See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280625785

Simulation and Test Correlation of Wheel Impact

Test

Conference Paper in SAE Technical Papers September 2011

DOI: 10.4271/2011-28-0129

CITATIONS READS

2 371

4 authors, including:

Mohammed Billal Kamal

Indepth Engineering Solutions, Troy, MI, United States
10 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Billal Kamal on 14 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 M20100261

Simulation and Test Correlation of Wheel Impact Test

Mohammed Billal K, Vinothkumar S, Sabarinathan Srinivasan and AnilKumar Nesarikar
Chrysler India Automotive Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, India.

Copyright 2011 SAE INDIA

ABSTRACT
The wheel impact test evaluates wheel structural
performance for a typical lateral curb impact event
occurring in passenger cars and light trucks. This test
which is as per SAE J -175 standard has a striker
dropped from a specified height on to a fixture mounted
wheel-tire assembly. This impact test performance is
critical to meeting overall structural performance for the
wheel. There are many processes and methods
available to simulate impact tests using FE analysis and
in this study, certain existing methods are fine tuned to
facilitate improved correlation with aforementioned lab
test. Abaqus explicit is used in the simulation process
and FE analysis-test correlation is achieved within 3%
(strain gauge measurements). The improved method
closely captures the behavior of the wheel during and
after impact including capturing the variation of bolt
pretension during the impact test. The wheel width
before and after impact is another parameter used to
compare analysis and test results. Further, the
contribution of impact load between the wheel and tire is
studied, to support the modeling strategy used in this
new method.
impact event, but in this study, the stain history curve is
captured and compared to the lab test results. The
ABAQUS explicit solver has been used to enhance
accuracy of the impact simulation.
SAE J175 FOR WHEEL IMPACT TEST
The SAE recommended practice is to establish minimum
performance requirements and test procedures for
evaluating axial curb impact collision properties of all
wheels intended for use on passenger cars and light
trucks.
TEST SET-UP
The impact load is applied to the rim flange of a wheel-
tire assembly. The wheel-tire assembly is mounted at an
angle of 13 to the horizontal plane so that the striker
impacts the outer bead radius of the rim near the air
valve hole. The striker impact face has to be at least
125mm wide and at least 375 mm long. Fig.1 shows the
Impact Loading Test Machine set-up.

INTRODUCTION

The cast aluminum wheel plays a key role in automotive

industries. The wheel is one of the critical components of
the vehicle and it has to withstand the road loads and
meet the safety requirements. In order to meet structural
performance, the automotive industry has defined three
major tests for the wheel including Corner Fatigue Test
(CFT), Radial Fatigue Test (RFT) and Impact Test. In
CFT, where the wheel-disc structural characteristics are
critical, the wheel is subjected to a constant rotating
bending moment, while in RFT, the wheel and tire are
radially loaded against the constantly rotating drum. In
both cases, the wheel has to complete the minimum
number of test cycles without any damage. The impact
test, whereas, evaluates the impact damage on the
wheel, when the wheel hits a curb.

Using CAE simulation, we can significantly reduce the Fig. 1 Impact Loading Machine SAE J175
test timings and cost for a wheels prototype
development. Various methods and processes can be
The wheel and tire assembly are mounted on the wheel
used for the simulation of wheel impact test [1-3]. It is
mount fixture and its dimensions are shown in Fig. 2
typically difficult to capture the strain history during the
Four natural rubber mounts are used in fixture to absorb
the impact load and their hardness is equal to 50 shore.
The vertical deflection in the wheel mount fixture shall be
7.5mm 10% at the mid-span of the beam, when a
vertical mass of 1000kg is applied at the center of wheel
mount. All pivot joints in the fixture should be free to
rotate.
LABORATORY SETUP
The Impact Loading Machine and the wheel hub mount
are designed as per the SAE specifications. The wheel
mount fixture is calibrated for the 7.5 mm vertical
deflection. There are four strain gauges (A, B, C and D)
mounted on top of the wheel spoke region and two strain
gauges (E and F) are mounted on bottom of the wheel
spoke region as shown in Fig. 3. These mounting
regions are selected from the initial CAE simulation. The
strain gauge B and C have high strain limits.

Fig. 3 Strain Gauge Locations

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Fig. 2 Wheel Hub Fixture SAE J175 The finite element model consists of the wheel-tire
assembly, the wheel mount fixture and striker mass as
TEST PROCEDURE shown in the Fig. 4

The wheel-tire assembly is mounted on the wheel hub

fixture with a bolt torque of 115N-m 7 N-m. The
tubeless tire is inflated with pressure of 35psi. The setup
consists of a striker of 610Kg mass with125mm width.
The striker is dropped from a height of 230mm 2mm
above the highest part of the rim flange.

The failure criteria for the impact test are,

1. Visible fracture penetrating through a section of

the center member of the wheel assembly.

2. Separation of the center member from the rim.

3. Total loss of air pressure within one minute after

impact.

4. Deformation of the wheel assembly, or fixtures

in the area of the rim section contacted by the
face plate of weight system, does not constitute
a failure.

5. If it is suspected that failure results from

subsequent impacts caused by the mass
rebounding or the mass testing on the tire,
Fig. 4 CAE Model Setup for Wheel Impact
means should be employed to capture the mass
after first impact. Only one impact is intended.
TIRE CONSTRUCTION The tire is assumed to have linear material behavior for
the current study. The tire normal force deflection is
The tire plays a vital role in transferring the load from the validated as per the SAE J2704 testing. The rubber
striker to wheel during impact test. The tire modeling is material properties are fine tuned to correlate the FE
complex involving several components in the assembly model tire vertical stiffness (F-d) profile with the test
requiring accurate material representation. The different profile as shown in Fig. 7.
components of tire are shown in Fig. 5. The Tire treads
are in contact with the road surface and provides the
traction. The side-wall of the tire is a bridge between the
tread and bead. It provides lateral stability in tires,
protects the body plies and also keeps air from
escaping. The tire is in contact with the wheel at the

Displacement
bead region where the beads are reinforced with bead
wire. The radial tires have steel belts, which are used to
reinforce the area under the tread. They provide
puncture resistance and also help the tire maintain
optimum contact with the road surface. The body plies
are made up of several layers of fabric using polyester
cords. This cords in a radial tire run perpendicular to the
tread and are coated with rubber to help them bond with
the other components.

Fig. 7 Comparison of Tire F-D Curve: FE vs. Test

WHEEL-TIRE ASSEMBLY

The wheel FE model is constructed using higher order

tetrahedral elements as shown in Fig. 8. Aluminum alloy
(A356) material is used to represent the wheel and the
elasto-plastic material model uses isotropic,
homogeneous and temperature-independent properties.
The yield stress is 232Mpa and the strain at break is
0.09.

Fig. 5 Tire Components

A 17inch tubeless radial tire has been used in the

current study. The FE model is constructed using
hexahedral and beam elements. Hexahedral elements
are used to model the tread, sidewall and bead wire (Fig.
6). The belt and carcass are modeled using beam
elements. Tread and side wall use rubber properties, the
bead wire and belt use steel and the carcass ply is
modeled using polyester.

Fig. 8 Finite Element Model of Wheel

WHEEL MOUNTING FIXTURE

The wheel mounting fixture and rubber mounts are

Fig. 6 Finite Element model of Tire
modeled using hexahedral elements as shown in Fig. 9.
Revolute joint is used to represent the pivot joints.
Hyper-elastic rubber material model is used for the
rubber mounts while bolts and frames use steel. The
links/interfaces within the fixture assembly and the
striker- tire/wheel interface are all modeled with
appropriate contacts and penalty parameters within
ABAQUS.
Fig. 9 Finite Element Model of Wheel Mount Fixture
The fixture is calibrated as per the SAE J175 standard. A
linear static analysis is done for the vertical load of
1000Kg applied on the wheel mounting hub, and the
vertical deflection is measured at the center of the steel
beam (Fig.10). From the FE Analysis, the vertical
deflection at the center of the beam (7.3mm) is found to
be well within the range of SAE standard of 7.5 mm
10% as shown in Fig. 11.
Fig. 10 Load application on Wheel Mount Fixture
Fig. 11 Wheel Mount Fixture - Deflection
STRIKER MODEL
The mesh model of the striker is constructed with
hexahedral elements and a steel linear material property
is used. The mass of the striker is 615Kg as per the
standard shown in Fig. 4.
WHEEL IMPACT FE ANALYSIS
ABAQUS-Explicit solver is used to carry out the
nonlinear dynamic simulation using three sequential
steps: bolt preload simulation, followed by tire inflation
and finally the striker impact loading.
BOLT PRELOAD SIMULATION
Usually, the bolt preload is simulated [1] as a quasi-static
process. The explicit process is based on the wave
propagation theory, so the bolt preload is simulated
dynamically. Contacts are defined between the bolt,
wheel and the fixture hub interfaces. A connector
element is used to monitor the bolt force, the relative
displacement between the bolt threads and the nut
threads. The bolt force in the connector element is
initially treated as a negative force to pull the bolt
threads toward the nut threads as shown in Fig. 12. After
the bolt force reaches the magnitude of the desired bolt
preload as per the tightening torque, the connector
element displacement is locked and the bolt load is
removed. As a result, the applied bolt load is converted
from a surface force to a self-limiting body force. By
using this method, it is easy to incorporate the bolt
preload into the subsequent dynamic simulations of tire
inflation and the wheel impact.
Fig. 12 Bolt Preload Setup
TIRE INFLATION LOAD
Fully inflated Tire pressure is applied to the tire inner
wall and inner rim top as shown in the Fig. 13.

Fig. 13 Tire Inflation
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The wheel impact is simulated by applying the
sequential load of the bolt preload, tire inflation and the
striker impact.
Step I: Bolt preload: The bolt preload equivalent
to the bolt tightening torque is applied for the
first 10 millisecs as shown in Fig. 14
Step II: Tire inflation: The fully inflated tire
pressure is applied inside the tire and wheel
surface for the next 10 millisecs (Fig. 14)
Step III: Wheel Impact: As per SAE J-175
standard, the striker mass (615Kg) falls from
230mm height. In CAE, striker is kept at 54mm
height. This height is calculated (from eq. 2) so
that the impact loading occurs in correct timing
sequence after bolt preload and tire inflation
loading. The initial velocity is calculated as
shown below and applied to the striker.
Fig. 14 Amplitude Curve for Explicit Run
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
From the laboratory impact test, the principle strains are
measured at six locations A, B, C, D, E and F (Ref Fig.
3). During the impact test, the strain gauges A and E are
damaged. In CAE model, the principal strains are
measured in the appropriate locations in the wheel for B,
C, D and F. Since locations B, C and D are in the top
layer of the wheel spoke region, they go into tension
during impact and experience maximum principal strain.
The location E at the bottom of the wheel spoke region
goes into compression and experiences minimum
principal strain. From the strain curve, it is observed that
the first impact happens with the compression of the
rubber mount, and then load is transferred to the wheel
with the second impact. This phenomenon is captured
closely in CAE simulation with accurate representation of
the wheel mount fixture. The principal strain value and
curve trend from CAE simulation correlates very well
with the laboratory test for the location B, C, D and F as
shown in the Fig. 15. Test-CAE correlation of maximum
principal strain is achieved within 3% (Table 1).

The initial velocity (Vo) is calculated by equation,

Vo = (1)

Where g = Acceleration due to gravity and h = Impact

height.

The time (t) taken for impact is calculated by equation,

T= (2)

Where g = Acceleration due to gravity and h = Impact

height. (a) Principal Strain comparison at Location-B

In first step, the bolt pre-load and tire inflation will be

completed within the duration of 20 millisecs. Impact will
start 7.1 millisecs after first step (as per eq. 2). This
allows the impact to follow immediately after the inflation.
The time versus amplitude curve for explicit run is shown
in the Fig. 14.
 which is close to the lab measurement as shown in the
Fig. 16.

(b) Principal Strain comparison at Location-C

Fig. 16 Wheel Rim Width Measurement

The impact load contribution between the wheel and tire

is studied from the CAE simulation by monitoring the
contact forces in the wheel and tire interface as shown in
Fig. 17. The tire contribution is around 10% of the impact
load, whereas the wheel contribution is 90% to the total
impact load.

(c) Principal Strain comparison at Location-D

Fig. 17 Time Verses Contact Force

The bolt preload variations are monitored with the

(d) Principal Strain comparison at Location-F connector force during the impact as shown in the Fig.
18. The bolt preload decreases in the bolt 1 and 2, which
Fig. 15 Time (sec) Vs. Principal Strain comparison experience compression during impact. The bolt preload
is increases in bolt 4 and 5, which are subjected to
Table 1 Principal Strain comparison FEA vs. Test tension. Bolt 3 experiences minor variation, since it is
located in the mid-plane along the loading direction.
Strain % of
Principal Strain Test FEA
Gauge Dev.
B Max. Prin. Strain 0.0177 0.018 1%
C Max. Prin. Strain 0.0187 0.0192 3%
D Max. Prin. Strain 0.0105 0.0104 -1%
F Mini. Prin. Strain -0.0107 -0.0107 0%

After the impact test, the wheel rim width is measured in

the lab and found to be 203.4 mm, where the original
length is 205.3 mm. From the CAE simulation, the value
of the deformed rim width was found to be 203.9 mm
 5. E. Duni, G. Monfrino, R. Saponaro, M. Caudano and
F. Urbinati, Numerical Simulation Of Full Vehicle
Dynamic Behaviour Based On The Interaction
Between Abaqus/Standard And Explicit Codes,
FIAT Auto Spa, Torino, Italy.
6. Kocabicak U, Firat M, Numerical analysis of wheel
cornering fatigue tests, Engineering Failure
Analysis, 2001.
7. ABAQUS / Explicit Users Manual 6.10 Version,
2010.

Fig. 18 Time Verses Blot Force

CONCLUSION

This study presents a FE methodology to simulate the

wheel impact which correlates well with laboratory
testing as per SAE J175 standard. The process captures
the dynamic behavior of the tire-wheel system during
and after impact. The most critical points in the
methodology are, the development of the FE models for
tire & the wheel mounting fixture and the bolt preload
simulation using ABAQUS explicit scheme.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the support extended by

Synergies Castings Ltd., Visakhapatnam for the
laboratory testing and Mahesh Software Systems, Pune
for strain gauge measurements.

REFERENCES

1. SAE J175, Wheel Impact Test procedure, Road

Vehicles, SAE International, Surface Vehicle
Recommended Practice, SEP2003.
2. SAE J2704, Tire Normal Force/Deflection and Gross
Footprint Dimension Test, SAE International,
Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, JAN2005.
3. Chia-Lung Chang, Shao-Huei Yang, Simulation of
wheel impact test using finite element method,
ELSEVIER, Engineering Failure Analysis, 2009.
4. Tsu-te Wu, Structural Analyses of Fuel Casks
Subjected to Bolt Preload, Internal Pressure and
Sequential Dynamic Impacts, 50th Annual INMM
Meeting, 2009.

View publication stats