WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY YOGESH SUBHASH TUPE

ME-8020 FX3474
OVERVIEW

• Motivation and Background

• Test Procedures

• FE Model description

• LS-Dyna Analysis

• Results

• What if Study…
MOTIVATION

• Each year in US, about 220,000 light vehicles are

involved in rollover which includes about 350,000
occupants
• About 200,000 suffer minor to moderate injuries,
14,100 service serious to critical injuries and 9000 are
killed.
• As a class rollover crashes constitutes about 2.2% of
the crash but 33% of the injury cost.
• About 15% of the drivers in rollover are injured by
roof intrusion.
Background
• Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard(FMVSS) No. 216
“Roof Crush Resistance” became effective in1973.
• It established strength requirement for the roof structure
over the front occupant of passenger car with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6000 pounds or less.
• It has been criticized as it does not represent real world
rollover crashes.
• Various alternatives are being studied by NHTSA.
• One of the most promising option is “Dynamic Drop
Test”.
• It is necessary to study the relationships between the
two tests.
• Both test procedures have certain advantages and
disadvantages.
 Test Procedures: FMVSS No. 216: Static Test
• Test Device: A rigid unyielding
plate/block(30X72in) with angular
orientation 250 roll and 50 pitch angle.
• Loading plate is displaced at the rate of
13mm/sec and should not move more
than 5in(127 mm)
• Compliant vehicle will have roof crush
not more than 127mm at a force of 1.5
times of the unloaded weight or22,240N
whichever is less.
• Advantages:
Easy setup, good repeatability.
• Disadvantages:
Does not includes rollover forces
and velocity, occupant injuries cannot
be studied.
FE Model Description: Car/Truck
Car Truck

No of Components 499 No of Components 685

No of Nodes 301143 No of Nodes 942678

No of Shell elements 289950 No of Shell elements 937081

No of beam elements 4 No of beam elements 4

LS-DYNA ANALYSIS OF CAR:
DUMMY STEERING SEAT
 FULL CAR MODEL:
Wall at just impact

Wall at full impact

DISPLACEMENTS:
When the wall just
touches the car

Wall at full impact:

Max disp occurs at the
roof and door frame(CH-
CBN-OUTER-L)
Max disp =
143.5mm(5.64in)
STRESSES:
When the wall just
touches the car

Wall at full impact:

Max stresses occurs at
the roof and door
frame(CH-CBN-OUTER-L)
Max Von mises stress =
705.4N/mm2
 FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT GRAPH:

This is the required graph for force vs displacement

Car mass= 1.429 Ton (1.5X car mass= 2.14 Ton)i.e.21027 N…This force on the car get
accumulated at the time approx 0.04sec after the test starts.
From the individual graphs of force vs time and displacement vs time ; displacement at 1.5 time
the car weight can be calculated which came to approx: 2 inches = SAFE
ENERGY VS TIME GRAPHS:
viz; KINETIC, INTERNAL, TOTAL, HOURGLASS ENEGIES

The graph tells that the total energy of the model is almost constant and hourglass energy
is mostly zero throughout the test
LS-DYNA ANALYSIS OF THE TRUCK:
 TRUCK MODEL:
Wall at just impact

Wall at full impact

DISPLACEMENTS:
When the wall just
touches the car

Wall at full impact:

Max disp occurs at the
roof and door frame(CH-
CBN-OUTER-L)
Max disp =
141.6mm(5.57in)
STRESSES:
When the wall just
touches the car

Wall at full impact:

Max stresses occurs at
the roof and door
frame(CH-CBN-OUTER-L)
Max Von mises stress
=514.3N/mm2
 FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT GRAPH:

This is the required graph for force vs displacement

Truck mass= 2.618 Ton (1.5X truck mass= 3.927 Ton)i.e.38523.87 N…This force on the car get
accumulated at the time 0.05sec after the test starts.
From the individual graphs of force vs time and displacement vs time ; displacement at 1.5 time
the car weight can be calculated which came to a little above of 5 inches = UNSAFE
ENERGY VS TIME GRAPHS:
viz; KINETIC, INTERNAL, TOTAL, HOURGLASS ENEGIES

The graph tells that the total energy of the model is increasing and hourglass energy is
mostly zero throughout the test
RESULTS:
• From the analysis of the car and the truck, the maximum displacement occurred in
both were a little above the threshold value i.e.5 inches
• For the car, when the force applied by the rigid wall reached 1.5times its weight the
corresponding displacement occurred was just approx 2 inches which made the
structure SAFE.
Weight of the car(W) Displacement at A Structure Design as per
FMVSS 216
1.429 tonnes= 14018.4 N ~2 inches SAFE
A =1.5 X W= 21027.73 N

• Whereas for the truck, when the force applied by the rigid wall reached 1.5times its
weight displacement crossed the required value (5 inches) making the truck
structure UNSAFE according to FMVSS 216

Weight of the car(W) Displacement at A Structure Design as per

FMVSS 216
2.618 tonnes= 25682.5 N ≥ 5 inches UNSAFE
A =1.5 X W= 38523.87 N
What if study………
For Truck:
• A structural member is added in order to take the load
• This member connects roof column and the B column
For Car:
• A structural member is added in order to take the load
• This member supports the entire midsection of the car
For the car:
After the structure has been added the displacement has reduced to almost 1.5 inches
for its corresponding 1.5X weight.

STRUCTURE
APPROVED
For TRUCK
ORDINARY STRUCTURE

AT TIME=0.038000 AND FRAME 20

MAX DISP OBTAINED IS APPROX
54.5 mm

REINFORCED STRUCTURE

AT TIME=0.038000 AND FRAME 20

MAX DISP OBTAINED IS 37.9 mm
For the Truck:
After the structure has been added the displacement has reduced and the entire truck has
entered in the safe zone according to FMVSS 216.
If compared with the truck with no reinforced structure it can be clearly seen that the
displacement occurred in the reinforced truck is less.

STRUCTURE
APPROVED