composts Part 8 238 (2022) 109892 " Contents lists available at ScienceDirect, re Composites Part B : a ELSEVIER journal homepage: ww slsevier comiocatelcomposives’ Design and manufacture of thermoplastic carbon fiber/polyethylene terephthalate composites underbody shield to protect the lithium-ion batteries for electric mobility from ground impact Hui-Jin Um", Yeon-Taek Hwang’, Il-Joon Bae”, Hak-Sung Kim" ‘parent of Mechanical Ege, Hanyang Univ, 22, Wangsnna, Segoe, el, Rgubliof Kern ™ coronal Reach Grup, Reeareh ns of nal cee ond Teel, 6 Chmgon Mam ny Pohang Cyne 37673, Repu of eres “Inst f Nan Sec nd Ten, Hanyang Umber, So, 133.791, Repub of Korea Kowerte Recently, the eerie mobility fas emerged with gest prospects ax there hasbeen a growing interes in and Eke ie demand fr ecosrenaly energy. The electric veicie ses lage numberof ithiam bares ag rources of ower, end te lthlum battery poses ek offre and explosion when te external impacts loaded. Tecefore, inthis cr ope ‘dy, an under sel (UB) wos design and manusctured wing catbon fer enforced eopase plate and ellison prseetion bar (CPR). Mechanical behavior agnnst impact was analyzed through finite ‘clement analysis considering the postion ofthe CPB and the shape ofthe underbody shield plate. For the US, {he hybrid composies (Carbon fiber (CF)/polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and sel-reinfored polypropylene (RPP) composites) were used ad the rato between the CF/PET and SAPP was optimized. Through a finite ‘clement analy, the optimal inderody shield was designed with a thickness of 2:4 mm and hybrid ratio of (CE/PETSSRDP a 1:2. Finally, the designed underbody shied wes manufacture using e thermoforming process ‘nd mounted to an eectse vehicle, and then a vehicle erash tet ws performed wih a coneete obstacle. The ‘deformation of rear part was thin mm and no battery leakage ocures, 1. Introduction develop an underbody shield tobe able to fully protec the bartery from such collision, The underbody shield should be able to protect the bat- As there has been a growing interest in and demand for eco-friendly ‘energy, electric mobility has emerged a an industry with great pros pects, Especially, the electric vehiclerelated industry has experienced rapid growth in the past decede and most companies have reinforced investment in tis industry [1-s]. The electric vehicle uses many bat teres as sources of power, andthe most common battery type in moder ‘lecric vehicles is lithium-ion, Lithium-ion batteries are one ofthe high ‘energy-dense sources of mass or volume, However, the lithium-ion battery poses @ risk of fire and explosion when the external impact is loaded [4-5]. Due to the risk, he protection ofthe batery from the ‘external impact is essential for securing the passengers safety. Generally, the battery is located under the electric vehicle and fs _more likely to be exposed tothe risk of collision with obstacles from the road surface while driving. Because of the above fact, itis necessary to tery from collisions without significant deformation and it must be lightweight to increase che electric car fuel efficiency [7]. Therefore, Its essential to reduce the weight of the vehicle using light-weight com- posite materials [1,7] To mest the requirement forall these conditions, there is no cholee but to use a carbon Sider eeinforced plastic (CERP) composite having excellent specific strength and specific stiffness in the underbody shield However, tere are apparent limitations to use conventional ther- ‘mosetting resin type CFRP composites inthe industrial field because of slow manufacturing speed, high price, and low recyclabiliy. Therefore, thermoplastic such as polypropylene (PP, polyethylene terephthalate (PED have been used as a matrix considering the costefectiveness, formabilty, and recycling (8-10]. Among the thermoplastic polymer for the CFRP composite, PP is one of the most widely used Corresponding author. Department of Mechanical Enginecring, Hanyang University, 222, Wangsimn-o, Songdong-u, Seoul Republic of Korea Fbmal adres rsa ihsnan. ache (HS, Kim). ep//doL.ong/10.1016/.composier.2022.109802 Received 3 February 2022; Received n evised fom 30 March 2022 Accepted 7 Apll 2022 ‘Avaliable online 11 Apil 2022 1369-8366/e 2022 lever Lt, All rights reservedHs Umea thermoplastics in the industrial fleld and has the advantage of being particularly excellent in terms of shock absorption [11-15]. Therefore, many studies on static and dynamic properties of self-reinforced poly propylene (SRPP) composites using PP for both fiber and matrix have been conducted [5-10,16). In the explosive growth of the electric vehicle market, there Is an increasing demand fora battery protection shield structure. Lightweight metals such 95 titanium or aluminum have been used for the battery shield structure (71, However, due to the high density of metals, only small structures are installed onthe front ofthe battery in consideration ‘of the weight, thus ie eannot cover nor protect the battery fll. In this study, the underbody shield was designed and manufactured ‘with light weight hybrid fiber-reinforced composites to protect the battery. The hybrid composites combined with thermoplastic CF/PET ‘and SRPP composites were used and the entire underbody shield designs ‘were implemented through a fnie element (FE) simulation varying the several design parameters. The designed underbody shield was man. factured with thermo-forming process and mounted in an electric ‘vehiele, and then its performance to protect the batteries was tested with the real sized vehicle crash test. 2, Finite element analysis 2.1. Design of underbody shield geometry ‘The underbody shield (UBS) was designed to mount in real electrical vehicle, Smart EV D2 (miero electric vehicle, Semisysco, Korea). The ‘dimensions of the UBS were determined to cover the overall battery as shown in Fig. (a). The UBS can be divided into a front part and a rear prt the collision protection bar (CPB) is placed between them as shown, in Fig. 1(b). The front par of the UBS is designed to be inclined at a specific angle not to interfere other stering components inthe ear and the rear part covers the entire battery package. The CPB is positioned slightly in front of the battery pack to protect the battery first in the ‘event of acolision with large ground obstacles. For the mounting, the brackets were used to mount the UBS with a 10mm gap fom the battery (0) Bese Vebiestactre © were vA 1, (@) Schematic of underbsy shield (US) with collision protection bar (Pa) atached to eecrie vehicle, The UBS war manufactured with hybrid ‘composites (CF/PET woven snd SRPP composites) and unidections CH/PET ‘omposies was applied to the CPB. (9) Dimension of UBS svete ampostes Pr 8288 (2022) 109892 ‘ack bottom surface as exhibited in Pig. (8), 22, Design of CPB and UBS plate ‘The UBS shape is designed varying the position of CPB and the angle of the rear UBS plate surrounding the CPB. The CPB ean be located on the above the shield plate (tis. 2(¢-d)) or the bottom of the shield plate (ig, 2-0). Considering the location of the CPB, four cases of UBS shapes were chosen and compared inthis study as show in ig. 2, and the thickness of UBS was fixed to 2.8 mm. The deformation of the UBS plate should be minimized to less than § mum of deformation resulting from ground impact to protect the battery pack. ‘As exhibited in F's. 5(), the CPB was fabricated using uniditectional CE/PET composites for higher mechanical properties. On the other hand, a hybrid composite with CF/PBT and SRPP woven composites was sed in the UBS plate, The UBS plate is composed of CF/PET on the fulside and SRPP inthe inside cre ike a sandwich structure as shown in Pig. 3C@). The SREP has much lighter density and superior impact resistance characteristics than those of the CF/PET composites while i has lower strength and stiffness (1417-19. Therefore, it is necessary to select an appropriate hybrid ratio of CF/PET composites and SREP composites. The mechanical behavior of UBS was analyzed to find the ‘optimal hybrid composites ratio (HR) through impact simulation (see Hig. (@). 23. Impact simulation The impact simulation was pecformed using commercial Gnite clement (FE) software ABAQUS explicit to design the underbody shield An eight-node continuum shell element (SCBR) was applied to both CPB and shield plate parts (20]. The simulation model was meshed with the clement size range of 0.5-1 mm as shown in "is. 3(€-). Also, the local coordinate was assigned to consider the fiber orientation according to the parts. The unidirectional (UD) CF/PET composites properties were applied tothe CPB. The GF/PET composites were applied to the shield body. Both composites were modeled with continuum solid composite ‘model and each material property was indicated in Teble 1. The subseript 1 means to the fiber direction and the subscript 2 ane 3 refers to the transverse directions to the fiber. The damage of composite model ‘was analyzed with Hashin's failure criteria which have been successfully sed in finite element analysis studies (21,22). The unbreakable de condition was defined between the CPB and shield body surface. The «ylindreal shape conerete impactor was moxieled by 8-node linear brick element (C3DBR) with the density of 2400 kg/m’, and the length and diameter were both st to 89 mm, The concrete properties were used for fan impactor as shown in Table 2, which was measured through the compression test using 2 eylindrcal concrete specimen (23-26). The brittle-racking model was applied with unidirectional failure criteria [27-20]. The surface-to-surface contact was assigned between the UBS land conerete impactor with friction coefficient of 0.3 for all contact surfaces. The boundary condition and the impacs directions were shown, in ig. (6). Inthe impact simulation, the impactor was moved toward ‘the underbody shield with the speed of 32 km/h (9 m/s) and the overlap Tength between the conerete impactor and UBS was set to 25 mm. 3. Experimental procedure 3.1. Hybrid composites fabrication For the thermoplastic composite fabrication, studies on the CF spread tow have been extensively conducted, in which carbon fiber tows are spread out and thinned to reduce area density and improve the wetting Of the resin on it (3-35). Since the spread tow has excellent resin {impregnation properties, the highly viscous thermoplastics can be uni= formly impregnated in a short time, and its mechanical properties was reported tobe excellent (See I. (8). In this work, a8 shown in Vig. 4He ume ampostes Pr 8288 (2022) 109892 « o + 20mm Pe \4 mm © @ own Shield plat ww" cPR © Up Shield plat T | | | | | | | i as | 180°-CPB | | | | | | Down. Sica aie cP 0 Lp Shield plate 180°-CPB Fig. 2 (@) Simulation moe of undecbody shield (UBS) with collision protection bar (CPB) and (6 dimension of CPB, The various UBS shape according 10 the positon and angle of sie plate (c) Cast, (4) Case, (e) Cas, and ( Case (0), the 50 K CF tow (Mitsubishi, $0 K CF, TRW40 80 L) was spread out to improve the impregnation of thermoplastic PET film into it See Fg. 4 (@)) [55]. The PET film was laminated into the spread CF tow through -mlerowave heater and hot roller as shown in ig. (€). Then, the laa ‘nated CF/PET tape was sit to have a width of 18 mm (see Fs. (4), and it was weaved as a plane woven plate as shown in Fg. (@). The SRPP ‘composites were also fabricated as plain woven layer by weaving hom-polymer PP fiber and random copolymer PP matrix film (Korea E&T Co, Md) (See Pig. AD), For the SRPP composites, their mechanical properties have been already studied from our previous research and used in the FE analysis as shown in Table 1 [16,54] For fabrication of a hybrid composite with a CF/PET composite and ‘an SRFP composite, the adhesion between PET and PP should be adhered firmly. However, their adhesion is very weak owing to their different types of co-polymer structure. Therefore, the hot melt film @Polyolefn hot melt adhesive, LG chemical Lucene) was inserted be toween the CF/PRT composites and SRPP composites to strongly bond them as shown in Fig. 4(). The hybrid composites were fabricated by inserting hot-melt film between the two types of composites through @ hot-pressing process (4 bar for 10 min). The specimens (150 mm x 100 ‘mm) were fabricated under four temperature conditions (150, 160, 170 ‘and 180°C) to find an appropriate fabrication temperature as shown in Fig. (g) Then, the weight-lrop tet was performed with an impactor height of 685 mm and impact energy of 82.5 J to cheek their consol dation [35]. 3.2. Fabrication of underbody shield ‘The CPB was fabricated through the thermo-pultrasion process as follows; 1) the CF/PET was un-winded fist, 2) the un-winded CF/PET was drawn through the trajectory system to shape the final product, 3) ‘the molding system that molds into the Final product, and 4) a haul-off system that eakes the final product as shown in fg. Sta). The overall ‘equipment for tne above process was indicated in Fiz. 5(b), and the CPB having a diameter of 20 mm and a thickness of 3 mm could be finally Tabricated using wnidieectional CF/PET composites (see Fig, 5(€). The [UBS was manufactured with the appropriate process condition obtained from the results of section 3.1. Fiesty, upper and lower CF/PET woven composites were preheated in IR heater and thermoformed through a hot-pressing process at 270 °C, 1000 tons for 100 as shown in Pig. 5). The video of thermal forming process was also shown in Supplementary ‘ceo Si, Then, the SPP and hot-melt fm were inserted between the two CE/PET composites, and it was pressed again with 500 tons at 170°C for 10 min. The UBS manufactured in this way was drilled in the bolted positions and mounted inthe electric vehicle as shown in Fig, 5 9, 3.3. Vehicle crash test ‘The vehicle rash test was conducted after mounting the mamufac- sured UBS on the electrical vehicle. Since there was no standard test for ‘the undebody shield component, a crash test was conducted based on a general battery package test. The crash test was conducted at the Ulsan ‘echnopark (Automobile technology support department) in Korea, and an experiment was performed in which the vehicle was pulled with a Wire after fixing the conerete crash impactor on the floor. The concrete Jmpactor height was 85 mma as shown in ie, (9) and the overlap length, Dbetween the impactor and UBS was 25 mm (see Fs. o(@)). The concrete Impactor was manufsctuted using a silicone mold 7 days before the actual vehicle test was carried out ts mechanical properties were shown, fn Teble 2. A brake control device to stop the vehicle after a crash and a sensor to check battery performance were attached tothe vehicle forthe crash tests shown in Fig. 6(b), The isolation resistance measurement of the battery was conducted before and after the erash test hased on the 180 6469-1 [26]. The Vs the nominal voltage ofthe Battery, Vyand Vs are the voltages between th electrical chassis andthe + and terminals of the battery respectively. V', and V'y are the voltages between the clectrical chassis and the ~ and - terminals ofthe batery with standard ‘known resistance (Ro) respectively. The isolation resistance was caleu- lated a8 follows: a ‘The minimum requirement is that the result value Ry divided by the ‘maximum working voltage shouldbe greater than 100 Q/V or 500 0/V [6]. In order to analyze whether the UBS protected the battery packHes Umea ampostes Pr 8288 (2022) 109892 @ Shield pate = CFIPET woven) +SRPP hybrid Sam amr crnive Tt, ere sw py CPB (pultrusion) E ~CHPET (0D) cuner Tesdrm 2D,-20mm 4mm yor SREP py # pb atin - SREP OWE crniy# ob) co Fined U-UR. b @) « Fig. 8. (2) Scherate of underbody shield (UBS) structure and the hybrid composites layup with Hb alo. (6) Boundary condition of pact simlaton and (2) the overlap length (25 mm). The 3D meshed simulation mode! for (2) UBS in top view and (e) conerete impactor (ads of 40 mam and the length of 80 me) in bottom view. ‘Table 1 ‘Mechanical properties of composts sed for UBS modeling: CE/PEI-UD, CF/ ‘PEt-woven, and SAPP compestes (1,171 Table2 Mechanical properties of concrete used as impactor and sel in simulation (27, 30371 Mae propery omen aueer «Str ‘Rial dase ad, Fy (PD 10 a7 3 ‘Asa Tense suena, Xy (a) 18001068 38 ‘Transverse cliste modules, Fas (6P8} 60 siz 31 Tansee teste seth, ¥ Mea) TS 108 os ‘or behness moda Ea (OPO 608 Iplane sear ofa, G.(GPa) 2083.8 as plane sear stem Sz (MPa) 04 oo 26 ‘atalane shor moss is (Pa) a Iatalcompeesve eng ke) 1300747 was ‘Trane compresive sre Yo TOSS 7 2s el Dewey ire) 16 1 ome ‘comer ‘ompresvebeaviorin Terabe behair ‘ues odieie Ses Gackng (er) seein) sa Yours O77 18 ‘mofse Gia -263oooas OR Poimonsriso 02° 4630005906 beng aay Sa Gapieh 2am? el Younes acsows ely vied (ews) oles ie stent 207 Gre a Zexen* ours {rom the eolision body or not, the displacement amount of the UBS was ‘measured at three points using a laser sensor (ILD 1420-10, ‘Micro-epsion) with a date speed of 2 Kitz (se Fig 50). The crash test, was recorded with high-speed camera as indicated ini. a), and the ‘experiment was performed under the condition of 32 km/h (9 m/s). After the test, the battery leakage was checked,Hs Umea @ es bobo 282 Sess od a tem ampostes Pr 8288 (2022) 109892 © Fig. 4. (2) Te disadvantage of unspread tw impregnation suchas resin ich o void due tothe thick tow, and advantage of spread tw impregation. (6) CF tow spreading process and () the febriated CF/PET tape using spread CF tow. (2 CE/PET siting process end (e) the manufactured CF/PET woven composites (2) The Iybrid composts layup with CI/PET and SREP composites. g) The febricaed hybrid composites specimen acording to thefebrleaon temperstre 4, Results and discussion 4.1. Shope design of CPB and shield body “The impact simulation results according to the shape cases of UBS were exhibited in Pig. 7. Three points (Pi, P2, and P3) were selected to ‘analyze the amount of deformation generated in the UBS by impact as shown in Fig. 7. When the CPB was placed on the top ofthe shield plate (case 1 and case 2 in Fig. 7(a-b)), all Uaree points ad the frst peak of ‘deformation around 3 ms after impact. On the ather hand, when the CPB was placed at the bottom ofthe shield plate (case 3 and ease 4 in Pig. 7 (c-d), the deformation peak in the UBS plate occurred slightly later than the previous cases, The peak shape also appeared differently depending on the postion of the CPB. The deformation peak was ‘generated sharply when the CPB s located on the top ofthe shield plate, Whereas the deformation occurred moze smoothly when the CPB Is located on the bottom of the shield plate Also, it was found that the 24t #3 Fig. 9. The generated deformation amount with respec tothe tne aezording 10 the thicknes of shield pate a result of pact simulation further analyze the deformation behavior, the displacement according to the center path-line as shown in. 10(a) was indicated with respect to the thickness of UBS late In the case ofa UBS having a thickness of 2 ‘mm, a very large displacement about 9 mm or more oceurred due to a ‘olson, which means hat the battery was not protected a ll beeause the gap between the UBS and the battery was designed about 10mm, On the other hand, when the thickness was greater than 2.4 mm, 4 mm oF Jess deformation occurred, which is less than half ofthe gap between the battery and the UBS, thus the UBS plate thickness was chosen as 2.4 mm. Fig. 1 shows the deformation ofthe UBS plete in three points according to the hybrid ratio berween CF/PET and SRPP. Here, the larger the Aybrid ratio number, the higher the SRPP content, and thusa lighter UBSHs Umea + Center path-line (450 mm) ampostes Pr 8288 (2022) 109892 Gms @ Patbtn en a © Te tm Ss (b) 2 -201_2ms @-2ms te = {RSE 2 *|RGe —& Je 5 3 a 0. Go Too Ta) m0 0 300 350 A) 0 Path line distance (mm) © sam ow —24 4s ® . a= 7 Jom H E oso 0 150200” 280 "300 38000 ao Path line distance (mm) (6) 3, (8) 4mm and (5m ‘can be achieved. In the case of HRS, the only single layer of CF/PET ‘composite was laminated in the outermost position (see, 1¢0)). AS ‘esul, as shown in iy. 11(@, the deformation at three points was higher than 10mm at @PI point. As the HR decreased, thats asthe stacked CF layer increased, the displacement generated inthe UBS plate was greatly ‘reduced. Even when only two layers of CF/PET woven are laminated in ‘the outside surface, the deformation inthe UBS plate was within 5 mm ‘or less, which isthe safe enough to protect the battery pack (note that the gop berween the UBS and battery pack was designed as 10 mm as mentioned above). In addition, as the HR decreased, the displacement bouncing phenomenon at each point decreased, indicating that a more stable deformation occurred. Asa result, the UBS for the actual vehiele test was designed using the HR 2 having an average displacement of 5 ‘mm, which is haf of the gap between the battery and the UBS. Finally, the {otal mass ofthe designed UBS with hybrid composites was 3.88 kg For the comparison, the displacement of the steel (SM45C) UBS was © 2 & : ath ine distance (em) a 10] ines gE f Jes é a ‘50100 150 200.250” 300 380 400 0 Path line distance (mm) 10, (2 Sehematle of underbody shield (US) centr path ine. The displacement amount of center path ine acording othe thickness of shied plate a (0) 2m, simulated by impact simulation (37). As shown in Fig. 11(€), when UBS plate thickness of 1 mm and CPB thickness is 0.8 mm, about § mm ofthe ‘maximum displacements could be obtained similarly to that of hybrid composite UBS. The overall mass ofthe stee! UBS would be 7.97 kg, Which was more than two Ume heavier than chat of the hybrld com- posites UBS. Consequently, it was concluded that 52% weight reduction can be achieved by the hybrid composite UBS compared with the stel UBS, which is a great benefit for electric vehicle driving efficiency improvement. 4.3. Hybrid composite plate according to the fabrication condition Fig. 12 shows the hybrid composite specimen according to the manufacturing temperature after the welght drop test In the ease ofthe specimen fabricated at 150 °C, the SRPP plies were separated without any adhesion after te test nee SRPP was not adhered tothe CR/PET atFs Um eat @ E mas : oa e " Time () cy R-2 nR-1 © <7 ts +) shield plates) cre (oxen G7 Stelle Displacement nm) Time(s) Fig. 11, (a) The deformation behavior with respect to the tne of UBS. (0) Hylid composite layup according tothe hyd rao. (¢) The deformation ‘aximim diplacement of composites a point all due to the low fabrication temperature. When the specimen was fabricated a 160°C, the SRPP was not consolidated sufficiently, thus the ‘detachment was observed at the interface between the SRPP and CF/PET ‘composites after the drop weight impact test. On the other hand, the adhesion between CE/PET and SRPP and the SRPP consolidation were well formed for both specimens fabricated at 170 °C and 180 °C (see Fig, 12(6-€). However, a the ease ofthe specimen fabricated at 180°C, the melted SAPP was squeezed out due tothe relatively high tempera ture condition, (See Fig, (g)). Therefore, che optimal manufacturing temperature of hybrid composites was selected between 170 and 180°C 44, Vehicle crash test result and simulation vaiation ‘The vehicle crash test was performed to validate the UBS éesgn, and the tes result was shown ing, 13. The high speed crash test video was shown in Supplementary Video S2. No CPB damage was found, and minor surface damage was served on the CPB front body after the first actual vehicle test as shown in Fig, 13(@). After 4th eras test, the CPB ‘was fractured as shoven in Fig. 15(2). In every crash test, the concrete stacle was broken into several parts as shown in Fig. 19(a). There was ‘no damage to the battery during and after impact and the isolation resistance completely was met withthe safety standards as shown in “Tnble 8, Therefore, it could be concluded that the manufactured UBS could prozect she battery pack successfully while crushing concrete dbstacles on the road surface. @ tare ©) © re ig. 12. the optical mleroscope image of cos Seton fr the hybeld com posites fabricated at (3) 150°, (B) 160°C (€) 170 "Cy and () 180 “Cafter the eight erop tet ‘To further validate the impact FE simulation, the deformations of three points between the experiment result and the simulation result were compared. As shown in Fiz. 13(b), the deformation ofeach points ‘were similar to the measured results from the experiment, In all three points, the collision simulation could predict the frst peak value ofthe Aisplacement from the collision experiment accurately. In an actual vehicle crash test, the front shield body was firstly contacted with the obstacle when the impactor collided with UBS as showa in Fis. 6d). Therefore, the displacement amount of Pl located at the very front was 1 Targest compared to other points. n the case of PS, it was located at the rear part, the fist peak in the amount of deformation was delayed ‘han that of other cases. The maximum displacement of each point fom the experiments and simulation were well matched as shown in Pg. 12 (©). The differences between the test and simulation results were in 0.1-0.3 mm, within the 4% range showing the validity of the impact analysis performed above 5. Conclusion In this study, the undesbody shield was designed and manufactured to protect the battery of an electric vehicle. The underbody shield is composed of two parts, which are the shield body and collision pro- tection bar (CPB). Here, the hybrid composites with CF/PET and SRP were used fo the shield body to achieve weight reduction. The impact simulation was performed to evaluate the UBS properties according 10 the geometry, thickness, and hybrid ratio. The less deformation and ‘matrix damage occurred sshen the CPB was positioned at bottom of the shield body and the angle ofthe shield body was 150”. For the selected UBS shape, the optimal thickness ofthe shield body and the hybrid ratio between CE/PET and SRPP was determined. Finally, areal seale UBS designed with a thickness of 24 mm and hybrid ratio 2 was fabricated. The vehicle crash test was performed about the UBS mounted in anHs Umea ampostes Pr 8288 (2022) 109892 (a) ‘UBS Impactor Before 4" test result anon After ‘ihm o) ©. G5 mE a 24 on i. ag i so : aa | praca a a 5 Time) Fig. 18. (@) The UBS and concrete impactor images Before and aftr vehicle crash et. () Te displacement bchvior according othe measurement points of UBS as result of viele crash est and impeet simulation. () The max dsplacementdiference between the veblle eas est snd impact siulaton. ‘Table ‘The measurement result ofthe insulation resistance performance ofthe battery ‘before and afer the vehicle cash tex. a a a oo % Ow an ewe 1633—<7BS SS «BORO LOTT OBIS Mee 1612783784 180180160085 9S clectsie vehicle with a conerete obstacle, As a reslt, the underbody shield successfully protected the battery against the impact damage, since the deformation of the rear part was within § mm and no battery leakage occurred. Finally, the total mass of the designed UBS with hybrid composites was 3.88 kg, in which 52% weight reduction can be achieved compared with that of the steel UBS having similar deforma- sion by the impact, which i great heneft for electric vehicle driving eficeney improvement (CRediT authorship contribution statement Huistin Um: Software, Investigation, Data curation, Writing ~Hes Umea ‘original daft, Visualization, Yeon-Taek Hwang: Methodology, Sof ‘ware, Investigation. U-Joon Bae: Investigation, Supervision. Hak Sung ‘Kim: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing ~ review & editing. Declaration of competing interest ‘The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence ‘the work reported in this paper. ‘Acknowledgement ‘The authors are grateful to A‘ech solution CO., LTD(Republic of Korea) for manufacturing underbody shield through the thermo ‘compression forming process, and to AMOTECH CO. (Republic of Korea) {or fabricating the CT/PET tape and providing electri vehicle D2 to perform the erash test. Also, we would like (o express great appreciation to Seung-Hyun Abn in LX hausys for his help in manufacturing of the (CPB. This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Tech ‘nology Evaluation and Planning(KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, In dustry & Energy(MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No. 2020691030160). ‘Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at hips://do! ‘org/10.1016/}.compositesb.2022.109892, References (11 Chen X, Wang J, 20K, Yang 1 Bc veils by ene stature design ‘Petod an approach ode ce ee bd rear bared on batry Sree rc tae heck ing =P J Acoma eng 2021-08 Srp tv7/ossenvon isa ‘Tang ¥, Yen W, Pan M, Wan 7. perenal avestiation the dame ‘pefomanee of ed PEM uel el/Brery Sate or igwegh wacee ‘elle sppaon App tery 2018-76 long Tan Zong a 2 Namerel nests model prance nai forakaminim ally mortacandsenon srt ans and lee rete, ‘compos Bing 2019161:77-6 a a (Al Fraga Pavave A, Mlk On the tetra bebo of CFRP ey cage Ie sookr powered cece vebie Comps Stet 2020252112598. {51 Zhao, Yl: nt Ia Kaeh Xl A Hote Ge al Peveatng ith ion bey fae ring hgh temperatures y exter apie eompreson 2 RoenyStonge 201718286903 ‘Wang @ Png. Zhao XG, Sn 3, Chen Terma naa cae ie and ‘roan af iam on tates J Power Soues 2012206204 ‘Shu, Chen Garg A, Pang Boo Nang Deg ptm of tery Ick clone for sere whites Mullp Op 2018519317. ‘ang Swols¥,Lngana MI, Ya, Won MR, Lome Sea. bee paste of lige docotnas tron bers ad selene {alopyene under en nuding Corpo pl Sel Mana 209312397107. ‘haneraM Naous DessY Cssatt ey Lomo SY a defeat and validation of hyperlase ode for serene pelytoplene rpig in) Mate For 202114} ‘Shale, De ype 8, epost Gora Lybsan ft dace leat ee and ltr plyeepene compte Comps pl Se Mana 2017 10640-94 Mad HA Polpropyene sa promising plas: 2 evi, Am J Polym i206; aa “ a “ “1 bot bn ua os) as os) a an as as) on 51 composes Pr 82382002) 109992 wad ine. The science and echocogy fb empaton Payer 200445 Gheis Swath, Br, eres bv felled ply at {dlr eget! Comp Apa Manat 20451007 Sale Yang, ace, pon Th nec frome prom he opis fe tga sed plyropyine cates Cope ose aut 1085--, be, Park 7, Km J Kane Song WS Altea via {ale ima evi cma aoe Ded om SRP de ‘cperisentlcndestin, Congo ng 201467145 {iting ang ton The afer feelin tpn Dane nd intaminar mec pops af sled plopyene iment, compe Souce 20191070-77 Seren, Swols¥, Dot Gorath, Vso eneaton input eng of Ser Sol agarose ako thet tod natn felon mpc Kear yb bon {helene poppe compen Camp Appl a 276309: Mccl 1 og Swas ¥, Gr Labo ST Bodie dein or bolyrnsene bid comps. Compo op et Man! 209,21 341-2, Saati Sooty bar tabman’O Poke clenent madly toma ‘pacconaninted compote pean yn el Cope Sac 20, soy198 75 ‘Sua fe reece potymar Compe. hpl Mech fer 20000) ‘asin’ Fale rea for wnidcctoe ter compte 1980, {Si coon sada x bd or pve eg on Sobre, Rech the otsenc fh nd caring tne on th guy of ener. Coment Conc er 190 90).57-64 Emik Mom 4 bs $3 Compenie sng develomest of ont wid iter: sig in an eps, Cent Cnc We 998202) 70-78. Solis enegu ©The ees of pte une st of water creat oo tc ‘Soph and wes apn of ote: Come: Cot Conpor SOSA Nis is, conptonl mal of nods dab hc inpast {oad intemal our of neon giering 20122 Gentoo AS Pos MA ie ent sana of png bear of concrete ‘Sb aig damaged pty modelo AMNQUS- ng Set SSR ‘inuyh Chena, Catonor,ASvanced teal oling ef concrete "hein once cote ernment ely and ‘eosone clenge or onset ArUsveryo bande he hi poe: ‘aha Name mdeling of eee cone sab eto ‘macostng 208 ‘beat i, tanrence CA Urabe carbon Alera ‘Spee aged is, ops oS. ‘the structural response of aerospace grade spread-iow fabrics, Omos Strut 2017; Sono i Dela BK, Ra, cht D, San, Fak YB. Unie pedo Se rp ops ts it ey si Gaps also eas Si ang im tin HS Sao te dependent mechani behavior ‘go fer ered plyronsiene apostate o he get ss up bs tC By 296 D796 A Stn tet meth or eaicing he damage estan of fe ‘ind per at spor os Gepoght Eat ven PA AST Items Wer Conhoboxen 292. Staaeton 11 Becealy prop 0 eis sly pein Fe oon ckrgoe ey agen RS. !zinon/compote eve taf Comper Ste: R147,