Comparison of crash behavior of initial

and updated finite element model

N.A.Z. Abdullah, M.S.M. Sani, M.S. Salwani
Presented by:
Noor Am Zura Abdullah
Advanced Structural Integrity and Vibrational Research
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
WHAT I’M GOING TO TALK
ABOUT…
• Research overview
Introduction • Objective of study

• FEM modeling and model updating

Methodology • Crash analysis

Results & • Crashworthiness evaluation for

Discussion initial and updated model
 RESEARCH OVERVIEW
Cannot rely totally Model updating to
Finite element –
as it only an Problem of solve the
important tools in
approximate discrepancies discrepancies
engineering
method problem

Investigate the
performance of
Objectives updated model
in the field of
crashworthiness
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
AND MODEL UPDATING
(Structure in study)
• Top hat structure with dissimilar materials and spot weld
connector
 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
AND MODEL UPDATING
(Structure in study)

Table 1. Meshing properties for top hat plate structure Table 2. Input properties of material.

Properties of meshing Material Mild steel Stainless

Element type CQUAD4 1010 steel
Element number 171 304
Nodes number 266 Young’s modulus (GPa) 200 190
Density (kg/m3) 8000 8030
DOF number 1330
Poisson ratio 0.33 0.30
Thickness (m) 0.0017 0.001
 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
AND MODEL UPDATING
(Updated model)
Experimental FE normal
modal mode
analysis analysis

Table 3. Updated value for updating parameters.

Correlation
Material Initial value Updated
value
Model updating No Young’s modulus of mild steel(GPa) 200 230.00
Young’s modulus of stainless steel 190 161.50
(GPa)
Better Density of mild steel (kg/m3) 8000 9200.00
correlation? Density of stainless steel (kg/m3) 8030 8142.42
Yes
End
CRASH ANALYSIS
(Simulation set up)

• Low speed crash

(10m/s)
• Crash box fixed at
one end
• Crash impactor –
rigid
CRASH BEHAVIOR EVALUATION
(Velocity curve – impactor)
12

10

8
Velocity (m/s)

6
Updated Model
Initial Model
4

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Time (s)

Updated crash box model stop the impactor slightly faster than the
initial crash box model.
CRASH BEHAVIOR EVALUATION
(Displacement curve – impactor)
0.3

0.25

0.2
Displacement (m)

0.15
Initial model
Updated Model
0.1

0.05

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Time (s)

The crush distance for impactor when crushing the updated crash box
model is slightly shorter
CRASH BEHAVIOR EVALUATION
(Energy balance)
30000

25000

20000

Internal energy initial model

15000
Energy (N)

Internal energy updated model

Kinetic energy initial model

10000 Kinetic energy updated model

Total energy initial model
Total energy updated model
5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

-5000
Time (s)

Both models absorbs impact kinetic energy in almost similar behaviour.

However, the kinetic energy is absorbed slightly faster in updated crash box
model (greater potential in enhancing the energy absorption capacity)
 CRASH BEHAVIOR EVALUATION
(Crush deformation)
Step time (s) 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Initial model

Updated
model

Step time (s) 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050

Initial model

Updated
model
CONCLUSION &
RECOMMENDATION
Difference between However, the updated
initial and updated model shows slightly
model are relatively better crash performance
small. than the initial model.

The computational crash

outputs for both model
should be correlated
with the experimental
crash output.