement graph was plotted. Fig 3.10
showing the relative displacement graph for chest deflection.
As per the below plotted graph, the maximum chest deflection was recorded at
72.8ms of the simulation and the corresponding deflection value is 38.7mm.
3.6 Comparison of Dummy Kinematics and Discussion:
Kinematics is the study of how things move, its depends upon its displacement,
velocity, acceleration and time in which involves the action of forces to change the motion of
a body. To knowing the behaviour of the dummy kinematics study should be evaluated. The
basic characteristics of good occupant restraint/dummy kinematics performance are
[5]
:
Dummy should move straight forward into a fully deployed airbag and then return
directly to the seat during rebound.
Head and body should stay behind and within the extended perimeter of the airbag.
Head should not approach hard surfaces of the vehicle interior.
Lap belts should have stable anchorages that allow only minimal lengthening or
spool-out even when force-limiting devices are used.
3.6.1 Dummy Kinematics in Sled Test without any Belt:
The kinematics of the dummy seated on the rear, in the sled test at 50 km/hr, with no
seat belts with the specified time interval is as shown in the figure 3.11.

Figure 3. 11 Kinematics of Dummy without any Belts.



The figure given above shows the step by step behaviour of the dummy with time
interval of 20ms; on a sled test at 50 km/hr. The dummy is without any restraining system, so
the body completely is out of control and hitting with front seats and going further to move
and touches the knees.
In this kinematics of the dummy simulation we can see that the body moving forward
because of the momentum of the body while in the crash. So the head deceleration happened
slowly process, so the chance of head injury is lesser. But the head and thorax acceleration in
this case is can cause the head and thorax injury. Further head is going down and touching the
knee will also cause a saviour injury to face and the thorax. Also the chance of body will
throw (occupant ejection) inside cabin and cause injury. This dummy kinematics not
fulfilling the basic characteristics of good occupant safety.
3.6.2 Dummy Kinematics in Sled Test with Lap Belt:
The kinematics of the dummy seated on the rear, in the sled test at 50 km/hr, with lap
belts with the specified time interval is as shown in the figure 3.12.

Figure 3. 12 Kinematics of Dummy with Lap Belts.
In this simulation the dummy with lap belt will help to restrain the pelvic region. So
the abdomen area and the leg area will restrain but the body above the pelvic region
experiences a momentum wile in the crash, which tends that part to bend down, till the thorax


area touches the laps. As the thorax touches the lap, a negligible whiplash is experienced for
the head.
With lap belt the HIC value, the head acceleration and thorax acceleration is higher,
when compared to the sled test simulation conducted without any restraining belts, which can
increase the injury level. Lap belts have been variously reported as being the cause of
lumbar spine fractures and various abdominal injuries.
3.6.3 Dummy Kinematics in Sled Test with Shoulder and Lap Belt:
The kinematics of the dummy seated on the rear, in the sled test at 50 km/hr, with lap
belts and the shoulder belt with the specified time interval is as shown in the figure 3.13.

Figure 3. 13 Kinematics of Dummy with Lap and Shoulder Belts.
In this sled test dummy coupled with shoulder and lap belts, this will help to reduce
the forward movement of the body. The pelvic area restrained with lap belt and the shoulder
to the covering chest and couples behind the seat under body. This will help to brings back
the dummy body back to its initial position, rather than hitting with the front seats. The only
force acting over the dummy body is that of the seat belts tension. This type of restrained
system is more effective and fulfilling the basic characteristics of good occupant restraint.
In this condition even there is chances of cervical spine/neck injury by sudden
acceleration and deceleration of head. But the head injury criteria, the head acceleration and
the thorax acceleration are relatively much lower than others. This restrain belt can say that
safer than other while comparing with other two cases.


3.6.4 Comparison of Result and Discussion:
The comparison of the head injury criteria, the head acceleration and the thorax
acceleration and the chest deflection; obtained by the sled test given in the below table.
Table 3. 1 Comparison of Result by Different Simulation.
Restraint System HIC Head Acceleration Thorax Acceleration Chest Deflection
Without Belt
928.7 981.22 m/s
2
794.18 m/s
2
37.3 mm
With Lap Belt
8193 6494.27m/s
2
995.2 m/s
2
45.7 mm.
With Shoulder & Lap Belt
176.9 461.6m/s
2
329.1 m/s
2
38.7mm
From the table clearly showing that restrained system with shoulder and lap belt
having the lesser head injury criteria than the other two. The lap belt and the shoulder belt
helped to slow down and arrested the body movement to the front so to the sudden
deceleration of the sled is restricted and bring back the dummy body back to its initial
position.
The head acceleration and the thorax acceleration rescued by using the lap and the
shoulder belts. The good restraint system should not aloe the dummy to accelerate suddenly
and maintain a lower peak acceleration value of the head and the thorax. All the cases the
chest deflection is under acceptable range. But the important thing is that the for the condition
without seal belt maximum chest deflection is coming on the later part of simulation and for
condition with lap belt, both shoulder belt and lap belt the maximum chest deflection is at the
beginning of the simulation. The reason for this is the chest deflection for without belt is due
the chest hitting the interior and legs which will happen at the final stage. With shoulder and
lap belt restrained system fulfilling the basic characteristics of good occupant restraint.
3.7 Changes in Injury levels:
Motor vehicle accidents have grown to be a major cause of death and injury. Several
general injury reduction principles can be identified with restraint system design
[6]
. Belt
systems are expected to: (1) limit or mitigate to the extent practicable occupant interior
contacts, (2) prevent occupant ejection, (3) extend the deceleration force distance of a
collision by coupling the occupant with the crush characteristics of the vehicle (4) apply crash
forces to the anatomically strongest portions of the human anatomy, and (5) be convenient
and comfortable for the user. Fig 3.14 showing the frequency of the injury criteria



Figure 3. 14 Frequency of the injury criteria.
This fig showing the frequency of the injury by using lap belt and the lap/shoulder
belt respectively. The advantage of using the lap/shoulder belt is clearly understood.
Table 3. 2 Occupant Injury Comparison.
Method of Restrain Occupant Injury Injury Rate
Unrestrained 129327 70.553 54.6%
Lap/Belt Only 4617 1117 24.2%
Lap/Shoulder Belt 81461 20561 25.2%
Table 3.2 showing the injury rate reduction by using the different retrain methods.
The data leads to two important findings relating to these very severe frontal crashes. First,
restraint usage is definitely helpful in prevention of fatalities and many severe injuries, even
at the higher end of crash severity. Secondly, at these high severity levels lap-only and
lap/shoulder belts appear to offer about the same level of injury reduction to front outboard
occupants.
3.8 Conclusion:
Finally after going through the exercise we understand the trend of injury in an actual
accident. The shoulder belt or three point belts will provide good safety to the rear middle
passenger. Even single lap belt is also providing effective safety in protecting the rear middle
occupant. Without belts there are chances for fatal injury for rear middle passenger. By
simulating through the sled test for rear middle seat the shoulder and lap belt is effective
safety for rear middle passengers.



CHAPTER 4

4.1 Module learning outcome:
As an automotive design student structure safety and impact module is one of the
most important parts of the course.
The theory class give the clear cut ideas about the Role/Importance of automotive
body structure and types of operational loads and load cases.
In another theory session I got the ideas about automotive Design Analysis of the
structure and different aspects of design of the structure
Theory about simple methodology for analysis of an automotive body structure and
methodology for Analysis/Design of components are more informative for me to
understanding and more effective for future.
The class methodology in design under different types of loadings safety
considerations in structural design given me more informative and
Physics of collision, behaviour of colliding bodies, dynamics of occupant in a vehicle
under collision, the dynamics of the occupant with respect to design details and the
design considerations for safe design classes are very informative.
The significance of pedestrian safety with respect to pedestrian injuries and statistics,
pedestrian model development methodology and the design considerations for various
parts of the structure for pedestrian safety thoroughly understood.
A detailed study on the terminology of crashworthiness, measurement of
crashworthiness and the legislation for crashworthiness carried out in the theory class
For studying the crashworthiness LS-Dyna software introduced. The lab sessions give
me more hand experience on the software.
For simulating and understanding the mulibody dynamics behaviour of occupant
during crash; the MADYMO software introduced. The lab sessions give me more
hand experience on this software.
These module help me a lot for the studies the basics of safety, structures and impact
on the vehicle during crash safety.The assignment problems helped me to give me an
opportunity to use these tools for simulation of scenarios that are similar in nature to real life
collision of vehicles and humans. The assignment problem give me a chance to work in LS-Dyna
and MADYMO.


4.2 Summary and Conclusion:
Recently In part A of assignment, further innovation design structures the understanding
of physical phenomena is necessary or not. The debate has carried to support the physical
phenomena importance on automotive structure design. Based on given statement a
strong literature survey carried out for debating the statement. For further innovation
in and developments of designs for automotive crash safety, understanding of the
underlying physical phenomenon, on the part of the designers, is essential. For debating
the statements the strong literature survey was taken.
In an automobile, among all types of accidents, side impact accidents place the driver
and the occupants of the vehicle at higher risk. Hence, understanding the performance
of the components at different locations. A, B and C pillars, along its length is very
important to be able to come up with adequate design of these components.
Simulations of transient dynamic crash phenomena by LS-Dyna, in which the
components undergo non-linear deformation, provide designer information to assess
different design alternatives and their effect on the crashworthiness of the automobile.
Finally after going through the B part we understand the trend of injury in an actual
accident. The shoulder belt or three point belts will provide good safety to the rear
middle passenger. Even single lap belt is also providing effective safety in protecting
the rear middle occupant. Without belts there are chances for fatal injury for rear
middle passenger. By simulating through the sled test for rear middle seat the
shoulder and lap belt is effective safety for rear middle passengers



REFERENCES

[1] http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=215726 Auto Exterior design
[2] LS-Dyna,Overview,features.http://www.dipro.co.jp/english/products
/cae/lsdyna/index.html.
[3] http://www.dynasupport.com/tutorial/contact-modeling-in-ls-dyna/contact-types,
Retrieved on 25 August 2011.
[4] Richard M. Morgan., Paul Scullion., Lilly Nix., Vinay Nagabhushana., and Cing-Dao
Kan, Small Rear Side Occupant Side Impact Investigation,
http://www.sae.org/events/gim/presentations/2011/MorganScullion.pdf.
[5] Intelligent A-pillar, http://www.saabsunited.com/2011/08/intelligent-a-pillar.html.
[6] D.R. Tovey (Sheffield). Guidelines for Rating Restraints and Dummy Kinematics,IIHS,
August 2007.
[7] Richard Bandstra, Seat-belt Injuries in Medical and Statistical Perspectives, paper
number 9X-S6-W-25, usa.

Sandeep VSS&I Assignment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sandeep VSS&I Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M.S.

Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies

You might also like

Sandeep VSS&amp;I Assignment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sandeep VSS&amp;I Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M.S.

Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies

You might also like

Sandeep VSS&I Assignment

Sandeep VSS&I Assignment