Lightweight Design (Leichtbau)

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Matthias Kröger

Institut für Maschinenelemente, Konstruktion und Fertigung
Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg

5. Examples of lightweight design (Beispiele für den Leichtbau)

5.2 Crash structures (Crashstrukturen)

The design of the front and side structure and the occupant cabin of a car is strongly influenced
by passive safety requirements. The car body (Karosserie) is one of the most important
subsystems of a car and has a large relevance for the lightweight design. Therefore, we will
discuss the requirements of the passive safety of cars, the design of crash structures and we
will search for possibilities of lightweight design.

Applications of crash structures (Anwendungen Crashstrukturen)

Most people only know that cars have crash structures. A closer look on other vehicles,
machines, packaging or hand-held equipment show a broad range of applications of crash
structures.
To give some ideas, Table 5.2-1 shows a list of crash structure applications.

Table 5.2-1: Crash structure applications in vehicles, machines, packaging and hand-held
equipment
Vehicles Machines Packaging Hand-held equipment
(Fahrzeuge) (Maschinen) (Verpackungen) (Handgeräte)
Cars, busses and Grinding wheel Tin cans Mobile phones and
trucks protections (Dosen) cameras
Planes and Safety doors and Egg box Mouses
helicopters windows of (Eierkarton) (PC-Mäuse)
machines
Trains and trams Earth-moving Cardboard box Tele-controls
machines (Pappcartons) (Fernsteuerungen)
Spacecraft Lifts Bottles Hand drills
Ships Turbine housings … Hairdryers
… … …

1
 Different protective structures for the cabin
are in use for earth-moving machines and
other mobile construction machines:
• ROPS is a roll over protective
structure which consider a roll over at
a slope (Abhang). The structure is the
frame structure of the cabin or in
some cases an additional frame
surround the cabin.
• FOPS is a falling object protective
structure which consider dropping
objects on the roof of the cabin.
• FGPS is a front guard protective
structure which protect the front
window from impacting objects.
• TOPS is a tip over protection
structure (Umsturzschutz) for small Fig. 5.2-1: Protective structures of a
compact excavators mobile construction machine [Kröger]
(Kompaktbagger) up to 6000 kg.
Almost all food and other products needs a packaging for a safe transport. It is essential that
a drop down of a tin can (Dose) results only in small deformations but the tin can has to stay
closed. A cardboard box (Pappkarton) has to protect the product against usual impacts
during transport of parcel service.
A drop down frequently happens with all hand-held equipment like mobile phones, hand drills
or the mouse of a PC. For a long life of this products a small drop height should be considered,
e.g. some mobile phones are designed and tested for drop heights of 2 m. Due to the very
small possible elastic deformations, this requires a very advanced impact design.

Crashworthiness of cars (Crashverhalten von Autos)

Due to high velocities and transport of passengers, 15%
accidents of vehicles have to be considered in their
development. About 40 000 people die per year in
49,6% 2,5% 13%
road accidents in EU (Germany about 4 000) and
worldwide about 1.5 Mio. We will look in detail on
the crashworthiness of cars. Fig. 5.2-2 show the 19,9%
location of impacts. Almost 50% are at the car
front. About 35% are side impacts on the left or Fig. 5.2-2: Location of impacts of car
right side. Rear impacts happen not very often and accidents, cp. [Otte]
roll overs are rare.
Collision partners of cars are in most cases other cars (63%) or trucks (8%). Further, collisions
with objects, like trees or poles, happens often (29%), cp. [Otte]. The analyse of the
deformation after a front impact gives an estimation of the impulse angle (Impulswinkel). 64 %
of the front impacts have a small impulse angle, <15°, and 32% an angle of 15°<<45°.
Larger impulse angles are rare with only 4%. A further important characteristic parameter of a
front impact is the overlap (Überdeckung), see Fig. 5.2-3. A small overlap describes an
accident with only a small contact area on the right or left side of the front structure. If the whole
front is directly loaded the overlap is large.

2
 25
33,6% 33,8% 32,6%
Occurrence [%]
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Overlap [%]

Fig. 5.2-3: Occurrence of different overlaps of front accidents, cp. [Otte]

All overlaps have almost the same probability. Thereby, it has to be considered that it is very
difficult to find differences in the deformation between 90% and 100% overlap. From the car
designer point of view, it is very interesting to separate this statistic at about 30% and 70 %.
At that positions the longitudinal beams of the front structure are positioned. Both longitudinal
beams (Längsträger) absorbs together about 60% of the crash energy in a front collision, see
Figure 5.2-4. All other components have only a small contribution to the energy absorption,
like the wheel houses (Radkästen) or car wings (Kotflügel).

Kinetic
Energy

9% 12%
79% Engine
Splash wall
Front end

4% 18%
57%
Car wing Wheel
Longitudinal houses
beams

Fig. 5.2-4: Energy absorption of different components of a car in a front collision, cp.
[Anselm]

3
 A typical car front structure has an
increasing deformation force
characteristic starting with the foam at
the bumper beam for pedestrian
protection, the easy to replace crash
absorber, the longitudinal beam and final
the occupant cabin. The force increase
ensures a deformation of the first
structures for small velocities which
reduces the repair costs. Fig. 5.2-5: Simplified force characteristic of half
of car front structure [Kröger]

Crash scenarios (Unfallszenarien)

In most cases the car manufacturer will consider only the crash scenarios which are given by
regulations of the different countries or of Euro-NCAP, resp. US-NCAP etc. We will motivate
the crash scenarios by the statistic results of the accident research (Unfallforschung). It is the
true way of development to solve the real problems. In the following, 8 front crash scenarios
are given, which bases on the main statistic results given above.

Fig. 5.2-3 demonstrate, that 1/3 of the

front accidents has a small overlap up to
30%. In that case, both longitudinal
beams are not directly loaded. This is
considered in scenario A with an overlap
of 20%.

Another 1/3 of all front accidents have a

medium overlap between 30% and 70%
which results in direct loading of one
longitudinal beam. This is considered in
the scenario B with e.g. 40% overlap.

Further 1/3 of all front accidents have a

large overlap larger than 70%. This
results in a direct loading of both
longitudinal beams. The crash scenario
C consider this configuration with an
overlap of 100%.

About 30% of all collision partners are

objects, like trees or poles. These
objects can be very critical because
trees have a small contribution of energy
absorption. Exemplary, we consider a Fig. 5.2-6: Axial crash scenarios and frontal pol
frontal pole impact in the middle of the impact [Kröger]
front structure as scenario D.

4
 The given statistics demonstrate that
about 2/3 of the front accidents have
a small impulse angle smaller than
15°. This configuration is considered
in scenario E and F with an angle of
v
e.g. 10°. In scenario E the car
impacts the oblique barrier.

Scenario F consider the case that the

barrier (or other vehicle) moves
against the car with an oblique v
velocity. Due to the small angle and
friction in contact both scenarios can
show different deformations.

About 1/3 of the front collisions have

lager impulse angles between 15°
and 45°. This is considered in
scenario G with an angle of e.g. 30°.
A differentiation between movement
of car or barrier is not essential in a
v
first rough analysis because sticking
in the contact is not expected.

The last scenario H consider a front

accident with a truck as collision
partner. This can be critical because
the stiff structures of the truck are on
a higher position than at a car.
Therefore, only the upper structure
front structure will be directly loaded.
This is an important scenario but will Fig. 5.2-7: Oblique crash scenarios and car to truck
not discussed in the following. scenario [Kröger]

Crash requirements on front structure (Crashanforderungen Frontstruktur)

Some crash requirements of the front structure are already given by the crash scenarios A-H.
Further crash requirements are e.g.:
• Due to advances in occupant safety the percentage of pedestrians on the dead people
in road traffic increases. Therefore, the pedestrian protection is an important task of the
front structure which is considered at velocities of 40 km/h. Especially, the contact of
the leg with the car front and of the head with the engine bonnet (Motorhaube) are
critical.
• Only reversible deformation should occur for very low velocities, e.g. 4 km/h.
• Small reparation costs of accidents up to 15 km/h are of grade importance. Most of the
accidents have a relative velocity up to 15 km/h. Here the reparation costs are the
dominant task for the car owner and/or the insurance. A very large danger for the
occupants is not given in this velocity range. Therefore, airbags and belt tensioner must
not be activated.

5
 • For high accident velocities, e.g. 50 km/h or 64 km/h, the passenger safety is the main
task. Analyses of injuries of occupants give a focus on head (Kopf), chest (Brust) and
pelvis (Becken). Clamping of the lower extremities also plays an important role, as it
makes rescue from the vehicle very difficult.
• Compatibility (Kompatibilität) of the front structure with the collision partner is important
in respect to the position, height, of the energy absorbing structure and the load level.
Compatibility is also very relevant for an impact into the side structure of the other car
which has limited deformation space and energy absorption capacities.
Further, the front structure needs a high bending and torsional stiffness for the dynamic
properties of the car, cp. the deformation orientated characteristic values in Chapter 2.2. For
the lightweight design small mass of the crash structure is important. To get a high energy
absorption combined with a small mass the structure needs a high specific energy absorption.
For sure, small material and production costs are of high relevance for car structures.

Simple front structure model (Vorderwagenmodell)

The main components of the front crash
structure are the longitudinal beams on the
left and right side and the bumper beam
which is positioned in lateral direction and
connect both longitudinal beams, see
Fig. 5.2-8 and the model in Fig. 5.2-9. This
connection can be built only by one screw
which corresponds more or less to a
kinematic hinge (Drehgelenk) or by several
screws, resp. by welding. In that case, the
hinge can be only deformed by plastic
deformation, therefore, it is called plastic
hinge (Fließgelenk). Fig. 5.2-8: Car body of a VW Golf 8 [Kröger]

Bumper beam
C E D
Kinematic or
plastic hinge
Axial
deformation
zone

Longitudinal
beam A B

Plastic hinge

Car body

Fig. 5.2-9: Model for the crash behaviour of a car front structure [Kröger]

6
The connection between the longitudinal beam and the car body is also built by a plastic hinge.
An additional plastic hinge is necessary in the middle of the bumper beam to model the 40%
overlap scenario B. The longitudinal beams can be deformed in axial direction e.g. by
progressive buckling (Faltung). The length of the bumper beam depends on the car design. In
some cases, the bumper beam is mainly between both longitudinal beams. Usually they have
not the whole width of the car.
The simple front structure model of Fig. 5.2-9 can be used to analyse the deformation
behaviour of the car front structure for the given crash scenarios A-G. For scenario H the model
has to be enhanced to a 3D-model.
Fig. 5.2-10 show the deformation shapes of the front structure model for the axial crash
scenarios and the frontal pol impact. First, we will analyse scenario B. The left longitudinal
beam is axially deformed while the right longitudinal beam is only bended to the left. The plastic
hinge in the middle of bumper beam is also bended. Due to an approximately constant length
of the bumper beam the right longitudinal beam is bended. A small optimisation can be done
by shifting the plastic hinge of the bumper beam to the corner of the barrier. A comparison with
test results of [Decker] show the validity of the model. Scenario C, the 100% overlap, result in
an axial deformation of both longitudinal beams. Therefore, the 100% overlap can dissipate
almost twice the energy of the 40% overlap scenario for the same deformation distance
neglecting the relatively small energy absorption of the plastic hinges.

Fig. 5.2-10: Possible deformation shapes of the front structure model for the axial crash
scenarios and the frontal pol impact [Kröger]

7
The small overlap of 20% is much more critical. After some tests in US with very poor results,
this topic come into focus of the car manufacturer. For the accident research this topic is not
new. Especially on small country roads, the collision with oncoming traffic (Gegenverkehr)
happens usually with small overlap and extreme high relative velocities. The usual bumper
beam ends can’t transfer large forces and will be bended with a small energy absorption, see
solution A1. Due to the small forces the longitudinal beams will be not deformed axially. The
energy absorption will start when the tire is pressed in the passenger cabin. The intrusions are
very dangerous for the driver. Theoretically, the bending stiffness of bumper beam can be
increased up to a level, that it is not bended (very heavy) and the left longitudinal beam will be
deformed, see solution A2. This might be a good solution which and not more critical than the
40% offset scenario which is the main crash scenario in the car development. The accident
velocity connected with scenario B is typical 50 km/h or 64 km/h. The velocity of two oncoming
cars on a country road is usually between 80 and 100 km/h each. Due to a quadratic increase
of kinetic energy with the velocity the longitudinal beam will not be able to dissipate the whole
energy. A more successful design could be solution A3. Here, the bumper beam is bended a
little bit. Afterwards the oblique contact force can be used to shift the oncoming car to the left
onto his lane and the observed car to the right. Tests together with Schimmelfpennig & Becke
showed the advantage of this solution. Only a limited amount of energy has to be absorbed by
the crash structure because the car can drive on his lane after impact.
Most bumper beams are not developed for a pole impact. They behave like the solution D1
with a bending deformation at the middle plastic hinge. The energy absorption is often very
small for this global bending deformation. Therefore, the energy has to be absorbed while the
engine is shifted into the occupant cabin. This should be avoided. To activate the axial
deformation of the longitudinal beams, see solution D2, the maximal plastic bending moment
of the bumper beam has to be increased which can be difficult and heavy. Further, high plastic
bending moments of the hinges between bumper beam and longitudinal beams are helpful.
Fig. 5.2-8 show deformation shapes of the front structure model for the oblique crash
scenarios. In scenario E the car impacts an oblique barrier. Due to the small angle a sticking
in contact can be assumed. The left longitudinal beam will be deformed axially. Due to a
constant length of the bumper beam the right longitudinal beam will be bended to the left.
When the barrier came directly in contact to the right longitudinal beam it will be deformed
axially, too. In scenario F the barrier impacts the car. Due to the small oblique angle the car
front will stick on the barrier. This results in a bending of both longitudinal beams to the right.
The left longitudinal beam is immediately axial deformed, which will happen with the right after
the direct contact with the barrier, too.
A different behaviour can be expected at large oblique angles. Here, sliding in the contact can
occur. Therefore, both longitudinal beams have to carry large lateral forces which result in
large bending moments at the other ends of the longitudinal beams. If the maximal plastic
bending moments are too small a poor, global bending of the front end will occur. With a larger
maximal plastic bending moment a mixture of bending and axial deformation of the left
longitudinal beam will happen. Also, this behaviour is validated by the experiments of [Decker].

8
 v

Fig. 5.2-11: Possible deformation shapes of the front structure model for the oblique crash
scenarios [Kröger]

A analyse of the loads transferred to the longitudinal beams assuming kinematic hinges to
the bumper beam helps to define the load cases of this component in the development. Only
an axial force acts on the front of the left longitudinal beam in case of scenario A, B, C, E and
on the right absorber in scenario C. Only a lateral force acts on the right longitudinal beam in
the scenarios E, F and G. A combination of both forces, axial and lateral, acts on the left
longitudinal beam in the scenarios D, F, G and on the right longitudinal beam in the
scenarios D, B. Therefore, it is essential to dimensioning the longitudinal beam for axial
loads, lateral loads as well as for combined loads. This we will do in the crash component
design.

Exercises:

Which accidents are critical for occupant?

What is the overlap?
Which components absorb the most energy in the front structure?
Explain the function of the simple front structure model!
What is a plastic hinge?