International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Finite element modeling of crash test behavior for windshield laminated glass
Yong Peng a, b, c,1, Jikuang Yang b, d, *, Caroline Deck c, Remy Willinger c
a
Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track of Ministry of Education, School of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
b
Research Center of Vehicle and Traffic Safety, State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacture for Vehicle Body, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
c
Institute of Fluid and Solid Mechanics, Strasbourg University, 67000, France
d
Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of the present study is to investigate the mechanical behavior of windshield laminated
Received 12 July 2012 glass in the case of a pedestrian’s head impact. Windshield FE models were set up using different
Received in revised form combinations for the modeling of glass and PVB, with various connection types and two mesh sizes
5 January 2013
(5 mm and 10 mm). Each windshield model was impacted with a standard adult headform impactor in
Accepted 23 January 2013
Available online 5 February 2013
an LS-DYNA simulation environment, and the results were compared with the experimental data
reported in the literature. The results indicated that the behavior of the windshield model with a double-
layered shell of glass and PVB and a tied element connection support test results from previous studies.
Keywords:
PVB laminated glass
Furthermore, the influence of glass fracture stress on the same windshield model was investigated, and
Windshield the cracked area and the peak value of the headform’s linear acceleration were determined by the critical
Finite element model fracture stress. It was observed that a 50-MPa fracture stress in the glass best predicted the observed
Crack propagation headform’s linear acceleration level and the cracks of the windshield at the time of impact.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents, head injuries are one of the
most common injury types and can lead to lifelong disability or
death [1e3]. The automotive windshield, with which pedestrians
come into frequent contact, has been identified as one of the main
contact sources for pedestrian head injuries. Otte [1] reported that
the windshield was the most frequent vehicle sources of head
injury in 543 accident cases, and Yoshiyuki [4] reported that the
windshield’s glass is the leading source of head injury for adult
pedestrians according to the IHRA Pedestrian Safety Working
Group’s summary report.
Safety glass is widely used in automotive structures in order to
reduce the injury severity of pedestrians in vehicleepedestrian
collisions. Nowadays, polyvinyl butyral (PVB) laminated wind-
shields are typically used in automobiles. The laminated glass is
obtained by pressing two pieces of glass plate and one piece of PVB
film together at a high pressure and temperature. The function of
PVB is to keep the layers of glass bonded even when broken, and its
* Corresponding author. Research Center of Vehicle and Traffic Safety, State Key
Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacture for Vehicle Body, Hunan Univer-
sity, Changsha 410082, China.
E-mail addresses: pengyong20080708@163.com (Y. Peng), jikuang.yang@
chalmers.se (J. Yang).
1
Tel.: þ86(0)73182655374; fax: þ46(0)317723656.
high strength prevents the glass from breaking into large sharp
pieces, thereby greatly reducing the possibility of injury caused by
shards of flying glass. In limited time dynamics, the elastic behavior
for small deformations of the composite is determined by the glass.
For large deformations, the PVB-interlayer plays a dominant role
because the brittle glass cannot withstand large strains. When the
glass layers fail, the PVB interlayer still has its load-carrying ca-
pacity, which can be observed experimentally. The energy-
absorbing properties of the laminated glass are obtained through
a combination of the energy dissipation as a consequence of the
fracture behavior of the glass and the visco-elastic deformation of
the PVB interlayer. Based on the experimental observation of glass
under indentation loading, the cracks can be classified into four
major types: cone cracks, radial cracks, median vent cracks and
lateral cracks [5,6].
In order to produce safer glass, many experimental studies
related to the mechanical properties of automobile glass have been
carried out. Generally speaking, experiments for studying the me-
chanical response of such composite materials in terms of different
strain rates can be categorized into two types: quasi-static and
dynamic investigations [7]. Timmel et al. [8] conducted a four-point
bending test, in which the experimental setup consisted of a lami-
nated glass plate (total thickness: 6.72 mm, 0.72 mm PVB) bearing/
supported by two cylinders to evaluate three different material
models in explicit FE solver (LS-DYNA) as well as fit the best ma-
terial model with experiment data to describe the behavior of the

0734-743X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.01.010
28 Y. Peng et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35

PVB laminated glass. Muralidhar et al. [9] and Rahulkumar et al.

[10] used a compressive shear strength experiment to study the
debonding phenomenon occurring in the glass polymer interface.
In the case of dynamic investigations, Charpy, drop-weight tests
and the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) or Kolsky’s apparatus
have been widely used [11,12]. The ball drop experiments were
conducted on laminated glass to investigate its temporal response
after the impact of a hard sphere [13]. In order to determine the
failure criterion for laminated glass in the case of impact, a wide
range of experiments with glass planes were carried out by Pyttel
et al. [14]. Meanwhile, Xu et al. [15] carried out a set of dynamic
compression impact experiments on PVB specimens using the
SHPB method at strain rates ranging from 700/s to 4500/s. Finally,
headform tests were carried out to determine the contact stiffness
characterization of windshields for accident reconstruction as part
of the MADYMO program [16]. However, detailed studies have
seldom focused on the simulation of windshield laminated glass; Fig. 1. ‘MAT_LAMINATED_GLASS’ model for the behavior of laminated glass.
indeed, it remains a challenge to accurately simulate the impactor
acceleration and fracture pattern of windshield laminated glass in
impact tests. Share (G-P-S) and Glass-PVB-Tied (G-P-T). In these two methods,
In the current study, windshield models are set up based on the the glass shell element describes the two glass layers of the
LS-DYNA code; the mechanical behavior of these models is simu- windshield while the other layer models the PVB. The glass is
lated and compared with tests from the literature. The objective of modeled using the ‘MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY’ material
the current study is to investigate the mechanical behavior of model in LS-DYNA, and the fracture is defined as plastic strain
windshield laminated glass in a numerical simulation. 0.001 [13]. The PVB is modeled by material model ‘MAT_MODI-
FIED_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY’ and is defined as membrane
2. Material and methods elements.
If the glass layer does not break, the behavior of the laminated
2.1. Development of windshield FE models glass is controlled by the “glass shell”; however, if the glass layer
breaks, the “PVB shell” controls the behavior and the “glass shell” is
In this study, five windshield finite-element models are set up deleted when it reaches the failure criterion. The tied element is
according to the LS-DYNA code. Based on the different material automatically deleted as soon as all connected shell elements
laws for glass and PVB, the five models are divided into three (glass) fail.
groups: single layer, double layer, and triple layer. All of windshield The composite efficiency of the windshield was not considered
FE models are developed with shell elements by projecting the in these suggested models; therefore, a smeared modeling tech-
geometry of real-world vehicle windshield. The overall quality of nique was introduced. According to Timmel et al. [8], in order to
mesh is controlled in the process of modeling as shown in Table 1. consider an equivalent thickness tE of the shells and the density rE,
The single layer glass model consisting of a shell element sheet is the elements have to be readjusted to maintain the correct total
defined as LS-DYNA ‘MAT_LAMINATED_GLASS’ (abbreviation M-L-G). mass and the stiffness before fracture has to be adjusted. We can
A multi-layered glass and PVB model can be defined in a single shell assume that full bonding occurred between the glass and PVB
element by using the ‘MAT_LAMINATED_GLASS’ material model. The interlayer because of the dynamic loading. Therefore, the equiv-
shell reacts on the basis of the glass parameters up to the pre-defined alent thickness can be obtained using the following bending stiff-
fracture plastic strain for glass; from this point on, the shell behavior is ness equivalence:
driven by the PVB characteristics. Failure of the glass part is possible.
However, the elements are not deleted after the fracture strain. Fig. 1 ð2EG þEPVB ÞtE3
ðEIÞModel ¼
shows the mechanical behavior of laminated glass. 12
"   #
Meanwhile, the double-layered glass model consists of one layer tG3 t þ tPVB 2 t3
of glass and one layer of PVB. Taking into account the connection ¼ 2EG þ tG G þ EPVB PVB (1)
12 2 12
between glass and PVB, two methods are considered: first, a shared
node and, second, a tied element connection. Thus, for the double- from which,
layered windshield, two windshield models are set up: Glass-PVB-
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 2 EPVB 3
tE ¼ 3 þ 3t ðt þ t
tG G G PVB Þ þ t (2)
Table 1 3EG PVB
Quality control parameters of elements.

Quality control parameters Threshold and the new equivalent density is:
Warpage <15  
Aspect ratio <5 1
Skew <40 rG tG þ rPVB tPVB
2
Min size >2 rE ¼ (3)
Max size <15 tE
Jacobian >0.7
Min interior angle tria >30 where, EG and EPVB are the Young’s modulus of glass and PVB
Max interior angle tria <120 respectively; rG and rPVB are the density of glass and PVB respec-
Min interior angle quad >40 tively; tG and tPVB are the thickness of glass and PVB respectively,
Max interior angle quad <140
and the total thickness is t ¼ tG þ tPVB.
 Y. Peng et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35 29

Fig. 2. Five patterns of windshield laminated glass for the simulation study.

Assuming that after the fracture only compression stress re- A stress-free state requires (7) directly. For uniaxial tension or
mains in the fractured glass, the center of gravity of the laminated compression, the deformation gradient is given by:
glass section will be relocated according to the parallel axis theo-
0 1
rem. Thus, Young’s modulus (EII) after the fracture is given by: l 0 0
F ¼ @0 1=2
l 0 A 0  s  ¼ AþB (10)
1h    i
l1=2 1 l
E II
¼ 3 EG tG3 þ 3tG tPVB
2 3
þ EPVB tPVB þ 3tPVB tG2 (4) 0 0 2 l 2
tE l
This value represents Young’s modulus of the modified PVB or which enables us to determine A and B using the experimental data.
EPVB,mod, while Young’s modulus of the modified glass will be: First, the engineering stress and strain are transformed:

EG;mod ¼ 2EG  EPVB;mod (5) s 1 1

s/  ; 3 / ¼ (11)
1 1þ3 l
Finally, the third type of model corresponds to the triple-layered 2 l 2
model, consisting of a layer of PVB between two layers of glass. l
Similar to the double-layered case, in the triple-layered model, two Then, the gradient of the linear fit obtained by this curve gives
windshield models were set up using two connection the material parameter B while the intersection with the ordinate
typesdnamely, Glass-PVB-Glass-Share (G-P-G-S) and Glass-PVB- gives A.
Glass-Tied (G-P-G-T). In these two models, the glass was modeled In order to study the mechanical behavior of PVB laminated
using a linear elastic behavior with fracture while the PVB mem- glass, dynamic impact and quasi-static tensile experiments were
brane was modeled with ‘MAT_MOONEY-RIVLIN_RUBBER’. performed [8,13,15,19]. According to the experimental results, the
The rubber-like behavior can be described by using the material behavior of the PVB laminated glass can be described with the
law given by Mooney [17] and Rivlin [18]. According to Mooney and following equation if the temperature effect is neglected [20]:
Rivlin, the constitutive relation can be defined as:
  n   
  s ¼ EþF 3p 1 þ Gln 3_ *p (12)
2 2
W ¼ AðI  3Þ þ BðII  3Þ þ C III  1 þ DðIII  1Þ (6)

and, * 3_ p
3_ p ¼ (13)
3_ 0
C ¼ 0:5A þ B (7)
where s is the yield stress, 3 p is the equivalent strain, and 3_ p and 3_ 0
are strain rate and reference strain rate respectively. Meanwhile, E,
Að5m  2Þ þ Bð11m  5Þ
D ¼ (8) F, G and n are material constants, obtained from experiments.
2ð1  2mÞ According to the three-point bending experiment:

where, A and B are material parameters, m is Poisson’s ratio, and  

2(A þ B) is the shear modulus of linear elasticity. In addition, I, II, DPl3
E ¼ 1þs (14)
and III are invariants of the right Cauchy-Green Tensor C. 4bt 3 Df
The PiolaeKirchhoff stress is given by:
 
      3t 3 E 3t 3
S ¼ 2 A þ BI 1  2BC þ 4 DJ 2 J 2  1  CJ 4 C 1 (9) s ¼ ¼ 2 1 þ m (15)
2t 2 G 2t 2

Table 2
Mechanical properties of glass and PVB interlayer [8,13,15,19].

Glass PVB
Single layer E ¼ 74 GPa, r ¼ 2500 kg/m3, m ¼ 0.227, EFG ¼ 0.001, t ¼ 4.2 mm E ¼ 2.6 GPa, r ¼ 1100 kg/m3, m ¼ 0.435, t ¼ 0.76 mm
Double layer E ¼ 74 GPa, r ¼ 2500 kg/m3, m ¼ 0.227, EFG ¼ 0.001, t ¼ 4.2 mm E ¼ 2.6 GPa, r ¼ 1100 kg/m3, m ¼ 0.435, t ¼ 0.76 mm
Triple layer E ¼ 74 GPa, r ¼ 2500 kg/m3, m ¼ 0.227, EFG ¼ 0.001, t ¼ 4.2 mm A ¼ 1.6 MPa, B ¼ 0.06 MPa

Note: E is Young’s modulus, r is the density, m is Poisson’s ratio, EFG is plastic strain at failure for glass, t is the thickness, and A and B are material parameters.
30 Y. Peng et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35

Fig. 3. Initial conditions used to validate the windshield FE model by reproducing the head’s impact on the windshield at two different locations with an initial velocity of 11.1 m/s.

Fig. 4. Experimental setup with headform (left) and impact locations on the windshield (right) in the clamped boundary condition.

where E is Young’s modulus, DP is the increase of load, Df is the
increase of displacement, and l, b, and t are the length, width, and
thickness of the testing specimen, respectively.
Fig. 2 shows the five modeling methods for the windshield
laminated glass. Windshield FE models were set up according to the
five previously mentioned methods. For each proposed windshield
FE model, two different mesh sizes were used: 5 mm and 10 mm.
The geometry of windshield was obtained based on the drawings of
production car and the dimension of the windshield was
1540 mm  970 mm. The mechanical parameters of the glass and
PVB implemented under LS-DYNA code as well as the windshield
dimensions are defined in Table 2.
order to fix the windshield. Validation was provided in terms of
linear acceleration at the headform’s center of gravity as well as
a comparison of the crack propagation.
In order to investigate the influence of the failure stress of the
glass on the behavior of the windshield, a parametric study was
conducted by assuming five different failure stresses (40 MPa,
50 MPa, 60 MPa, 80 MPa, and 100 MPa) and using the windshield FE
model that has obtained best results against the previously
described EEVC tests. For this parametric study, impact tests were
carried out according to the EEVC test (at a speed of 11.1 m/s); re-
sults were compared in terms of linear acceleration of the head-
form and crack propagation.

2.2. Windshield FE model validation against EEVC tests
Windshield FE models were validated against Lex et al.’s impact
test results [16]. The headform used in the test is a standard EEVC
adult headform impactor with a total weight of approximately
4.8 kg. The headform was experimentally propelled to hit two
different windshield impact points (the center and the corner of the
windshield) at an angle perpendicular to the windshield and at
a speed of 11.1 m/s. In order to validate the windshield FE model,
simulations were conducted according to the test conditions shown
in Fig. 3. The edges of the windshield model were constrained in
2.3. Windshield FE model validation using clamped boundary
condition
To further validate the windshield FE model, clamped experi-
ments at 6 m/s were used [21]. The most accurate windshield FE
model, as identified in the previous section, was used. The direction
of impact for testing was defined according to Directive 2003/102/
EC. As shown in Fig. 4, the adult headform (with a total mass of
4.8 kg) was compressed to a spring and then released so that it
impacted the windshield at the desired initial speed (around 6 m/
s). Simulation results were compared with experimental results in

Table 3
Comparison between numerical and experimental results in terms of the headform’s linear acceleration for different windshield FE models. (The peak values of G-P-T (5 mm
mesh) in the simulation show the best results and concur with the impact test.)

Windshield model Center position Corner position

First peak First peak Second peak Second peak First peak First peak Second peak Second peak
(g) 5 mm (g) 10 mm (g) 5 mm (g) 10 mm (g) 5 mm (g) 10 mm (g) 5 mm (g) 10 mm
Test 119 55 121 120
M-L-G 57 36 72 71 120 140 98 116
G-P-S 105 60 66 77 138 119 122 125
G-P-T 110 72 59 62 120 92 121 108
G-P-G-S 185 135 63 70 80 40 105 120
G-P-G-T 117 112 67 63 92 60 95 105
 Y. Peng et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35 31

Fig. 5. Headform linear acceleration during simulations versus tests for the G-P-T 5 mm mesh model.

terms of headform acceleration at six different impact locations the middle of windshield height; point 5: on the center line,
(point 1: center of windshield; point 2: 130 mm from the side edge 150 mm from the motor’s edge; point 6:on center line, 180 mm
and 150 mm from the motor’s edge; point 3:middle of the diagonal from the roof’s edge). An illustration of these impact locations are
from center to corner; point 4: 130 mm from the side edge and at given in Fig. 4.

Fig. 6. Comparison of windshield crack patterns for different windshield models (5 mm mesh) for center and corner positions, including experimental results.
32 Y. Peng et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35
Fig. 7. Comparison of windshield crack pattern between 5 mm mesh and 10 mm mesh (G-P-T).
3. Results
3.1. Windshield FE model validation against EEVC tests
Table 3 lists the peak values of the headform’s linear accelera-
tion. The peak values include two values: first peak value and
second peak value. When compared with the EEVC test results, the
peak values of G-P-T (5 mm mesh) in the simulation show the best
results and concur with the impact test.
Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the headform’s linear acceleration
history curves for G-P-T (5 mm mesh) with the headform’s impact
test results. The magnitude and pulse duration of the headform’s
linear acceleration versus time in the simulation concurred with
the corresponding impact test.
Fig. 6 shows the crack pattern for different windshield models
developed using 5 mm mesh at the center position and the corner
position as well as the experimental results. No evident cracks were
found for the M-L-G windshield model because the elements were
not deleted when plastic strain reached the failure criterion. For the
first triple-layered windshield model, G-P-G-T, the cracks observed
were quite local and did not seem to propagate as in the exper-
imental tests. For the second triple-layered windshield model, G-P-
G-S, the results were better than for G-P-G-T, but circular crack
propagation occurred much less and did not exactly match the
experimental result. The double-layered G-P-S results are better
compared with the two triple-layered windshield models’ results
as both the circular and radial cracks were similar to those observed
in the experiments. However, the best results were obtained with
the double-layered G-P-T windshield model. Both the radial and
Fig. 8. Comparison of fracture pattern of windshield during experimental impact test versus simulation at 11.1 m/s (G-P-T 5 mm mesh).
circular cracks matched the experimental results to a great extent,
suggesting that G-P-T is the best windshield model for simulating
windshield fracture.
Furthermore, two mesh sizes were considered. As indicated in
Table 3, peak values are influenced by mesh size. All other input
parameters being the same, the 10 mm mesh exhibited a much less
stiff response than the 5 mm mesh, especially for the first phase of
the impact (Table 3). The comparison of windshield crack patterns
between 5 mm mesh and 10 mm mesh is illustrated in Fig. 7. The
simulation results indicate that the area of the crack is bigger for
5 mm mesh than for 10 mm mesh and that the number of circular
cracks is greater for 5 mm mesh than for 10 mm mesh. Therefore,
the G-P-T windshield model with 5 mm mesh demonstrated the
best agreement with the experimental test results in terms of both
fracture of windshield and the headform’s linear accelerations.
In addition, numerical simulations were done to investigate the
effect of the glass failure stress on the windshield model’s behavior.
The windshield models were set up using the G-P-T (5 mm mesh)
model. As shown in Fig. 8, the observed windshield fracture pat-
terns were compared with the impact simulation using five
implemented failure stress values. The simulation results indicate
that the cracked area was determined by the critical fracture stress.
The cracked area decreased as the failure stress of the glass
increased. The radii of the windshield crack area during the impact
test compared to the simulation at 11.1 m/s for different failure
stresses are listed in Table 4. The cracked area agreed well with the
experimental impact test results for glass failure stress at 50 MPa
and 80 MPa, and the circular cracks were fewer with a glass failure
stress of 80 MPa. Finally, C1 was only found when the failure stress
 Y. Peng et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35 33

Table 4 results with the clamped experimental results in terms of the

Comparison of the radii of windshield crack areas during impact test versus simu- headform’s linear acceleration. In the simulations, the windshield
lation at 11.1 m/s for different failure stresses (G-P-T 5 mm mesh).
model was modeled by using G-P-T (5 mm mesh), which is the
Test 40 MPa 50 MPa 60 MPa 80 MPa 100 MPa most accurate model as previously demonstrated. The failure stress
C1 (mm) 122 168 115 136 118 79 of the glass was set to 50 MPa in all these simulations. Compared
C2 (mm) 244 306 238 218 240 e with the clamped experiments results, the simulated headform
linear accelerations had a similar shape and peak value, indicating
was defined at 100 MPa. Therefore, Fig. 8 and Table 4 indicate that that the method of windshield FE modeling can simulate the me-
the best value of glass fracture stress for predicting the observed chanical behavior of laminated glass (Fig. 10).
crack propagation is 50 MPa, regardless of what cracks are con-
sidered (circular cracks or radial cracks). 4. Discussion
The headform’s linear acceleration history curves of five failure
stresses of glass are shown in Fig. 9. The results indicate that the In this study, a series of numerical simulations were carried out
peak values of acceleration are determined by the failure stress of in order to determine a method for simulating the mechanical
glass, especially for the first peak value. The peak values increase as behavior of laminated glass. The headform’s impact simulations
failure stress increases. According to the tests, the numerical sim- were conducted at 11.1 m/s and 6 m/s using different impact po-
ulation results indicate that the headform’s linear accelerations sitions on the windshield. Five windshield FE models were set up
during both the first and second phase of the impact can be based on the LS-DYNA code.
simulated well when the glass fracture stress is defined as 50 MPa. According to Xu’s study [22], the cracking process of glass can be
divided into three phases: radial crack phase, circular crack phase,
3.2. Windshield FE model validation against clamped experimental and plasticity deformation phase. The radial crack phase precedes
test the circular crack phase. In the present simulation, the observed
results were reproduced using the windshield G-P-T windshield
In order to further validate the windshield model, additional model with 5 mm mesh, as shown in Fig. 11. Compared to the
numerical simulations were carried out to compare numerical headform’s linear acceleration (Fig. 12), both the first peak value

Fig. 9. Comparison of the headform’s linear accelerations during impact test versus simulation at 11.1 m/s for different glass failure stress levels (G-P-T 5 mm mesh).
34 Y. Peng et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35

Fig. 10. Comparison of the headform’s linear acceleration between experiments and numerical simulations at different impact positions with an initial velocity of 6 m/s.

Fig. 11. The crack patterns of PVB laminated glass (G-P-T 5 mm mesh).

and the second peak value appeared in the crack phase 1. From time speeds of 11.1 m/s and 6 m/s. More impact velocities and impact
t2, the headform’s linear acceleration started to decrease until t3, angles should be considered. The edges of the windshield were
remaining almost constant in phase 3 from t3 to t4. In other words, constrained, resulting windshield in some differences from
the peak values of the headform’s acceleration are produced during a windshield in a real-world vehicle. Finally, in order to define more
phase 1, followed by a reduction with the appearance of circular detailed characteristics of PVB, experiments on PVB should be
cracks, but it stays nearly constant during the plastic deformation carried out in future studies.
phase.
This study considered two mesh sizes: 5 mm and 10 mm. Table 3
and Fig. 7 indicate that the peak value of the linear acceleration and
windshield crack pattern are influenced by the mesh size. Fur-
thermore, glass is a brittle material, and the FE simulation of
a fracture is deemed to be mesh-sensitive, like square meshes and
radial meshes. Radial meshes are suitable for fitting a single impact
point whereas square meshes are better for multiple impact points.
In order to fit the different windshield impact points, square
meshes were used in this study.
By testing the failure stress of the glass from 40 MPa to 100 MPa,
it was found that 50 MPa was the best value for predicting both the
acceleration levels and the crack propagation of the windshield.
Fig. 9 demonstrated that the value of the failure stress has more
influence on the peak value of acceleration during the first phase of
the impact than during the second phase. The cracked area de-
creases as the failure stress of the glass increases in both a radial
and circular direction.
The current study also has several limitations. The simulations
were carried out at an angle perpendicular to the windshield at Fig. 12. The headform’s linear acceleration during simulation (G-P-T 5 mm mesh).
 Y. Peng et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013) 27e35
5. Conclusions
Laminated glass models were set up using different combinations
of glass and PVB with various connection hypotheses and two mesh
sizes based on the LS-DYNA code. The results indicated that the G-P-T
(5 mm mesh) model is the most accurate for representing a wind-
shield model. This kind of laminated glass model consists of two
layers of a shell element with a tied element connectiondnamely,
the shell element layer represents glass and the membrane ele-
ment layer represents PVB.
The cracked area and the peak value of the headform’s linear
acceleration were determined using the critical fracture stress;
a 50 MPa failure stress of glass best predicted the headform’s ac-
celeration level and the cracks in the windshield. Based on these
results, vehicle design should consider the design of the windshield
in the framework of the protection program, especially to ensure
protection of pedestrians’ heads during impact.
Acknowledgments
Thanks for the financial support of the China Scholarship
Council (CSC) and the MAIF Foundation for their support.
References
[1] Otte D. Severity and mechanism of head impacts in car-to-pedestrian accidents.
In: Proceedings of the International conference on the biomechanics of impacts;
1999. p. 329e41.
[2] Fildes B, Gabler HC, Otte D, Linder A, Sparke L. Pedestrian impact priorities
using real-world crash data and harm. In: Proceedings of the International
conference on the biomechanics of impacts; Graz, Austria, 2004. p. 167e77.
[3] Neal-Sturgess CE, Carter E, Hardy R, Cuerden R, Guerra L, Yang JK. APROSYS
European in-depth pedestrian database. In: Proc. 20th conference on the
enhanced safety of vehicles (ESV). Lyon, France: 2007. Paper number 07-0267.
[4] Yoshiyuki M. Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety WG activities (2005) e pro-
posed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger
cars. In: Proceedings of the 19th international technical conference on the
enhanced safety of vehicles; Washington D.C., 2005. Paper number 05-0138.
[5] Lawn B, Wilshaw R. Review indentation fracture: principles and applications.
J Mater Sci 1975;10:1049e81.
35
[6] Cook RF, Pharr GM. Direct observation and analysis of indentation cracking in
glasses and ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 1990;73(4):787e817.
[7] Stout MG, Koss DA, Liu C, Idasetima J. Damage development in carbon/epoxy
laminates under quasi-static and dynamic loading. Compos Sci Technol 1999;
59:2339e50.
[8] Timmel M, Kolling S, Osterrieder P, Bois PAD. A finite element model
for impact simulation with laminated glass. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34:
1465e78.
[9] Muralidhar S, Jagota A, Bennison SJ, Saigal S. Mechanical behaviour in tension
of cracked glass bridged by an elastomeric ligament. Acta Mater 2000;48:
4577e88.
[10] Rahul KP, Jagota A, Bennison SJ, Saigal S. Interfacial failures in a compressive
shear strength test of glass/polymer laminates. Int J Solids Struct 2000;37:
7281e305.
[11] Bell JF. The experimental foundations of solid mechanics. Berlin: Springer;
1973.
[12] Field JE, Walley SM, Proud WG, Goldrein HT. Review of experimental tech-
niques for high rate deformation and shock studies. Int J Impact Eng 2004;30:
725e75.
[13] Grünert J, Hardy RN, Joonekindt S, Dijk NPV, Swartjes F, Bayer FJ, et al. Con-
stitutive laws for complete componentsewindscreen and other materials.
APROSYS report“AP-SP3-012”; 2004.
[14] Pyttel T, Liebertz H, Cai J. Failure criterion for laminated glass under impact
loading and its application in finite element simulation. Int J Impact Eng 2011;
38(4):252e63.
[15] Xu J, Li YB, Ge DY, Liu BH, Zhu MY. Experimental investigation on constitutive
behavior of PVB under impact loading. Int J Impact Eng 2010;38:106e14.
[16] Lex VR, Kavi B, Mark M, Johan I, Jeff C, Douglas L, et al. Pedestrian crash
reconstruction using multi-body modeling with geometrically detailed, vali-
dated vehicle models and advanced pedestrian injury criteria. In: Proceedings
of the 18th ESV conference; Nagoya, 2003. Paper number 468.
[17] Mooney M. A theory of large elastic deformations. J Appl Phys 1940;11:
582e92.
[18] Rivlin RS. Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials. Math Phys Sci
1948;241:379e97.
[19] Xu J, Li YB, Liu BH, Zhu MY, Ge DY. Experimental study on mechanical
behavior of PVB laminated glass under quasi-static and dynamic loadings.
Compos Part B Eng 2011;42(2):302e8.
[20] Johnson GR, Cook WH. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to
large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of
the7th international symposium on ballistics. Hague: 1983. p. 541e7.
[21] Wang W, Swartjes FHM, Grünert J, Hardy RN. Impact response for complete
components influence of geometry, interface conditions and impact energy.
APROSYS report “AP-SP32-011”; 2004.
[22] Xu J, Li YB, Ge DY, Chen X, Yao XF, Zhu MY, et al. Review of research on impact
response of automotive polyvinyl butyral laminated windshield. J Mech Eng
2011;47(18):93e100.