Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Engineering Research

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-engineering-research

Full length article

Finite element analysis of car frame frontal crash using lightweight materials
Usama Idreesa, Sajjad Ahmada, , Imtiaz Alam Shaha, Muhammad Talhaa, Rehman Shehzada,
⁎ ]]
]]]]]]
]]

Muhammad Amjada, Seyed Saeid Rahiamin Koloorb,c,

⁎⁎

a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, International Islamic University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
b
Institute for Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39,
85579 Neubiberg, Germany
c
Institute for Nanomaterials, Advanced Technologies and Innovation, Technical University of Liberec, Studentská 2, 461 17 Liberec, Czech Republic

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The safety of human lives is compromised posed by heavy traffic causing car accidents across the globe. Keeping
Frontal car crash into consideration such threats; the incorporation of safety features has remained one of the key priorities of auto
Johnson cook model manufacturing firms as preventive measures. But unfortunately, the graph of casualties due to collisions/acci­
Lightweight materials dents is on an increasing trend. The problem attracts the attention of researchers to propose an optimal material
AL-7075T6
for manufacturing auto frames to bring down the ratio of threat to human lives to the best possible level. In the
Finite element analysis
current study analysis of the crash of an auto frame with the frontal plane, the wall has been undertaken by
assigning lighter material ‘AL-7075T6′ as per standards of NHTSA in the Explicit code of ANSYS. The aluminum
alloy has a higher strength-to-weight ratio which eventually affects the fuel consumption of the vehicle. As per
standard, the simulations were carried out with different velocities and different obstructions. The effect of the
impact velocity of the vehicle on the passenger zone was analyzed. The deformation in the passenger zone gets
increased with the rise of the impact velocity. However, this deformation does not exceed the critical limit to
hurt the passenger.

Introduction [1,27,29,30]. Some researchers worked on how to establish a data-

With the advances in technology and the evolution of human beings
the car demand is increasing day by day, hence the more use of vehicles
is increasing the number of accidents on daily basis. So, the safety of the
vehicle has become the prime concern of automobile manufacturers
(Muraleedharan, Das et al., [4]). In the 1970 s automobile manu­
facturers introduced car crash testing which involved the physical de­
struction of a car to check its crashworthiness [11,26,6]. But when the
technology emerged computer simulations started to be used instead of
the physical destruction of the vehicle. Therefore, the car crash test
using Finite Element (FE) simulation is a valuable tool before the actual
testing to investigate the critical parameters, thus reducing the cost
incurred on these tests [12,18,33,5]. Adopting the lightweight design of
the vehicle frame [23], the strength of the material must be within
safety limits [4]. In past years automotive manufacturers are increas­
ingly using lightweight materials to reduce weight; like plastics, com­
posites, aluminum, magnesium, and new types of high-strength steel
based approach in car crash analysis, he worked on both finite element
model and lumped model to analyze the car crash [14,36]. Ryan Craig
et al. worked-on car frame crash analysis using ASTM Mild Steel, High
Strength Steel, and Ultra High Strength Steel materials with an impact
velocity of 35 m/h. The European New Car Assessment Program con­
ditions and offset test was used in a commercial software LS-DYNA and
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It was concluded that frame
modeling is difficult and with proper manufacturing of frame, the issue
of vibration during the crash test may be reduced [9,32]. Jurgen et all
[16] studied the performance of lightweight vehicle designs and ana­
lysis [29,31], utilizing aluminum alloys and concluded that usage of
aluminum alloys will results in 50% weight-reduction with no com­
promise on strength cost-effectively maintaining safety and perfor­
mance. Aluminum alloys are competing efficiently with other light­
weight materials like carbon fiber etc. Carl L. from National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration analyzed the car crash simula­
tions with variations in different parameters [8]. These investigations

Corresponding author.
⁎

Corresponding author at: Institute for Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Universität der Bundeswehr
⁎⁎

München, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany.

E-mail addresses: sa.ahmad@iiu.edu.pk (S. Ahmad), seyed.rahimian@unibw.de, seyed.rahimian@tul.cz (S.S. Rahiamin Koloor).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.100007
Received 19 July 2022; Received in revised form 17 October 2022; Accepted 26 October 2022
2307-1877/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Kuwait University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
U. Idrees, S. Ahmad, I.A. Shah et al.
Table 1
Comparison of Properties between AL-7075T6 and other materials [34,3,7].
Properties Al 7075T6
Density (g/cm3) 2.8
Specific Heat(J/kg-k) 870
Poisson ratio 0.32
Yield Strength (MPa) 480
Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) 560
Strength-to-weight ratio 50
Percentage Elongation 7.9
include the positions, angles, distance, and orientation of cars during
crash simulations [22]. It was concluded that computational car si­
mulation has the advantage to find the optimum orientations, angles,
and distances in a more cost-effective manner than physical destructive
testing [8]. George mason university in collaboration with CCSA
(Centre for Collision Safety Analysis) researched car design using LS-
Dyna with FE simulations. FE model utilizing the number of elements
above 0.4 M was used with velocities of NHTSA tests which are
56.2 km/h and 40 km/h, respectively. The research concluded that the
deformation resulting due to impact loading was not enough to affect
the passenger zone but if the velocity of the car is kept high, de­
formation may take place [35]. Andrew hickey et. all studied car cra­
shes using the Ford Explorer design. It was concluded that instead of
physically destructive testing computer simulations should be preferred
as they are cost-effective and less time-demanding [15]. K.V.N.S. Sri­
kanth et all researched on Chevrolet C1500 frontal crash test using LS-
DYNA adopting the velocity as per NHTSA colliding with the rigid
barrier. Aluminum alloys and steel were used in the material of the car.
According to the study car’s internal frame absorbs maximum energy
and minimum deformation is transferred to the passenger cabin [2].
Aisha Mohammed et all researched on car crash test using ANSYS Ex­
plicit and a velocity of 35 m/s was used for three conditions. In one
condition the car was allowed to collide with the wall and in the other
condition with the static car. In the third condition, two cars collided in
dynamic conditions and they concluded that the use of aluminum alloy
is reliable and safe [25]. R Lyu and X Jiang undertook a study for the
lightweight design of automobile frames [23,24] using ANSYS, they
used 3 materials Magnesium Alloy, Aluminum Alloys, and Iron. They
concluded that Magnesium Alloys are 70% lightweight and have better
strength than iron and Aluminum Alloys are 40% more lightweight
than iron. Using both magnesium and Aluminum Alloys will achieve a
lightweight design [20,21]. H Ahmed et al. undertook research on
Carbon Reinforced Polymers [19] usage in car frames, they also com­
pared the Aluminum Alloys and Carbon fiber as AAL has Embodied
Energy (Extent of Energy Absorption) of 190–257 and Carbon fiber has
183–286 which means the Carbon fiber can absorb more energy making
the frame stronger. But from economical point of view, Carbon fiber is
considered one of the most expensive materials [31]. J Pruez et al. work
on lightweight materials for vehicles, they compared the performances
of materials and concluded that the automotive industry has developed
some ways of improving the performance and minimizing the weight of
the material. One of the most common ways to look for alternative
materials for traditional steel is composites, Aluminum, and Magnesium
alloy [28].
This study aimed to assess the performance of car chassis made of
Aluminum alloy AL-7075T6 during car crash simulation. The car opted
for the study is Suzuki Swift. In Pakistan, the prices of Suzuki cars are
within the reach of customers and the price of fuel is the main concern.
The hikes in fuel prices are due to global conflicts and local bad eco­
nomic indicators. The previous research shows that Aluminum Alloy
has the potential to reduce the weight of the car, however, AL-7075T6
was not implemented explicitly. The simulation model includes the
rigid engine block in contrast to the previous studies, which will
eventually transmit the forces into the passenger cabin.
2
Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007
AL 6061 Low Carbon Steel AISI 1045
2.77 7.6 7.879
875 470 486
0.33 0.29 0.29
280 290 310
310 560 565
47 17 19
12 22
Materials and methods
The internal frame of the vehicle is the most important structure
which is supposed to absorb the maximum amount of energy during a
collision. The design of the frame should have enough strength to bear
all the deformation, shock, and energy produced due to impact. Two
types of car crash tests are used. One is physical destruction and the
other one is simulation-based.
A car crash test is performed to ensure and validate the safety of the
vehicle in terms of crashworthiness and standards. The most common
types of car crash tests recommended by NHTSA are the Frontal Crash
Test, Frontal Offset Test, Angled Impact Test, and Pole Test. In this
study, the most widely used frontal crash test is implemented.
Material selection
The car manufacturers have responded with a variety of new
methods to minimalize the weight and advance the performance of
their automobiles in terms of safety and usage. One of the easiest ap­
proaches to decrease mass is to look at alternatives to traditional steel
products, for example, materials such as Aluminum, Magnesium alloy,
and composites [10]. A 10% Weight-Reduction can result in 6–8% fuel
economy improvement. For the upcoming era of electric vehicles if the
material of the car is lightweight it will result in the use of fewer bat­
teries and low-cost production. The AL matrix composite like AL-7075-
T6 can result in a weight reduction frame of up to 30–60% as compared
to traditional materials which will result in better fuel efficiency.
A comparison of its properties with other materials is also presented
in Table 1. The yield strength and the strength-to-weight ratio are far
superior to the carbon steel, however, the % elongation is inferior
showing relatively less ductile behavior. The other properties are
mostly the same, and no significant differences are found. Since the
ductility of the material is compromised, the study of deformation and
the energy absorption of the car frame is highly essential.
The high weight-to-strength ratio is the main property of Al alloy
which dominate the other materials. This property is further analyzed
by assigning different materials to the model inside ANSYS settings and
their weights have been calculated. The comparison of weights is shown
in Fig. 1.
The total weight of the frame made of Al alloy is 360 Kg which is
Fig. 1. Comparison of Mass of Frame using AL-7075T6, ASTM Carbon Steel,
and Carbon Fiber in Solid Works.
U. Idrees, S. Ahmad, I.A. Shah et al. Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007

45% reduced than carob steel (650 Kg). The weight of the Carbon fiber Table 3
is less than Al alloy (210 Kg), however, it is not selected for the present Damage Model and thermal softening parameters for Al7075T6 [13,34,7].
study due to its high price. Sr. No. Parameters Values

Mathematical model 1. D1 0.096

2. D2 0.049
3. D3 -3.456
The car has been modeled as an impact-impulse problem. During the 4. D4 0.016
crash energy transformation occurs, some of the initial kinetic energy is 5. D5 1.099
converted into strain energy (elastic and plastic energy). To consider the 6. Melting Temperature 893
deformation of material a Johnson-Cook plasticity model has been em­ 7. Reference Strain Rate (/sec) 293

ployed.
strain rate and temperature, a failure model is proposed by Johnson and
Impulse-momentum and kinetic energy cook, affecting the fracture strain [31]. The damage parameter D in the
The mathematical relationships for impulse-momentum including mass, Johnson-Cook failure model is:
velocity, and forces between two interacting bodies are given under [31].
p
tf D= f
Fdt = m (Vi Vf ) (5)
ti (1) i
t
In Eq. (1) ‘F’ denotes applied force, ‘dt’ is differential time, ‘m’ is the where p = t=0
( p dT ) , while fracture strain is:
mass of an object under consideration and ‘Vi & Vf ’ are initial and final
p = (D1 + D2 exp(D3 *))(1 + D4 ln p)(1 + D5 T ) (6)
velocities.
The law of conservation of energy is elaborated as under, Here σ * is the stress triaxiality, which’s σ * =σh/σe, σh is hydrostatic
stress, and σe is effective stress. D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5 are damage
1
m (Vi2 Vf2) = Edamping + Eelastic + Eplastic = EKinetic parameters of the subject material. The Johnson-Cook failure model
2 (2)
parameters for Al 7075T6 are given in Table 3.
Eq. (2) represents the interconversion of the kinetic energy of the
car into other forms of energies triggered by collision as transformation. Numerical model of car body
If colliding bodies are supposed to be rigid, then parameters like
heat dissipation, acoustic, etc. can be ignored, hence, we get. Mesh configuration
1 The FE model needs to first develop and then the simulation is
EKinetic = m (Vi2 V f2 )
2 (3) carried out. The three-dimensional model of the vehicle and the wall is
developed in Solid Works shown in Fig. 2. The model is then imported
into ANSYS for simulations.
Johnson-Cook plasticity model The model was discretized into a finite number of elements as shown in
For an illustration of the parameters like yield stress for the mate­ Fig. 2(b). The elements used for the mesh discretization are Quadrilateral
rials subjected to high strain, strain rates, and temperatures a plasticity/ and Tetrahedron. The mesh is optimized with relatively higher mesh
deformation model is being given by Johnson and Cook termed as density in the area having larger deformation using the adaptive meshing
Johnson-Cook plasticity model having parameters like “strain hard­ technique. The optimal mesh size was found to be optimized with 462,300
ening, strain rate hardening, and thermal softening”. The product of elements having 86,159 nodes. The engine is replaced with a rigid block
such parameters gives flow stress as a function of effective plastic strain that transfers the impact load to the frame of the vehicle when the collision
“εp”, rate of effective plastic strain “ p ”, and temperature “T”. Yield occurs resembling the actual scenario of physical car crash testing.
stress can be formulated as: A mesh convergence study was carried out using the Adaptive mesh
.. m refinement technique. This technique makes refinement in the critical
p T Tr
y = [A + BEpn ] 1 + C ln 1 area of analysis, which in our case is the crumple zone. Some simula­
Tm Tr (4)
0
tions were run using different mesh sizes and elements. It was found
that the curves of internal and kinetic energies converged into a straight
In the equation, “A” is the initial yield stress, “B” strain hardening
line at 462,300 elements shown in Table 4 and Fig. 3.
co-efficient, and “n” is the strain hardening exponent ( p ) is the rate of
plastic strain, ( 0 ) is the reference strain rate and “C” is the reference
strain rate co-efficient. The thermal softening parameter is denoted by Load and boundary conditions
“m”. The Johnson-Cook model parameters for Al 7075T6, which are NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration)
listed in Table 2. chooses a vehicle each year having high sales or better safety and tests
it uses different conditions in both ways of destructive testing and
computer simulations to evaluate the behavior of vehicle parts like
Johnson-Cook failure model
Frame, and Crumple zones [25].
Due to degradation of strength, dissipation of strain energy, loading,
Tests are conducted to check the crashworthiness of vehicle parts
and thermal/ mechanical effects, failure of material occurs. By using
and the safety of the occupants at different speeds and setups. NHTSA
recommends researchers to perform the following tests in frontal car
Table 2
Johnson-Cook strength model parameters for Al 7075T6[9,14,27,6]. crash simulation tests shown in Table 5.
FE simulations were carried out using NHTSA codes and the frame
Sr. No. Parameters Values was impacted by a rigid concrete wall. It was assumed that no braking
1. Initial Yield Stress A 520 MPa
was used. The results obtained were validated with the crash test report
2. Hardening Constant B 477 MPa of CCSA (Centre for Collision Safety and Analysis). CCSA conducted the
3. Hardening Exponent N 0.52 same test using the same conditions by using a physical car crash test as
4. Strain Rate Constant C 0.001 well as a simulation test [15].
5. Thermal Softening Exponent ‘m′ 1
The frontal impact crash testing was done by using Suzuki swift
6. Reference Strain Rate (/Sec) 1
internal frame FE model. The initial velocities were given as per NHTSA

3
U. Idrees, S. Ahmad, I.A. Shah et al. Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007

Fig. 2. (a)Three-dimensional car model and its parts (b) Discretized 3-D Model of a Car.

Table 4 Table 6
Mesh Independence Study. Boundary conditions for the simulation test.

Number of Elements Internal Energy (J) Kinetic Energy (J) Test Speed Distance Between Termination Time
Code Wall and Front of (s)
484532 3.324E+ 07 1.613E+ 07 Car
479900 3.3231E+ 07 1.612E+ 07
468900 3.321E+ 07 1.6117E+ 07 Test 1 22.22 m/s 1 mm 6.5E-5
462300 3.320E+ 07 1.610E+ 07 Test 2 15.611 m/s 1 mm 9E-5
421252 3.25E+ 07 1.50E+ 07 Test 3 11.111 m/s 1 mm 4.5E-5
357830 3.00E+ 07 1.20E+ 07 Test 4 27.77 m/s 1 mm 3.6E-5
300198 2.48E+ 07 9.00E+ 06 Test 5 17.77 m/s 1 mm 5.6E-5
252740 1.90E+ 07 7.30E+ 06
202340 1.40E+ 07 6.50E+ 06

Fig. 4. Boundary Conditions applied for simulation.

Table 7
Details of boundary condition.

Name Type Condition

Fig. 3. Mesh independence plot and convergence study.
A Fixed Support Barrier Fix
B Velocity X direction Front

Codes and the termination time of the analysis is given in the following
Table 6.
This termination time is the maximum length of time the ANSYS LS-
DYNA will simulate the analysis. Results of the earlier tests indicate that
most energy transfer in a frontal structure of the vehicle impact with a rigid
barrier could happen within 0.2 s, which can be as quick as 0.07–0.02 s [2].
Depending upon the distance between the car and the rigid barrier and
velocity the car termination time can be calculated. The boundary condi­
tion applied on the car frame and wall barrier is illustrated in Fig. 4 and
described in Table 7. The car frame is assigned different velocities de­
scribed in Table 6 and the wall barrier is constrained from all sides.
Results and discussion
Three simulations were performed at different velocities using
ANSYS LS-DYNA as a simulation tool and various configurations of
energy dissipation and transfer are discussed.
Frontal impact At 80 Km/h
Test 1 is performed at 80 km/h at the termination time 9E-5 s with
the number of steps equal to 25. The contours in Fig. 4 are showing the
results of the crash impact on the car frame before and after the analysis

Table 5
NHTSA Tests codes for hatchback cars ([26], December 1995).

Test Number NHTSA Test Code Weight of whole vehicle (Kg) Mode Speed

Test 1 TC 1.1.3 850–950 Frontal Impact 80 km/h = 22.222 m/sec

Test 2 TC 1.1.2 850–950 Frontal Impact 56.2 km/h = 156.611 m/sec
Test 3 TC 1.1.1 850–950 Frontal Impact 40 km/h= 11.111 m/sec
Test 4 Test 130306b 850–950 25- Degrees Angled 100
Test 5 Pole Test 250 850–950 25% Offset Concrete Pole 64

4
U. Idrees, S. Ahmad, I.A. Shah et al.
Fig. 5. Deformation of car frame at (a) 0 s (b) 0.0059 s (c) 0.01023 s (d) 0.01076 s.
Table 8
Deformation vs time values at 80 Km/h.
Time (s) Deformation (mm)
0 0
0.0059 186.54
0.01023 204.22
0.01706 210.68
at different time steps. At zero seconds shown in Fig. 5(a) there is no
deformation as the car frame does not hit the barrier. At 0.005972 s the
contours in Fig. 5(b) show some deformation. The maximum de­
formation noted is found in the front portion of the car. With the in­
crease of time at 0.010238 s, the deformation reaches 204.22 mm. With
the increase of time, the location of maximum deformation does not
changes. At the last time step at 0.017064 s, the maximum deformation
reaches the highest value of 210.68 mm. These deformation values are
tabulated in Table 8.
At 80 Km/h the car frame experienced local deformation and do not
transmit it into the passenger zone. The amount of deformation is
210.68 mm in the front zone near the bumper. The inertial effect will be
higher on the driver and passenger due to the higher impact force,
however, that is beyond the scope of the current study. Since the time of
contact and impulse force is shorter due to the higher velocity of the
car, the deformation is highly localized.
The energy balance chart Fig. 6 shows the transformation of en­
ergies. The kinetic energy of the car reduces after striking the wall. The
internal energy increased due to the elastic and plastic deformation of
Fig. 6. Energy transformation chart at 80 km/h.
5
Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007
the car. Since the system is isolated the total energy of the system is
conserved. The hourglass energy is also within the permissible limit
reflecting the validity of the numerical model.
Frontal impact at 56.2 Km/h
Test 2 is performed at 56.2 km/h at the termination time of 6.5E-5 s
with a number of steps equal to 25. The contours in Fig. 7 show the
results of the crash impact on the car frame before and after the analysis
at different time steps. At zero sec shown in Fig. 7(a) the deformation
does not exist. With the increase of time at 0.0048 s deformation is
observed shown in Fig. 7(b). The maximum value of deformation of
139.41 mm is found in the bumper zone. The maximum value of de­
formation is further enhanced to 161.6 mm at 0.012032 s shown in
Fig. 7(c). At the time 0.02406 s when the car frame is detached from the
wall shown in Fig. 7(d), the maximum deformation reaches the highest
level of 164.44 mm. The deformation values are summarized in Table 9.
Reducing speed from 80 km/h to 56.2 Km/h decreases the value of
deformation. The deformation for this speed is 164.44 mm. Still, the
deformation is localized near the front bumper and does not sig­
nificantly affect the passenger zone. The material employed absorbs
sufficient energy in the front zone and transmits some energy into the
car frame, however, the deformation does not change the shape and
dimensions of the passenger zone. The engine block was used in the
front zone as a rigid body to simulate the actual accidental condition in
contrast with the previous studies [2].
Frontal impact At 40 Km/h
Test 3 is performed at 40 km/h at the termination time of 4.5E-5 s
with a number of steps equal to 25. The contours in Fig. 8 are showing
the results of the crash impact on the car frame before and after the
analysis at different time steps. In Fig. 8(a) there is no deformation
observed. At 0.0051192 s the car frame experienced deformation shown
in Fig. 8(b) and the maximum deformation of 129.52 mm occurs in the
bumper portion of the car like in the previous cases. At 0.006825 s the
maximum deformation reaches 145.95 mm shown in Fig. 8(c), however
the location of deformation moves to the rear section of the car frame.
At 0.007678 s the maximum deformation of 156.85 mm is noted in the
central pillar of the car. The deformation pattern at low striking velo­
city is different from the higher velocity cases as the impact of force is
transmitted to the rear portion of the car. The maximum value of de­
formations is listed in Table 10.
U. Idrees, S. Ahmad, I.A. Shah et al. Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007

Fig. 7. Deformation of car frame at (a) 0 s (b) 0.0048 s (c) 0.0120 s (d) 0.0240 s.

Table 9 Table 10
Deformation vs Time Values at 56.2 Km/h. Deformation vs Time Values at 40 Km/h.

Sr. No. Time (s) Deformation (mm) Sr. No. Time (s) Deformation (mm)

1 0 0 1. 0 0
2 0.0048 139.41 2. 0.0051 129.52
3 0.0120 161.61 3. 0.00682 145.95
5 0.0240 164.44 4. 0.0077 156.82

At 40 km/h the car experiences the least deformation as compared

to the last two cases. The maximum deformation noted is 156.82 mm,
and the location of deformation changes from the front zone to the
central part of the car. The passenger zone is slightly deformed, and this
deformation is noted in the roof and central pillar of the car frame. The
deformation pattern is changed as compared to the last two cases due to
the higher time of contact with the wall. Since the deformation occurs
in the roof it will not adversely affect the passengers.
The comparative deformation of all three cases is plotted and shown
in Fig. 9. The deformation value of the 80 km/h case is higher as
compared to the other two cases and then slightly oscillates after
reaching the maximum value of 210 mm. The oscillating nature of the
graph reflects the restoration of elastic deformation; however, the
magnitude of the oscillating amplitude is very small. At 56 km/h the
deformation gradually rises to reach the maximum value in a large
period as compared to the previous case. Then it gets steady in the
remaining simulation time. Oscillating behavior is not noted in this case
as the deformation permanently resides in the car frame. In the last
case, the deformation reaches the maximum value and then decreases

Fig. 8. Deformation of car frame at (a) 0 s (b) 0.0051 s (c) 0.00682 s (d) 0.0077 s.

6
U. Idrees, S. Ahmad, I.A. Shah et al. Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007

Fig. 9. Deformation curves of the car frame with different striking velocities.

gradually. This shows that deformation is elastic in nature and gradu­ Table 11
ally reduces with time. Deformation vs Time Values at 100 Km/h.
As in all 3 cases, it is noticed that most of the energy is absorbed by
Sr. No Time (s) Deformation (mm)
the front rails and engine and a minimal quantity of it gets transferred
into the passenger’s zone making it better for the passengers from a 1 0 0
safety/shock perspective, all it happens due to usage of an aluminum 2 0.0038 127.08
3 0.0063 200.18
alloy ‘Al7075T6′ having least weight, higher strength, and more energy
4 0.0088 275.28
absorption capability as compared to usual ones in past.

25. -degrees angled impact

In this test, the distance between the car and the target is kept at
1 mm and the speed of the car is given 27.7778 m/s velocities colliding
with a concrete barrier inclined at 250. The test code under NHTSA is
Test 130306b shown in Table 5.
The termination time of 3.6E-5 s is given for the test shown in
Table 6 with the number of steps equal to 25. The contours of the test at
the last frame of time are shown in Fig. 10.
The car deformation is tabulated in Table 11. The deformation in­
creases with respect to time. The behavior of deformation is observed as
Fig. 11. Deformation plot of the car frame for test 130306b.
linear shown in Fig. 11 with the value of maximum deformation of
275.28, is noted. The deformation is clearly visible on the left side of
load on both sides of the car. This makes the front passenger zone
the passenger zone shown in Fig. 10. The engine block transmits the
unaffected, and the rear zone is deformed.
force to the passenger zone which crumpled the left side however no
The maximum deformation of 127 mm is noted in the frame of the
severe deformation is observed. The deformation is large as compared
car. The deformation values are tabulated in Table 12. The deformation
to the 210.68 mm in the frontal car crash test at 80 Km / hr due to the
plot is shown in Fig. 13 showing linear behavior. The deformation plot
higher value of kinetic energy as well as the bending effect induced due
is compared with the plot from published literature showing similar
to the collision on the inclined surface. Unlike the previous case where
behavior for the initial time and then a slight deviation in the last in­
the deformation was localized the deformation is transmitted to the
tervals of time [17]. The last noted deformation is less as compared to
frame of the car.
the published results showing improved behavior.

25. % offset concrete pole Conclusions and future recommendations

The car collided with the pole provided 25% offset from the central
axis of the car as per the NHTSA pole250 test at 64 Km/h. The de­
formation contour of the test at the last frame of time is shown in
Fig. 12. The contour shows that the deformation occurs in the rear
passenger zone. The force transmission due to the contact of the engine
block with the center of the car chases causes the distribution of the
In this study, the collision impact phenomenon of the car was in­
vestigated looking for the suitability of an aluminum alloy ‘AL7075T6′
for its possible usage as an automobile body. The model was composed
of the concrete block (target), front rail (Engine Bay), and frame of the
car. Simulations were run with different velocities following the lit­
erature for the frontal car impact tests, the impact test on 250 inclined
concrete wall, and the impact test on 25% offset Pole test in the Explicit
Dynamics module of the ANSYS LS-DYNA 19R1 version.

1. The analysis was carried out with the inclusion of the Engine Block
in the front rail contrary to the previous simulation reported in the
literature.
2. The analysis shows that most of the energy of the impact was ab­
sorbed by the front rails within 0.035 s soon after it happens and the
engine while a minimal amount of it gets transferred to the pas­
senger zone, signifying the safety of the passenger zone.
3. It has been observed that after impact none of the fragmental parts
Fig. 10. Deformation contours of the car frame with 250 inclined concrete of an auto frame were found scattering or distorting and there was
block.

7
U. Idrees, S. Ahmad, I.A. Shah et al. Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007

Fig. 12. Deformation contours of the car frame against the 25% offset pole.

Table 12 Furthermore, with better computational resources, researchers may

Deformation vs Time values at 64 Km/h.
Sr. No Time (s)
1 0
2 0.0031
3 0.0063
4 0.0065
5 0.007
use Human Surrogate Dummies called Anthropomorphic test devices
placed in the FE model to simulate the effect of different crashes on the
Deformation (mm)
driver and passengers, this will require the geometries of dummies and
0 will increase the complexity of crash simulation but may be simulated
63.82 easily with better computational resources.
108.93
122.03
127.22 Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­
ence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

[1] B. Abdi, et al., Effect of strain-rate on flexural behavior of composite sandwich

Fig. 13. Deformation plots of the car frame impact against the 25% offset pole
of the model under consideration and the reference model for the Pole 250 test.
no intrusion of any external part into the passenger’s cabin making it
safe and almost threat-free.
4. It is observed that the maximum deformation of all the frontal car
crash tests is 210, 113, and 180 mm which is very less than the
crumple zone length. Hence, may not cause notable deformation
and reshaping /denting of the passenger zone.
5. The car impact on the inclined concrete wall and on the pole, is
carried out with 100 Km/h and 64 Km/h velocity. The deformation
of 275 mm was noted in the inclined case which is the highest in all
the cases. The deformation in the left side of the front passenger
zone is observed however the deformation is less as compared to the
crumple zone of 820 mm.
As the AL-7075 T6 is a new material to be used for car frames. In this
research, it has been found that it is 40% lighter by weight while more
effective in terms of strength and impacts energy absorption signifying
its optimality and its usage for the said purpose.
Scope of future research
As car crash simulations are gaining popularity day by day because
they are less economical and easier to work on instead of real-life de­
structive testing. Hence, future researchers may use this FE model for
further simulations which include the frontal offset, roll-over test,
roadside impact, and head-to-head crash test.
panel, Appl. Mech. Mater. 229 (2012) 766–770.
[2] T. Ambati, et al., Simulation of vehicular frontal crash-test, Int. J. Appl. Res. Mech.
Eng. (IJARME) 2 (1) (2012) 37–42.
[3] ASM, 2022, "Mechanical Properties data sheet of Aluminium Alloy Al6061." from
〈https://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ma6061t6〉.
[4] M.M. Aydin, The modeling of effective parameters on public bus passengers’
boarding time prediction, J. Eng. Res. (2021).
[5] B. Beylergil, Design and discrete optimization of hybrid aluminum/composite drive
shafts for automotive industry, J. Eng. Res. 9 (3B) (2021).
[6] M. Borovinšek, et al., Simulation of crash tests for high containment levels of road
safety barriers, Eng. Fail. Anal. 14 (8) (2007) 1711–1718.
[7] Brar, N., et al., 2009, Constitutive model constants for Al7075–t651 and Al7075–t6.
Aip conference proceedings, American Institute of Physics.
[8] Carl, L., 2001, Evaluation of frontal offset/oblique crash test conditions, SAE
Technical Paper.
[9] Chen, Y., et al., 2004, Finite Element Modeling of the Frame for Body-On-Frame
Vehicles: Part II-Full Vehicle Crash, SAE Technical Paper.
[10] W.D. Compton, N.A. Gjostein, Materials for ground transportation, Sci. Am. 255 (4)
(1986) 92–101.
[11] A. Farokhi Nejad, et al., Using finite element approach for crashworthiness as­
sessment of a polymeric auxetic structure subjected to the axial loading, Polymers
12 (6) (2020) 1312.
[12] A.S.M. Fathalla, et al., A numerical study of the effect of bolt thread geometry on
the load distribution of continuous threads, J. Eng. Res. 10 (2B) (2022) 158–173.
[13] E. Flores-Johnson, et al., Numerical investigation of the impact behaviour of
bioinspired nacre-like aluminium composite plates, Compos. Sci. Technol. 96
(2014) 13–22.
[14] U. Gandhi, S. Hu, Data-based approach in modeling automobile crash, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 16 (1) (1995) 95–118.
[15] A. Hickey, S. Xiao, Finite element modeling and simulation of car crash, Int. J. Mod.
Stud. Mech. Eng. 3 (2017) 1–5.
[16] J. Hirsch, Aluminium in innovative light-weight car design, Mater. Trans. 52 (5)
(2011) 818–824.
[17] G. Janszen, Vehicle crash test against a lighting pole: experimental analysis and
numerical simulation, WIT Trans. Built Environ. 94 (2007).
[18] W. Kim, et al., Analysis of customers satisfaction with automobile exterior panel
stiffness: focus on the hood and doors of mid-sized sedan, J. Eng. Res. 7 (2) (2019).

8
U. Idrees, S. Ahmad, I.A. Shah et al.
[19] Koloor, S. and Tamin, M., 2012, Effects of lamina damages on flexural stiffness of
CFRP composites. Proceedings of the 8th Asian-Australasian Conference on
Composite Materials.
[20] Lyu, R., et al., 2018, Lightweight design of automobile frame based on magnesium
alloy. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing.
[21] S. Mazlan, et al., Experimental and numerical analysis of fatigue life of aluminum Al
2024-T351 at elevated temperature, Metals 10 (12) (2020) 1581.
[22] L. Mei, C.-A. Thole, Data analysis for parallel car-crash simulation results and model
optimization, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 16 (3) (2008) 329–337.
[23] J. Mlýnek, et al., Fabrication of high-quality polymer composite frame by a new
method of fiber winding process, Polymers 12 (5) (2020) 1037.
[24] J. Mlýnek, et al., Fabrication of high-quality straight-line polymer composite frame
with different radius parts using fiber winding process, Polymers 13 (4) (2021) 497.
[25] Muhammad, A. and Shanono, I.H., 2019, Simulation of a Car crash using ANSYS.
2019 15th International Conference on Electronics, Computer and Computation
(ICECCO), IEEE.
[26] O’Malley, S., et al., 2015, Crashworthiness testing of electric and hybrid vehicles.
24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[27] A.K. Pickett, et al., Failure prediction for advanced crashworthiness of transporta­
tion vehicles, Int. J. Impact Eng. 30 (7) (2004) 853–872.
Journal of Engineering Research 11 (2023) 100007
[28] Pruez, J., et al., 2013, Lightweight composite materials for heavy duty vehicles,
West Virginia Univ., Morgantown, WV (United States).
[29] S.S. Rahimian Koloor, et al., An energy-based concept for yielding of multi­
directional FRP composite structures using a mesoscale lamina damage model,
Polymers 12 (1) (2020) 157.
[30] A.M. Saba, et al., Strength and flexural behavior of steel fiber and silica fume in­
corporated self-compacting concrete, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 12 (2021) 1380–1390.
[31] I.A. Shah, et al., Finite element analysis of the ballistic impact on auxetic sandwich
composite human body armor, Materials 15 (6) (2022) 2064.
[32] M.P. Wagh, O. More, Vibration and impact analysis of optimized automotive front
bumper, Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. (IJERT) 9 (2020) 1370–1379.
[33] C. Wang, Design of helical gear transmission systems with high power density, J.
Eng. Res. 6 (4) (2018).
[34] X. Wang, J. Shi, Validation of Johnson-Cook plasticity and damage model using
impact experiment, Int. J. Impact Eng. 60 (2013) 67–75.
[35] H. Yin, et al., Design optimization of a MASH TL-3 concrete barrier using RBF-based
metamodels and nonlinear finite element simulations, Eng. Struct. 114 (2016)
122–134.
[36] L. Zhao, et al., Data-based modeling of vehicle crash using adaptive neural-fuzzy
inference system, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 19 (2) (2013) 684–696.