International Journal of Structural Integrity

Structural analysis of a cross car beam using finite element models

André F. B. P. Pinto S.M.O. Tavares José M. A. César de Sá P.M.S.T. de Castro
Article information:
To cite this document:
André F. B. P. Pinto S.M.O. Tavares José M. A. César de Sá P.M.S.T. de Castro , (2015),"Structural
analysis of a cross car beam using finite element models", International Journal of Structural Integrity,
Vol. 6 Iss 6 pp. 759 - 774
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-01-2015-0004
Downloaded on: 10 May 2016, At: 22:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 11 other documents.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 89 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"The effect of welding direction in the fatigue life of aluminium FS welded lap joints",
International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 6 Iss 6 pp. 775-786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJSI-02-2015-0006
(2015),"SIF determination with digital image correlation", International Journal of Structural Integrity,
Vol. 6 Iss 6 pp. 668-676 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-03-2015-0010
(2015),"Induction of through-thickness compressive residual stress fields in thin Al2024-T351 plates
by laser shock processing", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 6 Iss 6 pp. 725-736 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-10-2014-0051

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:393177 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-9864.htm

Structural analysis of a cross Structural

analysis of
car beam using finite a CCB
element models
André F.B.P. Pinto 759
Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal Received 26 January 2015
S.M.O. Tavares Revised 13 March 2015
Accepted 14 March 2015
Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering (INEGI), Porto, Portugal, and
José M.A. César de Sá and P.M.S.T. de Castro
Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to use PAM-CRASH, a finite element analysis solver, to assess
the performance of a mass production vehicle cross car beam (CCB) under an overlap frontal crash
scenario (crashworthiness). Simulation results were reviewed according to what is plausible to register
regarding some critical points displacements and, moreover, to identify its stress concentrations zones.
Furthermore, it was also computed the CCB modal analysis (noise, vibration and harshness
(NVH) assessment) in order to examine if its natural modes are within with the original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) design targets.
Design/methodology/approach – The available data at the beginning of the present study
consisted of the structure CAD file and performance requirements stated by the OEM for NVH.
No technical information was available concerning crashworthiness. Taking into account these
limitations, it was decided to adapt the requirements for other mass production cars of the same
category, as regards dynamic loading. A dynamic explicit code finite element analysis was
performed throughout the CCB structure simulating the 120e−3 s crash event. For the modal
analysis, there were some necessary modifications to the explicit finite element model in order to
perform the analysis in implicit code. In addition, the car body in white stiffness was assigned at the
boundaries. These stiffness values are withdrawn from the points where the CCB is attached to the
car body’s sheet metal components.
Findings – Although the unavailability of published results for this particular CCB model prevents a
comparison of the present results, the trends and order of magnitude of the crash simulation results are
within the expectations for this type of product. Concerning modal analysis, the steering column first
natural frequency has a percent deviation from the design lower bound value of 5.09 percent when local
body stiffness is considered and of 1.94 percent with fixed boundary conditions. The other requirement of
the NVH assessment regarding a 5 Hz minimum interval between first vehicle CCB mode and the first
mode of the steering column was indeed achieved with both boundary configurations.
Originality/value – This study is a further confirmation of the interest of numerical modeling
as a first step before actual experimental testing, saving time and money in an automotive industry
that has seen an enormous increase of the demand for new car models in the last decade.
Keywords Finite element analysis, Automotive structural design, Crash analysis, Crashworthiness,
Cross car beam, Modal analysis
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Structural

The authors would like to acknowledge QREN project no. 23032 “CCB360” (Portugal). Integrity
Vol. 6 No. 6, 2015
Dr S.M.O. Tavares acknowledges Ciência 2007 program of FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a pp. 759-774
Tecnologia, (POPH – QREN-Tipologia 4.2 – Promotion of scientific employment funded by the ESF © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1757-9864
– European Social Fund). DOI 10.1108/IJSI-01-2015-0004
 IJSI 1. Introduction
6,6 The analysis of structural dynamic behavior with finite element method (FEM) software is
of extreme importance to automotive designers (Zienkiewicz, 2005; Huang, 2002; Lingbeek,
2008). These days, among the different sets of dynamic analyses performed in multiple
vehicle components, crash simulation and noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) analysis
are increasingly crucial to any new vehicle development program (Moroncini et al., 2012;
760 Huang, 2002). Furthermore, the time-to-market for new vehicles is continuously decreasing
as car companies struggle to remain competitive in a market that is facing a great
economic pressure combined with a consumer demand that has become more diverse
(Lingbeek, 2008). Therefore, computer-aided engineering has been increasing its prominent
role in the automotive industry components development process (Lingbeek, 2008).
Crash simulation is a virtual recreation of the destructive and costly crash tests.
Its main objective is to evaluate crashworthiness of automobile components, primarily
in components that are essential to the safety of the vehicle’s occupants (Huang, 2002).
One of these crucial car parts is its cross car beam (CCB) because of its role in car crash
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

performance by avoiding or minimizing the intrusion of foreign elements in the

passenger compartment, e.g. powertrain (Huang, 2002). This structure usually supports
all instrument panel components and systems including the fusebox, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system heaterbox, steering column, radio,
passenger airbag assembly, electric wiring, navigation system and many other
components and systems (Volart and Faria, 2012). Regarding vehicle NVH analysis, its
CCB plays also an important role in this area because it supports the steering column
which is a source of unconfortable vibration that should not be transmitted to the
passenger compartment, chiefly to the driver by the steering wheel.
The FEM software package used to assess the CCB structure dynamic performance was
ESI Group’s Virtual Performance Solution 2012, in specific the PAM-CRASH explicit code
solver for crash simulation and its implicit code solver for modal analysis (NVH assessment).
The main focus of this case study was the crashworthiness and NVH assessment of
the CCB BV226 (see Figure 1) model used in Brazilian Ford Fiesta. For this purpose,
two FEM models were developed, one for crash simulation and other, derived from the
first, for modal analysis. The modeling starting point was the original 3D CAD

Passenger Airbag
Bracket
A-Pillar Bracket LHS

A-Pillar
Bracket RHS

Radio Bracket

Steering Column
Figure 1. Bracket
CCB BV226
model structure Fusebox Bracket Vehicle Floor
Connection Brackets
 geometry IGES file. The assembly shell mesh was generated using ANSA 14.0.3 Structural
software package. Constraints, loads, boundary conditions and material behavior analysis of
definition was accomplished in Visual-Crash PAM 8.5 pre-processor from Visual-
Environment 8.5 software package. The analyses results were viewed in Visual-Viewer
a CCB
8.5, post-processor, also from Visual-Environment 8.5.

2. Case study 761

Two finite element models of the CCB were constructed using shell and 6 degrees of
freedom (DOF) spring elements. One, for the overlap frontal crash analysis in explicit
code and, the other one, for the modal analysis in implicit code.
In the crash simulation model, PAM-CRASH 103-ELASTIC_PLASTIC_ITERATIVE_
HILL shell material model was used. The formulation used for shell elements was the most
economical Belytschko-Tsay (uniform reduced integration with only one-point integration
in the plane), (Zienkiewicz, 2005; ESI Group, 2013a, c). Shell hourglass control defined was
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

the stiffness based method using the Young’s Modulus (ESI Group, 2013c). The integration
method through thickness of shell applied to this model was the explicit analysis default
scheme UNIFORM (integration points are uniformly distributed), (Burchitz, 2007;
ESI Group, 2013a). As a non-linear material law was assign, 5 integration points were used
through thickness to achieve good accuracy (ESI Group, 2013a). In Figure 2, it can be seen
the hardening curve from steel UNI 5867 FeP 13 (E ¼ 205 GPa; ν ¼ 0.3; and ρ ¼ 7.8e−6 kg/
mm3) that was assign in crash analysis.
For the CCB modal analysis, PAM-CRASH 101-ELASTIC_SHELL material model
was used with elastic steel properties (E ¼ 205 GPa; ν ¼ 0.3; and ρ ¼ 7.8e−6 kg/mm3).
Once again, Belytschko-Tsay (uniform reduced integration with only one-point
integration in the plane with automatical hourglass control using viscosity based
method), shell formulation was applied (Zienkiewicz, 2005; ESI Group, 2013a, c).
The integration method through thickness of shell considered in this model was the
implicit analysis default scheme SIMPSON (locations and weights of integration points
are defined using the Simpson method), (Burchitz, 2007; ESI Group, 2013a). As a linear
material law was used, only three integration points were assign through thickness.

FEP 13 Plastic Stress/Strain Curve

0.42

0.35
EFFECTIVE_STRESS (GPa)

0.28

0.21
Yield Stress 0.161193

0.14

0.07

Figure 2.
0 UNI 5867 FeP 13
–0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 hardening curve
EFFECTIVE_STRAIN (mm/mm)
 IJSI Furthermore, to model the local stiffness boundary conditions, six DOF spring
6,6 elements were considered at each CCB/body in white (BIW) boundary points using
PAM-CRASH 220-NONLINEAR_6DOF_SPRING_ DASHPOT. This material model was
applied with the implicit code default C0 beam formulation (based on the Reissner-Mindlin
theory and require only C0 continuity) (Zienkiewicz, 2005; ESI Group, 2013a, b, c).
The FEM model was specified in the following consistent basic units: mm, kg, 10−3 s.
762 The CCB shell mesh was generated individually in each part of the assembly using
ANSA mesh algorithms (e.g. see Figure 3). The welded connections were also modeled
with shells using ANSA connection tools (Figure 4).

Z
Y X

Aspect
Skewness
Wraping
Taper
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

Crash
Angle
Min Length
Max Length
Jacobian
Min Height
MP Align
MP Deviat
Squish
Trais/node
Stretch
Collapse
Distortion
Geom Dist
Orig Dist
Multi Viol
Trias %
Figure 3. Non Orthog
Growth Ratio
A-pillar bracket Negative Vol
Incomplete
LHS meshing Left Handed
steps in ANSA

Figure 4.
Weld beads
definition using
Ansa’s connection
manager
 The total mass for the CCB FEM model is 10.291 kg. However, on both analysis, Structural
it was also considered the mass and the inertia properties of the IP systems supported analysis of
by the CCB that have major influence on its dynamic properties, HVAC heaterbox,
passenger airbag assembly, steering column and the steering wheel. Thus, the global
a CCB
mass for the FEM models is 24.041 kg.
Regarding constraints definition in the crash model (see Figure 5), PAM-CRASH rigid
bodies (RBODYs) and multiple to one node constraints (MTOCOs) were used to model 763
attached components to the CCB that play an important role in this structure dynamic
behavior and should not be ignored (Moroncini et al., 2012). The 3D CAD geometry of
these components was not available but, however, their mass properties and COG
coordinates were indeed available to be inputted in constraints definition. Specifically,
these constraints were defined as follows:
∙ Two RBODYs with user-defined center of gravity, mass and inertia properties
(PAM-CRASH definition: RBODY type 3), (ESI Group, 2013b). These rigid bodies
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

refer to passenger airbag assembly and to the heaterbox of the car HVAC system.
∙ One regular RBODY (PAM-CRASH definition: RBODY type 0), (ESI Group, 2013b),
to localize the point of application of the A-pillar left-hand side (LHS) load
and moment.
∙ Two MTOCOs with user-imposed mass and inertia properties (PAM-CRASH
definition: MTOCO type 1), (ESI Group, 2013b). One refers to the steering wheel-
airbag assembly and the other one refers to the steering column.
∙ One regular multiple to one node constraint (PAM-CRASH definition: MTOCO
type 0), (ESI Group, 2013b), to localize the first cardan/universal joint of the
steering column where it was placed a frontal impact dynamic load.

The reason why MTOCOs were used instead of RBODYs is because they are applied
in the steering column assembly where the dependent nodes of the steering wheel and
first cardan joint MTOCOs are exactly the same node which is also the independent
node of the steering column MTOCO. This scenario is incompatible with rigid body
constraint (ESI Group, 2013a).

Passenger airbag
A-pillar load rigid body
Steering
rigid body wheel
MTOCO

Steering
column
1st cardan MTOCO
MTOCO
Heaterbox
rigid body

Figure 5.
Z
Crash model
constraints
YX
 IJSI The crash model loads were adapted and slightly changed in some vectors magnitude and
6,6 points of application from Renault technical specification (see Figure 6; Cahier des charges,
2006). A deceleration g-force was also applied in all CCB model nodes. For the crash
simulation, boundary conditions were removed from the A-Pillar LHS bracket due to loads
applied to this component, as this simulation recreates an overlap frontal collision where
the A-pillar from the barrier side suffers large deformations and large rotations. Most of
764 the crash loading is applied on the constraints independent node.
Regarding the NVH model (see Figure 7), there were some adjustments in the
crash model that need to be done in order to perform the modal analysis in the
implicit code. First, RBODYs were replaced by MTOCOs due to implicit code
incompatibilities, specifically redundancy and inadequacy (ESI Group, 2013a).
Second, a new material model had to be defined as an elastic material law was needed.
Then, all loads had to be eliminated and fixed boundary conditions were replaced
by six DOF springs with linear stiffness. This local body stiffness is defined in
Table I. Furthermore, boundary conditions were added to the A-pillar bracket LHS
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

bolted area. Last but not least, some control cards had to be redefined with new
adequate parameters.

3. Overlap frontal crash simulation results

As previously mentioned, there is no available technical information about the present
CCB model crash worthiness. With the adapted loads from a Renault technical
specification, the crash simulation results are presented in the following Figures 8-10.
The nodal displacements results, Figure 8, show that during the overlap frontal crash event
experienced by this CCB, there is a significant intrusion of the CCB systems and instrument
panel into the passenger compartment of approximately 177 mm after 150e−3 s.
The von Mises stress results, Figure 9, show that the center legs, passenger airbag
brackets and the A-pillar brackets are the CCB components where the highest stress
concentration points are located during the crash event. Last but not least, maximum
plastic strain results, Figure 10, revealed that the CCB connection to floor tunnel
is a weak point, as rupture strain is predicted. Furthermore, this material rupture
prediction can be visualized Figure 10(g) by the element elimination around the center
legs fixed boundary nodes, due to PAM-CRASH rupture model definition. Other weak
points where rupture strain is predicted are the weld beads that connect the center legs
to the generic beam.
Regarding the energy balance of the crash simulation, the global kinetic and internal
energy during the crash time lapse is visible in Figure 11. Unlike a typical car crash test
in which a car moving at a certain speed crashes to a barrier and its kinetic energy
is completely transformed into internal energy, this simulation was modeled with
foreign loads applied to a stationary model. Thus, as the structure undergoes dynamic
loads, it starts to warp and moves and, therefore, internal energy increases and kinetic
energy oscillates in some nodal points.

4. Modal analysis results

As a reference for the modal analysis results, Ford technical specification report states
that the steering column natural frequency design target is 32 Hz with local body
stiffness and 40 Hz with fixed boundary conditions (data available for a similar ford
CCB), (Webb, 2004). Also concerning this natural frequency, it is written that, quoted
from System Design Specification (Webb, 2004), “The first vehicle I/P mode shall
be separated from the first steering column mode by at least 5 Hz.” Two modal analyses
 Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

(a) A-pillar moment in z-direction

(b) A-pillar y-direction load
(c) HVAC loading
0 0 8
HVAC LOAD

–3

–200 6

–6

–400 –9 4

FORCE (KN)

FORCE (KN)

MOMENT (KN.mm)
–12

–600 2

–15

A-PILLAR_LHS_MOMENTZ A-PILLAR DRIVER LOAD

–800 –18 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms)

(d) Passenger airbag loading

(e) SMBC x-direction load
(f) Steering wheel loading
0 7 0
SMBC LOAD

–0.5 6 –1

–1 5 –2

–1.5 4 –3

–2 –4

FORCE (KN)
FORCE (KN)

FORCE (KN)
–2.5 –5
2

–3 –6
1
Airbag Passenger z-direction Airbag Driver x-direction
Airbag Passenger x-direction Airbag Driver z-direction
–3.5 –7
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
TIME (ms) TIME (ms)
TIME (ms)

Notes: (a) A-pillar LHS moment; (b) A-pillar LHS y-direction load; (c) HVAC load; (d) Passenger’s airbag loading; (e) SMBC
tube load; (f) Steering wheel loading
Structural

loads curves
dependent
analysis of

Figure 6.
765
a CCB

Crash time
 IJSI were performed in PAM-CRASH implicit, one with local body stiffness boundary
6,6 conditions (whereby the local stiffness of the BIW at the IP attachment locations is
simulated by spring elements given in detail) and the other one with fixed boundary
conditions. The following values were obtained: with local body stiffness, ω1 ¼ 25.014
Hz (localized at the fusebox), ω2 ¼ 30.317 Hz (localized at the steering
column/heaterbox), ω3 ¼ 41.384 Hz (localized at the passenger’s airbag), ω4 ¼ 42.919
766
(a)
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

YX

(b)

Figure 7.
(a) Crash simulation
model. Rigid bodies
are defined in blue,
fixed boundary
conditions are
defined in green
and MTOCOs are
defined in pink as
Z
well as loads
vectors; (b) Modal
analysis model X Y

Driver’s cowlside Passenger cowlside Floor tunnel

Kx (kN/mm) 5 5 12
Table I. Ky (kN/mm) 1 1 5
Local connection Kz (kN/mm) 12 12 1
body stiffness Source: Webb (2004)
 Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

(a) (b)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
1 / 0.000000 22 / 21.000109
DISPLACEMENTS_NOD_Magnitude(L1) DISPLACEMENTS_NOD_Magnitude(L1)
min=0.000 at NODE 2 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at NODE 7,029 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.000 at NODE 2 in CCB_sodecia_crash material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=8.053 at NODE 14,338 in CCB_sodecia_crash material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.000 8.053
0.000 7.516
0.000 6.979
0.000 6.442
0.000 5.906
0.000 5.369
0.000 4.832
0.000 4.295
0.000 3.758
0.000 3.221
0.000 2.684
0.000 2.147
0.000 1.611
0.000 1.074
0.000 0.537
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(c) (d)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
44 / 43.000008 65 / 64.000069
DISPLACEMENTS_NOD_Magnitude(L1) DISPLACEMENTS_NOD_Magnitude(L1)
min=0.000 at NODE 7,029 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at NODE 7,029 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=23.536 at NODE 21,011 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=71.603 at NODE 4,698 in CCB_sodecia_crash material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

23.536 71.603
21.967 66.830
20.397 62.056
18.828 57.283
17.259 52.509
15.690 47.735
14.121 42.962
12.552 38.188
10.983 33.415
9.414 28.641
7.845 23.868
6.276 19.094
4.707 14.321
3.138 9.547
1.569 4.774
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(continued)
Structural

crash simulation
Nodal displacement

overlap frontal
magnitude during
analysis of

Figure 8.
767
a CCB
 Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

6,6
IJSI

768

Figure 8.
(e) (f)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
87 / 86.000114 108 / 107.000008
DISPLACEMENTS_NOD_Magnitude(L1) DISPLACEMENTS_NOD_Magnitude(L1)
min=0.000 at NODE 7,029 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at NODE 7,029 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=52.366 at NODE 35,212 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=64.143 at NODE 10,118 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

52.366 64.143
48.875 59.866
45.384 55.590
41.893 51.314
38.402 47.038
34.910 42.762
31.419 38.486
27.928 34.209
24.437 29.933
20.946 25.657
17.455 21.381
13.964 17.105
10.473 12.829
6.982 8.552
3.491 4.276
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(g) (h)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
130 / 129.000214 151 / 149.999741
DISPLACEMENTS_NOD_Magnitude(L1) DISPLACEMENTS_NOD_Magnitude(L1)
min=0.000 at NODE 7,029 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at NODE 7,029 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=145.445 at NODE 20,776 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=177.269 at NODE 20,132 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

145.445 177.269
135.749 165.451
126.052 153.633
116.356 141.815
106.660 129.997
96.963 118.179
87.267 106.361
77.571 94.543
67.874 82.725
58.178 70.908
48.482 59.090
38.785 47.272
29.089 35.454
19.393 23.636
9.696 11.818
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

Notes: (a) Time: 0 s; (b) Time: 21e-3 s; (c) Time: 43e-3 s; (d) Time: 64e-3 s; (e) Time: 86e-3 s; (f) Time: 107e-3 s;
(g) Time: 129e-3 s; (h) Time: 150e-3 s
 Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

(a) (b)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
1 / 0.000000 22 / 21.000109
Max_Equivalent_Stress(L1) Max_Equivalent_Stress(L1)
min=0.000 at SHELL 134 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at SHELL 15,839 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.000 at SHELL 134 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=0.338 at SHELL 20,741 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.000 0.338
0.000 0.316
0.000 0.293
0.000 0.271
0.000 0.248
0.000 0.226
0.000 0.203
0.000 0.181
0.000 0.158
0.000 0.135
0.000 0.113
0.000 0.030
0.000 0.068
0.000 0.045
0.000 0.023
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(c) (d)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
44 / 43.000008 65 / 64.000069
Max_Equivalent_Stress(L1) Max_Equivalent_Stress(L1)
min=0.000 at SHELL 15,839 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at SHELL 15,839 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.408 at SHELL 20,966 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=0.409 at SHELL 16,027 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.408 0.409
0.381 0.381
0.354 0.354
0.327 0.327
0.299 0.300
0.272 0.272
0.245 0.245
0.218 0.218
0.191 0.191
0.163 0.163
0.136 0.136
0.109 0.109
0.082 0.082
0.054 0.054
0.027 0.027
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(continued)
Structural

crash simulation
overlap frontal
distribution during
von Mises stress
analysis of

Figure 9.
769
a CCB
 Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

6,6
IJSI

770

Figure 9.
(e) (f)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
87 / 86.000114 108 / 107.000008
Max_Equivalent_Stress(L1) Max_Equivalent_Stress(L1)
min=0.000 at SHELL 15,839 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at SHELL 15,839 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.409 at SHELL 16,868 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=0.409 at SHELL 16,219 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.409 0.409
0.381 0.381
0.354 0.354
0.327 0.327
0.300 0.300
0.272 0.272
0.245 0.245
0.218 0.218
0.191 0.191
0.163 0.163
0.136 0.136
0.109 0.109
0.082 0.082
0.054 0.054
0.027 0.027
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(g) (h)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
130 / 129.000214 151 / 149.999741
Max_Equivalent_Stress(L1) Max_Equivalent_Stress(L1)
min=0.000 at SHELL 15,839 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at SHELL 15,839 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.408 at SHELL 14,165 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=0.408 at SHELL 16,866 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.408 0.408
0.381 0.381
0.354 0.354
0.327 0.327
0.299 0.299
0.272 0.272
0.245 0.245
0.218 0.218
0.191 0.191
0.163 0.163
0.136 0.136
0.109 0.109
0.082 0.082
0.054 0.054
0.027 0.027
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

Notes: (a) Time: 0 s; (b) Time: 21e-3 s; (c) Time: 43e-3 s; (d) Time: 64e-3 s; (e) Time: 86e-3 s; (f) Time: 107e-3 s;
(g) Time: 129e-3 s; (h) Time: 150e-3 s
 Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

(a) (b)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
1 / 0.000000 22 / 21.000109
Max_Plastic_Strain(L1) Max_Plastic_Strain(L1)
min=0.000 at SHELL 134 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at SHELL 134 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.000 at SHELL 134 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=0.032 at SHELL 20,741 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.000 0.032
0.000 0.030
0.000 0.028
0.000 0.026
0.000 0.024
0.000 0.022
0.000 0.019
0.000 0.017
0.000 0.015
0.000 0.013
0.000 0.011
0.000 0.009
0.000 0.006
0.000 0.004
0.000 0.002
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(c) (d)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
44 / 43.000008 65 / 64.000069
Max_Plastic_Strain(L1) Max_Plastic_Strain(L1)
min=0.000 at SHELL 134 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at SHELL 134 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.239 at SHELL 20,741 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=0.299 at SHELL 12,878 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.239 0.299
0.223 0.279
0.207 0.259
0.191 0.239
0.175 0.219
0.159 0.200
0.144 0.180
0.128 0.160
0.112 0.140
0.096 0.120
0.080 0.100
0.064 0.080
0.048 0.060
0.032 0.040
0.016 0.020
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(continued)
Structural

crash simulation
Maximum plastic

overlap frontal
strain during
analysis of
a CCB

Figure 10.
771
 Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

6,6
IJSI

772

Figure 10.
(e) (f)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
87 / 86.000114 108 / 107.000008
Max_Plastic_Strain(L1) Max_Plastic_Strain(L1)
min=0.000 at SHELL 134 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at SHELL 147 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.288 at SHELL 20,741 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=0.297 at SHELL 18,213 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.288 0.297
0.269 0.277
0.249 0.257
0.230 0.237
0.211 0.217
0.192 0.198
0.173 0.178
0.154 0.158
0.134 0.138
0.115 0.119
0.096 0.099
0.077 0.079
0.058 0.059
0.038 0.040
0.019 0.020
0.000 0.000
Z Z

X Y X Y

(g) (h)
CCB_CRASH_TEST CCB_CRASH_TEST
130 / 129.000214 151 / 149.999741
Max_Plastic_Strain(L1) Max_Plastic_Strain(L1)
min=0.000 at SHELL 147 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 min=0.000 at SHELL 147 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partrename_loads_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5
max=0.298 at SHELL 12,719 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5 max=0.294 at SHELL 12,252 in CCB_sodecia_crash_material_bc_partername_lodes_datacheck_corrigido_MTOCO_steeringcolumn_10_RESULT.erfh5

0.298 0.294
0.279 0.274
0.259 0.255
0.239 0.235
0.219 0.215
0.199 0.196
0.179 0.176
0.159 0.157
0.139 0.137
0.119 0.118
0.099 0.098
0.080 0.078
0.060 0.059
0.040 0.039
0.020 0.020
0.000 0.000
Z Z

Rupture predicted
X Y X Y

Notes: (a) Time: 0 s; (b) Time: 21e-3 s; (c) Time: 43e-3 s; (d) Time: 64e-3 s; (e) Time: 86e-3 s; (f) Time: 107e-3 s;
(g) Time: 129e-3 s; (h) Time: 150e-3 s
 700 Total_Kinetic_Energy
Global model energy balance
Structural
Total_Internal_Energy
analysis of
600 a CCB
500
ENERGY (kN mm)

400 773
300

200
Figure 11.
100 CCB global energy
balance during
0 overlap frontal
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

0 30 60 90 120 150 crash simulation

TIME (millisec)

Hz (localized at the passenger’s airbag); with fixed boundary conditions, ω1 ¼ 25.560 Hz

(localized at the fusebox), ω2 ¼ 40.776 Hz (localized at the passenger’s airbag),
ω3 ¼ 45.058 Hz (localized at the passenger’s airbag), ω4 ¼ 49.186 Hz (localized at the
steering column/heaterbox/passenger’s airbag). Examining the modal analysis results
it is obvious that the fixed boundary conditions spoiled the natural frequencies and
modal shapes apart from the first mode that is not influenced by the structure
boundary conditions. Concerning the computed value for the steering column’s first
natural frequency, it is below the design lower bound considering local body stiffness,
with a percent deviation. of 5.09 percent, whereas considering fixed boundary
conditions it is above the design lower bound with a percent deviation of 1.94 percent.
Regarding the second requirement, it is completely achieved in both models.

5. Conclusion
Although there were no published results concerning the overlap frontal crash
behavior of the present BV226 model, dynamic loads specified for CCBs of vehicles of
the same category were adapted. As a result, crash behavior identified was within
the expected range, particularly as concerns displacements. The lack of available
comparable data precludes direct comparison of von Mises equivalent stress and
plastic strains. Nevertheless, the present crash simulation correctly identified the
stress concentration areas as well as the points where material rupture is predicted.
These results emphasize the need for validation of numerical simulations with
experimental testing, to be carried out in a later stage of the R&D project of which the
present work is an initial stage.
Regarding NVH assessment, the present modal analysis results are within the
expected range for this type of product, i.e., considering local BIW stiffness, the first
steering column natural frequency has a 5.09 percent deviation relatively to the design
lower bound present in Ford technical specifications. Furthermore, replacing body
stiffness with fixed boundary conditions, the first steering column natural frequency
has a 1.94 percent deviation to the corresponding design lower bound. The first CCB
mode is separated from the first steering column mode by at least 5 Hz in both models,
thus confirming the reliability of the present simulation.
 IJSI The use of PAM-CRASH illustrated the importance of a good quality mesh for
6,6 preventing subsequent difficulties with crash analysis, particularly as regards the time
step stability over the full body mesh.
The present work is a further confirmation of the interest of numerical modeling as
a first step before actual experimental testing, saving time and money. Moreover, it
suggests that the capability to model the crash behavior of automotive structures
774 subjected to time-dependent loads was indeed achieved. This capability is available
and can deal with any boundary conditions that might be of interest for car designers.
References
Burchitz, I.A. (2007), “Adaptive through-thickness integration strategy for shell elements”,
in Cesar de Sá, J. and Santos, A.D. (Eds), Proceedings NUMIFORM Conference,
AIP Conference Proceedings, College Park, Maryland, pp. 699-704.
Cahier des charges (2006), “Specifications dimensionnement crash et vibratoire traverse poste de
conduit b95”, Technical report, Normalisation Renault Automobiles.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 22:43 10 May 2016 (PT)

ESI Group (2013a), “Virtual performance solution solver reference manual”, General Simulation
Procedure, Vol. 1, October.
ESI Group (2013b), “Virtual performance solution solver reference manual”, General Simulation
Procedure, Vol. 2, October.
ESI Group (2013c), “Virtual performance solution solver reference manual”, General Simulation
Procedure, Vol. 3, October.
Huang, M. (2002), Vehicle Crash Mechanics, Boca Raton, CRC Press, FL.
Lingbeek, R.A. (2008), “Virtual tool reworking”, PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.
Moroncini, A., Cremers, L. and Baldanzini, N. (2012), “Car body concept modeling for NVH
optimization in the early design phase at BMW: a critical review and new advanced
solutions”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering
ISMA, September 17-19, pp. 3809-3823.
Volart, F. and Faria, S. (2012), “Cross car beam multi optimization”, ppt presentation, GESTAMP,
Dynamore Forum.
Webb, J.P. (2004), “System design specification: instrument panel and console subsystem”,
Technical report, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R.L. (2005), The Finite Element Method for Solid and Structural
Mechanics, 6th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Corresponding author
S.M.O. Tavares can be contacted at: sergio.tavares@fe.up.pt

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com