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

net/publication/350451795

Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications Study of Two-distinct

Automotive Bumper Beam Designs during Low speed impacts

Article · November 2020

CITATIONS READS

2 987

All content following this page was uploaded by Puneeth Ml on 29 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
ISSN: 2455-3360
Volume 7, Issue 3
www.stmjournals.com

Study of Two-distinct Automotive Bumper Beam Designs

during Low speed impacts
Krishna Kumar, Puneeth M.L*
Research Scholar, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering (SJCE), Mysuru, India

Abstract
Bumper beam is one of the key components in the automotive bumper system, which plays an
important role in crash as a protection for occupants and a car's frontal compartment by
absorbing impact energy. The most critical parameters, including material, thickness, and
shape and impact condition are studied in this paper for the design and analysis of an
automotive front bumper beam to enhance the low-velocity impact crashworthiness design.
Two different bumper beams made of different materials are simulated to determine the
deflection, impact force, stress distribution and energy-absorption behavior; these
characteristics are compared with each other to find best choice of material with suitable
thickness. For comparison, the time history of the measured parameters is showed in graphs.
The result shows that C-Hat design fulfills almost all the criteria for low speed impact. In
addition to the above-mentioned benefits, some more advantages like easy manufacturing due
to simple design, economical aspects by utilizing low-cost aluminum and reducing weight with
respect to steel can be achieved by Aluminum material.

Keywords: Front Bumper Beam, Explicit analysis, Impact Dynamics, Ls-Dyna.

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: punith.ml88@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION A bumper is a mechanical system that contains

Automotive bumper beam is a structural
component placed behind plastic fascia either
in front or rear ends of bumper system mainly
to absorb kinetic energy during collision .The
Bumper serves as a safety system during a
low-speed head-on collision to absorb the
impact. In the event of a head-on (or) rear-end
collision, it is mounted at the front and rear
end of the car frame so that it can first absorb
the hit and pass the loads to the body. The
bumper system has become an important
component of a car over the years and it also
contributes to the vehicle's aesthetics. During
high-speed collisions, they cannot reduce the
effect, but even during low velocity impact,
they can prevent damage progression.
(a) (b)
Fig. 1: (a) Typical Front Bumper Assembly; (b)
Bumper Assembled behind the Facia of car.
of bars at either end of a vehicle and its
primary purpose is to withstand shock and
prevent significant harm from occurring. A
bumper consists of bumper beams that absorb
the bulk of the energy of the crash, energy
absorbers that absorb a portion of the energy
of the crash between the fascia and the beam,
and bumper stays that attach the bumper beam
to the car body's side members. Since the
bumper plays the important function of
absorbing the bulk of the impact energy in a
collision and protects pedestrians from
damage, during the initial design stage of
vehicles, optimising the bumper section is
extremely important.
Due to the shorter lead times in Automobile
manufacturing lines and increasing
competition in the market, forces the suppliers
and OEM’s to come up with a design solution
quickly. This became an “edge-of-the-sword”
challenge for automobile designers and R&D
units. The national highway traffic
administration (NHTSA) regulates the
standards for the light passenger vehicles.

JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 16
Study of Two-distinct Automotive Bumper Beam Designs during Low speed impacts
Some of the investigated standards followed
are :
• Economic Commission for Europe (ECE -
United Nations) [1]
• New Car Assessment Programme (NCAP)
[2]
• Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS)
• Automotive Research Association of India
(ARIA)
In most of the accidents, the bumper system is
the first vehicle part that receives the collision
and which may to some extent protect the car
body and passengers. The objective of a crash
test for all safety criteria is to measure how
well a passenger vehicle would protect its
occupants in the event of a serious real world
frontal crash. This is sometimes referred to as
the crashworthiness of a vehicle. This report
reviews potential test procedures for
evaluating frontal crashworthiness.
Detwiler et al [3] detailed the method and
strategies used for the creation of this
pedestrian bumper device. The test series takes
place on the horizontal upper leg form impact
mode pedestrian safety plate and on the 5 mph
flat and angled barrier mode pedestrian
bumper framework mounted on an SUV. Paul
Du Bois [4] discusses design and the evolution
of body structures to achieve crashworthiness.
The book also highlights the use of finite
element methods for vehicle body design
technology. A framework for integrating the
results of restitution into crush analysis is
described, illustrated and validated by Nathan
et al [5]. The paper provides an overview of
four vehicle-to-vehicle collision samples,
revealing that the implementation of this
paper's restitution model resulted in crush
overview providing more detailed
measurements of the displacements and
deformations.
Nitin S. Gokhale er al. [6] gives an
fundamental overview of FEM techniques
which can implemented for crash analysis. The
detailed write up of the authors paved way
during selection of element formulations.
Bryan et al [7] studied on the effort of car
manufactures to upgrade light trucks' front
JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
Kumar and M.L
ends would reduce the aggressiveness of light
trucks in front-to-front and front-to-side
passenger car collisions. For a series of
minimal effect experiments, Liu, Yucheng et
al [8] would compare and contrast the
experimental outcomes, computational
numerical results and empirical results. In this
experiment, for impact studies, an automobile
bumper was used to research the behavior and
features of the bumper mechanism during the
impact process.
Marzbanrad et al [9] studied on the impact
modeling to determine the deflection, impact
force, stress distribution and energy absorption
behavior of a front bumper beam made of
three materials: aluminum, glass mat
thermoplastic (GMT) & high-strength sheet
moulding compound (SMC) The findings
suggest that a modified SMC bumper beam
will decrease the deflection, impact force and
stress distribution of the bumper beam and
also increase the elastic strain energy.
Park et al [10] introduced a construction
strategy to refine the form of a vehicle bumper
beam that meets both the front rigid-wall
impact protection criteria and the laws
shielding pedestrians from damage to the
lower leg caused by bumper impacts. Davoodi
et al [13] research highlights the parameters
that have to be taken into account in the design
of bumper beams and highlighted the process
of FE analysis of the bumper system. Tamim
et al [14] explored the possibility of inserting
filling material between the bumper and the
front car body. The findings showed about 260
percent increase in bumper impact resistance
when one layer of honey comb cardboard cell
and cardboard sheets were used as filling
materials.
Ray et [16] presented a review of newly
developed protocols for numerical models
used to replicate common crash situations used
to determine the safety performance of road
safety hardware. The Manual by EAA [17]
explained the purpose of front/rear bumper
system and the basic principles for bumper
design. Aluminum extrusions for crash
management systems and the concept of
bumper beams of various models is discussed.
Page 17
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 7, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360
The design aspects and alloy selection in front
and rear crash management system is provided
in detail. Marzougui et al [18] developed a
comprehensive FE model of a mid-size
passenger sedan to allow various forms of
crash scenarios. Comparisons to full-scale
crash testing revealed that acceleration spikes
at different locations of vehicle, deformations
in the passenger cabin and overall vehicle
kinematics were shown to be identical.
EURO NCAP manual [19] gave a brief
overview of major improvements that have
been brought about by the implementation of
the overall ranking system. For the major areas
of assessment, individual publications are
released. The fundamental measurement
parameters used for frontal effect are
summarized, with the higher and lower output
limits for each parameter.
Liu et al [21] carried out experimental test and
also numerical analysis to validate the crash
models. Teng et al [22] examined the impact
on pedestrian’s leg injuries of the bumper
shape. The models evaluated and the results
obtained could help determine a vehicle's
pedestrian friendliness and direct the potential
design and creation of pedestrian-friendly
vehicle technologies.
Sangamesh et al [23] studied to provide more
energy absorption in the structural at the front
of the bumper. Steel and composite bumper
concepts (using glass fiber material) were
evaluated. Sagar et al [24] examined the
conditions of material, structure, shape and
loading over a bumper in the event of a head-
on crash and findings of the study were helpful
to suggest changes for improvement or change
of design. Sonawane et al [25] showed that
lining up the front metal bumper with
sufficient stiffness has been shown to provide
the best result that eventually reduces the
damage to the vehicle components. The key
criterion for the design of the successful crash
energy management system is the number of
crush initiators, bumper thickness and its
shape of form.
BUMPER SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The bumper cross section plays very important
role in designing of the bumper beam. The
JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
cross section area of the bumper has direct
contact with the impactor. The cross section
decides the energy absorption of the bumper
materials. A bumper system is a set of
components in the front and rear parts of the
vehicle designed for damping the kinetic
energy without any damage to the vehicle in
low-speed impact and for energy dissipation in
high-speed impact conditions besides serving
aesthetic and aerodynamic purposes [20].
This system comprises three main parts:
fascia, energy absorber, and bumper beam.
The fascia is a non-structural aesthetics
component that reduces the aerodynamic drag
force while the energy absorber dissipates part
of the kinetic energy during collision. The
bumper beam is a structural component which
absorbs the low-impact energy by bending
resistance and dissipates the high-impact
energy by collision. In this study, the high-
fidelity simulation software, LS-DYNA [26],
is considered to assess the impact loads
resulting from the impact event.
Impact theory
Investigators [9] suggests that the following
method for determining dissipated energy
during impact and finding the velocity of the
vehicle after crash. There are two types of
impact, elastic impact and plastic impact.
Total energy is conserved throughout the
impact process. Momentum before impact and
after impact is equal. After impact, energy and
momentum conservation equations can be
expressed as follows:
1 1 1
𝑚 𝑣2
2 𝐴 𝐴
2
= 2 𝑚𝐴 𝑣𝐴2 2
+ 2 𝑚𝐵 𝑣𝐵2 (1)
𝑚𝐴 𝑣𝐴 = (𝑚𝐴 + 𝑚𝐵 )𝑣0 (2)
Where mA is the mass of the impactor, mB is
the mass of the vehicle, vA is the velocity of
the of the impactor before impact and vo is the
final velocity of the impactor and vehicle in
maximum deflection point.vA2 and vB2 are the
final velocities of the impactor and vehicle
respectively in the point of separation.
The velocities after impact can be determined
by the coefficient of restitution (e). The
coefficient of restitution (COR) is the ratio of
speed of separation to speed of approach in an
impact event and is given as :
Page 18
Study of Two-distinct Automotive Bumper Beam Designs during Low speed impacts
𝑣𝐵2 −𝑣𝐴2
𝑒= (3)
𝑣𝐴 −𝑣𝐵
The coefficient of restitution is a number
which indicates how much kinetic energy
remains after impact of two bodies. If the
coefficient is high (very close to 1), it means
that very little kinetic energy was lost during
the impact. Energy dissipated, ED can be
determined by subtracting the kinetic energy
of the two masses after impact, and the kinetic
energy of the impactor before impact.
1 1 1 The bumper cross section plays very important
𝐸𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 𝑚𝐴 𝑣𝐴 + 𝑚𝐵 𝑣𝐵 − 𝑚𝐴 𝑣𝐴2 −
2 2 2
1
𝑚 𝑣 (4)
2 𝐵 𝐵2
Bumper design principles
The purpose of the bumper system is to limit
intrusion and prevent damage to BIW and
other body parts. There are four basic design
principles followed during bumper design
[17]. These are sometimes combined to get the
best design. These basic are highlighted in the
Figure 2 and explained in brief:
a. A typical design with a noticeable
transverse metallic beam that decorates the
front or rear end of the vehicle and
functions in a collision as the primary
energy absorber. In the past, this idea was
popular, but is rarely used today.
b. The structure of plastic fascia and
supporting beams that are directly
connected to the longitudinal front / rear
beams. The first structural cross-member
also acts as the supporting beam. Although
this arrangement results in a slight
sacrifice in bumper efficiency, the overall
crashworthiness of the vehicle increases.
c. This system consists of a plastic fascia, a
beam of reinforcement and absorbers of
mechanical energy. The energy absorbers
Fig. 2: Common Bumper design systems.
JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
Kumar and M.L
are either reversible (shock absorbers) or
components of deformation (crash boxes)
that are replaced after a crash.
d. A structure that involves a plastic fascia, a
reinforcing beam and a power absorber of
propylene foam or a honeycomb that is
mounted between the plastic fascia and the
beam of reinforcement. In particular, this
approach also provides enhanced
pedestrian safety (leg impact).
Bumper cross section
role in designing of the bumper beam. The
cross section area of the bumper has direct
contact with the impactor (other car or wall).
The cross section decides the energy
absorption of the bumper materials.
A typical model of types of bumper cross
section utilized by many car manufactures is
highlighted in the Figure. 3. Based on these
cross sections, different iteration of bumpers
design is manufactured. Also the design
consideration will be finalized based on the
types of car (hatch back, sedan, SUV). The
different design of the bumper system is
highlighted in Figure 4.
The outer plastic bumper provides an aesthetic
look, while the crush brackets and metal
bumper protect the parts of the nearby engines
during slow impact. Many automakers develop
the bumper bar and its attachment brackets to
crush and absorb energy in a slow-speed
accident. One of the most important
requirements in design of the bumpers is to
minimize its deflection within a limited range
under impact loading condition. Also
sometimes this can also behave as a passive
protection system to reduce the injury caused
on pedestrian [12, 15].
Page 19
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 7, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360

Fig. 3: Different cross sections of the bumper beam.

Fig. 4: Different design of the Bumper system.

Material model of Bumper Parts bumper’s displacement, and the effects of the
The front and rear bumpers made of metal bumper’s damping ratio and stiffness.
sheet with steel material or aluminium alloy
are also produced by certain car manufacturers The properties of Ti-6Al-4V alloy are listed in
this is because the bumper components needs Table 1.
high strength and toughness which needs to
absorb more impact load during any impact Table 1: Material properties used in the
events [11]. This helps to retain their shape model.
under very high stresses & strains after impact, Material E 𝝈𝒚 υ ρ
but also it will not fail catastrophically, in any (GPa) (MPa) (kg/𝒎𝟑 )
occurring event. Certain material properties Aluminum 70 220 0.33 2780
such as the toughness, shock absorbing steel 205 720 0.30 7860
capacity, internal energy absorption etc. plays
an important role for minimising the damage. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR
Also the behaviour and characteristics of the IMPACT SIMULATION
bumper system during the impact process The performance criteria for low speed
includes the impact force transferring, the bumper impact is judged based on these two

JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 20
Study of Two-distinct Automotive Bumper Beam Designs during Low speed impacts
test models. The simulation of bumper beam is
done under low-velocity impact as per the
standards of automotive stated in E.C.E.
United Nations Agreement, Regulation no. 42,
1994. The strength of the bumper beam in
elastic mode is investigated with energy
absorption and impact force in maximum
deflection situation. Barrier velocity was 4
kmph for straight impact (representing
condition of longitudinal impact test as
defined in Section 2.7of the R42 regulation) as
stated in E.C.E standard [1]. The period of test
modelling begins from first contact and Lasted
until full separation and stress release. This
definition mentions that this type of impact
event can occur in a parking accident to a wall
or low-speed impact on to other vehicles. The
bumper fascia alone could then not be
sufficiently stiff to withstand the impact and is
compromised by the fairly rigid object.
(a) (b)
Fig. 5: Bumper Model considered for current
analysis. a) D-HAT design b) C-HAT design.
Figure. 5 shows the Finite element model of
two bumper system considered and it was
solved using a transient explicit dynamic
analysis to simulate the impact tests, and to
obtain the numerical results. Also, the FEM
details of both iterations are listed in Table 2.
The overall weight of the vehicle (~1,900 kg)
was added as a lumped mass element to both
the design iterations. The bumper systems
were joined to finite element sections of
vehicle frame rail structure using rigid
connections. Initial velocity was given to this
combined body and bumper structure [6, 26].
An automatic contact was established between
parts of the structure of the bumper. A contact
was also established between the bumper
system and a rigid wall.
C hat bumper beam length was 1360 mm and
also it was reinforced with an outer part called
beam overhead which was having 250mm in
JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
Kumar and M.L
length. The height of the bumper was 86 mm,
with average breadth to be 68 mm. The
reinforcement (beam overhead) provided
additional energy absorption option and also it
could behave as sacrificial part, which can be
replaced easily in case of damage. This helps
to reduce the repair cost without replacing the
original bumper beam.
D hat bumper beam was 1345 mm in length
and was having a height of 110mm with
average breadth of 70 mm.
Table 2: Model details.
Design Mass No. of No. of Average.
(kg) nodes Elements element
length (mm)
D HAT 7.4 11416 11558 6
C HAT 6.2 32919 31856 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Many modifications were attempted to
develop a new metal bumper with different
shapes, sizes and materials. This paper,
however, discusses only a few significant
results that illustrate remarkable effects. The
analysis were carried out for two different
designs called C-HAT and D-HAT bumper
beams with two different thicknesses and
materials, taking into account and comparing
the energy absorption, deformation, impact
force and maximum stress of the bumper on a
case by case basis.
Linear momentum is retained and kinetic
energy is not conserved because the impact
phenomena are almost always with the loss of
energy. This energy dissipated in the collision
can be measured after and before impact with
kinetic energy subtraction. This portion of the
system's kinetic energy is converted into strain
energy because of elastic and plastic
deformations in the bumper system.
Design 1: - D-HAT Bumper Beam
The results of the finite element analysis of D-
HAT bumper beams with thicknesses of 2 and
4 mm as well as aluminium and steel materials
were compared. These were carried out to
investigate the appropriate combination for the
most suitable bumper beam configuration. The
data for internal energy has been extracted for
the main bumper beam which was coming into
Page 21
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 7, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360
contact. The deflection was measured at the
nodes located in the middle of the bumper
horizontally.
All analysis simulation showed that max stress
and strain occurred at the center region of the
bumper beam as shown in Figure 6. This is
because this region will come into contact first
and gradually deform.
Figure 7 showcases the comparative of energy
absorbed by metal bumpers during the frontal
full overlap impact test for all 4 cases. The
difference in internal energy abortion is
observed because only bumper beam sections
were considered for this analysis, while
extracting the internal energy, other sections
such as crush cans, bulkheads, etc. were
ignored. When the moving vehicle collides
with the barrier, vehicle loses its initial kinetic
energy at the same moment bumper beam
begins to gain the strain energy, due to the
energy loss in plastic deformation, bumper
will unable to gain all the energy transferred
during the impact. According to the figure, in
each of the four situations, the internal energy
of the car is not reduced to zero. The figure
also clearly indicates that the energy
consumed varies between the steel and
aluminum bumper beams. The difference in
the aluminum bumper beam between the
initial velocity of the car and the velocity of
the car after impact is greater than that of steel.
Fig. 6: Plastic strain contour plot of D-HAT bumper beam.
JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
It means in aluminum bumper beam with 2mm
thickness, more amount of kinetic energy been
transferred during Impact, whereas steel with 4
mm thickness gets least transfer of KE. Since
coefficient of restitutions (COR) of aluminum
is lower than the steel, maximum KE loss in
deformation, which results the plastic
deformation of aluminum bumper beam is
higher than steel. It is also observed that for
high strength material peak occur early.
The bumper beam steel with 4 mm thickness
gets separated early from barrier at 54 ms,
while aluminum bumper with 2 mm thickness
takes 82 ms of time for separation, this can be
seen in the deflection vs. time diagram in
Figure 8. The maximum deformation occurs
with the deflections of 17.4, 16.0, 17.6 and
15.9 mm, for aluminum (2 mm), steel (2 mm),
aluminium (4 mm) and steel (4 mm)
respectively. The graph also showcase that the
maximum deflection increases, since the
bumper stiffness reduces and it is the result of
decreasing the bumper beam thickness.
Furthermore, the separation point and the
maximum deflection point takes place with a
delay in thinner bumper.
The study of bumper impact forces as
illustrated in Figure 9, for different thicknesses
shows that as the thickness increases, the
impact force increases. The impact force in
aluminum with 2 mm thickness bumper is the
Page 22
Study of Two-distinct Automotive Bumper Beam Designs during Low speed impacts Kumar and M.L

lowest; meanwhile it applies over a longer
period of time. This phenomenon is due to
lower aluminum rigidity. Furthermore with the
high impact force moving car decelerates
quickly since this force applies in short-time
interval; it is clear from energy graph. Based
on these results, further improvements were
required in order to improve bumper strength.
Therefore another design C-HAT was
considered.

Fig. 7: Internal Energy plots for impact of D-HAT model.

Fig. 8: Displacement curves for impact of D-HAT model.

Fig. 9: Contact force plots for impact of D-HAT model.

JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 23
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 7, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360

Table 3: D-HAT results overview.

Material & Energy Max Centre Impact force Max Stress Effective
Thickness absorbed (J ) Displacement(mm) (kN) (Mpa) Plastic Strain
(%)
Aluminium 2 mm 708.8 17.3 31.2 310.385 3.38
Aluminium 4 mm 575.6 16 62.5 254.885 4.49
Steel 2 mm 642.3 17.6 32.1 596.53 7.23
Steel 4 mm 369.2 15.9 69 443.917 1.31

Design 1:- C-HAT Bumper Beam
Similar to the D-HAT design, the FEA results
of C-HAT bumper beams with thicknesses of
2 and 4 mm as well as aluminum and steel
materials were compared, to investigate how
the design changes is going to add value to the
better results and finding the best combination
for the most suitable bumper beam
configuration. The data for internal energy has
been extracted for parts namely beam
overhead (HAT) and bumper beam, the
deflection was measured at the nodes located
in the middle of the bumper horizontally.
The max stress and strain was found at the
region of the crush cans, because the impact
energy was absorbed initially by crush cans
which deformed excessively and then the
bumper beam underwent deformation as
highlighted in Figure 10. The region at this
location was localised which gave rise to max
stress and strain conditions.
Figure 11 showcase the comparative of energy
absorbed by C-HAT bumper during the frontal
full overlap impact test for all 4 cases. Similar
to the D-HAT the difference in internal energy
abortion is observed because only bumper
beam sections were considered for this
analysis, while extracting the internal energy,
other sections such as crush cans, bulkheads,
etc. were ignored. According to the figure, in
each of the four situations, the internal energy
of the car is not reduced to zero. Same as the
D-HAT design aluminum bumper beam with
2mm thickness, more amount of kinetic energy
been transferred during Impact, whereas steel
with 4 mm thickness gets least transfer of KE.
Since coefficient of restitutions (COR) of
aluminum is lower than the steel, maximum
KE loss in deformation, which results the
plastic deformation of aluminum bumper beam
is higher than steel. After studying the
provided energy graph of C-HAT design, it is
clear that for low speed impact, the kinetic
energy recovery during Impact is better than
the D-HAT model. Owing to this, less plastic
deformation occurs; it is able to recover most
of the energy transferred during the impact and
stores less amount of strain energy.

Fig. 10: Plastic strain contour plot of C-HAT bumper beam.

JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 24
Study of Two-distinct Automotive Bumper Beam Designs during Low speed impacts Kumar and M.L

Fig. 11: Internal Energy plots for impact of C-HAT model.

Fig. 12: Displacement curves for impact of C-HAT model.

Fig. 13: Contact force plots for impact of C-HAT model.

The bumper beam steel with 4 mm thickness
gets separated very early from barrier, while
aluminium bumper with 2 mm thickness
took more than 80 ms of time for separation,
this can be seen in the deflection vs. time
diagram in Figure 12. The maximum
deformation occurs with the deflections of
19.5, 18.1, 19.3 and 16.8 mm, for aluminium
(2 mm), steel (2 mm), aluminium (4 mm)
and steel (4 mm) respectively. The graph
also showcase that the maximum deflection
increases, since the bumper stiffness reduces
and it is the result of decreasing the bumper
beam thickness.

JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 25
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 7, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360
Table 4: C-HAT results overview.
Material & Energy Max Centre
Thickness absorbed(J ) Displacement(mm)
Aluminium 2 mm 1160 19.5
Aluminium 4 mm 1090.5 19.3
Steel 2 mm 960.4 18.1
Steel 4 mm 639.1 16.8
The study of bumper impact forces of different
thicknesses with two different materials shows
that as the thickness of the bumper increases,
the impact force increases, as illustrated in
Figure 13. The impact force in aluminum with
2 mm thickness bumper is the lowest;
meanwhile it applies over a longer period of
time. This phenomenon is due to lower
aluminum rigidity. Furthermore with the high
impact force moving car decelerates quickly
since this force applies in short-time interval;
it is clear from energy graph. Thus, in
comparison with steel, it is possible to obtain a
lighter structure using aluminum with a higher
thickness while having a better impact
performance.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the two different designs namely
C-HAT and D-HAT has been studied for low
velocity impact as per the ECE standards. Two
restriction requirements are generally taken
into consideration when designing the vehicle
bumper. First, in order to protect the assembly
of a vehicle such as an engine/motor, battery,
fuel units, cooling units, etc. from damage, the
deflection of the bumper beam should be held
below a certain value; 40 mm is taken from
this analysis. In the second position, in low-
speed mode, any plastic deformation of the
bumper beam should be avoided as much as
possible. For a better design, bumper’s
maximum stress should be below the stress of
the yield and shape retention should be
maximum. This can be achieved by either
increasing the thickness of the bumper system
which increases the mass or utilizing a much
stiffer material property which has much
higher yield point and stiffness. Also, these
criteria are useful for the suitability of
structure design. In addition to its weight,
manufacturability, cost, reparability, and
formability of materials, the most important
factors in bumper system selection are the
JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
Impact force Max Stress Effective
(kN) (Mpa) Plastic Strain
(%)
14 397.664 4.95
54.5 338.55 2.17
47.5 1141.5 9.66
83.6 943.96 1.91
ability to keep the vehicle intact under impact
conditions and to dampen the kinetic energy.
From the above iterations, it can be seen that
the C-HAT design of metal bumper fulfils
nearly all the above criteria over the D-HAT in
terms of energy absorption by bumper beam
members. Bumper is almost regaining its
original shape after impact (elastic strain
energy) and most importantly maximum
deflection is within limit. From this study, it
was found that aluminium could be the best
suitable material for bumper manufacturing
which is light weight when compared to steel.
REFERENCES
1. United Nations agreement, Uniform
provisions concerning the approval of
vehicles with regards to their front and
rear protective devices (bumpers, etc.),
E.C.E., 1994
2. Williams DA, Parkin CC, “European new
car assessment programme (Euro NCAP)
Testing protocol”, Transport Research
laboratory, version 2, May 1999.
3. Detwiler, Duane T., and Ryan A. Miller.
“Development of a sport utility front
bumper system for pedestrian safety and 5
mph impact performance”, No. 2001-06-
0056, SAE Technical Paper, 2001
4. Paul Du Bois, et al., “Vehicle
Crashworthiness and occupant protection”,
Automotive Applications Committee,
American Iron and Steel Institute,
Michigan, 2004.
5. Rose, Nathan A., Stephen J. Fenton, and
Gray Beauchamp, “Restitution modeling
for crush analysis: Theory and validation”,
No. 2006-01-0908, SAE Technical Paper,
2006.
6. Nitin S. Gokhale, Sanjay S. Despande, Dr.
Anand N. Thite, "Practical Finite Element
Analysis", Finite To Infinite, India, 2007.
Page 26
Study of Two-distinct Automotive Bumper Beam Designs during Low speed impacts
7. Bryan C. Baker, Joseph M. Nolan, Brian
O’Neill and Alexander P. Genetos ,
“Crash compatibility between cars and
light trucks: Benefits of lowering front-
end energy absorbing structure in SUVs
and pickups”, Science Direct, pp.116-125, 17.
2007.
8. Liu, Yucheng, and Michael L. Day.
"Experimental analysis and computer
simulation of automotive bumper system 18.
under impact conditions." International
Journal for Computational Methods in
Engineering Science and Mechanics 9, no.
1,51-59,2008.
9. Marzbanrad J M, Alijanpour M, and
Kiasat MS, “Design and analysis of
automotive bumper beam in low speed 19.
frontal crashes”, thin-Walled Structures-
47,902–911, 2009.
10. Park, D. K., C. D. Jang, S. B. Lee, S. J.
Heo, H. J. Yim, and M. S. Kim.
"Optimizing the shape of a bumper beam
section considering pedestrian 20.
protection.", International Journal of
Automotive Technology 11, no. 4, 489-
494,2010
11. Carrie M. Tamarelli, “The Evolving Use 21.
of Advanced High-Strength Steels for
Automotive Applications”, Materials
Science and Engineering University of
Michigan, 48075, 2011.
12. Jovan Obradovic, Simonetta Boria and
Giovanni Belingardi, “Lightweight design
and crash analysis of composite frontal 22.
impact energy absorbing structures”,
Science Direct paper, pp.423-430, 2011
13. Davoodi, M. M., S. M. Sapuan, Ali Aidy,
NA Abu Osman, Azim Ataollahi Oshkour,
and WAB Wan Abas. "Development 23.
process of new bumper beam for
passenger car: A review." Materials &
Design 40, 304-313, 2012.
14. Tamim, A. F., and S. A. Albatlan. "New
Trends To Improve Impact Resistance For
Automotive Bumper." In The International 24.
Conference on Applied Mechanics and
Mechanical Engineering, vol. 15, pp. 1-9,
2012
15. Barrier frontal impact testing protocol
Euroncap (November 2015) Version 7.1.1 25.
16. Mongiardini, M., M. H. Ray, R. Grzebieta,
and M. Bambach. "Verification and
JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved
Kumar and M.L
validation of models used in computer
simulations of roadside barrier crashes." In
Australasian Road Safety Research
Policing Education Conference, 2013,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2013.
European Aluminium Association.
"Applications-car body-crash management
systems." The Aluminum Automotive
Manual (2013).
Marzougui, D., D. Brown, H. K. Park, C.
D. Kan, and K. S. Opiela. "Development
& Validation of a Finite Element Model
for a Mid-Sized Passenger Sedan." In
Proceedings of the 13th International LS-
DYNA Users Conference, Dearborn, MI,
USA, pp. 8-10. 2014.
Euro, N. C. A. P. European new car
assessment programme (Euro NCAP):
Assessment protocol–adult occupant
protection. Version 7.0. 2. Tech. rep., Euro
NCAP, 2 Place du Luxembourg, 1050
Brussels, Belgium, 2015
Siddeshwara B, PhD report ,Design Of
Bumpers Of Light Commercial Vehicles
For Effective Energy Absorption During
The Frontal Impact, 2016
Liu, Chih Hsing, Ying Chia Huang, Chen
Hua Chiu, Yu Cheng Lai, and Tzu Yang
Pai. "Design and analysis of automotive
bumper covers in transient loading
conditions." In Key Engineering Materials,
vol. 715, pp. 174-179. Trans Tech
Publications Ltd, 2016
Teng, Tso-Liang, Cho-Chung Liang, and
Tuan-Anh Vu. "Bumper shape design for
pedestrian safety." Journal of Mechanical
Science and Technology 30, no. 7,3243-
3251,2016
Sangamesh Basavaraj , “Design, analysis,
fabrication of composite frontal crash
beam for passenger vehicle.” International
Journal of Intellectual Advancements and
Research in Engineering Computations,
vol.05(4), 3512-3524, 2017
Sagar, P. Sudha, and D. Kamalakkannan.
"Performance Enhancement of a Car
Bumper using Crash Analysis." Int. J.
Adv. Technol. Innov. Res 9 ,0769-
0772,2017.
Sonawane, Chandrakant Rameshchandra,
and Ajit Lavaji Shelar. "Strength
Enhancement of Car Front Bumper for
Page 27
 Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 7, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360

Slow Speed Impact by FEA Method as per

IIHS Regulation." Journal of The Cite this Article
Institution of Engineers (India): Series C Krishna Kumar, Puneeth M.L. Study of
99, no. 5 , 599-606,2018 Two-distinct Automotive Bumper Beam
26. Hallquist J. O., LS-DYNA keyword user’s Designs during Low speed impacts.
manual. R11.0, revision: 10580, Journal of Automobile Engineering and
Livermore, CA: Livermore Software Applications. 2020; 7(3): 16–28p.
Technology Corp. 2018

JoAEA (2020) 16-28 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 28

View publication stats