Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Mechanics
Influence of Crash Box on Automotive Crashworthiness
MIHAIL DANIEL IOZSA, DAN ALEXANDRU MICU, GHEORGHE FRĂȚILĂ, FLORIN-
CRISTIAN ANTONACHE
University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest
313 Splaiul Independentei st., 6th Sector,
ROMANIA
daniel_iozsa@[Link]; [Link]@[Link]; ghe_fratila@[Link]; antonache_florin@[Link]
Abstract: In this paper, frontal impact behaviours of three car frontal parts with a rigid obstacle at rest is
presented. The purpose is to analyze the best crashworthiness. The models have different crash boxes and are
analyzed using Explicit Dynamics module of Ansys software. Shape and dimensions of the model were
obtained from repeated simulations and constant improvements. Finite element mesh size for each part of the
model varies, depending on its role. Velocity of the car model was computed by equalizing the kinetic energy
of the modelled geometry with the kinetic energy of a considered automobile. The results present a comparison
of deformations and stress, resulting an analyze of absorbed energies values during the impact.
Key-Words: crash box, frontal impact, crashworthiness, Ansys, deformation, car structure
1 Introduction Initial conditions of frontal impact simulations
Crashworthiness is the ability of a structure to and meshing settings are presented in the last two
protect its occupants in the event of a crash. Frontal subsections of section 2.
impact cars is one of the most often crash types. Variations and comparisons of stress and plastic
Automotive manufactures increasingly employ deformations of the all three models are analyzed in
computer simulation, because physical vehicle section 3.
crash-testing is highly expensive [1]. Currently,
dynamic explicit integration is commonly used for
the simulations like impact and collision.[2] 2 Simulating frontal impact
A 2D concept model of a detailed automotive 2.1 Study of mathematical models used on
bumper model was introduced and it was discretized impact analyze of a car frontal part
by using lumped mass spring elements in [3]. The Simple or complex mathematic models can be
time efficiency and the good approximation of used to study structure dynamics, depending on
results proved its utility in crash analysis, complexity of simulated phenomena, precision
confirming that early stages of product design can and/or computation rate.
make use of the simplifications and rapid decisions Figure 1 shows four of most usual mathematic
can be taken for early improvements. models used to test bumper beams in impact
It is useful to utilize mathematical optimization computations.
by altering the geometry and the material and
structural properties of the bumper- beam and crash-
box to improve the low speed performance[4].
When a vehicle impacts in less than 15 km/h a. b.
velocity, the insurance companies require that the
damage of the vehicle should be as small as
possible.
Section 2 presents the steps necessary to simulate c. d.
frontal impact. The first step consists in establishing Fig. 1 Usual mathematical models used to test
a mathematical model to use in crash analyze of a bumper beam in impact computations [5]
car frontal part. Three models of crash boxes that
belong to geometry of the impact energy The mathematic model with one damping
management system are described in the second part element (c1) and one elastic element (k1) in serial
presented in subsection 2.2. communication is the most used (Fig 1.a). One
damping element (c2) and one elastic element (k2) in
ISBN: 978-960-474-403-9 49
Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Mechanics
parallel communication is another mathematical deformable barrier), both moving, is presented in
model (Fig 1.b). Fig 2.d.
Complex structures or particular situations can V1 V2
V e= [km/h] (7)
be modelled using elastic elements (k31) in parallel 2
communication with a damping element (c3) and an 2 W1 W2
elastic element (k32) in series communication (Fig We = [J] (8)
W1 W2
1.c), or with a damping element (4) in parallel
communication with a spring element (k41), both in
series communication with a spring element (k42) The mathematical model used is the one with
(Fig 1.d). elastic and damping elements in series
communication (Fig 1.a) and the case to study is the
An impact of an vehicle can be defined by four
impact of the rigid obstacle at rest by a moving car
cases which are presented in Fig 2.
(case I)(Fig.2 a).
2.2 Modelling geometry of the impact energy
a. b. management system
Geometry modelling was performed using
c. d. ANSYS, a structural analysis software, and the
Fig. 2 Typical cases to study the impact of elements were defined by the surface type. Elements
whose geometry is necessary to simulate a frontal
vehicles [5]
impact are: an obstacle, a front bumper beam, crash
boxes, flanges, front frame rail and a block
The first case (Fig 2.a) is a frontal impact
representing the car.
between a moving car and a rigid obstacle at rest. In
Figure 3 shows the components used to simulate
this case the impact velocity (Ve) and impact energy
the frontal impact.
(We) are those of the car:
Ve= V [km/h] (1)
We= W [J] (2)
The second case (Fig 2.b) is a frontal impact
between a moving car and a barrier equipped with a
dampening impact energy (equivalent to a
deformable barrier) at rest. To study this case the a. obstacle and bumper beam
impact velocity (Ve) and the impact energy (WE) is
calculated using formulas:
V
V e= [km/h] (3)
2
We= 2·W [J] (4)
A frontal impact between a car and a rigid
obstacle, both moving, is presented in the third case b. crash boxes and flanges
(Fig 2.c). Impact velocity (Ve) and impact energy
(We) can be determined using the following
formulas:
Ve= V1+V2 [km/h] (5)
W W
We = 1 2 [J] (6)
W1 W2
c. front frame rail and a block representing the
A frontal impact between a car and an obstacle
car
provided with a damping system (equivalent to a
Fig. 3 Elements used to simulate the frontal impact
ISBN: 978-960-474-403-9 50
Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Mechanics
Figure 4 shows the first model of the crash box The geometry was been modified by using
integrated in the frame rail during the impact with different crash boxes. The cross-section profile and
the obstacle. dimensions of the front cross beam were not been
modified during the initial geometric model
improvement.
A top view of the three modelled geometric
solutions for impact energy management system is
presented in Figure 6.
Fig. 4 Isometric view of first model of the crash box
integrated in the frame rail during the impact with
the obstacle
Shape and dimensions of the model were
obtained from repeated simulations and constant Fig. 6 Top view of the three modelled geometric
improvements. The objective is to obtain a better solutions for impact energy management system
behavior if the structure is subjected to similar
stresses to those that occur in a frontal impact. Figure 7 presents an isometric view of the
The model improvement in this phase was geometrical model solutions of crash boxes.
obtained by choosing the measure to increase the
cross-section of the front frame rail and of crash
boxes, by the relative disposition of the vehicle
body block so that its center of gravity to be at an
usual distance above the assembly and by choosing
the front frame rail’s curvature radius from the
frontal part to the cockpit. Fig. 7 Isometric view of the geometric model
The model was chronology developed from solutions of crash boxes (removable ends of the
model M1, to model M2 and to model M3, as it can front frame rail)
be noticed in Figure 5.
Steels values of the physical parameters of
materials were introduced in the analysis software
library to model the impact energy management
system materials (HSLAS S300MC and S250MC).
The material models were saved separately with
specific names to be assigned to each component
separately.
The steel model H.S.L.A.S. S250MC, named
"Structural Steel NL 1" in the material library of the
software is assigned to crash boxes and model
HSLAS S300MC named "Structural Steel NL 2" is
assigned to bumper beam, flanges and to frame rails.
The "NL" suffix in the name of the steel refers to
the fact that the materials have nonlinear material
characteristics to simulate both material behaviours:
plastic and elastic. This is necessary because during
the simulation, the stress of the components exceed
their yield strength.
Fig. 5 Isometric view of the three modelled
geometric solutions for impact energy management
system
ISBN: 978-960-474-403-9 51
Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Mechanics
2.3 Defining initial conditions to simulate Also, a fixed support was imposed on the outer
frontal impact surface of the obstacle plane farthest from
Particular conditions, such as rigid contacts with automobile to represent the state of relative rest of
or without friction, fixed supports, pretensions, the obstacle (Figure 8).
relative speeds etc., have to be imposed to the model The imposed velocity to car assembly was
components. These conditions are necessary inferred from equalizing the kinetic energies of the
because the results obtained from the dynamic modelled geometry and designed automobile as
simulation should behave as close to reality. follows:
Two static „Bonded” type contacts between the mmod el Vmod
2
left front frame rail and the car and between the Ec mod el el
[J] (9)
2
right front frame rail and car were established
m V 2
surfing in the "Model" part of the "Explicit Ecauto auto auto (10)
Dynamics" module of Ansys software (Figure 8). 2
where:
Ecmodel [J] - kinetic energy of the modelled
geometry;
Ecauto [J] - kinetic energy of the automobile;
mmodel [kg] - mass of the modelled geometry;
mauto [kg] - mass of the automobile;
Vmodel [km/h] – impact velocity of the modelled
Fig. 8 Rigid and static contacts established between geometry corresponding to its kinetic energy;
the front frame rails and the car body box Vauto [km/h] – impact velocity of the
automobile corresponding to its kinetic energy.
In ”Connections” menu, ”Body Interactions”
field, a Frictional type of dynamic contact was Because: Ecmodel= Ecautol ⇒
established between the frontal cross member and
the contact surface of the obstacle (Figure 9).
mauto Vauto
2
Vmod el [km / h] (11)
mmod el
According to European regulations regarding
frontal impact test, the initial speed of the
automotive before impact must be kept constant
around 15 km / h (≈4,166 m / s).
Fig. 9 Frictional type of dynamic contact between 2.4 Meshing geometric model using finite
the frontal cross member and the contact surface of
elements
the obstacle
The finite element mesh size of each component
In ”Explicit Dynamics” module, ”Initial
of the model geometry can be chosen in the "Model"
Conditions” part, the initial linear and constant
part, "Mesh" menu.
velocity, its direction and its orientation were
established for components of both the car and
impact energy system group (Figure 10).
Fig. 10 Initial velocity conditions of the simulation Fig. 11 Meshing the assembly to simulate frontal
components impact
ISBN: 978-960-474-403-9 52
Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Mechanics
Finite element mesh size for each part of the
model varies depending on its role: for crash boxes
a mesh as fine (10 mm), for cross member and
flanges a larger mesh (15 mm), for front frame rail a
large mesh (50 mm) and for car body block and
obstacle a coarse mesh (100 mm) (Figure 12). Fig. 14 Stress variation of geometric model M1
"Generate mesh" button is used. A number of during the impact simulation
4747 elements and 4290 nodes resulted following
the completion of the entire assembly meshing.
Fig. 15 Plastic deformation variation of geometric
model M2 during the impact simulation
Fig. 12 Finite element meshing of different sizes for
each component of the model
Table 1 The main parameters of each component
used to simulate the frontal impact
Auto- Frame Cross Crash
No Criterion Flanges Obstacle
mobile rails member Box
Thickness
profile of the
1 cross section
- 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.0 -
Fig. 16 Stress variation of geometric model M2
[mm]
Structural Structural Structural Structural Structural Structural during the impact simulation
2 Material
Steel Steel NL 2 Steel NL 2 Steel NL 2 Steel NL 1 Steel
3 Mass [kg] 847.80 4.895 0.448 3.148 0.326 526.75
4 Mesh size 100 50 15 15 10 100
Velocity
5 4.190 ≈ 15 km/h 0
[m/s]
3 Results
Fig. 17 Plastic deformation variation of geometric
The demountable crash boxes deflection should model M3 during the impact simulation
not do flaming but controlled by folding
deformation using initiators such as ribs, holes,
folds, cuts, different shapes of sections, elements
with variable thickness and constant increase of
sections and of inertia moments. After modelling the
geometry and imposing the initial conditions the
"Solve" button is used to run the simulation. The
results can be read and save in the "Explicit Fig. 18 Stress variation of geometric model M3
Dynamics" module, "Solution" part. during the impact simulation
Fig. 13 Plastic deformation variation of geometric
model M1 during the impact simulation
Fig. 19 Stress and plastic deformation variations of
geometric model M1 during the impact simulation
ISBN: 978-960-474-403-9 53
Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Mechanics
4 Conclusion
Total plastic deformation growth during the
impact, reaches a maximum value and remain quasi-
constant around this value (saturate) for all three
models. From this moment, it is considered that the
impact energy is not consumed any more by the
crash boxes, but the energy is sent to the front frame
Fig. 20 Stress and plastic deformation variations of rail.
geometric model M2 during the impact simulation The aim is to consume higher quantities of
energy away from the passenger compartment in a
short time interval. The amount of transmitted
energy to other body parts and/or to passenger
compartment should be minimized. It is observed
that the model M2 has the highest strain in the
shortest deformation time. A larger deformation
implies a higher consumption of impact energy and
a less time for this strain is an increased safety for
car occupants.
Fig. 21 Stress and plastic deformation variations of Stress is represented from blue to light blue on
geometric model M3 during the impact simulation the surface of crash boxes, and maximum stress
appear only in some points. That means the stress
values are small.
References:
[1] Micu, D.A., Straface, D., Farkas, L., Erdelyi,
H., Iozsa, M.D., Mundo, D., Donders, S., A co-
simulation approach for crash analysis, UPB
Scientific Bulletin, Series D: Mechanical
Engineering, 76 (2), 2014, pp. 189-198;
Fig. 22 Comparison of plastic deformation [2] Micu, D.A., Iozsa, M.D., Stan, C., Quasi-static
variations of geometric models during the impact simulation approaches on rollover impact of a
simulation bus structure, WSEAS, ACMOS, Brașov, June
26-28, 2014;
[3] Sîrbu, A.D.M., Research on improving
crashworthiness of the frontal part of the
automotive structure, PhD Thesis,
POLITEHNICA University of Bucharest,
Romania, 2012;
[4] Redhe, M., Nilsson, L., Bergman, F., Stander,
N., Shape Optimization of Vehicle Crash-box
using LS-OPT, 5th European LS-DYNA Users
Conference, Birmingham, 2005;
[5] Donald Malen, Fundamentals of Automobile
Fig. 23 Comparison of stress variations of geometric Body Structure Ddesign, SAE International,
models during the impact simulation 2011.
ISBN: 978-960-474-403-9 54