Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Concept selection of car bumper beam with developed hybrid

bio-composite material
M.M. Davoodi a,⇑, S.M. Sapuan a, D. Ahmad b, A. Aidy a, A. Khalina b, Mehdi Jonoobi c
a
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
c
Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Luleå 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: Application of natural fibre composites is going to increase in different areas caused by environmental,
Received 10 March 2011 technical and economic advantages. However, their low mechanical properties have limited their partic-
Accepted 7 June 2011 ular application in automotive structural components. Hybridizations with other reinforcements or
Available online 12 June 2011
matrices can improve mechanical properties of natural fibre composite. Moreover, geometric optimiza-
tions have a significant role in structural strength improvement. This study focused on selecting the best
Keywords: geometrical bumper beam concept to fulfill the safety parameters of the defined product design specifi-
A. Composite
cation (PDS). The mechanical properties of developed hybrid composite material were considered in dif-
E. Mechanical
H. Selection of components
ferent bumper beam concepts with the same frontal curvature, thickness, and overall dimensions. The
low-speed impact test was simulated under the same conditions in Abaqus V16R9 software. Six weighted
criteria, which were deflection, strain energy, mass, cost, easy manufacturing, and the rib possibility were
analyzed to form an evaluation matrix. Topsis method was employed to select the best concept. It is con-
cluded that double hat profile (DHP) with defined material model can be used for bumper beam of a small
car. In addition, selected concept can be strengthened by adding reinforced ribs or increasing the thick-
ness of the bumper beam to comply with the defined PDS.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Conceptual design is the first stage of product development to

Concept optimizations of the car bumper beam can improve
structural energy absorption to meet the PDS requirements. Bum-
per system is composed of three main elements fascia, energy ab-
sorber and bumper beam [1] (see Fig. 1). Bumper beam is the major
damping structure component in passenger cars. Besides, two en-
ergy absorbers damp both the low and high impact energy by elas-
tic deflection between two traverse-fixing points and crushing
process respectively [2,3]. Due to safety requirements, in develop-
ing the bumper beam, the careful design, optimized structure, high
quality and consistent manufacturing must be considered [4]. In
addition, bumper beam selection can improve structural energy
absorption, material consumption and cost [5]. The previous stud-
ies did not completely fulfil the impact strength requirement of the
bumper PDS even in case where polybutylene terephthalate (PBT)
was supplemented to the hybrid bio-composite material [6,7].
Therefore, in this recent study the optimized concept selection is
employed to improve the impact stability of structure [8].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 16 65 65 296; fax: +60 3 8656 7122.
E-mail addresses: makinejadm2@asme.org, davoodi@eng.upm.edu.my (M.M.
Davoodi).
satisfy customer requirements. Sapuan et al. [1] studied on concep-
tual design of the automotive bumper system and used the
weighted objective method to find the best concept. Hosseinzadeh
et al. [9] conducted a research to substitute the high strength SMC
with common bumper beam material GMT to improve energy
absorption. Furthermore, Davoodi et al. [10] studied about com-
posite elliptical energy absorber for pedestrian impact test with
systematic exploitation of proven ideas. Marzbanrad et al. [11]
studied about the material, thickness, shape and impact condition
of the bumper beam to improve the crashworthiness and low-
velocity impact. He offered to substitute SMC with GMT material
to absorb more structural impact. Also, European car manufactur-
ers have done many investigations to expand the application pos-
sibilities of natural fibres in automotive industry such as front door
linens, rear door linens, boot linens, parcel shelves, seat backs, sun-
roof sliders, headliners, door-trim panel and trunk liner [12–14]. In
fact, the majority of their products are used in aesthetic and semi
structural components. Mussig [15] utilized hemp and PTPÒ fibres
in a body of bus as reinforcements, a vegetable-based thermoset
resin as matrix, and sheet molding compound (SMC) as fabricating
method for structural components. Although, the earlier research-
ers studied on energy absorption of wood for automotive structural

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.06.011
4858 M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865
components [16], few studies have been conducted on application
of natural fibre in structural automotive components.
This research focused on analyzing, evaluating and selecting the
optimum concept among eight different bumper beam concepts,
and particularly concentrated on safety purposes of a bumper
beam PDS. Based on the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration (NHTSA), car bumper low impact test was simulated by fi-
nite element software, Abaqus Ver16R9, to address the highest
energy absorption and maximum possible deflection. The same
material properties and constant overall dimensions were consid-
ered for whole concepts. Finally, decision matrix came up with
eight alternatives against six criteria. Topsis method was ap-
pointed for selecting the best concept of the bumper beam through
eight systematic evaluation processes. It was concluded that Dou-
ble Hat Profile (DHP) as a best concept. Moreover, this study dem-
onstrated the feasibility of the finite element analysis in selecting
the best structural concepts to overcome the weak inherent prop-
erties of natural fibre, and to get better mechanical performance
for automotive structural application.
Fig. 1. Bumper system components.
Fig. 2. Selected parameters for bumper beam PDS.
2. Basic design procedure
2.1. Conceptual design of bumper beam
The preliminary stage of product development start with con-
ceptual design, which is derived from customer requirement ‘‘voice
of the customer’’ [17,18] to find a solution to satisfy the functional
design problems [19]. Imprecise engineering calculation, design
and material selection, might increase up to 70% the total product
cost for redesigning [20]. Designer has to select the most suitable
idea from different possible solutions or combination of material
selection and component design to meet the desired PDS in each
design stage to decrease the rework expense [21–25].Therefore,
many tools are developed to evaluate design concept selection
(DCS) and compromise different effective factors, i.e. customer
requirements, designer intentions and market desire.
Decision matrix-based methods, offer the qualitative compari-
son such as Pugh’s method [23] or quality function deployment
(QFD) [26]. Fuzzy ANP-based, evaluate a set of conceptual design
alternatives to satisfy both customer satisfaction and engineering
specifications [27]. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a mathe-
matically based technique for analyzing complex situations, which
were sophisticated in its simplicity [28]. Multi criteria decision-
making (MCDM) is an effective method for single selection among
mixed criteria. Multi-attribute decision-making technique
(MADM) is a conflicting preferences’ solution among criteria for
single decision makers’. Topsis is well suited technique to dealing
with multi attribute or multi-criteria decision-making (MADM/
MCDM) problems in real world ideal solutions [29]. Its method is
based on ‘‘chosen alternative has shortest distance from positive
ideal solution and farthest distance from negative ideal solution’’.
It helps to organize problems, compare, and rank alternatives to
carry out the analysis for better options [30]. This method has been
appointed to select the best concept in this research.
 M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865
2.2. Product design specification (PDS)
To perform the customer requirements and expectation to a de-
tailed technical document called PDS [31]. It is quite difficult to fin-
ish the exact PDS in the early stage of product development, while
the knowledge of design requirements is imprecise and incomplete
[32]. PDS originates by disorganized brainstorming team with var-
ious proficiency, i.e. manufacturing, designing, selling, assembling,
maintaining, and might be improved due to new product changes
and manufacturing limitations. Safety was the main goal among
different bumper PDS specification in this study.
Bumper beam PDS consisted of safety, performance, weight,
size, cost, environment issue, appearance (see Fig. 2). Whole PDS
parameters can be classified into three main subdivisions such as
material, manufacturing and design. Since energy absorption of
different concept is the core competency of this study, it is empha-
sized in the PDS safety parameters. Some of the mechanical and
physical properties’ values are received from experimental results
and others from existing PDS data.
Fig. 3. Bumper beam conceptual selection flowchart.
4859
Safety: There are different bumper safety regulations for pas-
senger’s car, issued by safety organization, insurance companies
or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) [33]. Insurance compa-
nies usually offer more severe conditions in order to decrease their
own costs. This study follows safety criteria of the European car
manufacturer.
(1) Low impact test: Longitudinal pendulum impact test by
4.0 km/h (2.5 mph), and corner pendulum impact test by
2.4 km/h (1.5 mph) with any bumper visual, functional,
and safety damages.
(2) High speed test: No bumper damage or yielding after 8 km/h
(5 mph) frontal impact into a flat, rigid barrier.
(3) Pedestrian impact test: In this test, a ‘‘leg-form’’ impactor is
propelled toward a stationary vehicle at a velocity of 40 km/
h (25 mph) parallel to the vehicles longitudinal axis. The test
can be performed at any location across the face of the vehi-
cle, between the 30° bumper corners. So the impact criteria
for 2010 should be a < 150 g and the shear d < 6 mm and
bending a < 15°
4860 M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865

[10]. In this study, bumper beam was placed after fascia and was
mounted to the main chassis through energy absorbers. Besides,
are different effective parameters to improve the energy absorbing
performance in a bumper beam as follows.

(1) Frontal curvature: Frontal curvature increases the room

(2) Stress concentration: Stress concentration decreases fatigue
Fig. 4. Overall dimensions of different concepts.
(3) Fixing method: Bumper beam has the main role in caring the
Since material development and its manufacturing method are
discussed in the previous study, this research emphasizes on design
parameters in PDS. Size: Dimension of the bumper beam depends
on energy absorption value, which related to car size and weight.
Maintenance: Design for assembly (DFA) and design for manufac-
turing (DFM) should consider during product design. Performance:
The defined goal of the product should be attainable [23]. Installa-
tion: Design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA) help to min-
imize the bumper components in product or assembly to make easy
assembling with optimize fixing point [34]. Material should be se-
lect according to the required properties or desired problem solu-
(4) Strengthen rib: Strengthen rib increase distortion resistance,
tion [35]. Materials of the bumper should be light, cost
competitive, accessible, producible, recyclable, and biodegradable.
2.3. Effective parameters in bumper beam energy absorption
Bumper beam acts as a plain simply supported beam. It usually
fixes to the frontal chassis sides to absorb collision energy. There
are five bumper system assembling methods for energy absorption
between fixing points and top extremity beam curvature. It
strengthens the beam stability, and extends the required
collision displacement. Besides, the aesthetic purposes, the
curve facilitates better load impact distribution through
the frontal beam and fixing points during energy damping
process. When the impact load applied to the bumper, the
beam initial curvature intends to remove. So, some designer
mounted a bar to link between beam’s fixing points in order
to strengthen the outward motion and energy absorption
tendency [36,37]. Bumper beam is an offset of front bumper
fascia to provide a consistent level of protection across the
vehicle [38].
life, durability, and energy absorption of the bumper beam
in instance loading. Numerical shape optimizations method
could be employed to decrease stress concentration [39],
which is not emphasized in this study. Manufacturing limi-
tation cause to cut out some of the beam surface in order
to install the sensors, fog lamps, or make a hole to mount
the beam into the front-end, which makes some tiny crack
into the cutting area, increase the stress concentration and
decrease the performance. Sharp corners and less contact
area in fixing points increase the stress concentration, which
should be modified in design stage [40].
weight of the bumper system. Proper fixing method could
keep the bumper system more stable and reliable during
the energy absorption. Designer usually considers a C-chan-
nel profile in frontal chassis to hold the bumper beam or
absorbers in order to increase the fixing contact area and
decrease the stress. Additional fixing point keeps the bum-
per system more consistent, but extends the assembly time.
The lateral fixing points considered slide shape to let the fas-
cia move safely in the desired gap to prevent the bumper
side breaking.
rigidity and structural stiffness by less material in slender
walls [41] and provide the required impact severity [42].
Pattern, thickness, tip and end fillet of the ribs should be
designed according to load direction, impact position, mate-
rial and manufacturing process. Since the material thickness,
increase at the rib’s contact area, it causes sink marks; how-
ever, this is not important for the bumper beam as non-
aesthetic part. Strengthen ribs increase the impact energy

Table 1
Finite element preliminary output data.

No. Properties Weight RCP COP CCP DHP DCC DCP SHP SCP

Reverse C Closed oblique Curved C Double hat Double C Double C Simple hat Simple C
profile profile profile profile closed profile profile profile
1 Material cost 0.15 24.40 29.00 18.60 25.50 29.40 25.60 21.90 22.50
2 Easy 0.1 2 1 4 3 2 4 3 5
manufacturing
3 Product weight 0.2 2.44 2.9 1.86 2.55 2.94 2.56 2.19 2.25
4 Strain energy 0.3 2482.82 43419.92 38825.14 76106.53 63671.64 44910.27 47231.52 2137.62
5 Add rib 0.1 2 1 5 5 4 5 4 5
possibility
6 Min deflection 0.15 16.92 29.86 21.34 18.34 25.72 21.15 22.92 16.73
 M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865 4861

by 7% and decrease elongation by 19% [9,11,43]. The opti-
mized reinforced ribs presented higher energy absorption
performance compared with the empty and foam-filled
beams [44].
(5) Material properties: Material behavior, rigidity and ductility,
has a great influence in energy absorption. High rigidity
increases the car protecting capability, but decreases damp-
ing capacity and causes impact load transmission to the
compartment. In low impact test, bending strength not let
the beam to go through the plastic region, so the material
should withstand the impact load and keep their dimen-
sional stability to stay intact.
(6) Cross-section: Optimizing cross-section of a bumper beam
magnifies the strength, dimensional stability and damping
capability [36]. It has significant effects in the energy damp-
ing rate and bending resistance compare with other param-
eters [45,46]. In this research, eight different cross-sections
were investigated to select the optimum concepts in energy
absorption and deflection during the low impact test, along
with material weight, easy manufacturing, supplement rib
possibility and material cost.
(7) Manufacturing method: Manufacturing method should be
finalized in design stage. The applied pressure performs bet-
ter adhesion between fibre and matrix and makes the prod-
uct more stable, stiffer, but heavier. Parting line, draft angle,
fibre direction, product warpage, cooling time, material
shrinkage, and post shrinkage are some effective parameters
in selecting manufacturing method. Besides, production rate
and material characteristic has a significant effect in manu-
facturing method selection.
(8) Thickness: Increasing the bumper beam thickness improves
the strength and energy absorption, but it greatly increases
the weight. However, additional thickness increases the
structural stability; it has some manufacturing limitation,
especially in thermoplastic products. The ratio of strength
and weight improve by assigning the optimized thickness
and providing more effective energy absorption [47].
developed 3D model were imported to Abaqus Ver16R9 for finite
element analysis (see Fig. 4).
3.2. Low-speed impact simulation, boundary condition and meshing
There are three low-speed impact regulations to check the
bumper performance. ECE Regulation No 42 [48], National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) - Code 49 Part 58
[49], and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Regulation (CMVSR)
[50]. Canadian safety regulation has the same limitation and safety
damage as NHTSA (pendulum test 4 km/h of bumper face and
2.5 km/h bumper corner), but the speed is double. In this simula-
tion method, pendulum with the same car weight tilted in speci-
fied angle to make the linear speed 4 km/h at the contact
position. After the test, the lights must work, bonnet, boot, doors
operate in the normal manner, and all the essential features for
safe operation of the vehicle must still be serviceable.
The block impactor is modeled according to the standard. The
density of the pendulum is modified to satisfy car’s weight impact
force, which is between 700 and 950 kg for small city car. The block
is pivoted about its top left corner and rotates with 1.6859 rad/s to
make 4 km/h linear speed at contact position. Whole bumper beam
concepts are located at the defined height according to the stan-
dard. Both traverse fixing points were joined by spring- damper
mechanism to their positions in order to tolerate the damping load
until car weight. If the load exceeds upon the car weight the bum-
per together with car moves along the impact direction. Table 1
shows the cross-section area, volume, number of nodes and ele-
ments in each cross-section.
3.3. Topsis conceptual selection method
Six criteria’s are nominated for eight alternative concepts and
specialist appointed the weighted values are appointed for every
criterion. Topsis is an effective method for multi-criteria deci-
sion-making (MCDM). Hwang and Yoon introduced the Topsis

In this study, energy absorption improvement is originated by

cross-section, material and manufacturing optimizations, which
have less effect in weight enhancement, then other parameters
such as strengthened ribs, and thickness, will be employed.

3. Materials and methods

In the previous studies, the hybrid composite material was

developed and thermoplastic toughening was employed to im-
prove the impact property, but it still less than common bumper
beam material GMT. Therefore, geometrical improvement was
used to comply with the defined PDS. This study focused on con-
cept selection among eight-bumper beam profile based on six dif-
Fig. 5. Strain energy in different cross sections in Abaqus.
ferent weighted criteria. The process of concept selection
illustrated as follows (see Fig. 3). First, whole concepts modeled
and imported to the finite element analysis software, then the
low impact test was accomplished, and along with the result of
other criteria, the selection matrix was performed, and Topsis
method was employed to select the best concept.

3.1. Geometrical 3D model development

The idea of the geometrical 3D model came up with bench-

marking different brand of passenger’s car, patents, industrial de-
sign practice and car manufacturer products. Whole 3D concepts
were designed in Catia V5R17 software symmetrically as similar
as the real bumper beam with the same overall dimensions, i.e.
height, breadth, thickness, radius and material model. Next, entire Fig. 6. The displacement graph of whole concepts.
4862 M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865

method based on the idea that the best alternative should have the (4) Determine the separation measures, using the n-dimen-
shortest distance from an ideal solution [51]. The algorithm con- sional Euclidean distance. The separation of each alternative
siders ideal and non-ideal solution and help decision maker to from the ideal solution is given as:
( )1=2
evaluate ranking and select the best one. Topsis has been well uti- Xn  2
lized in project selection [52], material selection [53] and other diþ ¼ v ij  v þj ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð5Þ
areas. The procedure of Topsis expressed in following steps: j¼1

C1 C2  Cn Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal solution is

A1 x11 x12  x1n given as:
( )1=2
D ¼ A2 x21 x22  x2n ð1Þ Xn
.. .. .. .. .. di ¼ ðv ij  v j Þ2 ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð6Þ
. . . . .
j¼1
Am xm1 xm2  xmn
(5) Determine the relative closeness to the ideal solution. The
W ¼ ½w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wn ; relative closeness of the alternative Ai with respect to A+ is
defined as:
where A1, A2, . . ., Am are potential alternatives that decision makers di
need to select and C1, C2, . . ., Cn are criterion, which evaluate the cliþ ¼ ; 0 6 cliþ 6 1; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð7Þ
ðdiþ þ di Þ
alternative performance are calculated, xij is the rating of alternative
Ai with respect to criterion Cj when wj is the weight of criterion Cj (6) Rank the preference order. For ranking alternatives using
[54] this index and rank alternatives in decreasing order.
(1) Determine the normalized decision matrix.
4. Results
xij
nij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm 2 ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; . . . ; ð2Þ
The safety parameters along with other PDS criteria’ are consid-
j¼1 xij
ered as parameters in selecting the bumper beam concepts. The
(2) Calculate the weighted normalized decision matrix. absorbed energy and deflection are derived from simulated low
impact test, and other criteria were assessed by scoring by the ex-
  pert to the converted qualified value to the quantify value and
 V 1i ; . . . V 1j ; . . . V 1n 
 
 .. .. ..  other calculation. The output information made a decision matrix
V ¼ ND :W nn ¼ . . .  ð3Þ
 for selecting the best result by Topsis method to comply with the
V ;... V ;... V 
m1 mj mn PDS requirement.
where wj is the weight of the ith attribute or criterion, and
Pn
j¼1 wj ¼ 1:
4.1. Impact energy
(3) Calculate the positive ideal and negative ideal solution:
Low-speed impact test is tested for whole bumper concepts in
   
order to find the strain energy (see Fig. 5). The graph shows that
Aþ ¼ max v ij ji 2 I min v ij ji 2 J ji ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n the concept named double hat profile (DHP) has presented the
j j
    ð4Þ highest strain energy.

A ¼ min v ij ji 2 I max v ij ji 2 J ji ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m The longitudinal displacements (X direction) are demonstrated
j j
in Fig. 6. It shows the concepts single C profile (SCP) and closed ob-
where I is associated with a benefit criterion, and J is associ- lique profile (COP) have displayed minimum and maximum deflec-
ated with the cost criterion. tion in low impact test respectively.

Table 2
Evaluation matrix for selecting the best profile concept.

No. Concepts Name Material cost Easy manufacturing Product weight Strain energy Rib possibility Minimum deflection
0.15 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.15
1 RCP 24.40 2 2.44 2482.82 2 16.92

2 COP 29.00 1 2.9 43419.9 1 29.86

3 CCP 18.60 4 1.86 38825.1 5 21.34

4 DHP 25.50 3 2.55 76106.5 5 18.34

5 DCC 29.40 2 2.94 63671.6 4 25.72

6 DCP 25.60 4 2.56 44910.3 5 21.15

7 SHP 21.90 3 2.19 47231.5 4 22.92

8 SCP 22.50 5 2.25 2137.62 5 16.73

 M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865 4863

Table 3
Decision matrix for selecting the concepts of bumber beam.

Subjective weight 0.15 0.1 0.2 0.30.1 0.15 0.15

No. Name Material cost MC Easy manufacturing EM Product weight PW Strain energy SE Rib possibility RP Maximum deflection MD
1 RCP 24.4 2 2.44 2462.82 2 16.92
2 COP 29.0 1 2.90 43419.93 1 29.86
3 CCP 18.6 4 1.86 38825.14 5 21.34
4 DHP 25.5 3 2.55 76106.53 5 18.34
5 DCC 29.4 2 2.94 63671.64 4 25.72
6 DCP 25.6 4 2.56 44910.27 5 21.15
7 SHP 21.9 3 2.19 47231.52 4 22.92
8 SCP 22.5 5 2.25 21371.62 5 16.73

Table 4
Normalized matrix.

Material Cost MC Manufacturing EM Product weight SE Strain energy Rib possibility RP Maximum deflection MD
0.412682 0.109109 0.41268 0.328248 0.085436 0.47914
0.264686 0.436436 0.26469 0.293512 0.427179 0.34243
0.362876 0.327327 0.36288 0.575353 0.427179 0.29429
0.418374 0.218218 0.41837 0.481347 0.341743 0.41271
0.364299 0.436436 0.36435 0.339515 0.427179 0.33938
0.311646 0.327327 0.31165 0.357063 0.341743 0.36778
0.320185 0.545545 0.32018 0.016162 0.427179 0.26846

Table 5
Weighted normalized decision matrix.

Material cost Easy manufacturing Product weight Strain energy Rib possibility Maximum deflection
MC EM PW SE RP MD
0.05208 0.02182 0.06944 0.00563 0.01709 0.04073
0.06190 0.01091 0.08254 0.09847 0.00854 0.07187
0.03970 0.04364 0.05294 0.08805 0.04272 0.05136
0.05443 0.03273 0.07258 0.17261 0.04272 0.04414
0.06275 0.02182 0.08367 0.14440 0.03417 0.06191
0.05464 0.04364 0.07286 0.10185 0.04272 0.05091
0.04675 0.03273 0.06233 0.10712 0.03417 0.05517
0.04803 0.05455 0.06404 0.00485 0.04272 0.04027

Table 6
The positive and negative ideal solution matrix.

Material cost Easy manufacturing Product weight Strain energy Rib possibility Maximum deflection
MC EM PW SE RP MD
0.039703 0.054554 0.05294 0.172606 0.042718 0.04027
0.062756 0.010911 0.08367 0.004848 0.008544 0.07184

Table 7
Separation of each alternative from the ideal solution.

RCP COP CCP DHP DCC DCP SHP SCP

0.173306 0.104575 0.085973 0.033072 0.062324 0.076539 0.072094 0.168331
0.038462 0.093637 0.105163 0.175352 0.142658 0.110778 0.112176 0.068367

Table 8
The relative closeness to the ideal solution.

RCP COP CCP DHP DCC DCP SHP SCP

0.181614 0.472414 0.550201 0.841321 0.695954 0.591394 0.608758 0.288836
4864 M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865
Table 2 shows eight different concepts along with six weighted
criteria. There are two qualitative criteria, easy manufacturing and
rib possibility, which have changed to the quantitative in range one
to five. One in the lowest and five in the highest possibility as-
signed to different concepts. Strain energy and minimum deflec-
tion have been derived from FEA results. Material estimated cost
calculated based on the ingredient and material consumption’s
cost. Material weight was calculated according to the density of
the material, which has been found in advance.
4.2. Selecting the best concept by Topsis method
There are three elimination phases to narrow down the possible
design concepts to the final concept, named initial screening phase,
decision matrix phase and evaluation phase. Decision matrix based
on initial screening was made by eight concepts and six criterion.
Material cost, product weight and maximum deflection have
negative value, which should consider as a negative value and
the following present the evaluation phase (see Table 3), where
A1, A2, . . ., Am (Rows) are possible alternatives among which deci-
sion makers have to choose and C1, C2, . . ., Cn (column) are criteria
with which alternative performance are measured, xij is the rating
of alternative Ai with respect to criterion Cj while wj is the weight
of criterion Cj. The matrix normalized between 0–1 to make it
dimensionless by formula (see Tables 4–8).
5. Discussion
According to the automotive safety standards, all passenger’s
cars have to overcome the frontal and rear low-speed impact test
without any serious damage [9,11,55]. The severity of the barrier
impact load should not deform the bumper far more beyond the
plastic region to fail the related parts’ function. Hosseinzadeh
et al. [9] compared impact property of the GMT and SMC bumper
beam by changing different parameters, i.e. material, shape,
strengthening ribs, and thickness. He found that the SMC can be re-
placed by GMT material, while the strengthen rib removed and
thickness decreased to 2.5 mm in order to increase 5% deflection
to cover enough room after the impact as well as easy production
Fig. 7. Displacement profile of double hat profile after impact.
and cost reduction. Marzbanrad, et al. [11] presented 32 mm
deflection for four mm thick un-ribbed GMT for big size car. In this
study, the deflection of different concepts was between 17 to
30 mm. The product was un-ribbed with four mm thickness and
test was conducted for small car size condition (700 kg). Since dif-
ferent concepts have various contact areas with barrier, the energy
damping, and stress distribution is distinctly different. Single C
Profile and Reversed C Profile present the lowest strain energy
and stress because of high contact area, compare with other con-
cepts (see Fig. 7).
Conceptual design selection is a systematic approach to evaluate
a set of concepts to satisfy the customer needs and engineering
specifications. Edwards, [56] addressed design selection by inter-
pretation and use of material test data. He told the designer has to
manipulate the experimental test data, while compared with stan-
dard for an optimal design solution with minimal risk. Hoyle,
et al. [57] utilized quality function deployment (QFD) and product
attribute function deployment (PAFD) process for selecting the
conceptual design of the car manifold. PAFD is a decision study to
remove the need for the user scores and rankings of performance,
priority, and attribute coupling in the QFD. Hambali, et al. [5] used
the improved analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method to select
the most appropriate bumper beam concept by expert choice soft-
ware and consistency test. He found that the energy absorption as
first criteria and weight, strength and material as second criteria
for selecting the bumper beam concept. Topsis has been well used
in different particular selection areas and in conceptual design
selection as well. It selected the Double Hat Profile with 0.841321
score as a best concept among eight different concepts. The selected
concept was confirmed by looking into the real bumper beam pro-
file of some car manufacturer such as Peugeot.
6. Conclusions
Impact property of developed toughened hybrid bio-composite
material did not completely fulfill the common bumper beam
material GMT. Therefore, in this study the geometric concept selec-
tion is investigated to enhance structural energy absorption and
deflection besides other criteria in the car bumper beam develop-
ment. Eight bumper beam concepts with the same material model
under low impact test standard conditions are simulated. It is con-
cluded that proper concept selection has an important role in
structural strength, while material is considered as a constant fac-
tor. Moreover, it is resulted that bio-based composite material has
a potential to be used in automotive structural components by
structural optimization. The nominated concept (DHP) verified as
compared with some available car bumper beams profile. It pre-
sented that the epoxy toughened hybrid kenaf/glass fibre compos-
ite can be employed in the small-sized car bumper beam.
Although, adding strengthened ribs can enhance its performance,
it may decrease the required room after impact. Moreover, author
believes that the real low impact test should be done to verify the
stability of developed hybrid bio-composite material under the
proposed concept.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Universiti Putra Malaysia for the
financial support to carry out this research through Research
University Fellowship Scheme to the principal author.
References
[1] Sapuan S, Maleque M, Hameedullah M, Suddin M, Ismail N. A note on the
conceptual design of polymeric composite automotive bumper system. J Mater
Process Technol 2005;159(2):145–51.
 M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 4857–4865
[2] Stephen Robert Reid GZ. Impact behaviour of fibre-reinforced composite
materials and structures. England: Woodhead Publishing; 2000.
[3] Cheon SS, Choi JH, Lee DG. Development of the composite bumper beam for
passenger cars. Compos Struct 1995;32(1–4):491–9.
[4] Nishino T, Hirao K, Kotera M, Nakamae K, Inagaki H. Kenaf reinforced
biodegradable composite. Compos Sci Technol 2003;639:1281–6.
[5] Hambali A, Sapuan S, Ismail N, Nukman Y. Application of analytical hierarchy
process in the design concept selection of automotive composite bumper beam
during the conceptual design stage. Sci Res Essays 2009;44:198–211.
[6] Davoodi MM, Sapuan SM, Aidy A, Ahmad D, Khalina A, Jonoobi M. Impact
property improvement of hybrid Kenaf/Glass epoxy composite by
polybutylene terephthalate (PBT). Kuala Lumber: University Putra Malaysia;
2011.
[7] Davoodi MM, Sapuan SM, Ahmad D, Ali A, Khalina A, Jonoobi M. Mechanical
properties of hybrid kenaf/glass reinforced epoxy composite for passenger car
bumper beam. Mater Des 2010;3110:4927–32.
[8] Li G, Zhou RG, Duan L, Chen WF. Multi objective and multilevel optimization
for steel frames. Eng Struct 1999;216:519–29.
[9] Hosseinzadeh R, Shokrieh M, Lessard L. Parametric study of automotive
composite bumper beams subjected to low-velocity impacts. Compos Struct
2005;684:419–27.
[10] Davoodi MM, Sapuan SM, Yunus R. Development of fiber reinforced epoxy
composite energy absorber for automotive bumper system. J Polym Mater
2008;251:15–21.
[11] Marzbanrad J, Alijanpour M, Kiasat M. Design and analysis of an automotive
bumper beam in low-speed frontal crashes. Thin-Walled Structures 2009;478–
9:902–11.
[12] Ellison G, McNaught R, Eddleston E. The use of natural fibres in nonwoven
structures for applications as automotive component substrates. Ministry of
agriculture, fisheries and food research and development report NF 2000:309.
[13] Bledzki AK, Faruk O, Sperber VE. Cars from bio-fibres. Macromol Mater Eng
2006;291(5):449–57.
[14] Bismarck A, Baltazar-Y-Jimenez A, Sarikakis K. Green composites as panacea?
socio-economic aspects of green materials. Environ Dev Sustain
2006;83:445–63.
[15] Mussig J. Cotton fibre-reinforced thermosets versus ramie composites. J Polym
Environ 2008:84.
[16] Harrigan J, Reid S, Tan P, Yella Reddy T. High rate crushing of wood along the
grain. Int J Mech Sci 2005;474–5:521–44.
[17] Xiao A, Park S, Freiheit T. A comparison of concept selection in concept scoring
and axiomatic design methods; 2007.
[18] Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J. Engineering design: a systematic
approach. Springer; 2007.
[19] Kroll E, Condoor S, Jansson D. Innovative conceptual design: theory and
application of parameter analysis. Cambridge Univ Pr; 2001.
[20] Huthwaite B. Manufacturing competitiveness and quality by design. In 4th
international conference product design for manufacture and assembly,
Stockholm, Sweden; 1989.
[21] Fung R, Chen Y, Tang J. A quality-engineering-based approach for conceptual
product design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2007;3211:1064–73.
[22] Hsu W. Woon IMY current research in the conceptual design of mechanical
products. Comput Aided Design 1998;30:377–89.
[23] Pugh S. Total design: integrated methods for successful product
engineering. UK: Addison-Wesley Wokingham; 1995.
[24] Qiu S, Fok S, Chen C, Xu S. Conceptual design using evolution strategy. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2002;209:683–91.
[25] Edwards K, Deng YM. Supporting design decision-making when applying
materials in combination. Mater Des 2007;284:1288–97.
[26] Keinonen T, Takala R. Product concept design: a review of the conceptual
design of products in industry. Springer; 2006.
[27] Hsiao S. Fuzzy logic based decision model for product design. Int J Ind Ergon
1998;212:103–16.
[28] Saaty T. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource
allocation. New York: McGrawHill; 1980.
4865
[29] Hwang Cm, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and
applications: a state-of-the-art survey, vol. 13. New York: Springer-Verlag;
1981.
[30] Shih H, Shyur H, Lee E. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math
Comput Modell 2007;457–8:801–13.
[31] Dieter GE. Engineering design: a materials and processing approach 2000:118.
[32] Wang L, Shen W, Xie H, Neelamkavil J, Pardasani A. Collaborative conceptual
design-state of the art and future trends. Comput Aided Design
2002;3413:981–96.
[33] Cars P. US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; 1989.
[34] Edwards K. Towards more strategic product design for manufacture and
assembly: priorities for concurrent engineering. Mater Des 2002;237:651–6.
[35] Deng YM, Edwards K. The role of materials identification and selection in
engineering design. Mater Des 2007;281:131–9.
[36] Stewart R, Osterman A, Jalbert D. Vehicle and bumper beam combination.
Google Patents; 1992.
[37] Stewart R, Osterman A, Jalbert D, Nulty J. Vehicle bumper beam. Google
Patents; 1994.
[38] Sharpe N, Vendrig R, Houtzager K. Improved design for frontal protection;
2001.
[39] Pedersen P. Suggested benchmarks for shape optimization for minimum stress
concentration. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2008;354:273–83.
[40] Pilkey W, Pilkey D, Peterson R. Peterson’s stress concentration factors. Wiley;
2008.
[41] Al-Ashaab A et al. Internet-based collaborative design for an injection-
moulding system. Concurr Eng 2003;114:289.
[42] Haque E, Bassett W, Lewis T. I-Section automotive bumper formed from mineral-
filled glass mat thermoplastic (GMT) composite. Google Patents; 2001.
[43] Brydson JA. Plastics materials. Butterworth; 1999.
[44] Zhang Z, Liu S, Tang Z. Design optimization of cross-sectional configuration of
rib-reinforced thin-walled beam. Thin Wall Struct 2009;478–9:868–78.
[45] Jacob G, Fellers J, Simunovic S, Starbuck J. Energy absorption in polymer
composites for automotive crashworthiness. J Compos Mater 2002;367:813.
[46] Cheon S, LEE D, JEONG K. Composite side-door impact beams for passenger
cars. Compos Struct 1997;381–4:229–39.
[47] Baccouche R, Mahmood H, Madasamy C, Wagner D. Lightweight bumper for
automobiles. Google Patents; 2007.
[48] ECE. Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to
front and rear protective devices (Bumper, etc.); 1980. <http://live.unece.org/
fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r042e.pdf> [cited 10.12.10].
[49] NHTSA. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Laboratory Test
Procedure for Regulation Part 581 Bumper Standard Safety Assurance; 1990
<http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/
Associated%20Files/TP-581-01.pdf> [cited 20.11.10].
[50] CRC. Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations; 2009. <http://
www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/2008-06-25/html/sor-dors199-eng.html>
[cited 25.11.10].
[51] Hwang CL, Yoon KP. Multiple attribute decision making methods and
applications. New York: Springer; 1981.
[52] Mahmoodzadeh S, Shahrabi J, Pariazar M, Zaeri M. Project selection by using
fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique. Int J Hum Soc Sci 2007;13:135–40.
[53] Shanian A, Savadogo O. TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for
material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J
Power Sources 2006;1592:1095–104.
[54] Chen C. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2000;1141:1–9.
[55] Shin M, Yi S, Kwon O, Park G. Structural optimization of the automobile frontal
structure for pedestrian protection and the low-speed impact test. Proc Inst
Mech Eng, Part D: J Automob Eng 2008;22212:2373–87.
[56] Edwards K. Selecting materials for optimum use in engineering components.
Mater Des 2005;265:469–73.
[57] Hoyle C, Chen W. Product attribute function deployment (PAFD) for decision-
based conceptual design. Eng Manag IEEE Trans 2009;562:271–84.