Article
Composite Plastic Hybrid for Automotive Front Bumper Beam
Shada Bennbaia 1 , Elsadig Mahdi 1 , Galal Abdella 1
Citation: Bennbaia, S.; Mahdi, E.;
Abdella, G.; Dean, A. Composite
Plastic Hybrid for Automotive Front
Bumper Beam. J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7,
162. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jcs7040162
Academic Editor: Francesco
Tornabene
Received: 20 February 2023
Revised: 31 March 2023
Accepted: 7 April 2023
Published: 12 April 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7040162
and Aamir Dean 2, *
1 Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, Qatar University,
Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar
2 School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Sudan University of Science and Technology,
Khartoum P.O. Box 72, Sudan
* Correspondence: a.dean@sustech.edu; Tel.: +249-(0)-155144366
Abstract: The bumper beam is a crucial component of the automobile bumper system, responsible
for absorbing impact energy and enhancing the safety of passengers during collisions. This paper
presents the design and experimental analysis of a 3D-printed composite–plastic hybrid light struc-
ture, designed as a collapsible energy absorber. Exploratory testing was conducted using low-impact
tests to investigate the failure mechanism and energy absorption capacity of a spiral structure. The
design process involved optimizing the spiral diameter by testing specimens with varying diam-
eters between 0.5 cm and 2.5 cm, while keeping other geometric parameters constant. The study
employed three types of 3D composite structures, including printed thermoplastic, printed ther-
moplastic reinforced with Kevlar fiber composite, and printed thermoplastic filled with foam. The
thermoplastic–foam composite with nine spirals (diameter = 0.97 cm) yielded the best results. The
new design demonstrated high energy absorption capacity and a controlled and progressive failure
mechanism, making it a suitable candidate for energy absorption applications.
Keywords: crashworthiness; energy absorption capability; failures mechanism; bumper; spiral
structure; composite; plastic; automotive
1. Introduction
Frontal collisions are a leading cause of death and injury in road accidents. As such,
researchers in crashworthiness have been focusing on reducing the occurrence of such
accidents. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), road accidents are the
primary cause of death for young adults and children between the ages of 5 and 29 [1].
Given this alarming statistic, the development of automotive safety systems has become a
critical area of research. Crashworthiness refers to a vehicle’s ability to absorb energy and
provide adequate space for passengers to survive in the event of an accident. Therefore,
the development of efficient energy absorption systems can significantly enhance the
crashworthiness of cars [2–7]. In recent years, numerous studies have explored ways to
improve the crashworthiness of vehicles, including the development of advanced materials
and structures. Innovative energy absorption systems have also been designed to mitigate
the effects of frontal collisions. These systems absorb the impact energy and dissipate it
efficiently to prevent excessive deformation of the passenger compartment, while providing
adequate survival space for passengers in the event of an accident. Consequently, the
development of more efficient energy absorption systems can significantly enhance vehicle
safety on the road. One crucial automotive component that endures accidents and impact
stresses is the frontal bumper system [8–16]. As illustrated in Figure 1, this system comprises
three key elements: the bumper beam, the absorber, and the fascia [17–19]. Lightweight
materials have garnered significant attention in automotive applications, primarily due
to the trend of replacing heavy parts to conserve fuel and reduce carbon footprint [20–33].
However, it is worth noting that the energy required to propel a vehicle is more than ten
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jcs
 nificant benefits is their weight reduction [22]. In fact, polymer composites can offer up to
30% less weight than steel without sacrificing the bumper beam’s bending strength
[8,20,43]. This reduction in weight can have a positive impact on the vehicle’s fuel effi-
ciency and handling. In addition, it is easier to produce complex shapes from polymer
composites, allowing designers to create more aerodynamic and stylish bumpers while
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 maintaining their effectiveness [44,45]. Overall, the use of polymer composite materials 2 of in
16
bumper beams represents a significant advancement in automotive safety technology.
With their weight reduction, high energy absorption capacity, and ability to produce
complex
times theshapes, polymer
energy used composites
in the are an
manufacturing attractive
process [34].alternative
Therefore, to traditional
developing materials,
eco-friendly
and their use is likely to continue to grow in the future.
cars is crucial, regardless of the energy consumed in producing lightweight materials.

Figure 1. Standard
Standard bumper system [17].

Abrupt acceleration, which refers to rapid changes in velocity, is a common occurrence

in vehicular crashes. However, the human body’s ability to withstand such acceleration
is limited, and exceeding these limits can result in severe injury or even death. Therefore,
understanding the extent to which humans can tolerate such acceleration is essential in
determining the necessary safety features and structural elements required to protect
occupants in foreseeable crashes [35–39]. By knowing the crash environment and the limits
of human tolerance to acceleration, designers can set crashworthiness design requirements
that will effectively safeguard passengers in a variety of collision scenarios. For instance,
if the crashworthiness design requirements are not set to adequately protect passengers
in a high-speed collision, the vehicle’s occupants may suffer severe injuries due to the
abrupt acceleration. Conversely, if the requirements are set too high, the vehicle’s weight
and cost may increase excessively, which can be detrimental to the overall performance
and affordability of the vehicle. Since this study focuses on automobile impact crashes,
we consider the acceleration tolerance limit in the +Gx and −Gx directions, which is 45 G.
Table 1 provides a summary of estimates of human tolerance in all axes. The bumper
beam is the key structure absorbing the kinetic energy from a high-impact collision [17,40].
Additionally, it provides bending resistance in a low-impact collision [17,41,42]. The
function of the bumper beam is to absorb the impact of collision energy in a controlled
way before the energy is transferred to the passengers. Many studies have been conducted
on thin-walled structures to determine their energy absorption capabilities. Common
examples of thin-walled structures studied include square tubes, circular tubes, sandwich
plates, and honeycombs [17]. Traditionally, steel has been the most common material used
to make bumper beams due to its strength and durability. However, in the mid-1980s,
polymer composite materials were introduced as an alternative to traditional materials
such as metal, plastic, and aluminum. Polymer composites offer several advantages over
conventional materials. One of the most significant benefits is their weight reduction [22].
In fact, polymer composites can offer up to 30% less weight than steel without sacrificing
the bumper beam’s bending strength [8,20,43]. This reduction in weight can have a positive
impact on the vehicle’s fuel efficiency and handling. In addition, it is easier to produce
complex shapes from polymer composites, allowing designers to create more aerodynamic
and stylish bumpers while maintaining their effectiveness [44,45]. Overall, the use of
polymer composite materials in bumper beams represents a significant advancement in
automotive safety technology. With their weight reduction, high energy absorption capacity,
and ability to produce complex shapes, polymer composites are an attractive alternative to
traditional materials, and their use is likely to continue to grow in the future.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 3 of 16

Table 1. Human tolerance limits of deceleration [2].

The Direction of the Accelerative Force Tolerance Level

Headward (+Gz) 20–25 G
Tailward (−Gz) 15 G
Lateral Right (+Gy) 20 G
Lateral Left (−Gy) 20 G
Back to Chest (+Gx) 45 G
Chest to Back (−Gx) 45 G

Moreover, natural fiber composite has gained significant attention in recent years.
These materials are composed of natural fibers, such as flax, hemp, or jute, embedded in a
polymer matrix [20,34,46–53]. The combination of these materials offers several advantages
over conventional materials, including low density, high stiffness, and specific strength. In
particular, sheet molding compound (SMC) bumper beams have been developed using nat-
ural fiber composites. These bumper beams have been found to be effective in maximizing
the elastic strain energy while minimizing the impact force, bumper beam deflection, and
stress distribution. This is due to the excellent properties of natural fiber composites, which
offer an optimal combination of high strength and low rigidity. The use of high-strength
materials leads to good impact behavior, which is crucial for safety in the automotive
industry. On the other hand, the use of materials with low Young’s modulus leads to low
rigidity, which is important for reducing weight and improving fuel efficiency [54].
There are several significant factors that affect the energy absorption capacity of
bumper beams, including their shape, cross-section, thickness, rib, and material. The cross-
section and thickness of the bumper beam play crucial roles in determining the amount
of energy that can be absorbed during a collision. In addition, the presence of reinforcing
ribs in the bumper beam can significantly increase its energy absorption capacity. The
use of rib-reinforced beams has been found to be more effective in absorbing energy than
foam-filled and empty square beams. Moreover, these strengthening ribs can enhance the
overall stabilization and rigidity of the bumper structure, which can contribute to better
performance in collision scenarios. Understanding the impact of these factors on the energy
absorption of bumper beams is crucial in the design and development of safer and more
effective vehicle bumpers [55,56].
According to a study by Zhang [57], tubes with graded thickness in the cross-section
can increase the energy absorption under axial loading by up to 30–35%. In [58], it has
been stated that a sheet with varying thickness improves crashworthiness. Moreover, func-
tionally graded structures with changing wall thickness along the longitudinal direction
offer sufficient absorption of crushing energy. A study by Zarei [59] showed that, for
aluminum structures, the wall thickness should be between 0.5 and 3.5 cm to maximize
specific energy absorption.
A study conducted by Sinha [60] investigated two major factors. The first is the
internal absorbed energy by the bumper beams, which they found can be kept high using
materials with a high modulus of elasticity and high yield strength. The second factor is
plastic deformation, which should be eliminated as much as possible during a low-speed
mode. They found that material M220 is the best for bumper beam manufacturing. By
using this material, the maximum stress of the bumper is kept below the material’s yield
stress, and the maximum beam deformation is kept within an acceptable limit.
Overall, it can be seen that the energy absorption capabilities of spiral structures have
not been investigated before. The present study investigated the dynamic impact test
responses of the different spiral structure composites using drop-weight impact equipment
at an energy level of 15 J. Three types of composite materials were produced. These are
3D-printed thermoplastic, 3D-printed thermoplastic covered with a Kevlar fiber composite,
and 3D-printed thermoplastic plastic filled with foam. All the samples were wrapped
with Kevlar to control the failure mechanism. Test characteristics and results, such as
energy absorption and damage modes, were evaluated. It is worth mentioning that Kevlar
 Table 1. Human tolerance limits of deceleration [2].

The Direction of the Accelerative Force Tolerance Level

Headward (+Gz) 20–25 G
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 Tailward (−Gz) 15 G 4 of 16

Lateral Right (+Gy) 20 G

Lateral Left (−Gy) 20 G
fiber composite was used
Backdue to its (+Gx)
to Chest well-known excellent impact and abrasion
45 G resistance
characteristics in comparison to other
Chest to Back (−Gx)fiber composites [61,62]. Moreover,
45the
G foam was
added to enhance the axial stiffness and stability of the proposed design [63].
2. Experimental Program and Settings
2. Experimental Program and Settings
2.1. Material
2.1. Material Selection
Selection
ABS thermoplastic
ABS thermoplastic was was chosen
chosen for producing the
for producing the various
various spiral
spiral structures
structures using
using 3D
3D
printing techniques. Kevlar fiber and blue Styrofoam composites were added
printing techniques. Kevlar fiber and blue Styrofoam composites were added to the plastic to the
plastic structures
structures to createto different
create different specimens.
specimens. The Kevlar
The Kevlar fiber
fiber was wasusing
fixed fixed EL2
using EL2
epoxy
epoxy laminating
laminating resin
resin and andslow
AT30 AT30epoxy
slow epoxy hardener
hardener with awith a 100-30
100-30 ratio, while
ratio, while thefoam
the blue blue
foamfixed
was was using
fixed using
paperpaper glue. Kevlar
glue. Kevlar was as
was used used as a wrap
a wrap for allfor all specimens.
specimens.

2.2. Specimen Preparation

The geometry and dimensions of the models are shown in Figure 2, which illustrates
the different
different spiral
spiral structures
structures that
that were
were modeled
modeled using
using SOLIDWORKS
SOLIDWORKS software.
software. The
geometric parameters of each structure are provided in Table 2. A total of four different
different
spiral structures were produced, and six samples of each structure were 3D printed using
ABS thermoplastic,
thermoplastic, resulting
resulting in
in aa total
total of
of 24
24 specimens
specimens arranged
arranged in
in three
threegroups.
groups.

Figure 2. Printed models’ geometry and dimensions (all dimensions are

are in
in mm).
mm).

TableKevlar fiber composite

2. The geometric was
parameters of added to the first group of samples by wrapping two
the specimens.
layers on each side of the plastic specimen. Next, Styrofoam was used as a core for the
Number of Spirals (N) Diameter (cm) Hight (cm) Thickness (cm)
second group; the foam was cut by a CNC machine based on the dimensions of the spiral
structure and5 then glued to the structures
1.84 with polyvinyl10 0.1 group
acetate. Finally, the third
material was7 3D-printed thermoplastic,
1.29 used as a control.10
Two layers of Kevlar0.1 composite
9 0.97 10 0.1
were wrapped around each specimen to add some controllability to the failure mecha-
11 0.78 10 0.1
nism during the dynamic impact test (see Figure 3a).

Kevlar fiber composite was added to the first group of samples by wrapping two
layers on each side of the plastic specimen. Next, Styrofoam was used as a core for the
second group; the foam was cut by a CNC machine based on the dimensions of the spiral
structure and then glued to the structures with polyvinyl acetate. Finally, the third group
material was 3D-printed thermoplastic, used as a control. Two layers of Kevlar composite
were wrapped around each specimen to add some controllability to the failure mechanism
during the dynamic impact test (see Figure 3a).
J.J. Compos.
Compos. Sci.
Sci. 2023,
2023, 7,
7, x162
FOR PEER REVIEW 5 5ofof 17
16

Figure
Figure 3.
3. (a)
(a) Sample
Sample of
of the plastic specimens
specimens after
after adding
adding Kevlar
Kevlar composite;
composite; (b)
(b) aa specimen
specimen inside
inside
the low-impact test machine before the impact test.
the low-impact test machine before the impact test.

2.3. Low-Velocity
Table Impact
2. The geometric (LVI) of the specimens.
parameters
LVI tests were carried out partially in accordance with the standardized test, ASTM
Number of Spirals (N) Diameter (cm) Hight (cm) Thickness (cm)
D7136/D7136M [64], using the drop-weight impact testing machine from Imatek. The
5 1.84 10 0.1
specimen was fixed vertically at the center of the base by a double-sided tape to prevent
7
the samples from slipping (see Figure 3b). 1.29 10 0.1
9 0.97 10
Twenty-four impact tests were carried out. All impact conditions, such as the 0.1 impactor
geometry and11 mass, incident energy, and 0.78height of the impactor,10 were the 0.1same for all
samples. The initial impact energy was set to 15 J (mass = 11.83 kg and velocity = 1.56 m/s)
2.3. Low-Velocity
for all compositeImpact (LVI) Force and displacement as a function of time and initial impact
specimens.
velocity
LVI were recorded
tests were by the
carried outmachine’s
partially in automatic
accordance datawith
acquisition system. Acceleration,
the standardized test, ASTM
D7136/D7136M [64], using the drop-weight impact testing machine from Imatek.using
velocity, and energy were then automatically calculated. All impact tests were filmed The
a digital high-speed
specimen video camera
was fixed vertically at thewith 3000
center offrames
the base perbysecond for slow-motion
a double-sided tape to analysis.
prevent
In addition,
the samples from pictures before(see
slipping andFigure
after the
3b).test were captured for all the specimens.
Twenty-four impact tests were carried out. All impact conditions, such as the im-
3. Results and Discussion
pactor geometry and mass, incident energy, and height of the impactor, were the same
for allThe impactThe
samples. response of eachenergy
initial impact specimen was was set torecorded
15 J (massas =a 11.83
function of time.
kg and velocityThe=
recorded parameters are (1) force, (2) displacement, and (3) acceleration.
1.56 m/s) for all composite specimens. Force and displacement as a function of time and The following
sectionimpact
initial is dedicated
velocity towere
showcasing
recorded and bydiscussing
the machine’s the experimental
automatic data results.
acquisition system.
Acceleration, velocity, and energy were then automatically calculated. All impact tests
3.1. Impact Performance
were filmed using a digital high-speed video camera with 3000 frames per second for
Figure 4analysis.
slow-motion shows the Inspiral hybrid
addition, composite
pictures beforestructure’s
and after thetypical
test force
were versus
captured displace-
for all
ment response.
the specimens. The initial drop in the load is a sign of crack initiation; a few fluctuations in
the curves represent the propagation of cracks, resulting in stiffness degradation. The plots’
peak
3. force and
Results represents
Discussionthe load a structure can withstand before undergoing critical damage.
In case (A) N = 5, the Kevlar fiber composite has a very high peak force compared to
The impact response of each specimen was recorded as a function of time. The rec-
plastic and blue foam composites; after a displacement of around 2 cm, the resistance of the
orded parameters are (1) force, (2) displacement, and (3) acceleration. The following sec-
composite started degrading, cracking down under the impactor. The plastic composite
tion
showedis dedicated
very lowtoresistance
showcasing and discussing
to load and failed almostthe experimental
immediately. results.
In case (B) N = 7, the
blue foam composite has the highest peak force at around 2 cm displacement. The Kevlar
3.1. Impact Performance
fiber composite started failing at approximately 1 cm displacement with a peak force of
Figure
less than 70 4N shows
than thethe spiralfiber
Kevlar hybrid composite
composite. Cases structure’s typical
(C) N = 9 and (D) force
N = 11versus
resultsdis-
are
placement
close; thereresponse.
is a sudden Thedrop
initial
in drop in the force
the impact load response
is a sign of crack
after peakinitiation;
force at aaround
few fluctu-
2 cm
ations in the curves
displacement, and then represent
the load theoscillates
propagation as theofstructures
cracks, resulting
fail down. in Based
stiffnessondegrada-
the force
tion. The plots’
resistance peak
stability, theforce represents
blue foam the load
composite a structure
performed bettercan withstand
than the others, before under-
regardless of
going critical damage.
the number of spirals.
 J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 6 of 16

Figure 4.
Figure Experimentalimpact
4. Experimental impactforce–displacement
force–displacement response
response with
with different
different numbers
numbers of
of spirals
spirals (N).
(N).

Figure 5 shows the acceleration versus time response of the spiral hybrid composite
In case (A) N = 5, the Kevlar fiber composite has a very high peak force compared to
structures. The best performance is when the acceleration values are stable at around
plastic 2and blue foam composites; after a displacement of around 2 cm, the resistance of
0 m/s . In cases (A), (B), (C), and (D), the blue foam composite has the best acceleration
the composite started degrading, cracking down under the impactor. The plastic compo-
stability. Compared to the human acceleration tolerance limit (45 g), the highest acceleration
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
site showed very low resistance to load and failed almost immediately. In case (B)7 N of =177,
in the plots shown in Figure 5 is around 12.5 m/s2 , equal to 1.275 g, which is perfectly safe
the blue foam composite has the highest peak force at around 2 cm displacement. The
for humans.
Kevlar fiber composite started failing at approximately 1 cm displacement with a peak
force of less than 70 N than the Kevlar fiber composite. Cases (C) N = 9 and (D) N = 11
results are close; there is a sudden drop in the impact force response after peak force at
around 2 cm displacement, and then the load oscillates as the structures fail down. Based
on the force resistance stability, the blue foam composite performed better than the oth-
ers, regardless of the number of spirals.
Figure 5 shows the acceleration versus time response of the spiral hybrid composite
structures. The best performance is when the acceleration values are stable at around 0
m/s2. In cases (A), (B), (C), and (D), the blue foam composite has the best acceleration
stability. Compared to the human acceleration tolerance limit (45 g), the highest acceler-
ation in the plots shown in Figure 5 is around 12.5 m/s2, equal to 1.275 g, which is per-
fectly safe for humans.

Figure
Figure5.5.Experimental
Experimentalimpact acceleration–time
impact acceleration–timeresponse
responsewith
withdifferent
differentnumber
numberofofspirals
spirals(N).
(N).

Figure 6 shows a chart representing the hybrid composites’ energy absorption lev-
els. The blue foam composite achieved the highest energy absorption level of 11.7 J when
N = 5. The lower level was the plastic composite when N = 11 at 6.3 J. However, the per-
formance based on the energy-to-weight ratio was different, as shown in Figure 7. The
 J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 7 of 16

Figure 5. Experimental impact acceleration–time response with different number of spirals (N).

Figure Figure
6 shows a charta representing
6 shows the hybrid
chart representing composites’
the hybrid energy
composites’ absorption
energy lev- levels.
absorption
els. TheThe
blue foam
blue composite
foam composite achieved
achieved thethe
highest
highestenergy
energyabsorption
absorptionlevel levelofof11.7
11.7J Jwhen
when N = 5.
N = 5. The lower level was the the plastic
plastic composite
compositewhen whenNN==11 11atat6.3
6.3J.J.However,
However,the theperformance
per-
formancebased on on
based thethe
energy-to-weight
energy-to-weight ratio was
ratio wasdifferent, as as
different, shown
shown in in
Figure
Figure 7. 7.The
Thehighest
highestspecific
specificenergy
energyabsorption
absorptionof of1065
1065J/kgJ/kg was achieved
achieved byby the
the blue
blue foam
foam composite
composite when
when thethenumber
numberof ofspirals
spiralswas
was9,9,and
andsimilar
similar specific
specific energy
energy absorptions
absorptions were achieved by the
by the plastic composite
composite when
when NN == 5,
5, 7,
7, and
and 11 11 and
and by
by the
theblue
bluefoam
foamcomposite
compositewhen whenNN==11. The
11. Thelower
lowerlevel
levelwas
wasachieved
achievedby bythe
theKevlar
Kevlarfiber
fiberwhen
whenNN==99at at482.6
482.6J/kg.
J/kg.

13

12
N=5
11
N=7
10
Energy absorption J

N=9
8
N=11
7

0
G3 Plastic G1 Kevlar Fiber/epoxy-plastic- G2 Kevlar Fiber/epoxy-plastic-
Kevlar/epoxy Kevlar/epoxy-Foam
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
Figure 6. Energy
Figure absorption
6. Energy level of level
absorption the three composites
of the with different
three composites numbers
with different of spirals
numbers of (N).
spirals (N).

1210
1100
990
N=5
880
Specific energy J/kg

N=7
770
N=9
660
550
N=11

440
330
220
110
0
G3 Plastic G1 Kevlar Fiber/epoxy-plastic- G2 Kevlar Fiber/epoxy-plastic-
Kevlar/epoxy Kevlar/epoxy-Foam

Thespecific
Figure7.7.The
Figure specificenergy
energylevel
levelofofthe
thethree
threecomposites
compositeswith
withdifferent
differentnumbers
numbersofofspirals
spirals(N).
(N).

Based on the observations above, these hybrid composites achieve the best perfor-
Based on the observations above, these hybrid composites achieve the best perfor-
mance under dynamic impact: blue foam N = 9, Kevlar fiber N = 7, and plastic N = 11. The
mance under dynamic impact: blue foam N = 9, Kevlar fiber N = 7, and plastic N = 11. The
failure mechanism and structure analyses were conducted for these three composites using
failure mechanism and structure analyses were conducted for these three composites
the videos recorded by a high-speed camera during the experiments.
using the videos recorded by a high-speed camera during the experiments.
3.2. Structure Recoverability
3.2. Structure Recoverability
Table 3 shows the pictures of the specimens taken before and after each LVI test
Table 3 shows
to evaluate the pictures of
the recoverability of the
the hybrid
specimens taken before
composites. andKevlar
All the after each
fiberLVI test to
composite
evaluate the recoverability of the hybrid composites. All the Kevlar fiber
structures fractured into pieces (8 to 12 pieces). The resin and epoxy hardener made the composite
structures
structure fractured
hard but into pieces
brittle; thus,(8 it
tocracked
12 pieces). The resin
during andThe
failure. epoxy hardener
plastic made the
composites also
structure
have poor hard but brittle; thus,
recoverability but itare
cracked during
slightly failure.
better The plastic
than Kevlar composites
fiber. However,also thehave
blue
poor
foamrecoverability but are have
composite structures slightly
thebetter than Kevlar fiber.
best recoverability; as seenHowever, the blue
in the photos foam3,
in Table
composite structures have the best recoverability; as seen in the photos in Table 3, all the
plastic structures covered by the blue foam recovered without any breakage or critical
damage.

Table 3. The examined structures before and after the LVI test.
 3.2. Structure
3.2. 3.2. Recoverability
Structure
Structure Recoverability
Recoverability
Table
Table 33 shows
Table shows the
3 shows pictures
the the of
of the
pictures
pictures specimens
of the
the taken
specimens
specimens taken before
taken and
before
before after
andand each
afterafter LVI
eacheach
LVI LVItest to
test test
to to
evaluate
evaluatethe recoverability
the recoverabilityof the
of hybrid
the composites.
hybrid composites. All the
All
evaluate the recoverability of the hybrid composites. All the Kevlar fiber composite Kevlar
the fiber
Kevlar composite
fiber composite
structures
structures fractured
fractured
structures into
fractured pieces
intointo
pieces (8
(8 to
pieces to(812
12topieces).
pieces). The
TheThe
12 pieces). resin
resin and epoxy
andand
resin epoxy hardener
hardener
epoxy hardenermade
made madethe
the the
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 structure hard but brittle; thus, it 8 of 16
structure hardhard
structure but but
brittle; thus,
brittle; it cracked
thus, cracked during
during
it cracked failure.
failure.
during The
TheThe
failure. plastic
plastic composites
composites
plastic compositesalso have
alsoalso
havehave
poor recoverability
poorpoor recoverability
recoverability but are
but but slightly
are are better
slightly
slightly than
better
better Kevlar
thanthan
Kevlar fiber.
Kevlar However,
fiber.
fiber. However,
However, the blue
the the
blueblue foam
foam foam
composite structures have the best recoverability; as seen in the photos in
composite structures have the best recoverability; as seen in the photos in Table 3, all the the
composite structures have the best recoverability; as seen in the photos Table
in 3,
Table all3,the
all
plastic
plasticallstructures
plastic plastic
structures covered
thestructures by
by the
covered
structures
covered by blue
the
covered
the foam
blueblue
foam recovered
by foam
the recovered
blue
recoveredfoamwithout
without any
without breakage
any any
recovered breakage
without
breakage or
or critical
any or criticalor
breakage
critical
damage.
damage.critical damage.
damage.

Table
Table 3.
3. The
Table
Table
Table The
3. examined
3. 3.
The
examined
The structures
examined
The structures
examined before
structures
examined before
structures and
before
structures
before after
and
before and
and and
after the
after LVI
the
after
the
after test.
LVI
the
LVI
the LVI
test.
LVI test.
test.
test.
Sample
Sample Picture
Picture
Sample be- Sample
be- be-
Picture Sample Picture
Picture
Sample after
after
Picture after
Material
Material
Material
Material No.
No. of
No.ofNo. of SpiralsSample
Spirals
ofSpirals
Spirals
Picture before Sample Picture after
fore the
fore
the Test
the
Test
fore the Test Test the Test
the
the
the Test Test
Test

ABS
ABS Plastic
ABS Plastic
Plastic
ABS Plastic 55
5 5

J. Compos.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023,
J. Compos.
J. Compos.
Sci. 2023, 7, xx FOR
Sci. 2023,
Sci. 2023,
7, FOR
7, x
7, PEERPEER
x FOR
FOR
PEER REVIEW
PEER ABS
REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
Plastic
ABS
ABS
ABS Plastic
Plastic
Plastic 77
7 7 99 of
of 9917
17of
of 17
17

ABS
ABS Plastic
ABS Plastic
Plastic
ABS
ABS Plastic
Plastic 9
99 99

ABS
ABS Plastic
ABS Plastic
Plastic
ABS
ABSPlastic
Plastic 11 11
1111 11

ABS
ABS Plastic
ABS Plastic
Plastic
ABS
ABSPlastic
Plastic 5
55 55
and Kevlar
and
and
andand Fiber
Kevlar
Kevlar
Kevlar Fiber
Fiber
Fiber
Kevlar Fiber

ABS
ABS Plastic
ABS Plastic
Plastic
ABS
ABSPlastic
Plastic 7
77 77
and
and Kevlar
and
andandKevlar
Kevlar
Kevlar Fiber
Fiber
Fiber
Kevlar Fiber
Fiber

ABSABS
ABS Plastic
ABS Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
and Kevlar
and Fiber
Kevlar Fiber 99 99
andand
Kevlar Fiber
Kevlar Fiber
 andand
and
Kevlar
Kevlar
Fiber
Fiber 5 5
and Kevlar Fiber
Kevlar Fiber

J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 9 of 16

ABSABS
ABS ABS
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
and and Kevlar
Kevlar Fiber
Fiber 77 77
Table
and Cont.
3.Kevlar Fiber

Sample Picture before Sample Picture after

Material No. of Spirals
the Test the Test

ABS ABS
ABS
ABS
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic 9
99 99
and and
Kevlar
andand
and Kevlar
Fiber
Kevlar
Kevlar Fiber
Fiber
Fiber
Kevlar Fiber

ABS ABS
ABS
ABS Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic 11 11
1111 11
and
andand Kevlar
Kevlar Fiber
Kevlar
and Kevlar Fiber
Fiber
Fiber

ABSABS
ABS
ABS Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
J. Compos.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023,
Sci.
J. Compos. 2023, 7, xx FOR
7,
Sci. 2023, FOR PEERPEER
PEER
7, x FOR REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
5
55 55 10 of
10 of1017
17of 17
and
andandFoam
Foam
Foam
andand
FoamFoam

ABS
ABS Plastic
ABS Plastic
Plastic
ABS
ABS Plastic
Plastic
77 7
andand
Foam
and Foam
Foam

ABS
ABS Plastic
ABS Plastic
Plastic
ABS
ABS Plastic
Plastic
99 99
andand Foam
Foam
and Foam

ABS Plastic
ABS
ABS Plastic
Plastic
1111 11
and
and Foam
Foam
and
andand
FoamFoam
Foam

3.3. 3.3.
3.3. Structural
3.3.
3.3.StructuralFailure
Structural
Structural
StructuralFailure Analysis
Failure
Failure Analysis
Analysis
Failure Analysis
Analysis
Figure
Figure 8A
Figure
Figure shows
8A
8A8A
8A shows
Figure the
shows
shows
shows Kevlar
the
the
the Kevlar
the fiberfiber
Kevlar
Kevlar
fiber
Kevlar hybrid
fiber
fiber
hybrid hybridstructure
hybrid
hybrid structure
structurestructure
structure in the
in the
inin
in impact
the impact
the
impact
the test test
impact
impact test machine.
test
test
machine. It can
machine.
machine.
machine.It canIt It
It can
cancan
be seen
be
bebe
be seen that
seen
that
seen the
that
seenthat Kevlar
the
thatthe
the Kevlar
theKevlar
Kevlar composite
Kevlar compositeis
composite
composite
composite fixed
is to
fixed
isis fixed
is fixed fixed the
to the to structure
the structure
structure
structure
to the structure on
on onthe
on right
the
onthe
the right
the side
right
right
side
right sideand
side
and
sideand not
and not
not
and the
not
the
notthethe
left.
the
left.left.
left. Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure 8B
8B shows
8B
8Bshows
shows that
shows that
that matrix
that
matrix
matrix cracking
matrix cracking
cracking
cracking started;
started;
started; it itis
started;
it is isevident
itevident
is
evident onon
evident
on the
on
the theright
theright
right side
right
side and
side
sideandand not
andnot
not notthe
the the
other
other side,
other side, initiating
initiating
side, local
initiatinglocal buckling
local buckling at the
at
at the bottom
at bottom
the bottom halfon
half onthe
half the right
right
on the sideside
right where
where
side the the
Kevlar
where the is
Kevlar is free
Kevlar to go
is free to inwards.
go inwards. In Figure
In Figure 8C, 8C,as the compression
as the compression progresses,
progresses, the the
structure
structure
follows
follows the
follows Kevlar
the
the Kevlar
follows the Kevlar buckling
Kevlar
buckling
bucklingpattern,
buckling
pattern, and
pattern,
andand
pattern, the
and global
the
the global
the global buckling
global
bucklingbuckling
buckling of mode
of
of mode mode
of mode one happens
one
one one happens
happens
happensin the
in the
in the
in the
middle
middlemiddleof the
of the
middle of structure.
the structure.
of structure.
the structure. As the
As
As the compression
the compression
As compression
the compression continues,
continues,
continues,
continues, it can
it can it be
can seen
be
be seen
it can in
seen Figure
in
in Figure
be seen 8D
Figure
in Figure that
8D
8D that the
that the
the the
8D that
structure
structure
structure fractured
fractured
fractured in the
in the middle
in the because
middle
middle becausebecause of the
of the increasing
of the increasing
increasing bending.
bending.
bending. As the
As the
As thetop top
top of the
of the
of the
structure
structuregoesgoesdownward,
downward, multiple cracks
multiple cracksat the spirals
at the can can
spirals be observed
be observed in Figure
in Figure8E. 8E.
 3.3. Structural Failure Analysis

J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162

Figure 8A shows the Kevlar fiber hybrid structure in the impact test machine. It10can of 16
be seen that the Kevlar composite is fixed to the structure on the right side and not the
left. Figure 8B shows that matrix cracking started; it is evident on the right side and not
the other side, initiating local buckling at the bottom half on the right side where the
free to go
Kevlar is inwards.
free to goIn Figure 8C,
inwards. as the 8C,
In Figure compression progresses,progresses,
as the compression the structurethe follows
structure the
Kevlar
follows the Kevlar buckling pattern, and the global buckling of mode one happens in theof
buckling pattern, and the global buckling of mode one happens in the middle
the structure.
middle of the As the compression
structure. continues,continues,
As the compression it can be seen
it canin
beFigure
seen in8D that the
Figure structure
8D that the
fractured in the middle because of the increasing bending. As the top
structure fractured in the middle because of the increasing bending. As the top of theof the structure goes
downward,
structure goes downward, multiple cracks at the spirals can be observed in Figure 8E.in
multiple cracks at the spirals can be observed in Figure 8E. From the graph
Figure
From the9, the deceleration
graph in Figureis9,almost zero in theisareas
the deceleration represented
almost zero in thebyareas
Figure 8C–E because
represented by
there
Figure was
8C–Eno because
resistance as the
there wasstructure bent as
no resistance down. However,
the structure at the
bent endHowever,
down. of the graph,
at thethe
force
end ofreached its maximum
the graph, value when
the force reached the top part
its maximum of when
value the structure contacted
the top part of the the bottom
structure
part, in Figure
contacted 8F, duepart,
the bottom to increased
in Figureresistance.
8F, due to increased resistance.

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

Figure 8. Kevlar fiber with N = 7 specimen under the test. (A–F) retrace the failure process at 11 of 17
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 8. Kevlar fiber with N = 7 specimen under the test. (A–F) retrace the failure process at different
different configuration (loading stage).
configuration (loading stage).

Figure 9. Experimental impact force–displacement response for Kevlar fiber with N

N== 7.

Figure 10A
Figure 10A shows
shows the
the blue
blue foam
foam hybrid
hybrid structure
structure in in the
the impact
impact test
test machine.
machine. It It can
can
be seen that the Kevlar composite is fixed on the right side and not on
be seen that the Kevlar composite is fixed on the right side and not on the left, similar to the left, similar
to the
the specimen
specimen withwith
thethe Kevlar
Kevlar fiber.
fiber. Figure
Figure 10B10B shows
shows thatthat matrix
matrix cracking
cracking started
started to
to oc-
occur on the right side of the structure as global buckling happened.
cur on the right side of the structure as global buckling happened. It can be seen that It can be seen that
Kevlar is
Kevlar is getting
gettingfree
freeand
andgoing
goingoutwards.
outwards.In In Figure
Figure 10C,10C,
thethe structure
structure fallsfalls following
following the
Kevlar buckling pattern as the compression continues. It can be seen in Figure 10D 10D
the Kevlar buckling pattern as the compression continues. It can be seen in Figure that
that foam
the the foam in the
in the structure
structure started
started to to fracture
fracture ininthe
themiddle
middlebecause
becauseof of the
the increasing
increasing
bending. Figure
bending. Figures10C–E
10C–Erefer
refertoto
the graph
the graph in in
Figure
Figure11;11;
it can be seen
it can thatthat
be seen the force applied
the force ap-
is almost constant, which means the structure absorbs energy at a stable rate, meaning the
plied is almost constant, which means the structure absorbs energy at a stable rate,
deceleration is almost zero in this area. However, the force did not reach its maximum value
meaning the deceleration is almost zero in this area. However, the force did not reach its
at the end of the graph as the foam mass still resists the impactor, as shown in Figure 10F.
maximum value at the end of the graph as the foam mass still resists the impactor, as
shown in Figure 10F.
 Kevlar buckling pattern as the compression continues. It can be seen in Figure 10D that
the foam in the structure started to fracture in the middle because of the increasing
bending. Figures 10C–E refer to the graph in Figure 11; it can be seen that the force ap-
plied is almost constant, which means the structure absorbs energy at a stable rate,
meaning the deceleration is almost zero in this area. However, the force did not reach its
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 11 of 16
maximum value at the end of the graph as the foam mass still resists the impactor, as
shown in Figure 10F.

J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 10. Blue foam with N = 9 specimen under the test. (A–F) retrace the failure process at12 of 17
Figure 10. Blue foam with N = 9 specimen under the test. (A–F) retrace the failure process at different
different configuration (loading stage).
configuration (loading stage).

Figure 11. Experimental impact force–displacement response for blue foam with N = 9.

Figure 12A shows the plastic with the Kevlar composite hybrid structure in the im-
pact test machine. In Figure 12B, a light matrix cracking starts as the Kevlar separates
from the plastic. In Figure 12C, as the compression continues, the Kevlar separates from
the structure’s
Figure
Figure right side
Experimental
11.Experimental
11. while
impact
impact supporting the response
force–displacement
force–displacement structure
responsefor onblue
for thefoam
blue left
foamside.
withThen,
with NN==9.9.in Figure
12D, the structure fractures, and the 3D-printed plastic layers separate in the bending
area. Figure
As the12A
Figure 12A shows
top shows
of the plastic
plastic
the structure
the with
goes
with the
theKevlar
downward, composite
Kevlarmultiple
composite hybrid
cracks structure
at the
hybrid plastic in
structure thethe
spirals
in impact
canim-
test
pact machine.
be observed
test machine. In Figure
in Figure 12B,
12E. From
In Figure a light
12B,the matrix
graphmatrix
a light cracking
in Figure starts
13, it can
cracking as the
be seen
starts Kevlar
as thethat separates
the maximum
Kevlar from
separates
the
force
from plastic.
is around
the In Figure
plastic. 110 N,12C,
In Figure whichas is
12C, the compression
much
as the less than continues,
compression the continues,
other two thestructures.
Kevlar
the Kevlarseparates
The force
separates from
then
fromthe
structure’s
drops
the structure’s right
down toright side
about while
71 N
side supporting
and supporting
while the
keeps fluctuatingstructure on
in the areas
the structure the
on theleft side.
represented Then,
left side. by in Figure
Figure
Then, 12C–
in Figure12D,
the
E. structure
12D, the structure fractures, and and
fractures, the 3D-printed
the 3D-printed plastic layers
plastic separate
layers in the
separate in bending
the bending area.
As theFortopan of the
in-depth structure goes
understanding downward,
of the multiple
performance cracks
of the
area. As the top of the structure goes downward, multiple cracks at the plastic spirals can at the
proposedplastic spirals
design, the can
de- be
observed
sign shouldin Figure
be 12E. From
investigated the
under graph
fatiguein Figure
loading 13, it can
conditions be
be observed in Figure 12E. From the graph in Figure 13, it can be seen that the maximum seen
(see that the
[65]). maximum
Furthermore, force
a
is around
virtual
force test110
is around rigN,110 which
should beisbuilt
N, which much less
is for
much than
less the
a more thanother
thorough two structures.
investigation.
the other The
For
two structures. force
this then drops
purpose,
The force the
then
down
followingto about 71 N
sophisticated and keeps
models fluctuating
developed in
in the areas
[66–69] can represented
be
drops down to about 71 N and keeps fluctuating in the areas represented by Figure 12C– employed. by Figure 12C–E.
E.
For an in-depth understanding of the performance of the proposed design, the de-
sign should be investigated under fatigue loading conditions (see [65]). Furthermore, a
virtual test rig should be built for a more thorough investigation. For this purpose, the
following sophisticated models developed in [66–69] can be employed.

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

Figure 12. Plastic with N = 11 specimen under the test. (A–F) retrace the failure process at different
Figure 12. Plastic with N = 11 specimen under the test. (A–F) retrace the failure process at different
configuration (loading stage).
configuration (loading stage).

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

Figure 12. Plastic with N = 11 specimen under the test. (A–F) retrace the failure process at different
J.J. Compos.
Compos. Sci.
Sci. 2023,
2023, 7,
7, 162
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13
12 of 17
of 16

Figure 13. Experimental

Figure 13. Experimental impact
impact force–displacement
force–displacement response
response for
for plastic
plasticwith
withN
N== 11.
11.

For an in-depth
4. Variability understanding
Analysis: of the performance
Energy Absorption of the proposed
Versus Composition Typedesign, the design
should be investigated under fatigue loading conditions (see [65]). Furthermore, a virtual
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical technique used to evaluate
test rig should be built for a more thorough investigation. For this purpose, the following
whether there are any significant differences between the means of two or more groups.
sophisticated models developed in [66–69] can be employed.
Herein, ANOVA was used to estimate how the average energy absorption changed de-
pending
4. on the
Variability number Energy
Analysis: of spirals and the composition
Absorption type. To perform
Versus Composition Type the ANOVA, the
data were first divided into groups based on the number of spirals and the composition
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical technique used to evaluate
type. The average energy absorption for each group was then calculated and compared to
whether there are any significant differences between the means of two or more groups.
see if there are any significant differences between them. In this analysis, more weight is
Herein, ANOVA was used to estimate how the average energy absorption changed de-
given to the impact of the composition type, meaning that the effect of the composition
pending on the number of spirals and the composition type. To perform the ANOVA, the
type were
data on energy absorption
first divided is considered
into groups based onto the
be number
more important
of spiralsthan
and the effect of the
the composition
number
type. Theofaverage
spirals. energy
Table 4 absorption
shows the settings
for eachofgroup
the two ANOVA
was tests.
then calculated and compared
to see if there are any significant differences between them. In this analysis, more weight
Table 4. Energy absorption ANOVA settings.
is given to the impact of the composition type, meaning that the effect of the composition
type on energy absorption is considered to be moreComposition
important than the effect of the number
Type
Number
of spirals. of 4Spirals
Table shows the settings of the two ANOVA tests.
Plastic Kevlar Fiber Foam
5 7.164 6.991 11.689
Table 4. Energy absorption ANOVA settings.
7 7.339 8.281 10.904
9 7.384 4.417
Composition Type 8.729
Number of 11Spirals
Plastic6.325 Kevlar8.663
Fiber 7.461
Foam
5 7.164 6.991 11.689
To continue,
7
we formatted7.339
the problem as a hypothesis
8.281
test, in which10.904
H0 states that
there is no9 significant difference between
7.384 the treatments
4.417 and H 1 states that at least one
8.729
treatment 11
has a significant impact.
6.325 The level of significance
8.663 (α) was set as7.461
equal to 0.1.
Table 5 reports the ANOVA results.
To continue, we formatted the problem as a hypothesis test, in which H0 states that
Table 5. ANOVA results.
there is no significant difference between the treatments and H1 states that at least one
treatment
Source ofhas a significantDF
Variability impact.
Sum The level of significance
of Square Mean Square(α) was set as equal
F Statistic to 0.1.
p-Value
Table Spiral
5 reports the ANOVA 3results. 8.0370
Number 2.679 1.064 0.4315
Composition Type 2 18.380 9.191 3.650 0.0918
Table 5. ANOVA
Error results. 6 15.106 2.518
Source ofTotal
Variability DF11 Sum 41.524
of Square Mean3.775
Square F Statistic p-Value
Spiral Number 3 8.0370 2.679 1.064 0.4315
Since the p-value
Composition Type (0.0918)
2 < α (0.1), the null hypothesis,
18.380 9.191 H0, is rejected
3.650 (see Table
0.09185).
Therefore, some of the composition-type
Error 6 15.106averages are 2.518
considered as being not equal. In
other words,
Totalthe difference11between 41.524
the averages of composition
3.775 type is large enough to
be statistically significant. The results show that the chance of a type I error (rejecting a
correct H0) is small (9.18%). The smaller the p-value, the more it supports H1. The results
show that the foam composition performs better than the other energy-absorbing types.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 13 of 16

Since the p-value (0.0918) < α (0.1), the null hypothesis, H0 , is rejected (see Table 5).
Therefore, some of the composition-type averages are considered as being not equal. In
other words, the difference between the averages of composition type is large enough to be
statistically significant. The results show that the chance of a type I error (rejecting a correct
H0 ) is small (9.18%). The smaller the p-value, the more it supports H1 . The results show
that the foam composition performs better than the other energy-absorbing types.

5. Conclusions
This paper presents the design and experimental analysis of a 3D composite plastic
hybrid light structure as a collapsible energy absorber. Exploratory testing was conducted
to investigate the failure mechanism and energy absorption capability of the spiral structure
under impact. Moreover, a structure analysis was performed for the composite structures
using high-speed camera videos recorded during the experiments. Based on the results, the
hybrid composites achieved the best performance under dynamic impact: blue foam N = 9,
Kevlar fiber N = 7, and plastic N = 11. The blue foam composite had the highest energy
absorption level at 11.7 J, indicating that this hybrid structure absorbed approximately 75%
of the impact energy.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.B., E.M., G.A. and A.D.; methodology, S.B., E.M., G.A.
and A.D.; software, S.B., E.M., G.A. and A.D.; validation, S.B., E.M., G.A. and A.D.; formal analysis,
S.B., E.M., G.A. and A.D.; investigation, S.B., E.M., G.A. and A.D.; resources, S.B., E.M., G.A. and
A.D.; data curation, S.B., E.M., G.A. and A.D.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B. and G.A.;
writing—review and editing, E.M. and A.D.; visualization, S.B., E.M., G.A. and A.D.; supervision,
E.M.; project administration, S.B., E.M. and G.A.; funding acquisition, E.M. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data are unavailable due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
2. Pathological Aspects and Associated Biodynamics in Aircraft Accident Investigation (Les Aspects Pathologiques et la Biody-
namique Associee dans les Enquetes sur les Accidents D’aeronefs) (CD-ROM). Available online: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/
citations/ADM001834 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
3. Alkhatib, F.; Mahdi, E.; Dean, A. Design and Evaluation of Hybrid Composite Plates for Ballistic Protection: Experimental and
Numerical Investigations. Polymers 2021, 13, 1450. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Alkhatib, F.; Mahdi, E.; Dean, A. Crushing response of CFRP and KFRP composite corrugated tubes to quasi-static slipping axial
loading: Experimental investigation and numerical simulation. Compos. Struct. 2020, 246, 112370. [CrossRef]
5. Alkhatib, F.; Mahdi, E.; Dean, A. Development of composite double-hat energy absorber device subjected to traverser loads.
Compos. Struct. 2020, 240, 112046. [CrossRef]
6. Mahdi, E.; Hamouda, A. Energy absorption capability of composite hexagonal ring systems. Mater. Des. 2012, 34, 201–210.
[CrossRef]
7. Abdewi, E.F.; Sulaiman, S.; Hamouda, A.; Mahdi, E. Effect of geometry on the crushing behaviour of laminated corrugated
composite tubes. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2006, 172, 394–399. [CrossRef]
8. Mohammadi, H.; Ahmad, Z.; Mazlan, S.A.; Johari, M.A.F.; Siebert, G.; Petrů, M.; Koloor, S.S.R. Lightweight Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Composite for Automotive Bumper Applications: A Review. Polymers 2022, 15, 193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Godara, S.; Nagar, S.N. Analysis of frontal bumper beam of automobile vehicle by using carbon fiber composite material. Mater.
Today Proc. 2020, 26, 2601–2607. [CrossRef]
10. Sun, G.; Wang, X.; Fang, J.; Pang, T.; Li, Q. Parallelized optimization design of bumper systems under multiple low-speed impact
loads. Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 167, 108197. [CrossRef]
11. Beyene, A.; Koricho, E.; Belingardi, G.; Martorana, B. Design and Manufacturing Issues in the Development of Lightweight
Solution for a Vehicle Frontal Bumper. Procedia Eng. 2014, 88, 77–84. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, C.; Wang, W.; Zhao, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, G. Structure design and multi-objective optimization of a novel NPR bumper
system. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 153, 78–96. [CrossRef]
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 14 of 16

13. Natarajan, N.; Joshi, P.; Tyagi, R. Design improvements of vehicle bumper for low speed impact. Mater. Today Proc. 2020,
38, 456–465. [CrossRef]
14. Lei, F.; Lv, X.; Fang, J.; Li, Q.; Sun, G. Nondeterministic multi-objective and multi-case discrete optimization of functionally-graded
front-bumper structures for pedestrian protection. Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 167, 106921. [CrossRef]
15. Belingardi, G.; Beyene, A.T.; Koricho, E.G.; Martorana, B. 12—Lightweight solutions for vehicle frontal bumper: Crash design and
manufacturing issues. In Dynamic Response and Failure of Composite Materials and Structures; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge,
UK, 2017. [CrossRef]
16. Marzbanrad, J.; Alijanpour, M.; Kiasat, M.S. Design and analysis of an automotive bumper beam in low-speed frontal crashes.
Thin-Walled Struct. 2009, 47, 902–911. [CrossRef]
17. Muhammad Nasiruddin, S.; Hambali, A.; Rosidah, J.; Widodo, W.S.; Ahmad, M.N. A Review of Energy Absorption of Automotive
Bumper Beam. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2017, 12, 238–245.
18. Bohra, B.A.; Pawar, D.B. Comparative analysis of frontal car bumper during impact. Int. J. Appl. Innov. Eng. Manag. 2014,
3, 89–93.
19. Chege, A.; Kale, A.; Agrewale, M.R.B.; Vora, D.K.C. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF IMPACT ENERGY ABSORBING
BUMPER. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2017, 8, 326–330.
20. Mahdi, E.; Ochoa, D.R.H.; Vaziri, A.; Dean, A.; Kucukvar, M. Khalasa date palm leaf fiber as a potential reinforcement for
polymeric composite materials. Compos. Struct. 2020, 265, 113501. [CrossRef]
21. Dean, A.; Rolfes, R.; Grbic, N.; Hübner, S.; Behrens, B. A FEM-based virtual test-rig for hybrid metal-composites clinching joints.
Mater. Und Werkst. 2019, 50, 973–986. [CrossRef]
22. Dean, A. Material Modeling of Short Fiber Reinforced Polymeric Composites: Theory, Numerical Aspects, and Applications; ISD, Institut
für Statik und Dynamik: Hanover, Germany, 2017.
23. Dean, A.; Sahraee, S.; Reinoso, J.; Rolfes, R. Finite deformation model for short fiber reinforced composites: Application to hybrid
metal-composite clinching joints. Compos. Struct. 2016, 151, 162–171. [CrossRef]
24. Gerendt, C.; Dean, A.; Mahrholz, T.; Englisch, N.; Krause, S.; Rolfes, R. On the progressive fatigue failure of mechanical composite
joints: Numerical simulation and experimental validation. Compos. Struct. 2020, 248, 112488. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, B.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, G.; Zeng, X.; Hu, W.; Matsubae, K. Wrought and cast aluminum flows in China in the context of electric
vehicle diffusion and automotive lightweighting. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 191, 106877. [CrossRef]
26. Gonçalves, M.; Monteiro, H.; Iten, M. Life Cycle Assessment studies on lightweight materials for automotive applications—An
overview. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 338–345. [CrossRef]
27. Ramasubramanian, S.; Tennis, K. Lightweight material for weight reductions in an automotive suspension part lower link. Mater.
Today Proc. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
28. Ganesarajan, D.; Simon, L.; Tamrakar, S.; Kiziltas, A.; Mielewski, D.; Behabtu, N.; Lenges, C. Hybrid composites with engineered
polysaccharides for automotive lightweight. Compos. Part C Open Access 2021, 7, 100222. [CrossRef]
29. Gardie, E.; Paramasivam, V.; Dubale, H.; Chekol, E.T.; Selvaraj, S.K. Numerical analysis of reinforced carbon fiber composite
material for lightweight automotive wheel application. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 46, 7369–7374. [CrossRef]
30. Wegmann, S.; Rytka, C.; Diaz-Rodenas, M.; Werlen, V.; Schneeberger, C.; Ermanni, P.; Caglar, B.; Gomez, C.; Michaud, V. A life
cycle analysis of novel lightweight composite processes: Reducing the environmental footprint of automotive structures. J. Clean.
Prod. 2021, 330, 129808. [CrossRef]
31. Zhang, W.; Xu, J. Advanced lightweight materials for Automobiles: A review. Mater. Des. 2022, 221, 110994. [CrossRef]
32. Junk, S.; Rothe, N. Lightweight design of automotive components using generative design with fiber-reinforced additive
manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2022, 109, 119–124. [CrossRef]
33. Liu, B.; Yang, J.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Li, X. Development and application of magnesium alloy parts for automotive
OEMs: A review. J. Magnes. Alloy. 2023, 11, 15–47. [CrossRef]
34. McCrum, N.G.; Buckley, C.P.; Bucknall, C.B.; McCrum, N.G.; Buckley, C.P.; Bucknall, C.B. Principles of Polymer Engineering, 2nd
ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY, USA, 1997.
35. Snyder, R.G. Human Impact Tolerance. SAE Trans. 1970, 79, 1375–1452.
36. Chou, C.C.; Bois, P.D.; Fileta, B.B.; Khalil, T.B.; King, A.I.; Mahmood, H.F.; Mertz, H.J.; Wismans, J. Vehicle Crashworthiness and
Occupant Protection. Available online: https://roadsafellc.com/NCHRP22-24/Literature/Papers/Vehicle%20Crashworthiness%
20and%20Occupant%20Protection(Book).pdf (accessed on 28 March 2023).
37. Prasad, P. Biomechanical Basis for Injury Criteria Used in Crashworthiness Regulations: ‘Bertil Aldman Award’ Lecture. 1999.
Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/BIOMECHANICAL-BASIS-FOR-INJURY-CRITERIA-USED-IN-
Prasad/986c44c84ab9b2b78c3f61362b3ab052a31aa239 (accessed on 28 March 2023).
38. Shopping for Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety Information. Transp. Res. Board Spec. Rep. 1996. Available online:
https://trid.trb.org/View/462475 (accessed on 28 March 2023).
39. Zini, G. Reduction of Crash Severity Through In-Vehicle Systems (IVS) Speed Control; University of Buenos Aires: Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 2005.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 15 of 16

40. Raju, K.; Rao, K.N.; Santhosh, T.R.; Krupa, C.S. Bumper Beams is Absorbing the Bulk of Energy and Providing Protection to the Rest of
the Vehicle; St. Martins Engineering College: Secunderabad, India, 2015.
41. Cheon, S.S.; Choi, J.H.; Gil Lee, D. Development of the composite bumper beam for passenger cars. Compos. Struct. 1995,
32, 491–499. [CrossRef]
42. Du, B.; Li, Q.; Zheng, C.; Wang, S.; Gao, C.; Chen, L. Application of Lightweight Structure in Automobile Bumper Beam: A
Review. Materials 2023, 16, 967. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Davoodi, M.; Sapuan, M.S.; Ahmad, D.; Aidy, A.; Ali, A.; Jonoobi, M. Concept selection of car bumper beam with developed
hybrid bio-composite material. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 4857–4865. [CrossRef]
44. Hsissou, R.; Seghiri, R.; Benzekri, Z.; Hilali, M.; Rafik, M.; Elharfi, A. Polymer composite materials: A comprehensive review.
Compos. Struct. 2021, 262, 113640. [CrossRef]
45. Egorov, S.A.; Tarasova, T.V.; Terekhina, S.M. Production technology for polymeric composite materials by additive manufacturing
methods. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 971, 022006. [CrossRef]
46. Mahdi, E.; Dean, A. The Effect of Filler Content on the Tensile Behavior of Polypropylene/Cotton Fiber and poly(vinyl chlo-
ride)/Cotton Fiber Composites. Materials 2020, 13, 753. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Chichane, A.; Boujmal, R.; El Barkany, A. Bio-composites and bio-hybrid composites reinforced with natural fibers: Review. Mater.
Today Proc. 2023, 72, 3471–3479. [CrossRef]
48. Bi, X.; Huang, R. 3D printing of natural fiber and composites: A state-of-the-art review. Mater. Des. 2022, 222, 111065. [CrossRef]
49. Ismail, S.O.; Akpan, E.; Dhakal, H.N. Review on natural plant fibres and their hybrid composites for structural applications:
Recent trends and future perspectives. Compos. Part C Open Access 2022, 9, 100322. [CrossRef]
50. Santhosh, N.; Selvam, S.; Reghu, R.; Sundaran, J.; Mathew, B.C.; Palanisamy, S. Mechanical properties studies on rubber
composites reinforced with Acacia Caesia fibre. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, 72, 3172–3176. [CrossRef]
51. Zaghloul, M.Y.M.; Zaghloul, M.M.Y.; Zaghloul, M.M.Y. Developments in polyester composite materials—An in-depth review on
natural fibres and nano fillers. Compos. Struct. 2021, 278, 114698. [CrossRef]
52. Dun, M.; Fu, H.; Hao, J.; Shan, W.; Wang, W. Tailoring flexible interphases in bamboo fiber-reinforced linear low-density
polyethylene composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2021, 150, 106606. [CrossRef]
53. Karthi, N.; Kumaresan, K.; Sathish, S.; Gokulkumar, S.; Prabhu, L.; Vigneshkumar, N. An overview: Natural fiber reinforced
hybrid composites, chemical treatments and application areas. Mater. Today Proc. 2019, 27, 2828–2834. [CrossRef]
54. Kim, J.-W.; Kim, H.-S.; Lee, D.-G. Manufacturing and Characterization of Glass Fiber/Polypropylene Prepreg for Automotive
Bumper Beam. J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci. 2015, 12, 842–846. [CrossRef]
55. Tarlochan, F.; Hamouda, A.M.S.; Mahdi, E.; Sahari, B.B. Composite sandwich structures for crashworthiness applications. Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2007, 221, 121–130. [CrossRef]
56. Hosseinzadeh, R.; Shokrieh, M.M.; Lessard, L.B. Parametric study of automotive composite bumper beams subjected to low-
velocity impacts. Compos. Struct. 2005, 68, 419–427. [CrossRef]
57. Zhang, Z.; Liu, S.; Tang, Z. Design optimization of cross-sectional configuration of rib-reinforced thin-walled beam. Thin-Walled
Struct. 2009, 47, 868–878. [CrossRef]
58. Zhang, X.; Wen, Z.; Zhang, H. Axial crushing and optimal design of square tubes with graded thickness. Thin-Walled Struct. 2014,
84, 263–274. [CrossRef]
59. Zarei, H.; Kröger, M. Bending behavior of empty and foam-filled beams: Structural optimization. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2008,
35, 521–529. [CrossRef]
60. Sinha, A.; Yadav, K.; Khurana, R.S. Design of Bumper Beam Structure for Pedestrian Protection and Low Speed Bumper Impact(ECE-R42);
SAE Technical Paper 2016-01–1335; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
61. Singh, T.J.; Samanta, S. Characterization of Kevlar Fiber and Its Composites: A Review. Mater. Today Proc. 2015, 2, 1381–1387.
[CrossRef]
62. Rajesh, S.; Ramnath, B.V.; Jayasooriya, M.; Ragavan, R. Review on Mechanical Characteristics of Kevlar Composites. J. Mines Met.
Fuels 2022, 387–394. [CrossRef]
63. Eyvazian, A.; Taghizadeh, S.A.; Hamouda, A.M.; Tarlochan, F.; Moeinifard, M.; Gobbi, M. Buckling and crushing behavior
of foam-core hybrid composite sandwich columns under quasi-static edgewise compression. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater. 2019,
23, 2643–2670. [CrossRef]
64. Miao, H.; Wu, Z.; Ying, Z.; Hu, X. The numerical and experimental investigation on low-velocity impact response of composite
panels: Effect of fabric architecture. Compos. Struct. 2019, 227, 111343. [CrossRef]
65. Brod, M.; Dean, A.; Scheffler, S.; Gerendt, C.; Rolfes, R. Numerical modeling and experimental validation of fatigue damage in
Cross-Ply CFRP composites under inhomogeneous stress states. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 200, 108050. [CrossRef]
66. Kumar, P.A.V.; Dean, A.; Reinoso, J.; Paggi, M. A multi phase-field-cohesive zone model for laminated composites: Application to
delamination migration. Compos. Struct. 2021, 276, 114471. [CrossRef]
67. Dean, A.; Reinoso, J.; Jha, N.; Mahdi, E.; Rolfes, R. A phase field approach for ductile fracture of short fibre reinforced composites.
Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2020, 106, 102495. [CrossRef]
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 162 16 of 16

68. Dean, A.; Kumar, P.A.V.; Reinoso, J.; Gerendt, C.; Paggi, M.; Mahdi, E.; Rolfes, R. A multi phase-field fracture model for long fiber
reinforced composites based on the Puck theory of failure. Compos. Struct. 2020, 251, 112446. [CrossRef]
69. Dean, A.; Sahraee, S.; Özenc, K.; Reinoso, J.; Rolfes, R.; Kaliske, M. A thermodynamically consistent framework to couple damage
and plasticity microplane-based formulations for fracture modeling: Development and algorithmic treatment. Int. J. Fract. 2016,
203, 115–134. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.