SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 1999-01-0072

Frontal Crash Feasibility Study

Using MADYMO 3D Frame Model
Suk-jae Hahm, Yong-hee Won and Dong-seok Kim
DAEWOO Motor Co. Ltd.

Reprinted From: Vehicle Aggressivity and Compatibility in Automotive Crashes

(SP-1442)

International Congress and Exposition

Detroit, Michigan
March 1-4, 1999

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

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. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

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

Printed in USA
 1999-01-0072

Frontal Crash Feasibility Study Using MADYMO 3D Frame Model

Suk-jae Hahm, Yong-hee Won and Dong-seok Kim

DAEWOO Motor Co. Ltd.

Copyright © 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare two
front body structure designs of a new car program using
three dimensional lumped spring-mass model so called
‘MADYMO 3D frame model’ in the view of frontal crash
with concept drawing only. A MADYMO 3D frame model,
composed of a number of bodies and joints, was built for
a current vehicle model and correlated with full car crash
analysis results from explicit finite element analysis for
FMVSS 208 and AMS(Auto motor und sports) crash con-
ditions. Then the same method was applied to a new car
structure. The new 3D frame models of two front struc-
ture design concepts were built and the result was com-
pared for two crash conditions. Two models were
required to reduce footwell intrusion to meet the design
target. Several design modifications were tried to reduce
footwell intrusion for both models. The footwell intrusion
was reduced quite much by introducing connecting con-
cept and reducing front rail bending stiffness for two mod-
els, respectively.
The body masses and inertia data are calculated using
geometrical data from the full vehicle finite element
model. The area in which bending occurs is cut out from
full vehicle finite element vehicle model and modified to
be a component non-linear finite element model. Joint
characteristics are calculated from these component
models. For calculating the bending moment, one end is
simply supported and the other section is welded with a
linear beam . Then the linear beam is loaded by rotating
motion and the torque and rotation angle of the beam are
extracted. This calculation was repeated for the other
axis as well. As an example, a component model and
extracted bending stiffness curves are shown in Figure 1
and Figure 2.

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS 3D FRAME MODEL? – 3D Frame model is a

kind of lumped-mass spring model which is composed of
rigid bodies connected by joints, point restraints and car-
dan restraints of MADYMO in 3 dimensional coordinates.
Figure 1. A component model for calculating joint
The rigid bodies represent undeformed areas of vehicle.
characteristics.
The joint positions and connections are chosen at the
locations where structural deformation can be expected
from experience or known crash modes shown by simula-
tion or crash test. The point restraint and Cardan
Restraint characteristics of joints and connections are
extracted by means of explicit finite element calculation.

EXTRACTING JOINT CHARACTERISTICS – As the first

step of modeling, vehicle front structure concept is
reviewed and hard points are prefixed. By this way, the
locations of joint and Cardan restraint are selected. Two
or more bodies are connected by several types of joint to
be a system and the systems are joined by Cardan
Restraints and Point restraints to be a full vehicle 3D Figure 2. Example of bending stiffness of a joint from
frame model. The shear effect of panels e.g. roof panel joint component model.
and floor are replaced with Kelvin elements.

1
For the axial crush, one end is clamped and the other element model. The vehicle rebound time is also similar
end is axially loaded by a moving rigid wall. The rigid wall to the full car finite element model result.
force and displacement is extracted as axial collapsing
characteristics.

MODELLING AXIAL CRUSHING AND BENDING FREE

JOINT – Both of bending moment and axial loading
curves are used to simulate bending and axial crushing
behavior of the sections such as the front end of front rail.
4 Point restraints are used to model complex bending and
clamping of main sections. These Point restraints are
positioned on the free joint section with proper distance
(moment arm) to resist against bending. In order to get
the point restraint loading curve, axial compression crush
peak force and bending moment curve are reproduced to
be a force vs. deflection curve which represents axial and
bending stiffness with a specific distance between point
restraints.
Figure 4. B pillar lower acceleration time history
VALIDATION OF 3D FRAME MODEL comparison between Finite element and frame
model in FMVSS 208.
The model was correlated with a full vehicle finite ele-
ment model for FMVSS208 and AMS offset crash condi-
tions. The acceleration on B pillar lower and the footwell
intrusion are compared with those of finite element
model. The 3D frame model used in this paper can be
found in Figure 3. A lot of ellipsoid, Point Restraints,
Kelvin elements are composed to be a frame model.

Figure 5. Vehicle velocity time history comparison

between Finite element and frame model in
FMVSS 208.

AMS VALIDATION – The validation of AMS crash is

Figure 3. The full vehicle 3D frame model used in this
study.
The model has most of front structural parts such as front
rail, bumper, front wheel suspension assembly, sub
frame, engine, transmission etc.. The components have
their own mass and inertia data and the lumped mass at
the end of vehicle has extra mass which represents the
behind part of vehicle.
FMVSS 208 VALIDATION – The acceleration and vehicle
velocity time history curves at B-pillar lower are plotted in
Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. The peak value and
trend of acceleration history are similar to the finite
focused on the footwell intrusion and occupant compart-
ment deforming shape. Basically, the AMS 3D frame
model is exactly same as the FMVSS 208 model except
a special care for Bryant angles of the joints in large
deforming area.
The comparison of B-pillar lower acceleration vs. time
curves of the finite element and the frame model are plot-
ted in Figure 6. The 3D frame acceleration pulse
increases relatively higher than that of finite element
model. However, the trend of the pulse shows good cor-
relation with that of finite element model. The footwell
intrusion time history is shown in Figure 7. Although there
is a time shift about 7 milliseconds between tow results,
the maximum intrusion value is within just 10% differ-
ence. Looking at the deformed animation of 3D frame
model in Figure 8 and Figure 9, deformed shapes of front
rail, short-gun, extension of front rail and wheel carrier

2
are similar to the finite element model. Short-gun collaps-
ing mode of the finite element model is expressed by
Translate joint which allows axial deformations by specific
stiffness characteristics. Wheel carrier moved upward in
both models because of upward bending behavior of the
front rail. Therefore it can be concluded that the general
deformation characteristics of 3D frame model used in
this paper show good correlation with the full vehicle
finite element model.

Figure 8. Deformed view of 3D-frame model in AMS.

Figure 6. Comparison of B-pillar lower left acceleration

time history of finite element and frame model
in AMS.

Figure 9. Deformed view of finite element model in

AMS.

Figure 7. Comparison of Footwell intrusion time history

of finite element and frame model in AMS.

TWO FRONT STRUCTURE DESIGN

CANDIDATES

TWO DESIGN CANDIDATES – Two design candidates of

front structure for a new car model were suggested and it
is required to predict the crash performances of two mod-
els to get design idea and select one of them. The two
models are named as MODEL1, MODEL2 in this study
and have same hard points, test weight conditions and
external dimensions. Main differences between MODEL1
and MODEL2 are in front structure such as front side rail,
brace wheel house, cross member front floor, front side
rail extension and sub-frame(wheel carrier) etc.. Figure 10. Front main structure of MODLE1 3D frame
model.

3
All parts of two models except the marked in Figure 10
are exactly the same and engine and chassis systems
are also shared by two design candidates. The front
structure of MODEL1 can be found as 3D frame model in
Figure 10 and the side view of MODEL1 and MODEL2
are compared in Figure 11 and 12 respectively.
with Point Restraint and the sub-frame has several
spherical joints to allow bending during crash. Front
shock absorber, left engine mounting, power steering
gear box and driving shaft were also included in the
model.

Figure 11. Side view of MODEL1front structure.

Figure 13. sub-frame and front suspension model.

The number of MADYMO components used for one 3D

model are listed below. It takes about 40minites to run
one calculation on one CPU of SGI power challenge.
SYSTEM 13
BODY 208
JOINT 388
KELVIN ELEMENT 177
POINT RESTRAINT 142
Figure 12. Side view of MODEL2 front structure.
BASELINE MODEL RESULTS
The front side rail angle from horizontal line in side view
Acceleration peak value and vehicle rebound time of two
of MODEL1 in Figure 11 is a little slanted but zero in
models are compared for FMVSS208 crash. Footwell
MODEL2 of Figure 12. Only MODEL2 has front rail outer
intrusion and deformation of occupant compartment are
which connects the end of front rail to A-pillar lower as
mainly considered for AMS evaluation. The acceleration
indicated in Figure 12. The section of front rail and short
time history in FMVSS208 are shown in Figure 14. As
gun of MODEL1 are different from those of MODEL2.
can be seen in Figure 14, the first peak acceleration of
The extension of front rail floor and cross member front
MODEL1 is quite similar to that of MODEL2 because of
floor also have different sections and reinforcements.
similar front end structure which has same scissors type
connecting concept between radiator support and front
MODEL DESCRIPTIONS – The frame models for
rail end. The maximum acceleration peak of MODEL2 is
MODEL1 and MODEL2 were created by the modification
higher and the vehicle rebound time is shorter than
of pre correlated 3D frame. The front structure dimen-
MODEL1. The reason why MODEL2 has harder pulse
sions, hard points and joint positions were modified
can be found in the front rail concept. The front rail shape
according to the given vehicle dimension. The sub-frame
of MODEL2 (Figure 12) is so straight that the front rail
(wheel carrier), vehicle total weight and joint properties
was not bent much as shown in Figure 16. Only front end
were changed. The joint properties were calculated by
of front rail collapsed and first peak of acceleration is over
means of the explicit finite element calculation. The finite
20g near 13msec. In case of MODEL1, However, the
element models were built using concept section draw-
front rails have slight angle from the horizontal line so
ings. The radiator mounting support bracket attached to
that it bent quite much more than MODEL2 (Figure 15).
the front end of front side rail was suggested to scissors
The engine and transmission go upward because the
type to increase the axial collapsing area at the front part
front rails on which transmission mounted were bent
of front rail The sub-frame(wheel carrier) can be found in
upward. Collapsing of front ends of front rails occurred in
Figure 13. Control arm is connected to the sub-frame

4
both models. It was possible because scissors type
brackets do not take much collapsing space of front rail
end. It is positive trend for restraint system development.
Figure 14. Acceleration time history of MODEL1 and
MODEL2 in FMVSS208.
Figure 15. Deformed view of MODEL1 in FMVSS208.
Figure 16. Deformed view of MODEL2 in FMVSS208.
The footwell intrusions in AMS are compared for both
models. Maximum footwell intrusion of MODEL1 is about
240mm and MODEL2 is 325mm. Although the intrusion
of MODEL1 is smaller than MODEL2, it is still required to
be decreased to take upper third range of safety ranking
in European market. In case of MODEL1 in Figure 17, a
local large bending occurred behind the engine mounts.
All space of engine room was consumed and the occu-
pant compartment kept it’s initial shape. On the contrary,
engine room of MODEL2 did not show big deformation
but occupant compartment deformed much because of
rocker and A-pillar bending and the front rail was not
wholly bent but bending was just initiated as shown in
Figure 18. Load from barrier was transferred to A pillar
lower via front rail outer section and this load induced
5
large moment on rocker and A pillar sections. It means
the stiffness of front structure is excessive to prevent the
rocker from large bending and it is needed to find out the
proper stiffness level to reduce footwell intrusion and
occupant space deformation.
Figure 17. Deformed shape of MODEL1 in AMS at 100
millisecond.
Figure 18. Deformed shape of MODEL2 in AMS at 100
millisecond.
CASE STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
According to the baseline results, it is needed to reduce
the footwell intrusions in both of models. Therefore the
authors conducted several case studies for AMS crash
condition. FMVSS 208 was not studies because 30mph
rigid barrier crash is not severe test in the view of vehicle
structure. In order to find out design concept for decreas-
ing footwell intrusion in AMS crash condition, several
case studies were conducted for two models by changing
front structure joint stiffness and introducing new struc-
tural concept.
CASE STUDY FOR MODEL1 – MODEL1 case study are
summarized in table 1.
In Case1, the stiffness of engine mounted area on front
rail was scaled up by 30% to reduce more local bending.
However the footwell intrusion increased by 46% compar-
ing baseline result. Although front rail bending decreased
a lot, much bending occurred at brace of front rail area
and footwell intrusion increased. Therefore it was under-
stood that 30% increasing of front rail stiffness is not
proper for reducing footwell intrusion in MODEL1. In the
second study, Case2, a diaphragm was added in front rail
section at engine mounting area where local large
bending occurred. The new stiffness function for the joint pant compartment is still acceptable. Therefore it is rea-
of this area was extracted by calculating finite element sonable to accept this connecting concept and it is also
joint model to which a diaphragm was added. Two required to find out more proper section size for both of
moment vs. angle functions before and after adding a intrusion and compartment deformation through a
diaphragm can be found in Figure 19. The diaphragm detailed study by the full vehicle finite element analysis.
made average moment higher but peak moment is
almost same as previous one. The footwell intrusion
decreased by 6% after adding diaphragm inside front rail.
Therefore it can be said that the diaphragm works a little
for improvement in AMS.

Table 1. MODEL1 case study descriptions and results

in AMS.

Case
Study baseline Case1 Case2 Case3

Front Rail Add Case1 +

Modifica- Stiffness Diaphragm Connection
tion 30% to Front rail Figure 20. Connecting concept between front rail and A-
Scale up Front Rail to A-Pillar pillar (case3 of MODEL1).
lower
Maximum
Dynamic
Footwell 240 350 225 157
Intrusion
(mm)

Figure 21. Deformed shape of Case3 of MODEL1 in

AMS.

CASE STUDY FOR MODEL2 – MODEL2 case studies

are summarized in table 2.

Table 2. MODEL2 Case study description and results

in AMS.

Case
Study baseline Case1 Case2 Case3
Figure 19. Calculated moment vs. angle curves with Extension Front Rail
(solid line) and without(dashed) a diaphragm. Front Rail Move Stiffness
Modifi- Stiffness Front Rail 30%
cation 30% 20mm Scale
In order to get a better improvement, new concept which downward
connects the front rail and A-pillar lower, was introduced Scale up down
in Case3 as show in Figure20. This concept is similar to Maximum
baseline of MODEL2 but the position in z axis is higher in Dynamic
side view and the angle between x axis and this connect- Footwell 325 325 310 200
Intrusion
ing section is smaller than MODEL1 in top view. There- (mm)
fore, load from the front rail to A-pillar is bigger than
MODEL2. The connecting section has about 40mm
The extension of front rail was stiffened by 30% scaling
X40mm section size which is bigger than MODEL2. As
up the joint functions in Case1. The purpose was to
the result, the footwell intrusion improved about 35%
reduce intrusion by means of decreasing bending at the
comparing baseline. Instead of decreasing in footwell
extension area of front rail. However it was found that the
intrusion, however, occupant compartment deformation a
extension front rail did not attribute much to footwell
little increased (Figure 21). But the deformation of occu-

6
intrusion. As the next step, the height of front rail was
moved 20mm downward to minimize bending moment on
A-pillar caused by the force which passes through front
rail. This modification also gave no major change in foot-
well intrusion. In order to increase deformation of engine
room area, the stiffness of engine mounting area was
scaled down by 30% in Case3. As a result, the footwell
intrusion reduced by almost 40% and the occupant com-
partment kept the initial space as shown in Figure22. It is
outstanding improvement in AMS crash comparing with
baseline.
Figure 22. Deformed view of case3 of MODEL2 in AMS.
CONCLUSION
In this study, the 3D frame modeling technique was intro-
duced for concept feasibility study of a vehicle front struc-
ture. A 3D frame model was built and the result was
compared with full vehicle finite element analysis. A good
correlation was shown in FMVSS208 and AMS crash.
Using the same approach, The 3D frame models were
created for two front structure design alternatives. Based
on simulation results of baseline design, The footwell
intrusion were required to be reduced for both of two
models, MODEL1 and MODEL2. The front rail deforming
mode of MODEL1 showed local large bending at engine
mounting area because of slanted front rail. On the con-
trary, large deforming in occupant compartment occurred
in MODEL2 due to straight and stiff front rail concept.
Several case studies for reducing footwell intrusion were
converged on one structural concept. For MODEL1, a
connecting concept between front rail and A-pillar was
recommended as new design idea. In the MODEL2, front
rail bending stiffness was scaled down to induce larger
deformation in engine room and to reduce footwell intru-
sion and occupant compartment deformation. The con-
cepts recommended will be confirmed and tuned by a
detailed finite element simulation.
The frame model can be built at the early stage of car
program when only section and concept drawings are
available. Therefore it is possible to evaluate and get
design concept before a full vehicle finite element simula-
tion. Furthermore, model updating and computing time
are so much short that faster simulation actions will be
possible.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The 3D frame model validation work in this paper is
based on a project with TNO, in The NETHERLANDS.
REFERENCES
1. J. Huibers, J.J. Nieboer, P. De Coo, “Design Tools for Front
and Side Impact Protection”, 5 th international madymo
user’s meeting, 1994.
2. Alexandra C. Carrera, Stuart G. Mentzer, Randa Radwan
Samaha, “Lumped-Parameter Modelling of Frontal Offset
Impacts”, SAE950651.
3. Dusan Kecman and Nigel Randell, “The role of calculation
in the development and type approval of coach structures
for rollover safety”, ESV paper 96-S5-O-05, 1996.
4. Rajiz Pant, James Cheng, Chris O’Connor, David Jackson
and Aravind Mellireri, “Light Truck Concept Models and
Their Applications”, ESV96-S1-W-19.
5. TNO, “Madymo User’s and Theoretical Manual”, 1997.