Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

OTEKON 2010 5.

Automotive Technologies Congress 07 08 June 2010, BURSA

ACHIEVING LOW WEIGHT AND LOW COST BODY FOR A NEW COACH TYPE USING SIMULATION AND PREVIOUS LESSONS LEARNED
Ahmet AVCI, Bertan BAYRAM, ar KAYA
Temsa R&D and Technology, Kocaeli

ABSTRACT A rollover event is one of the most crucial hazards for the safety of passengers and crew riding in a coach. Although the percentage of rollover related accidents among all types of accidents is not the highest, it is by far in the rate of fatalities. Today the ECE-R66 regulation, which is the most important passive safety regulation in the coach industry, sets the minimum rollover strength requirements of a coach body. According to ECE-R66, the certification can be gained either by full-scale vehicle testing, or by calculation techniques based on advanced numerical methods (i.e. nonlinear explicit finite element analysis). The assessment of compliance to ECE-R66 is based on checking the possible intrusion of every pillar section with the survival space, set for the protection of passengers and dimensions defined in the regulation. Numerical simulation is clearly the most efficient way to assess the rollover strength of a new coach type, for which a physical prototype may not be available yet, such that in case of failure design measures can be taken early in the design process. At Temsa R&D and Technology, rollover simulation according to ECE-R66 regulation is an integral part of the coach body design process. Whether luxuary coach or midicoach, all Temsa vehicles are certified using simulation. The usual simulation process starts at the time where the coach body design is finished, all CAD data is released, components mass and location are clearly defined, in-another-words the coach design is almost fixed. In case of failure of compliance to ECE-R66, improvement means are possible but limited. In this work, first simulation principles according to ECE-R66 will be explained. Then, how extensive usage of numerical simulation early in the design process, combined with previous experiences and lessons learned in other vehicles, made achieving lower cost and lower weight coach body possible will be presented. The result of this work is %12 lighter body made with lower grade steel, compared to its predecessor. Keywords: Rollover, crashworthiness, ECE-R66, LS-DYNA

1. INTRODUCTION Passenger transport in terms of coaches and coaches is very safe nowadays. Statistical comparisons with other transport types show evidence for the high safety level of coaches and coaches, which is much higher than that of cars, being comparable with that of trains or even airplanes. Despite the high safety rating, particular serious coach and coach accidents still occur. In the European Community approximately 20.000 (% 4) coaches and coaches are currently involved in accidents with personal injuries each year. More than 30.000 people are injured due to those accidents and about 200 occupants suffer fatal injuries. Among the coach and coach accidents, one of the most dangerous is surely the rollover of the vehicle [1]. The coach rollover accident occurs with relative low frequency compared with the total number of coach accidents. Spanish data in period from 1995 to 1999, shows a rollover frequency of 9,6% in roads and highways. The frequency of coach rollover in city traffic is even lower 0,4%, for the same period. However, risk of fatalities in rollover is about four times higher than in any other coach accident types. For example, in frontal impact accidents, the risk of fatalities for coach passengers is 2,5% against a 9,6% in the case of coach rollover. Table-1 shows the probability of fatalities and other injury severity observed in coach rollovers versus rest of coach accidents [2]. Table-1 Injury distribution in coach accidents, Spain 1995-1999 Injury Severity Rollover Others Fatalities 9,6 % 2,5 % Serioues Injured 32,1 % 7,7 % Minor Injured 55,6 % 43,3 % Not Injured 2,6 % 46,5 % Total Number of Occupants 1.037 14.151 European regulation "ECE-R66" titled "Resistance of the Superstructure of Oversized Vehicles for Passenger Transportation" is in force to prevent catastrophic consequences of such rollover accidents thereby ensuring the safety of coach and coach passengers. This regulation prescribes a test to be chosen between one of the following kinds A complete coach rollover test A bay section rollover test A pendulum test A numerical simulation of rollover

among the alternatives, utilization of numerical simulation is becoming more appealing to researchers. FEM approach has been used to study the structural behaviour of a bay section coach in a rollover accident and evaluate the structure resistance and passenger injury risks. [3] Rollover test (ECE-R66) is a mandatory application that every coach manufacturer must accomplish due to directive 2001/85 EC. At Temsa R&D and Technology, rollover simulation according to ECE-R66 regulation is an integral part of the coach body design process. Whether luxuary coach or midicoach, all Temsa vehicles are certified using simulation. The usual simulation process starts at the time where the coach body design is finished, all CAD data is released, components mass and location are clearly defined, in-another-words the coach design is almost fixed. In case of failure of compliance to ECE-R66, improvement means are possible but limited. The objective of the study, is to design new generation coach called M101 with using former experiences and compare its ECE-R66 results with its predecessor called Metropol. Finally, M101 achieved lower cost and lower weight coach body. The result of this work is %12 lighter body made with lower grade steel, compared to Metropol. 2. MODEL 2.1 Geometric Model 2.1.1 M101 Model M101 which is project name of the new generation coach is shown in Figure-1. It has 9,5m length and approximately 9240 kg unladen kerb mass.

Figure-1 M101 CAD model Each of used element numbers for the numeric model of the M101 superstructure are represented below; Quad Shell Elements Tria Shell Elements Mass Elements Beam Elements Spotweld Element Total Number of Elements : 890.474 : 10.549 : 290.420 : 398 : 10.638 : 1.202.479

The use of prototype to verify the design changes and doing real rollover, bay section or pendulum test are often unsuitable because of the high cost and time. Therefore,

For both M101 and Metropol; side walls and roof, is medshed fine enough. Mesh size is shown in Figure-2

rec= (T / E ) Therefore, Tplastic=Ttotal-(T / E ) where; T E E rec Tplastic Eplastic Etotal : True stress : Engineering stress : Engineering strain. : Recoverable strain : Effective true plastic strain. : Effective engineering plastic strain. : Total engineering strain [4, 5].

(4)

(5)

Figure-2 Numeric model of M101 2.1.2 Metropol Model Metropol is old generation coach and shown in Figure-3. It has 9,6m length and app. 9750 kg unladen kerb mass.

Figure-4 Stress-strain curve for St37 and St44 materials For deformable structure, MAT Type 24, Piecewise Linear Isotropic Plasticity model is used. This is an elastic-plastic material model which uses the young's modulus if stresses are below the yield stress and the measured stress-strain curve if the stresses are above the yield stress. For rigid parts (engine, axles and fuel tank), "MAT Type 20, Rigid Material" is used. For shells defining residual space "MAT Type 9, Null Material" is used. This material has no contribution to the stiffness. 2.3 Residual Space 2.2 Material Model Metropol and M101 superstructures are both composed of St37 and St44. For these type of materials, true stress true strain curve is obtained from the average of 3 tension test results (tests are performed previously at TV). The minimum values from material data sheet have been used. Tension test data is transformed to true stress true strain curve according to formula depicted below, T=E(1+) Ttotal=ln(1+Etotal) Ttotal=Tplastic+rec (1) (2) (3) It is described by ECE-R66 that, the "SR" point (Figure-5) is 500 mm above the floor under the passengers' feet, 150 mm from the inside surface of the side of the vehicle and on the surface where front of the seat back. Therefore, the survival space nodes were created to be 500 mm above the floor under the passengers feet, 150 mm from the inside surface of the corresponding side of the vehicle. Connecting shells are for visualization only, there is no contribution to the stiffness.

Figure-3 Metropol CAD model Each of used element numbers for the numeric model of the Metropol superstructure are represented below; Quad Shell Elements Tria Shell Elements Mass Elements Beam Elements Spotweld Element Total Number of Elements : 523.452 : 9.056 : 595.660 : 135 : 1930 : 1.130.233

3. COMPARISONS The most significant body part of ECE-R66 analysis is pillars where the most of strain energy is absorbed while they crushes. The thickness, cross-section dimension and material of these pillars have a great amount of effect in analysis. The chassis does not effect the ECE-R66 results too much because strains are very low (<0.02%) over these areas. Hence, selection of thickness, cross-section and material in chassis makes no difference in accordance with ECE-R66 analysis. M101 is new generation coach, so it was designed with previously lessons learned. Some of them, Interior side reinforcements : They take places simetrically inside pillars, (Figure-7). It is secured by a patent with Turkish Patent Institute. Exterior side bottom supports: They take places simetrically between pillars and chassis, they resist to bend pillars while rollover event occurs (Figure8) Optimum bending radiuses (Figure-9) Exterior rear mid-top supports : They take places simetrically between roof and rear pillars, (Figure10) Outer sheet panel of roof (Figure-11) Having rear door Continuous side pillars Additional side pillar and etc.

Figure-5a Definition of survival space (lateral)

Figure-5b Definition of survival space (longitudinal) 2.4 Solution Non-linear explicit dynamic solutions are performed in LS DYNA software. The initial kinetic energy formula indicated in the ECE-R66 regulation ; Ekin= 0.75 m.g.h (N.m) (6)

This energy is applied to the structure by angular velocity to all the parts of the vehicle. In the formula, m is unladen kerb mass, g is gravitational acceleration and h is the vertical distance between the CoG of the vehicle at free fall position and the CoG of the vehicle which is rotated up to the ground contact position (Figure-6) [6].

Figure-6. h distance Figure-7 Interior side reinforcements

Figure-11. Outer sheet panel of roof 3.1 Mass Comparisons M101 superstructure is optimized with using previous lessons learned in ECE-R66 analysis. Unnecesarry profiles were canceled and some of profile cross-section dimensions were narrowed or their thicknesses were decreased. The CoG is another significant property in ECE-R66. In equation (6), it is explained before that initial kinetic energy is related to h which is mathematical formulation of the z displacement of CoG and shown in Figure-6. If one's CoG is upper/lower than another, it changes the conditions and results. Longitudinal and lateral CoG position does not effect simulation results very significantly, but any of added mass changes the vertical CoG position and so the simulation results. Thus, unladen kerb mass and CoG must be measured for the adequate analysis. The comparison of unladen kerb mass of M101 and Metropol is listed in Table-2. Table-2 Mass Comparison Unladen Kerb Mass (kg) M101 9.240 Metropol 9.750
Coach

Figure-8 Exterior side bottom supports

The component masses differences of M101 respect to Metropol are listed in Table-3. Figure-9 Optimum bending radiuses (R1, R2 and R3) Table-3 Component Mass Differences Components Front Body Rear Body Roof Side Wall Right Side Wall Left Front Chassis Middle Chassis Rear Chassis Total Superstructure Mass (kg) Figure-10 Exterior rear mid-top supports M101 Mass respect to Metropol Mass -0,1234 -0,1315 -0,1420 -0,1266 -0,1327 -0,0986 -0,0947 -0,1267

0,1192

3.2 Material Comparisons Metropol and M101 have same value of thickness and cross-section dimensions in pillars. There is a distinction between two coach, that is St37 material was used for pillars in M101 while St44 material was used in Metropol. Stiffness disadvantage of M101 was eliminated by using reinforcements and supports. These reinforcements help to improve its rollover resistance. St37 pillar usage has only low cost advantage. For per coach, the reduction of cost is approximately 150 ($ / per coach). 3.3 Initial Condition Comparison Two coaches have different unladen kerb mass, CoG, moment of inertia, hence they will have different angular velocity which is the initial condition of ECE-R66 analysis. Figure-13 Metropol Sections 4.1 Comparative Results Under these conditions, comparative results of M101 and Metropol are shown in Figure-14-20. Figure-12 M101 Sections

Ekin 1 (m r 2 + I xx ) 2

(7)

In the above equation, angular velocity is a mathematical formulation of Ekin which is initial kinetic energy, m which is unladen kerb mass, r which is length between tilting point and CoG center and lastly Ixx which is moment of inertia of rotation about x direction [7]. The comparison of angular velocity of M101 and Metropol is shown in Table-4. Table-4. Comparison list of angular velocity Coaches Angular Velocity (1/s2) M101 - 0,3 % Metropol 4. RESULTS After pre-processing of M101 and Metropol has finished, first simulation was started. There were CAD, unladen kerb mass, moment of inertia, mass distribution, material distinction between these two coaches. The sections which results were collected were shown in Figure-12 and 13.

Figure-14a M101 Section 1 Results

Figure-14b Metropol Section 1 Results

Figure-15a M101 Section 2 Results

Figure-15b Metropol Section 2 Results

Figure-16a M101 Section 3 Results

Figure-16b Metropol Section 3 Results

Figure-17a M101 Section 4 Results

Figure-17b Metropol Section 4 Results

Figure-18a M101 Section 5 Results

Figure-18b Metropol Section 5 Results

Figure-21. Results representation In first pillar result, it is out of scope due to ECER66. Second and subsequent pillars were evaluated with calculating minimum gap between RP1 or RP2 points with pillar's surface. They were listed seperately in Table5 and 6. Table-5 Summary of M101 ECE-R66 results

Not available

Figure-19a M101 Section 6 Results

Figure-19b Metropol Section Results

Figure-20a M101 Section 7 Results

Figure-20b Metropol Section 6 Results

Table-6 Summary of Metropol ECE-R66 results

After first analyses were done, simulation results were compared with each other. RP1 is top point of residual space and RP2 is bottom point of residual space, they were shown in Figure 21.

5. COMMENTS It was mentioned before that M101 is a new generation coach, its design was enhanced with former experiences. Some reinforcements and supports were added to improve its rollover strength. St37 material was used for pillars instead of St44. Some optimisation techniques were applied due to experiences. The objective is to design less weighted and less costed body while fullfilling technical requirements like ECE-R66 and durability. ECE-R66 only considers minimum gap between RP points with pillar surfaces. If minimum gap is bigger than zero, that means ECE-R66 requirement is satisfied. Above, both M101 and Metropol coaches have enough strength for ECE-R66. Beside, M101 has advantage of %12 lower weight and 150 ( $ / per coach) lower cost. REFERENCES [1] Bellingardi G,, Martella P,, Peroni L,, 2005, "Coach Passenger Injury Risk During Rollover: Influence of the Seat and the Restraint System", Paper Number 05-0439, Dipartimento di Meccanica, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy [2] Martinez L,, Aparicio F,, Garcia A,, Paez J, Ferichola G,, "Improving Occupant Safety in Coach Rollover", INSIA, Polytechnic University, Madrid, Spain [3] Gler M,A,, Atahan, O,A,, Bayram B,, 2009, "Effectiveness of Seat Belt Usage on the Rollover Crashworthiness of an Intercity Coach" Paper Number 09-0205, 21th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, Germany [4] Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 1998. LS-DYNA theoretical manual; California,USA. [5] Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2001. LS-DYNA keyword user's manual; California,USA. [6] Elitok K., 2006 "Explicit Dynamic Analysis of Vehicle Roll-Over Crashworthiness Using LSDYNA" MSc Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey [7] Temsa R&D and Technology, 2008, Rollover Analysis Procedure for ECE-R66 Certification Kocaeli, Turkey

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen