See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267953344

Automating Instrument Panel Head Impact Simulation

Article · April 2005

DOI: 10.4271/2005-01-1221

CITATIONS READS
5 9,264

6 authors, including:

Ravi S. Thyagarajan
Texas A&M University
44 PUBLICATIONS 227 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ravi S. Thyagarajan on 22 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2005-01-1221

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES

Automating Instrument Panel

Head Impact Simulation
Mike Keranen, Srikanth Krishnaraj, Kumar Kulkarni,
Li Lu and Ravi Thyagarajan
Visteon Corporation

Velayudham Ganesan
ESI Group

2005 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 11-14, 2005

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-772-4891

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2005 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Automating Instrument Panel Head Impact Simulation
Mike Keranen, Srikanth Krishnaraj, Kumar Kulkarni, Li Lu and Ravi Thyagarajan
Copyright © 2005 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Occupant head impact simulations on automotive
instrument panels (IP) are routinely performed as part of
an integrated design process during the course of IP
development. Based on the requirements (F/CMVSS,
ECE), head impact zones on the IP are first established,
which are then used to determine the various “hit”
locations to be tested/analyzed. Once critical impact
locations are identified, CAE simulations performed
which is a repetitive process that involves computing
impact angles, positioning the rigid head form with an
assigned initial velocity and defining suitable contacts
within the finite element model. A commercially
available CAE process automation tool was used to
automate these steps and generate a head impact
simulation model. Once the input model is checked for
errors by the automated process, it can be submitted to
a solver without any user intervention for analysis and
report generation. Apart from saving time and increasing
productivity, this approach also ensures standardization
in performing head impact CAE analyses on IPs. This
paper describes this process automation and results
from a case study.
INTRODUCTION
Occupant head impact simulations are a valuable tool in
the design and development of an automotive
instrument panel. This paper describes head impact
regulation pertaining to Instrument Panels, identifying
head impact zones, physical testing, CAE simulation
and CAE process automation. The manual CAE
simulation process, apart from building the finite
element model of the geometry, involves identifying the
possible impact locations, and impact angles before the
analysis. These additional steps are tedious, time
consuming and operator dependent. This paper
demonstrates that these steps can be easily automated
which introduces standardization to the head impact
2005-01-1221
Visteon Corporation
Velayudham Ganesan
ESI Group
CAE simulation process. In addition this automated
head impact simulation process improves repeatability
of various steps involved in the manual process and
reduce the variability of simulation results. Result from a
case study and variability in results due to operator
influence is also demonstrated in this paper.
It should be noted here that the process described in this
paper is the best interpretation that the authors have
arrived at based on their experience, existing
regulations, SAE and OEM recommended practices,
and does not intend in any way purport to be the only or
even the best way to comply with existing regulations.
REQUIREMENTS
The FMVSS 201 and European (ECE–21, and EEC
74/60) regulations describe the requirements for
instrument panel head impact. The FMVSS 201
regulation is split up into two parts, FMVSS 201 for
instrument panel and FMVSS 201U for upper interior
components. The information in this paper is only
relevant to instrument panel impact using a pendulum-
type impact tester (Figure 1 shows a picture of the
impact device).
REGULATION
"When that area of the Instrument Panel that is within
the head impact area is impacted by a 6.8 Kg, 165 mm
diameter head form at 19 Km/hr, the deceleration of the
head form shall not exceed 80 g continuously for more
than 3 ms" (FMVSS 201 Regulation). This requirement
is for vehicles with dual airbags. The European
regulation states virtually the same requirement except
that the impact speed is 24 Km/hr. The FMVSS and
European regulations do differ to some degree in the
way they describe the setup of the impact zones and the
impact angles for the points selected for test within the
impact zones. Neither of the regulations describes the
exact locations of all the impact points and it is
understood that a manufacturer is responsible for all of
the points within the impact zones. Because there are
an infinite number of impact points, it is necessary to
make judgments in deciding the worst-case points for
actual physical testing and verification.
Figure 1 IP head impact physical test set up.
HEAD IMPACT ZONES
The head impact zones for the FMVSS and European
regulations differ to some extent. The major difference
is in the exemptions specified in each regulation. The
side view of the zones as shown in Figure 2 are virtually
identical, the difference is only apparent in the plan view
(top view). FMVSS Part 571 describes the head impact
area. The Head impact area (See Figure 3) means all
non-glazed surfaces of the interior of a vehicle that are
statically contactable by a 6.5-inch diameter spherical
head form of a measuring device having a pivot point to
"top-of-head" dimension infinitely adjustable from 7.36
m to 7.4 m (29 to 33 inches).
Figure 2 Side view of IP impact zone setup
Figure 3 Head impact zone map in plan view
IMPACT POINTS
The OE manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that all
points within the impact zone meet the requirement that
the deceleration of the headform of the impact device
not exceed 80 g continuously for more than 3
milliseconds. This means that there are an infinite
number of impact points that could be selected. It is
necessary to select a manageable number of impact
points. Generally, several worst-case points are chosen
within the impact zone based on previous history and
experience. Then CAE analysis can be used to identify
others or reject those that exhibit results well below the
required deceleration.
Figure 4 Typical selection of head impact points
IMPACT ANGLES
The FMVSS 201 regulation and the SAE Recommended
Practice describe the process of determining the
"Location and Attitude of Impact". Essentially a line is
positioned vertically at the adjusted SgRP, and rotated
down toward the instrument panel until contact occurs.
Then, "The intersection of the perpendicular with the
panel assembly surface is the location of the point of
impact and the direction of impact shall be taken along
this perpendicular". The SAE Recommended Practice
(See Figure 5) goes on to say, "If there is some other
point located along the (adjusted) H-point tangent line
such that an impact delivered to the panel at this point
and normal to the aforesaid line would obviously be
more severe that for the point determined by either
paragraphs 4.2 or 4.3, then an impact test shall also be
run at this point". (SAE Recommended Practice – J921,
dated June 1965)
regulatory method of computing impact angle, orienting
and positioning the finite element spherical head form to
impact direction and setting up contact between head
form and instrument panel interior. A standardized
process template (also called as process flow) was
derived from this best practice. The process template
was initially built in ESI Group’s “Process Builder”7 tool
by incorporating Visteon’s process guidelines for
automation.

PROCESS TEMPLATE

The process template was developed taking into

account all necessary technical details involved in the
instrument panel head impact simulation process. A
typical process template developed in EASi-
PROCESS™ is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5 SAE recommended practice to determine

the head impact angle

The setup of the impact angle, contact between the

impact point and the sphere of the head impact device
and the trajectory of the ball make the CAE setup
manual and prone to error.

CONCERNS WITH THE MANUAL PROCESS

The manual process was slow, and subject to

interpretation and potential variability in computed
results. It could take a few hours for the analyst, often in
conjunction with the safety compliance engineer to
develop the impact characteristics of the simulated
impact device in the model for a single impact point.
And, if an instrument panel had the typical 12 – 15
impact points this becomes a very time consuming task
which is prone to error and operator dependent.

DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW AUTOMATED

PROCESS
Because of the issues described with the manual
process the team decided to develop a new automated
process.
ESI Group developed a new process tool in their
commercially available software called EASi-
PROCESS™ to automate the instrument panel head
impact simulation. The best CAE practice of setting up
finite element model to run an instrument panel head
impact simulation was studied thoroughly with expert
analysts and experienced engineers. This included the
Figure 6 Typical process flow chart
The process was enabled with automatic and semi-
automatic model setup facilities to check the finite
element model quality, run the data deck to solver, post
process the results and generate electronic report of the
analysis. The analyst’s interaction with the automated
process is to input the LS-DYNA finite element model of
the instrument panel, the spherical head form, H-Point,
and a table of impact points in simple ASCII format.
The software tool, for each impact point, executed the
following tasks automatically to setup the analysis:
1) determine whether the chosen impact point is
within the head impact zone;
if it is, then
2) computed the impact angle
3) positioned the head form at impact point
4) assigned initial velocity to head form
5) created LS-DYNA contacts between head form
and instrument panel interior, and among
instrument panel interior components
6) created LS-DYNA input-output control cards
7) exported LS-DYNA input data and submitted to
solver
8) read LS-DYNA results files and generated
electronic report of the analysis
An automated impact angle computation for a single
impact point is illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Screen dump from the process during
impact angle calculation
An example analysis report is included in the Appendix.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of head form deceleration
time history from an automated process and from the
manual process performed by two different operators for
the same hit location. It can be seen that even though
the input parameters, methodology used are the same,
the output results, however small, do have some
variability. All repetitive activities of the manual
simulation process were well defined and automated in
this study. The analyst’s interaction was minimized to
avoid mistakes, misinterpretations, and potential errors.
Figure 8 Comparison of results from automated and
manual processes. (Please Note: Ts =
Starting time of 3ms clip, Te = Ending time
of 3ms clip)
CONCLUSIONS
1) Various CAE analysis steps, which are currently
manual in nature, can easily be automated using
existing tools.
2) Such automated processes ensure standardization
and minimizes analyst-induced errors.
3) Standardized CAE process increases productivity.
4) The automated process described in this paper
saves significant time (5 min vs. few hours) for each
setup.
5) This process is flexible and can be
extended/enhanced for any repetitive analysis
process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank their managers; Ken
Winowiecki and Mark Turner for their continued support
and encouragement throughout the development of this
process and in publishing this paper.
REFERENCES
1) SAE Paper # 2003-01-1175 – Interior Fittings – A
Global View.
2) NHTSA Website – http://www.nhtsa.gov/
3) FMVSS 201 regulation last updated June 2002
4) ECE 21 regulation dated Dec 2000
5) 74/60 EEC, 78/632 EEC, and 2000/4/EC regulations
dated August 2002
6) SAE J921, June 1965, Instrument Panel Laboratory
Impact Test Procedure
7) Fast Regulatory Methodology for Regulatory Test
Simulation, Velayudham Ganesan et al. – 8th
International LS-DYNA Users Conference.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Visteon Web Site - http://www.visteon.com/

ESI Website - http://www.esi-group.com/

DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS

CAE: Computer Aided Engineering

FEA: Finite Element Analysis

FMVSS: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

H-POINT: Hip point of the occupant, the "design" H-

Point is referred to as the SgRP (Seating reference
Point)

IP: Instrument Panel

LS-DYNA 3D: High speed dynamic software package

from LSTC Corporation

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SAE: Society of Automotive Engineers

SgRP: Seating Reference Point, with respect to ground

(also known as the design seating reference point or
design H-point)
APPENDIX – EXAMPLE OF REPORT FOR ONE CHOSEN HIT LOCATION :

First Page: Shows the title, requester and analyst information

APPENDIX - EXAMPLE OF REPORT (CONTINUED)

Second Page: This page shows the model, and the impact points chosen for analysis
APPENDIX - EXAMPLE OF REPORT (CONTINUED)

Third Page: This page shows the headform deceleration computed from the analysis, 3ms clip value, impact
angles computed from the process and other time history data.

View publication stats