Sie sind auf Seite 1von 107

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

GONZALO ANZALDO MUNOZ

CRASHWORTHINESS BEHAVIOUR OF HYBRID FOAM – FILLED


COMPOSITE TUBULAR STRUCTURES

SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE, TRANSPORT AND


MANUFACTURING
Advanced Lightweight Structures and Impact

MSc
Academic Year: 2018 - 2019

Supervisor: D Hessam Ghasemnejad


September 2019
CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE, TRANSPORT AND


MANUFACTURING
Advanced Lightweight Structures and Impact

MSc

Academic Year 2018 - 2019

GONZALO ANZALDO MUNOZ

CRASHWORTHINESS BEHAVIOUR OF HYBRID FOAM – FILLED


COMPOSITE TUBULAR STRUCTURES

Supervisor: D Hessam Ghasemnejad


September 2019

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for


the degree of MSc in Advanced Lightweight Structures and Impact.

© Cranfield University 2019. All rights reserved. No part of this


publication may be reproduced without the written permission
of the copyright owner.
ABSTRACT
This thesis was conducted in collaboration with the Composites and Structures
Centre and the Cranfield Impact Centre (CIC) inside Cranfield University. Carbon
Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) tube is an important material for the lightweight
design of automotive and aerospace structures. Simulation methods of
Aluminium and CFRP thin – walled tubes subjected to axial compression and
filled with Aluminium foam was investigated in this thesis project.

For the Aluminium tube and Aluminium foam, *MAT_3 and *MAT_63 were
employed respectively to execute the simulations of the empty and filled tube. To
obtain the ideal element size for the mesh, a theoretical method was used to
correlate the results with the numerical values obtained in LS–DYNA software.

For the CFRP tube, the Finite Element (FE) model was built based on the two –
layer shell model, using the *MAT_54/55 material formulation, failure strategy
and the parameters sensitivity of the model. Then the simulation model was
verified by using duplicate specimens comprised of carbon fibre/epoxy
unidirectional prepreg tape. Furthermore, the modelling method of crush trigger
B45 and different types of loading speed (static and dynamic) were analysed. A
correlation was made between the physical testing results and the numerical
values obtained from LS–DYNA to define the ideal values for the strength
parameters.

Keywords:

Aluminium, Aluminium Foam, Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP),


Crashworthiness, Finite Element Model, Testing, Progressive Failure.

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Hessam Ghasemnejad
for his enthusiasm and guidance in the realization of this thesis project. Also, I
would like to thank my ALSI classmates for being with me in this amazing
experience to study abroad, and the ALSI staff, especially Dr Jason C Brown, for
the knowledge related to safety and crashworthiness that I earned throughout this
year.

I would like to thank my whole family, my parents Gonzalo Anzaldo and


Guadalupe Munoz, my brothers Luis Enrique “Boby”, Raul “Baul” and my
beautiful sister Maria Del Carmen “La Bob”. Everything that they gave me is
priceless, thank you for your unconditional support in this project.

I would like to thank my best friends: Victor Diaz, Juan Delgado, Karen Garcia,
Ana Maria Jilote, my “conejita”, and Mariana Ceballos, my “ranita”. There is no
doubt that you represent part of the most important people in my life.

Finally, I would like to thank Alejandra Rico Jilote, my main source of motivation.
Her words, unconditional support and the idea to be together in the graduation
event next year make me feel like I can accomplish anything and push me forward
if I have her by my side. Thank you chaparrita.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... x
LIST OF EQUATIONS ....................................................................................... xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. xiii
1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Theoretical Background ............................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Crashworthiness Criteria .................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives and methodology ..................................................................... 5
2 Literature review .............................................................................................. 7
2.1 Crashworthiness of Tubular Energy Absorbers ........................................ 7
2.1.1 Progressive folding ............................................................................. 8
2.1.2 Progressive crushing .......................................................................... 9
2.2 Failure modes ......................................................................................... 10
2.3 Parameters Affecting the Crashworthiness of Composite Tubes ............ 12
2.3.1 Cross – section ................................................................................ 13
2.3.2 Trigger Mechanisms ......................................................................... 13
2.3.3 Geometrical properties ..................................................................... 14
2.3.4 Ply number and Fibre Orientation .................................................... 14
2.4 Filled Tubes under Axial Crushing .......................................................... 15
2.4.1 Behaviour of Foam–Filled Tubes ..................................................... 15
2.4.2 Mechanical properties of Metallic Foam ........................................... 16
2.4.3 Effect of density of Aluminium Foam ................................................ 17
2.4.4 Commercial applications of metal foams .......................................... 18
2.4.5 Crashworthiness of Composite Foam – Filled Tubes ....................... 19
2.5 Numerical Modelling of Filled Composite Tubes using LS-DYNA
software ........................................................................................................ 20
2.5.1 Units ................................................................................................. 20
2.5.2 Materials........................................................................................... 21
2.5.3 Contact ............................................................................................. 21
3 FE model of Aluminium and CFRP tubes in LS – DYNA ............................... 23
3.1 Model description of empty tubes ........................................................... 23
3.2 Model description of filled tubes .............................................................. 24
3.3 FE model type ......................................................................................... 24
3.4 Geometry ................................................................................................ 24
3.5 Mesh ....................................................................................................... 27
3.5.1 Element type and quality criteria ...................................................... 27
3.5.2 Mesh Convergence Study–Aluminium tube ..................................... 27

iii
3.6 Materials ................................................................................................. 30
3.6.1 Aluminium Foam – Filled material .................................................... 30
3.6.2 Aluminium Tube material.................................................................. 32
3.6.3 Composite Tube material ................................................................. 33
3.6.4 Impactor material ............................................................................. 39
3.7 Contact definition .................................................................................... 39
3.8 Loading and boundary conditions ........................................................... 41
3.9 Control cards for LS – DYNA errors ........................................................ 42
3.9.1 Negative volume .............................................................................. 42
3.9.2 Shell Formulations ........................................................................... 42
3.9.3 Implicit Analysis ................................................................................ 43
4 Aluminium and CFRP tubes filled and with double wall ................................. 44
4.1 Description of the geometry with double wall .......................................... 45
4.2 Results using Aluminium material ........................................................... 46
4.2.1 Aluminium tubes ............................................................................... 46
4.2.2 Aluminium tubes with trigger mechanism ......................................... 47
4.3 Results using CFRP material .................................................................. 51
4.4 Interactive effect of hybrid tubes ............................................................. 51
4.4.1 Aluminium tube ................................................................................ 52
4.4.2 CFRP tube ....................................................................................... 53
5 Manufacturing process of CFRP tubes .......................................................... 55
5.1 Composite Material MTC510 – UD300 – T700 ....................................... 56
5.2 Specimen dimensions and parameters ................................................... 56
5.3 Manufacturing Process for the composite tube ....................................... 57
5.3.1 Mould Preparation ............................................................................ 57
5.3.2 Layup preparation ............................................................................ 58
5.3.3 Layup process .................................................................................. 59
5.3.4 Curing process ................................................................................. 62
5.3.5 Cutting and machining process ........................................................ 65
6 Physical testing of CFRP tubes ..................................................................... 67
6.1 Static analysis ......................................................................................... 67
6.1.1 Dynamic analysis ............................................................................. 71
7 Comparison between numerical and physical results for the CFRP tubes .... 75
Conclusions and final recommendations .......................................................... 78
7.1 Final conclusions .................................................................................... 78
7.1.1 Chapter 3: FE model of Aluminium and CFRP tubes in LS–DYNA .. 78
7.1.2 Chapter 4: Aluminium and CFRP tubes with double wall ................. 79
7.1.3 Chapter 5: Manufacturing process of CFRP tubes ........................... 79
7.1.4 Chapter 6: Physical testing of CFRP tubes ...................................... 79
7.1.5 Chapter 7: Comparison between numerical and physical results for
the CFRP tubes......................................................................................... 80
7.2 Final recommendations........................................................................... 81

iv
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 83
APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 88
Appendix A LS–DYNA control cards used in this thesis project. ................... 88
Appendix B MATLAB code for evaluating Energy Absorbed for the hybrid
tube ............................................................................................................... 91

v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Crush failure modes for composite materials: a) fibre splaying, b)
fragmentation, and c) brittle fracture [7]. ...................................................... 3
Figure 1-2. Typical load – displacement curve of steel tube in axial compression.
.................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2-1. Force – displacement of GFRP stitched and non – stitched under
impact loading [6]. ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-2. Typical load – displacement curve for progressive folding [12]. ....... 9
Figure 2-3. Typical load – displacement curve of a composite tube under axial
compression [13]. ........................................................................................ 9
Figure 2-4. Typical load–displacement curve of composite tubes [14]. ............ 10
Figure 2-5. Progressive crushing modes .......................................................... 12
Figure 2-6. Progressive cushing: a) tube with chamfer, b) partially crushed, c)
fully tube with debris compacted inside [13]. ............................................. 14
Figure 2-7. Geometrical sections of the thin–walled structures types used by
Zhibin [8]. ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2-8. a) Open cell metal foam and b) closed cell metal foam [22]. .......... 16
Figure 2-9. Examples of a) Polyurethane Foam, b) Aluminium Foam [5] ......... 17
Figure 2-10. European Evolution project, (a) Crash absorber box using double
wall and Aluminium foam, (b) CAD design of the vehicle [21]. .................. 18
Figure 2-11. Metallic foam applications ............................................................ 19
Figure 2-12. Collapse modes comparative of three foam – filled CFRP specimens
[3]. ............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3-1. FE model overview, a) Composite tube, b) Aluminium tube. .......... 23
Figure 3-2. Schematic of filled tubes studied in this thesis project, a) Aluminium
tube with parameters, b) CFRP tube. ........................................................ 25
Figure 3-3. Aluminium tube with triggering mechanism, a) Isometric view, b)
Detailed view for the trigger mechanism. ................................................... 26
Figure 3-4. Bevel trigger simplification, a) original geometry of the B45, b)
simplification to two–laminates with the same thickness, and c) final
representation with dimensions for the two laminates. .............................. 26
Figure 3-5. B45 specimen, a) simplification used in LS–DYNA, b) front view. . 26

vi
Figure 3-6. Collapse mode for the aluminium tube using different element size,
a) 2 mm (concertina mode), b) 5 mm (mixed mode: concertina and diamond).
.................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3-7. Comparative of the Load – Displacement curves using an element
size of 2 and 5 mm. ................................................................................... 29
Figure 3-8. Stress–strain curve for the metallic foam [20]. ............................... 31
Figure 3-9. Stress–strain curve of aluminium foam with relative density of 10%
obtained from compression test. ................................................................ 32
Figure 3-10. Collapse mode for the change of XC parameter, a) baseline model,
b) XC @ 80%, c) XC @ 60%, and d) XC @ 40%. ........................................ 37
Figure 3-11. Boundary Conditions for the Aluminium and CFRP tube. ............ 41
Figure 4-1. Specimens of aluminium/foam/CFRP hybrid sandwich tubes [40]. 44
Figure 4-2. Double wall geometries studied, a) baseline model (ODII = 0), b) ODII
= 30 mm, c) ODII = 40 mm, d) ODII = 50 mm ............................................ 45
Figure 4-3. Deformation contour for the double wall case of the Aluminium tubes,
a) Aluminium tube filled, b) ODII = 30 mm, c) ODII = 40 mm, d) ODII = 50 mm.
.................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 4-4. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for the ODII = 0 mm case.
.................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 4-5. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for the ODII = 30 mm case.
.................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 4-6. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for the ODII = 40 mm case.
.................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 4-7. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for the ODII = 60 mm case.
.................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 5-1. Metallic mandrel used during the manufacturing process. ............. 55
Figure 5-2. Dimensions for specimens. ............................................................ 57
Figure 5-3. Dimensional validation of the metallic mandrel used in the
manufacturing process of the tubes. .......................................................... 57
Figure 5-4. Chemlease® PMR EZ product used in the first step. ..................... 58
Figure 5-5. Layout preparation: a) complete roll, b) extraction process of the
laminas. ..................................................................................................... 59
Figure 5-6. Laminating procedure, a) position for new lamina, and b) rolling
process. ..................................................................................................... 60
Figure 5-7. Rolling and pulling process for laminating of the tube. ................... 60

vii
Figure 5-8. Space originated between layers in the composite tube. ............... 61
Figure 5-9. Filling process for laminates during the layout process. ................. 61
Figure 5-10. Debulking process........................................................................ 62
Figure 5-11. Composite tube after the laminating process. .............................. 62
Figure 5-12. Peel ply material around the composite tube. .............................. 63
Figure 5-13. Detail of the ends of the tube before the curing process. ............. 63
Figure 5-14. Tube setup for the curing process. ............................................... 64
Figure 5-15. Cured tubes released from the metallic mould. ............................ 65
Figure 5-16. Result obtained after the machining process, a) detail of the trigger
mechanism, b) Specimens ready for physical testing. ............................... 66
Figure 6-1. CIC’s drop tower rig used for the static analysis of the specimens. 67
Figure 6-2. B45 specimen, a) in position for static analysis, b) ready to start the
physical testing. ......................................................................................... 68
Figure 6-3. Static analysis results, a) d = 25 mm, b) d = 50 mm, c) d = 100 mm,
d) d = 125 mm. .......................................................................................... 69
Figure 6-4. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for different specimen in the
static analysis. ........................................................................................... 70
Figure 6-5. CIC’s drop tower rig used for the dynamic analysis of the specimens.
.................................................................................................................. 71
Figure 6-6. B45 specimen and safety foam. ..................................................... 72
Figure 6-7. Dynamic results obtained after the impact. .................................... 73
Figure 6-8. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for different specimen in the
dynamic analysis. ...................................................................................... 73
Figure 6-9. Specimens after the Impact testing, frontal view for a) Sample 1, b)
Sample 2, and c) Sample 3. ...................................................................... 73
Figure 7-1. B45 Specimen 1. Comparison between experimental and numerical
results: Top and Isometric view (a and c, physical testing, and b and d LS–
DYNA model)............................................................................................. 75
Figure 7-2. Force (kN) vs Time (ms) curves comparative between results
obtained for Specimen 1 from physical testing and LS–DYNA. ................. 75
Figure 7-3. B45 Specimen 2. Comparison between experimental and numerical
results: Top and Isometric view (a and c, physical testing, and b and d LS–
DYNA model)............................................................................................. 76

viii
Figure 7-4. Force (kN) vs Time (ms) curves comparative between results
obtained for Specimen 2 from physical testing and LS–DYNA. ................. 76
Figure 7-5. B45 Specimen 3. Comparison between experimental and numerical
results: Top and Isometric view (a and c, physical testing, and b and d LS–
DYNA model)............................................................................................. 77
Figure 7-6. Force (kN) vs Time (ms) curves comparative between results
obtained for Specimen 3 from physical testing and LS–DYNA. ................. 77
Figure 0-1. Failure mode for hybrid tubes, a) layup 1 = [0/90/90/0]s, b) layup 2 =
[45/-45/0/90]s............................................................................................. 82
Figure 0-2. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves obtained for the Layout
configuration. ............................................................................................. 82

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Advantages/disadvantages for composite materials. ........................ 7
Table 2-2. Software list. .................................................................................... 20
Table 2-3. Consistent units in LS – DYNA ........................................................ 20
Table 2-4. Contact formulation used in the FE model built in LS–DYNA. ......... 22
Table 3-1. Element quality criteria for quad elements ...................................... 27
Table 3-2. Sensitivity analysis of Aluminium tube (*MAT3) .............................. 28
Table 3-3. Mesh convergence study for foam component. ............................... 30
Table 3-4. LS – DYNA material properties for the Aluminium Foam ................ 31
Table 3-5. Material Parameters *MAT_3 used to model Al – 6061 – T6 alloy. . 33
Table 3-6. Material parameters in *MAT55 ....................................................... 34
Table 3-7. Failure strains for *MAT_55 ............................................................. 35
Table 3-8. Failure parameters used in *MAT55. ............................................... 36
Table 3-9. Effect of varying fibre tensile strength XT on the baseline model..... 37
Table 3-10. Effect of varying fibre compressive strength XC on the baseline
model. ........................................................................................................ 37
Table 3-11. Effect of varying matrix tensile strength YT on the baseline model.38
Table 3-12. Effect of varying matrix compressive strength YC on the baseline
model. ........................................................................................................ 38
Table 3-13. Effect of varying shear strength SC on the baseline model. ........... 38
Table 3-14. Effect of varying Interlaminar shear ILS on the baseline model. ... 39
Table 3-15. Impactor properties, *MAT_20 formulation .................................... 39
Table 4-1. Double wall results for the crashworthiness parameters ................. 46
Table 4-2. Double wall results for the crashworthiness parameters, Aluminium
tube with trigger mechanism ...................................................................... 48
Table 4-3. Double wall results for the crashworthiness parameters, CFRP tube.
.................................................................................................................. 51
Table 4-4. Crashworthiness parameters for Aluminium tube, single wall case . 52
Table 4-5. Crashworthiness parameters for Aluminium tube, double wall case
(ODII = 50 mm) .......................................................................................... 52

x
Table 4-6. Crashworthiness parameters for CFRP tube, double wall case (ODII =
50 mm) ...................................................................................................... 54
Table 5-1. Elastic properties of MTC510 – UD300 – T700 carbon/epoxy laminas.
.................................................................................................................. 56
Table 5-2. Strength properties of MTC510 – UD300 – T700 carbon/epoxy
laminas. ..................................................................................................... 56
Table 5-3. Lamina dimensions: ideal and manufacturing dimensions. ............. 59
Table 5-4. Summary of the specimen’s physical parameters. .......................... 65
Table 6-1. Crashworthiness parameters for Specimen 1, 2 and 3.................... 70
Table 6-2. Force Peak (kN) and Mean Force (kN) obtained for specimens in the
dynamic analysis ....................................................................................... 74
Table 0-1. Average values for Peak and Mean Force extracted from physical
testing. ....................................................................................................... 80
Table 0-2. Comparative between physical and numerical results obtained for
composite tube. ......................................................................................... 80
Table 0-3. Crashworthiness comparative between Tube 1 and Tube 2, using OD II
= 50 mm. ................................................................................................... 81

xi
LIST OF EQUATIONS
1-1………. .......................................................................................................... 2
1-2….. ................................................................................................................ 4
1-3……. .............................................................................................................. 4
1-4…… ............................................................................................................... 5
1-5….. ................................................................................................................ 5
1-6…… ............................................................................................................... 5
2-1……. ............................................................................................................ 17
3-1……. ............................................................................................................ 27
3-2…. ............................................................................................................... 30
3-3……… ......................................................................................................... 32
3-4……. ............................................................................................................ 32
3-5…….. ........................................................................................................... 33
3-6……. ............................................................................................................ 33
3-7…….. ........................................................................................................... 33
3-8……. ............................................................................................................ 34
3-9…….. ........................................................................................................... 34
3-10 .................................................................................................................. 34
3-11 .................................................................................................................. 34
3-12 .................................................................................................................. 34
3-13 .................................................................................................................. 34
3-14 .................................................................................................................. 34
3-15 .................................................................................................................. 40
4-1… ................................................................................................................ 45
4-2….. .............................................................................................................. 51
4-3….. .............................................................................................................. 52
4-4……. ............................................................................................................ 53
4-5…… ............................................................................................................. 54
4-6.. .................................................................................................................. 54

xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

xiii
1 Introduction

The objective of this chapter is introducing the motivation for this thesis, address
the most important concepts related to crashworthiness and finally, define the
objectives and scope of the project.

1.1 Motivation

According to the Association for Safe International Road Travel (ASIRT), around
1.25 million people die in road crashed each year, giving an average of 3,287
deaths per day. In addition to this, between 20 and 50 million are injured or
disabled [1].

Related to the environment, carbon emissions climbed by 2% in 2018, faster than


any year since 2011, because the demand for energy easily outstripped the rapid
rollout of renewable energy. According to The Guardian, the level of growth in
emissions represents the carbon equivalent of driving an extra 400m combustion
engine cars onto the world´s roads [2].

Due to the high statistics of crashes and with the idea to reduce the emissions
around the world, the main transport industries (aerospace, automotive and
railway) are searching for methodologies to improve the crashworthiness of the
vehicles and in this way, mitigate the amount of impact during a crash event and
reduce accelerations of the occupants. Related to environmental protection, the
use of innovative and lightweight materials has become a crucial factor to resolve
these concerns [3]. It is important to note that currently, the global interest in the
aerospace and automotive industry is oriented towards lightweight structures for
optimum energy efficiency, without compromising occupant safety.

During the last years, high consideration has been given to the CFRP materials
due to its lightweight property (the estimated average density for composite
materials is around 1600 kg/m3). The CFRP thin–walled structures have attracted
attention for its ability to absorb high levels of energy and their remarkable
structural and performance advantages [4].

1
Crashworthiness capacity of aircraft, automobiles and other transportations is an
issue that involves safety and survivability of the occupants. Energy–absorbing
components like bumpers served as main structures which could deplete the
energy when a crash occurs [5].

1.2 Theoretical Background


Crashworthiness is defined as the ability of an aircraft or other vehicles to protect
its occupants from injuries or deaths in case of abrupt impact; this concept is
associated to the energy absorption capability by controlled failure modes [6].
The crashworthiness approach applies low and medium speed impacts on
structures; in other words, structural collapse phenomena and component inertial
effects are dominant.

Crashworthiness concept involves several factors including: the capability of the


vehicle to evade a disaster, the response of the vehicle during and after the crush
event, the occupant motion inside the vehicle and possible injuries, etc.

All these factors interact with each other. But to some extent, they may be studied
separately.

In a serious crash, the moving vehicle is brought to a sudden halt by striking


another object or the ground:

1 1-1
𝐾. 𝐸 = 𝑚𝑣 2
2

Where K.E. is the kinetic energy before the impact, m is the mass of the vehicle
and v is the velocity before impact. The original K.E. must be converted into other
forms of energy.

Pertinent to the distribution of the collapse in an impact event, most of the crash
deformation should occur in the Energy Absorbers, which is the crushed part of
the vehicle. The human occupants and other vulnerable contents, like the fuel,
must be ringed by a zone called Survival Space which does not collapse, and into
which there is no intrusion.

2
Crashworthiness study of CFRP was first performed in the aviation industries. A
lot of experiments have been executed to investigate the damage mechanism of
CFRP composites under axial and oblique compression. The crash behaviour of
composite energy absorbers is not easy to predict because of the complex failure
mechanisms of composite materials, all of which can appear alone or in a
combined form [3].

Figure 1-1. Crush failure modes for composite materials: a) fibre splaying, b)
fragmentation, and c) brittle fracture [7].

1.2.1 Crashworthiness Criteria


To quantify the crashworthiness of an energy absorber, several criteria are often
used. The information necessary to evaluate these parameters can be obtained
from the Load–Displacement curve.

3
Figure 1-2. Typical load – displacement curve of steel tube in axial compression.

• Initial peak force (Fmax): this force separates the loading process into the
pre–crush and the post–crush stage.
• Mean crushing force (Favg): the value of the average crushing force is
defined mathematically as:
1 𝑑
𝐹𝑎𝑣𝑔 = ∫ 𝐹(𝛿)𝑑𝛿 1-2
𝑑 0

Where d is the collapse distance, and F (δ) is the instantaneous crush force.

• Maximum displacement (δ): represents the most optimal energy


absorption capacity of structures and is defined as the corresponding
compression displacement when the deformation efficiency renders a
maximum [8].
• Crush force efficiency (CFE): defined as the ratio of the average
crushing force (Favg) to the initial peak force (Fmax):
𝐹𝑎𝑣𝑔
𝐶𝐹𝐸 = 1-3
𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥

A higher value of CFE indicates better loading uniformity and better


crashworthiness performance. An ideal energy absorber thus has CFE = 1.0 [9].

• Energy absorption (Ea): obtained by integrating the load–displacement


curve during the loading process

4
𝑑
𝐸𝑎 = ∫ 𝐹(𝛿)𝑑𝛿 1-4
0

The higher the energy absorption (Ea), the better the crashworthiness.

• Specific Energy Absorption (SEA): to account for the effect of mass


(weight), Specific Energy Absorption (SEA) defined as:

𝑑 1-5
𝐸𝑎 ∫0 𝐹(𝛿)𝑑𝛿
𝑆𝐸𝐴 = =
𝑚 𝑚

Is frequently used as one of the most critical crashworthiness criteria. SEA is


expressed in units of kJ/kg.

• Stroke efficiency (SE): defined as the effective stroke δ to the total length
L of the tube specimen.
• Maximum compressive strength (σmax): this parameter is defined as the
ratio of the initial peak force Fmax to the net cross–sectional area of the
tube.
• Energy absorption per stroke (EPS): defined as the absorbed crash
energy Ea to the effective stroke δ

𝐸𝑎 1-6
𝐸𝑃𝑆 =
𝛿

1.3 Objectives and methodology


The general objective of this thesis is creating an LS–DYNA model to obtain a
preliminary crashworthy design for an energy absorber made of composite
material, filled with aluminium foam and compare with physical testing. Specific
objectives are:

• Create an FE model to represent the Aluminium and composite


empty/filled energy absorber, using a single and double wall.
• Study the applicability of the LS – DYNA material model *MAT_3
(*MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC), *MAT_54/55
(*MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE) and *MAT_63

5
(*MAT_CRUSHABLE_FOAM) for crush simulations of Aluminium and
CFRP Filled tubes.
• Study the effect of trigger mechanism B45 (chamfer at 45) on the
composite energy absorbers.
• Validate Finite Element Model for the CFRP tubes according to results
obtained from physical testing.

6
2 Literature review
The goal of this chapter is capturing the most important aspects of the topic
covered in this thesis: crashworthiness of composite filled energy absorbers. Five
sections are considered, including crashworthiness of tubular composite tubes,
numerical simulations using LS – DYNA software and bumper design. The main
structure of this project will be tubular composite foam–filled energy absorbers.

2.1 Crashworthiness of Tubular Energy Absorbers


Crash energy absorption with composites must come from innovative design to
enhance material stress–strain behaviour [10]. In the next table, we can see the
advantages and disadvantages of the use of composites for the manufacturing of
energy absorbers:

Table 2-1. Advantages/disadvantages for composite materials.

Various methods have been introduced to increase energy absorption


capabilities by improving interlaminar toughness. Rabiee and Ghasemnejad [6]
proposed a stitching method through the thickness which results into the
improvement of energy absorption capabilities of GFRP and CFRP composite
tubes in 17% and 18%, respectively, without increasing the weight of the
structure.

7
Figure 2-1. Force – displacement of GFRP stitched and non – stitched under
impact loading [6].

Another available method of energy absorption that may achieve adequate


performance is the incorporation of filler materials, such as honeycombs and
structural foams. For longitudinal and lateral impacts, it is feasible to incorporate
energy – absorption features of this type [11].

2.1.1 Progressive folding


In the load–displacement curve of a metallic crush tube, we can identify three
distinct regions:

• Region I: in this step, crush initiates by buckling at one end with Initiation
Peak.
• Region II: in this region, a progressive folding region with average crushing
load Pav is visible.
• Region III: the final result is compacting of the tube (“Bottoming Out”), a
rapid increase of load can be appreciated.

8
Figure 2-2. Typical load – displacement curve for progressive folding [12].

2.1.2 Progressive crushing


Regarding the CFRP tubes, during the pre–crushing stage, there is no evident
deformation and the crushing load of the CFRP tube rapidly increased to the initial
peak. The post–crush stage started when a sharp load reduction occurred with a
series of little oscillation around the mean crushing load (Favg) until the end of the
test [3].

Figure 2-3. Typical load – displacement curve of a composite tube under axial
compression [13].

9
Regarding the load–displacement curve for composite tubes, we can identify
three stages:

• Region I: initiation of the crush zone. After this, sharp load relaxation when
crush initiation completed.
• Region II: Progressive crushing occurring at an approximately constant
load Pav.
• Region III: Compacting of debris, can cause “Bottoming Out” earlier (in a
closed section where the debris fills the interior).

Figure 2-4. Typical load–displacement curve of composite tubes [14].

2.2 Failure modes


In continuous fibre reinforced composite materials, the failure modes of
progressive compression were divided into four types [15]:

1) Local buckling.
2) Transverse shearing.
3) Lamina bending.
4) Brittle fracturing.

10
For ductile fibre–reinforced composite materials and certain brittle fibre–
reinforced composite materials, the tube often crush in the local buckling mode,
which is similar to the folding mode in the compression of metals [16].

Transverse shearing crush mode is characterised by one or multiple short (less


than the thickness of the laminate) interlaminar and longitudinal cracks; these
form partial lamina bundles. In this case, the crushing surface of the tube is
scalloped (i.e. load is not uniform across the tube cross–section). The principal
energy absorption mechanism is fracturing of the lamina bundles.

The main features of the lamina bending are characterized by very long
interlaminar, intralaminar and parallel to fibre cracks, but there is no fracturing of
the lamina bundles. In this crush mode, the principal energy absorption
mechanism is matrix crack growth (lamina bundles exhibit significant bending
deformation but do not fracture). The energy is also absorbed through friction
between bundles and between bent bundles and loading surface.

In this classification, brittle fracturing was a combination of transverse shearing


and lamina bending. The length of inter / intralaminar cracks and whether the
lamina bundles fracture is always used to distinguish these failure modes. This
mode is typically less efficient than transverse shearing because more material
is used when the longer lamina bundles fracture.

11
Figure 2-5. Progressive crushing modes

2.3 Parameters Affecting the Crashworthiness of Composite


Tubes
Some parameters have been identified as influencing composite response to
crush; between these factors, we have:

• Material mechanical properties.


• Crushing speed.
• Through – thickness reinforcement.

Different research studies have been performed to examine the effects of


geometrical factors (tube–length, cross–section) and laminate properties
(thickness, fibre orientation, fibre volume fraction) on the crushing behaviour and
energy absorption of the composite tubes.

12
2.3.1 Cross – section
Palanivelu et al. [17] executed different testing using square cross–section tubes
with a wall thickness of 1 and 2 mm made of glass/polyester. For the first case,
the sudden growth of axial cracks after the crushing of the triggering mechanisms
of the tubes was observed. On the other hand, for tubes with 2 mm thickness, a
progressive and uniform crushing was presented. In general, for square cross–
sectioned tubes, axial cracks were observed due to stress concentration at the
corners.

2.3.2 Trigger Mechanisms


Due to its anisotropic properties, composites tend to fail in a brittle failure mode,
increasing the difficulty to achieve a controlled and progressive crushing in tubes
made of composite materials. To generate a local stress concentration or
initiation to failure at a specific location of the energy absorber to induce a
progressive failure mode post–crushing and maintain a low initial peak load,
triggering mechanisms at one end of the tube is used. The most straightforward
method of triggering is to chamfer one end of the tube. Generally, two types of
triggering mechanisms are compatible with energy absorbers, one that is self-
contained and the other that is an external component from the energy absorber.
Chamfered trigger failures were more effective on circular tubes [4].

The main features of progressive crushing are illustrated in Figure 2–6. Crushing
initiates in the highly stresses region at the tip of the chamfer and this develops
into a stable crush zone. A local fracture occurs at the crush front and at Pmax a
sharp load relaxation occurs which is followed by the formation of the crush zone
at displacement S. Further crushing occurs at approximately constant load P and
the appearance of the crush zone remains unchanged apart from small details.
The depth d of the crush zone is independent of the extent of crush. The debris
formed at the front may eventually block the inside of the tube and when this
becomes compacted at Sb the crushing load increases rapidly.

13
Figure 2-6. Progressive cushing: a) tube with chamfer, b) partially crushed, c)
fully tube with debris compacted inside [13].

If properly designed assemblies of composite materials are progressively


crushed, they can exhibit high energy absorption. In addition to SEA, the failure
modes of composite materials should be considered [11].

2.3.3 Geometrical properties


Ramakrishna et al. [18] performed physical testing using tubes with a length of
55 mm, diameters of 35.5 mm, 55.0 mm and varying wall thickness. Results
indicated that tubes with greater wall thicknesses, hence higher t/D ratios,
exhibited a higher SEA, but only to a certain extent. In the 35.5 mm tubes, the
SEA increased as the t/D increased up to a ratio range of 0.097–0.130; tubes
exceeding a point within the range experienced a reduction in the energy
absorption capacity.

The numerical prediction followed with experimental validation, confirming that


the energy absorption capacity of carbon composite tubes increased to a
maximum t/D ratio at 0.092, before experiencing a reduction [4].

2.3.4 Ply number and Fibre Orientation


For circular composite tubes, several authors like Mahdi et al. [14] observed that
the tubes with 0/90 and +/-45 ply – layers exhibited the lowest initial peak load
and the steadiest post – crushing behaviour. Whereas the other specimens
exhibited a catastrophic failure mode following the initial peak load.

14
Experimental and numerical results obtained by Nia and Hamedani [19] agreed
that greater thickness, despite distinct geometry provide higher energy
absorption for all specimens.

Guangyong et al. [3] find out that the collapse processes of all the CFRP
specimens are in a progressive form. It is seen that the duration of the elastic
deformation stage is very short, and the collapse stage is the main energy
absorption phase during the crushing.

2.4 Filled Tubes under Axial Crushing


To ensure better crashworthiness, such cellular materials as aluminium foam and
honeycomb have been used to fill in hollow thin-walled structures. Aluminium
foam attracts considerable interests for its exceptional properties.

2.4.1 Behaviour of Foam–Filled Tubes


With the idea to increase the energy absorption capacity and reduced the weight,
energy absorbers filled with honeycomb or foam (metallic/polymeric) have been
employed in different industries. Many investigations have been accomplished by
experimentally and numerically [20].

Zhibin et al. [8] conducted compression tests of empty aluminium tubes (circular
and square) and five types of aluminium foam–filled tube structures (foam–filled
single circular and square tubes, foam–filled double circular and square tubes,
and corner–foam–filled square tubes). Using some parameters related to their
crashworthiness, it was found foam–filled single and double circular tube
structures are recommended as crashworthy structures due to their high crush
force and energy–absorbing efficiency.

15
Figure 2-7. Geometrical sections of the thin–walled structures types used by
Zhibin [8].

2.4.2 Mechanical properties of Metallic Foam


Mechanical properties of metallic foam depend to a greater extent on the
following parameters: the density, the quality of the cellular structure, cell
roundness and diameter distribution, the fraction of the solids contained in the
cell nodes, etc. The differences between open and closed–cell foams can be
appreciate in the sense of material distribution. Only in the case of a high–velocity
impact, the air captured in a closed–cell foam has a notable additional
contribution [21].

Figure 2-8. a) Open cell metal foam and b) closed cell metal foam [22].

16
A metal foam can suffer fatigue under compression or tension load, but in most
of the cases, it is a combination of both. Many applications, especially in the
automotive industry, suffer many cyclic loads, and therefore, it is important to
guarantee no failure during the operative lifetime. Fatigue can be represented by
the number of cycles that foam can resist at a certain load without structural
degradation. As cracks grow, structural failure will be the result [21].

The best mechanical property of metal foams is their energy absorption capability
[23]. Foams can absorb a maximum of mechanical energy without exceeding a
certain stress limit σD due to plastic deformation over a large strain range. The
maximum energy absorption per unit volume W max is the integral of the stress–
strain curve up to the stress limit and given by Gibson and Ashby [24] as:
2⁄
𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜎𝐷 𝜎𝐷 3 2-1
= [1 − 3.1 ( ) ]
𝐸𝑆 𝐸𝑆 𝐸𝑆

Where ES is the modulus of the solid bulk material.

2.4.3 Effect of density of Aluminium Foam


The metal foam originated in the 1990s obtained a rapid development, especially
the aluminium foam, which is suitable for automobile collision, has the next
advantages:
• Light alloy.
• Sound, heat and impact energy absorbing.
• Vibration reduction.
• Electromagnetic wave.

Figure 2-9. Examples of a) Polyurethane Foam, b) Aluminium Foam [5]

17
2.4.4 Commercial applications of metal foams
Applications for the automotive and aerospace industry, being lightweight plays
an important role, because in these cases, saving weight leads to savings of
energy [21].

Figure 2-10. European Evolution project, (a) Crash absorber box using double
wall and Aluminium foam, (b) CAD design of the vehicle [21].

Applications in aerospace could be the field where multi–functionality offers the


most financial advantages. For example, a plane fuselage, which is made
traditionally from Aluminium sheets with riveted struts, could be replaced by a
foamed, curved sandwich structure. A metallic foam sandwich will provide
additional noise and vibration damping of the turbines and certain additional
temperature insulation compared to the traditional metal sheets [21].

Applications of Metallic Foam can be summarised in the next diagram:

18
Industrial machines

Structural Automotive Industry


Applications

Functional Railway Industry

Architectural

Design, Art and Decoration

Figure 2-11. Metallic foam applications

2.4.5 Crashworthiness of Composite Foam – Filled Tubes

Guangyong et al. [3] compared the crashworthiness of empty circular CFRP with
CFRP/aluminium/steel tubes filled with aluminium foam or aluminium honeycomb
under axial quasi–static crushing. Most of the foam–filled tubes collapse in a
progressive mode, exhibiting noticeable advantages in crashworthiness,
attributable to the interaction between the tube wall and foam filler.

Figure 2-12. Collapse modes comparative of three foam – filled CFRP specimens
[3].

19
In general, the initial peak load and the mean load of the foam–filled specimens
increase with the density of aluminium foam. Besides, the CFEs of foam–filled
aluminium/steel specimens increase with the density of foam filler.

2.5 Numerical Modelling of Filled Composite Tubes using LS-


DYNA software

The software used in the analysis process is shown in the next table:

Table 2-2. Software list.

ID Software Name Version Remarks


1 Altair Hyper Mesh 2017 Pre – processor
2 LS – DYNA R10.0 Solver
3 Altair Hyper View 2017 Post – Processor
4 LS – Prepost 4.3 Post – Processor
5 MS Excel 2016 and upper version Post processing

The geometry used in this analysis was formed in three parts: the Impactor, the
Aluminium/Composite tube (considering their trigger mechanism) and the
metallic foam. The boundary conditions specified for the model are divided into
three parts: the constraints for the tube and foam, the constraints for the initiator
and the constraints/motion prescribed for the Impactor.

2.5.1 Units
Define a consistent system of units is a key parameter for LS – DYNA [26]:

Table 2-3. Consistent units in LS – DYNA

20
In the finite element model used in this thesis, kg/mm/ms/kN is the units employed
to define material properties and dimensions of the CAD models.

2.5.2 Materials
Materials used in the FE model can be divided into three parts:

1) Aluminium tube: *MAT3 plastic kinematic material was used to model the
Aluminium tube. This model is suited to model isotropic and kinematic
hardening plasticity with the option to include rate effects [27].
2) Composite tube: *MAT55 inside LS-DYNA software was employed to
model the composite energy absorber. Besides, the influence of strength
parameters was studied, and the impact of numerical factors in the
simulation results (i.e. friction coefficients, contact types) are discussed in
detail.
3) Metallic foam: *MAT154 is one of the most common material models used
to simulate foam in LS–DYNA. Sadjad and Soheil [20] made use of this
material to explored crashworthiness performance of new designed foam
– filled tapered structures under axial and oblique impact load conditions.

Shujuan et al. [28], after checking some publications about modelling of metallic
foam, decided to employ *MAT63 in LS–DYNA. In this model, the tension is
treated as completely elastic–plastic and the stress–strain curve can be defined
piece–wisely.

4) Impactor: the plate used as the Impactor was modelled using *MAT_RIGID
(*MAT20) formulation in LS–DYNA.

2.5.3 Contact
For the composite tube, a trigger mechanism was created using to sections: an
inner and an outer layer, each of one with the same thickness and the same
layout. This model had the intention to model the failure mode of the composite
tube and analysed the propagation of the central wall crack [16]. Both sections
were tied together using a surface to surface tiebreak contact definition. The
contact definition between the impactor and the composite tube was

21
*AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE. Finally, a general contact was
defined to prevent penetrations with the tube itself.

For the Aluminium tube, a trigger mechanism named folding was added and the
contact used between the energy absorber and the impactor was
*NODES_TO_SURFACE. To prevent itself penetrations, the single surface
contact formulation was employed.

A summary about the contacts used inside the LS – DYNA model is shown in the
next table (the friction coefficient was defined in 0.23 and for the CFRP 0.05):

Table 2-4. Contact formulation used in the FE model built in LS–DYNA.

22
3 FE model of Aluminium and CFRP tubes in LS – DYNA
In this section, numeral results obtained for the Aluminium and the CFRP tube
were discussed in detail, for the case of a single and double wall filled with
Aluminium foam. A brief description of the material properties and the FE model
is provided with pictures and diagrams.

3.1 Model description of empty tubes


For the first case of analysis, both empty tubes were analysed to find the ideal
element size. The aluminium tube was modelled employing a *SECTION_SHELL
property with five integration points and a shear factor of 0.833, using the
Belytschko – Tsay as the element formulation (number 2). This definition applied
to the smooth tube and the tube with a trigger mechanism (folding).

Related to the CFRP tube, to simulate the failure mode of lamina bending, the
geometrical model of the carbon fibre tube was divided into inner and outer parts
[16]. *PART_COMPOSITE was employed to model the layup of the composite
tube and the bevel trigger, using a fully integrated shell element formulation
(number 16).

Figure 3-1. FE model overview, a) Composite tube, b) Aluminium tube.

23
3.2 Model description of filled tubes
For the filled tubes, the addition of a solid cylinder to simulate the foam was
added. The section type was *SECTION_SOLID, with option number 1constant
stress solid element for the ELFORM.

In the same way, the boundary conditions and the contact between the walls of
the tube and the foam were added.

3.3 FE model type


The quasi–static collapse is a low speed and large deformation problem, which
can be solved either by the implicit or the explicit solution methods:

• The implicit method is unconditionally stable, but it is difficult to converge


during the iterative process in the case of nonlinear large deformation.
• The explicit method in LS-DYNA is the central difference method and it is
conditionally stable. It requires that the calculated time step be less than
the critical time step [16].

3.4 Geometry
The next picture illustrates the geometry for the circular tubes made of Aluminium
and CFRP, filled with Aluminium metallic foam. In this thesis, the dimensions
selected for both tubes were the same:

• Length (L) = 150 mm.


• Wall thickness (T) = 2.4 mm.
• ID = 65.2 mm.
• OD = 70 mm.
• Length to diameter ratio (R) = L/OD = 2.14
• Height of the foam: 150 mm for Aluminium tubes, 146 mm for CFRP tubes
(this reduction of 4 mm was made in order to guarantee the initiation of the
failure through the trigger mechanism).

24
Figure 3-2. Schematic of filled tubes studied in this thesis project, a) Aluminium
tube with parameters, b) CFRP tube.

To model the geometry of the Aluminium tube, the extraction of the mid surface
was performed. Also, a trigger mechanics was added with the idea to reduce the
peak force and increase the mean force. As a consequence of this, the CFE will
increase to an ideal value of 1.0.

25
Figure 3-3. Aluminium tube with triggering mechanism, a) Isometric view, b)
Detailed view for the trigger mechanism.

For the composite tube, to model the trigger mechanism the original thickness
was divided into two parts, each of one model with a mid–surface, and assigned
the respective orientation of [45/-45/0/90]. Because of this, different height was
assigned to each section of the CFRP tube, as shown in the next picture:

Figure 3-4. Bevel trigger simplification, a) original geometry of the B45, b)


simplification to two–laminates with the same thickness, and c) final
representation with dimensions for the two laminates.

The final comparison between the physical tube and the model used in LS–DYNA
is shown in the next picture:

Figure 3-5. B45 specimen, a) simplification used in LS–DYNA, b) front view.

26
3.5 Mesh

3.5.1 Element type and quality criteria


For both tubes, 2D quad elements were used for the mesh. To obtain accurate
results during the numerical analysis, it is important elements accomplish quality
parameters, like Jacobian and Warpage Angle. More detail information about the
parameters can be appreciated in the next table:

Table 3-1. Element quality criteria for quad elements

The results obtained from LS–DYNA were validated through a mesh


convergence study, changing the element size from 5 to 2 mm.

Finally, for the foam component, which is a solid, the 8–node solid element was
employed.

3.5.2 Mesh Convergence Study–Aluminium tube


A study to investigate the mesh sensitivity of the Aluminium tube was performed.
A comparison between four different element sizes is presented in this thesis:
element size of 5 x 5 mm2, 4 x 4 mm2, 3 x 3 and 2 x 2 mm2. In these analyses, a
crash distance of 75 mm was used as a target.

Hanssen et al. [29] extracted an equation to predict the Mean Force of empty
tubes made of Aluminium or Steel:

𝑠 ⁄
1 3 5⁄3 3-1
𝐹𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 𝑘𝐷 𝜎𝑦 𝑑𝑚 𝑡

27
Where σy, dm and t are the yield stress, mean diameter and the wall thickness of
the tube, respectively, and kD is a dimensionless constant equal to 17 [29]. In our
case, with the information for the Aluminium tube the mean force will be:

⁄𝟑
𝟕𝟎 + 𝟔𝟓. 𝟐 𝟏
𝑭𝒔𝒂𝒗𝒈 = 𝟏𝟕(𝟐𝟓𝟐) ( ) 𝟐. 𝟒𝟓⁄𝟑 = 𝟕𝟓. 𝟎𝟖 𝒌𝑵
𝟐

A summary of the crashworthiness parameters for the Aluminium tube using


different element size are presented in the next table:

Table 3-2. Sensitivity analysis of Aluminium tube (*MAT3)

Using an element size of 3 mm will give us a good correlation between the


numerical and theoretical results:

𝑃𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂 − 𝑃𝑁𝑈𝑀𝐸𝑅𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 75.08 − 68.94


%𝑒 = | | × 100 = | | × 100 = 𝟖. 𝟏𝟕%
𝑃𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂 75.08

Which is less than the target of 10% for structural analysis.

In addition to this, the element size employed during the simulations will have an
impact on the collapse mode for the Aluminium tubes: when the element size is
bigger than 4 mm, the collapse mode will be mixed between the concertina and
the diamond. On the other hand, when the element size used is less than 4 mm,
the collapse mode of the tube will be concertina.

28
Figure 3-6. Collapse mode for the aluminium tube using different element size, a)
2 mm (concertina mode), b) 5 mm (mixed mode: concertina and diamond).

As a consequence, in the change of the collapse mode, the Force vs


Displacement curves will change according to the element size used.

Figure 3-7. Comparative of the Load – Displacement curves using an element


size of 2 and 5 mm.

29
Related to the Aluminium foam, the resistance under uniaxial compression can
be calculated using the next expression:

𝐹𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 = 𝐴𝑓 𝜎𝑓 3-2

Where σf and Af are the plateau stress and the cross–section of the foam [30].
According to Hanssen et al. [29], the foam plateau stress σf is herein defined as
the average stress at 50% strain, that is, energy absorbed at 50% deformation
divided by deformed distance. In our case, σf = 5.145 MPa and Af = 3338.759
mm2, giving a result for the mean force equal to:

𝐹𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 = (3338.759)(5.145) = 17.177 𝑘𝑁

The percentage of error for the foam is shown in the next table:

Table 3-3. Mesh convergence study for foam component.

Element Size Ffoam numerical (kN) %e


2 mm 16.639 3.132
3 mm 16.408 4.475
4 mm 16.257 5.358
5 mm 16.225 5.542

3.6 Materials

3.6.1 Aluminium Foam – Filled material


During the definition of mechanical properties for metallic foam, it is important to
define Young’s modulus (E), Density (RHO) and Poisson ratio PR (for this kind
of materials, a value of 0 is assumed). Besides, it is important to define the
Stress–Strain curve of the metallic foam. Typical Stress–Strain of foam materials
can be appreciated in the next figure:

30
Figure 3-8. Stress–strain curve for the metallic foam [20].

Based on the previous figure, in the Stress–Strain graph we can identify three
different regions:

a) Linear elastic: in this region from A to B, the metallic foam behaves in the
linear elastic.
b) Plateau: in this part from B to C, the stress continues unchanged.
c) Densification: in the last part, from C to D in the previous graph, the stress
increases speedily by an increase in the strain.

The material properties used for the Aluminium foam, which is


*MAT_CRUSHABLE_FOAM type, are illustrated in the next table [31]:

Table 3-4. LS – DYNA material properties for the Aluminium Foam

Parameter Description Value


RO (kg/m3) Mass density 270
E (MPa) Young’s modulus 155
NU Poisson’s ratio 0.0
TSC (MPa) Tensile stress cutoff 4.66

31
DAMP Damping coefficient 0.1

Figure 3-9. Stress–strain curve of aluminium foam with relative density of 10%
obtained from compression test.

3.6.2 Aluminium Tube material


For Aluminium tube, we consider the Al – 6061 – T6 alloy, which is one of the
most common alloys used in the automotive and aerospace industry. As
discussed previously, *MAT3 formulation was used for the Aluminium material.
In general, this model scales the yield stress by the strain–rate dependent factor,
as given by the equation:

1⁄ 3-3
𝜀̇ 𝑃
𝑒𝑓𝑓
𝜎𝑦 = [1 + ( ) ] (𝜎0 + 𝛽𝐸𝑝 𝜀𝑝 )
𝐶

Where σy is the dynamic yield stress (this value varies with the strain rate), σ0 is
the quasi–static yield stress, 𝜀̇ is the strain rate, C and P are the Cowper –
𝑒𝑓𝑓
Symonds strain rate parameters, 𝜀𝑝 is the effective plastic strain, and Ep is the
plastic hardening modulus, which is given by the equation:

𝐸 3-4
𝐸𝑃 = 𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑛
𝐸 − 𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑛

32
The parameters to define this material were as showed in the next table [32]:

Table 3-5. Material Parameters *MAT_3 used to model Al – 6061 – T6 alloy.

3.6.3 Composite Tube material


As discussed previously, the material model used to represent the composite
energy absorber was the *MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE. After
review and discussing each of the available options (*MAT54 and *MAT55), the
second one was used because it represented the failure mechanism, lamina
bending, taking place for the samples tested in the dynamic analysis. This
material type is based on the Tsai–Wu failure criteria. In this failure criterion, the
yield locus is given by:

< 1 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 3-5


𝑓(𝜎𝑘 ) = 𝐹𝑖 𝜎𝑖 + 𝐹𝑖𝑗 𝜎𝑖 𝜎𝑗 {
≥ 1 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒

Where i, j, k = 1, 2… 6, σ4 = σ23, σ5 = σ13, σ6 = σ12, and the F’s are the material
strength parameters. For the plane stress case, this equation reduces to:

𝑓(𝜎) = 𝐹1 𝜎1 + 𝐹2 𝜎2 + 𝐹11 𝜎12 + 𝐹22 𝜎22 + 𝐹66 𝜎62 + 2𝐹12 𝜎1 𝜎2 3-6

For a uniaxial ply, the strength parameters become:

1 1 3-7
𝐹1 = −
𝑋𝑡 𝑋𝑐

33
1 3-8
𝐹11 =
𝑋𝑡 𝑋𝑐

1 1 3-9
𝐹2 = −
𝑌𝑡 𝑌𝑐

1 3-10
𝐹22 =
𝑌𝑡 𝑌𝑐

1 3-11
𝐹66 =
𝑆𝑡 𝑆𝑐

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3-12
𝐹12 = 2
[1 − 𝑃 ( − + − ) − 𝑃2 ( + )]
2𝑃 𝑋𝑡 𝑋𝑐 𝑌𝑡 𝑌𝑐 𝑋𝑡 𝑋𝑐 𝑌𝑡 𝑌𝑐

Where P is defined by the solution of:

𝑃2 (𝐹11 + 𝐹22 + 2𝐹12 ) + 𝑃(𝐹1 + 𝐹2 ) = 1 3-13

To define the failure, the matrix is assumed to fail based on the stress
perpendicular to the fibre direction, σ2, and shear stress. Also, the shear strength
is presumed to behave the same in compressive and tensile loading. Therefore,
the σ1, in equation 3 – 2 is set to zero which gives the failure surface as [33]:

𝜎22 𝜎6 2 (𝑌𝑐 − 𝑌𝑡 )𝜎2 < 1 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 3-14


𝑓(𝜎) = 𝑓 2 = +[ ] + {
𝑌𝑡 𝑌𝑐 𝑆𝑐 𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑡 ≥ 1 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒

The materials parameters consider in this material card are detailed in the next
table; it is important to notice, strength properties were modified, reduced in 25%,
to correlate the results obtained from LS–DYNA with the physical results obtained
from testing.

Table 3-6. Material parameters in *MAT55

34
For *MAT_55, failure strains were calculated by dividing the material strength by
the appropriate modulus as follow:

𝑌𝐶 0.150
𝐷𝐴𝐼𝐿𝑀 = = = 0.018
𝐸𝐵 8.2

𝑆𝐶 0.074
𝐷𝐴𝐼𝐿𝑆 = = = 0.021
𝐺𝐴𝐵 3.6

𝑋𝑇 1.71
𝐷𝐴𝐼𝐿𝑇 = = = 0.014
𝐸𝐴 119.3

𝑋𝐶 0.8
𝐷𝐴𝐼𝐿𝐶 = = = 0.007
𝐸𝐴 119.3

Table 3-7. Failure strains for *MAT_55

35
Another parameter is important to define is the time step size (TFAIL) for element
deletion. For this parameter, we have three different options:

1) 𝑇𝐹𝐴𝐼𝐿 ≤ 0: No element deletion by the time step size.


2) 0 < 𝑇𝐹𝐴𝐼𝐿 ≤ 0.1: Element is deleted when its time step is smaller than the
given value.
3) 𝑇𝐹𝐴𝐼𝐿 > 0: element is deleted when the quotient of the actual time step
and the original time step drops below the given value [34].

The failure parameters used in the FE model are presented in the next table:

Table 3-8. Failure parameters used in *MAT55.

3.6.3.1 Sensitivity of the *MAT55 material model to material properties

With the idea to create a robust FE model and adjust the strength properties of
the composite material used in the manufacturing process of the tubes, a
sensitivity study was conducted. The sensitivity of the model to variations in
strengths (XT, XC, YT, YC, SC) and the ILS value for the tiebreak contact between
the inner and outer of the CFRP tube is discussed in this section of the thesis
project.

Using the baseline strength properties provided by the material supplier SHD, the
model of the empty composite tube has a maximum displacement of 25.39 mm,
a Peak Force of 109.396 kN, which is so high, and mean force of 30.594 kN.

Varying the fibre tensile strength XT below the baseline will have a big effect on
the maximum displacement and the mean force (will increase and will be
reduced, respectively), while the Peak Force will not undergo many changes.

36
Table 3-9. Effect of varying fibre tensile strength XT on the baseline model.

Parameter XT @ 80% XT @ 60% XT @ 40%


Max. Displacement (mm) 25.33 32.346 58.821
Peak Force (kN) 109.386 109.409 105.609
Mean Force (kN) 31.716 23.969 14.474

Related to the fibre compressive strength XC, this parameter has a great impact
on the Load–Displacement curve. In this case, the maximum displacement and
the peak force will have a big change: the first parameter will increase and the
second will decrease. On the other hand, the mean force will remain stable
without many changes.

Table 3-10. Effect of varying fibre compressive strength XC on the baseline model.

Parameter XC @ 80% XC @ 60% XC @ 40%


Max. Displacement (mm) 26.404 30.387 40.438
Peak Force (kN) 106.146 94.291 84.4
Mean Force (kN) 23.6 24.252 21.8

In addition to the changes for the crashworthiness criteria, the failure mode for
the CFRP tube will be modified when the XC parameter is decreased, as shown
in the next picture:

Figure 3-10. Collapse mode for the change of XC parameter, a) baseline model, b)
XC @ 80%, c) XC @ 60%, and d) XC @ 40%.

37
For the matrix tensile strength YT, according to the next table, there is no big
effect on the displacement, peak and mean force. These three crashworthiness
parameters maintain stable in the reduction of strength in 20%, 40% and 60%.

Table 3-11. Effect of varying matrix tensile strength YT on the baseline model.

Parameter YT @ 80% YT @ 60% YT @ 40%


Max. Displacement (mm) 25.088 24.585 25.096
Peak Force (kN) 109.481 109.563 110.83
Mean Force (kN) 31.292 31.352 31.585

Varying the matrix compressive strength YC will have a big impact related to the
energy absorption of the CFRP tube. With a reduction in this parameter, the Peak
and the mean force will be reduced; on the contrary, the maximum displacement
of the composite tube will be increased.

Table 3-12. Effect of varying matrix compressive strength YC on the baseline


model.

Parameter YC @ 80% YC @ 60% YC @ 40%


Max. Displacement (mm) 28.469 33.414 44.572
Peak Force (kN) 109.01 105.718 75.398
Mean Force (kN) 29.893 25.588 19.207

Similarly as the XC, a reduction in the shear strength parameter S C will increase
the maximum displacement of the CFRP tube; meanwhile, the Peak Force will
decrease significantly and the mean force will remain stable, with a small
reduction.

Table 3-13. Effect of varying shear strength SC on the baseline model.

Parameter SC @ 80% SC @ 60% SC @ 40%


Max. Displacement (mm) 28.334 32.906 37.976
Peak Force (kN) 108.536 83.636 61.743
Mean Force (kN) 27.517 25.7 21.762

Finally, related to the Interlaminar Shear Strength ILS, when this parameter is
reduced the maximum displacement and the mean force remains stable.

38
However, in this case, we can notice a significant change in the Peak Force of
the CFRP tube.

Table 3-14. Effect of varying Interlaminar shear ILS on the baseline model.

Parameter ILS @ 80% ILS @ 60% ILS @ 40%


Max. Displacement (mm) 24.431 24.683 23.944
Peak Force (kN) 108.569 172.154 175.77
Mean Force (kN) 32.143 30.128 31.657

The main goal of this study was analysed the impact in the crashworthiness
parameters when the strength parameters are modified and have a base to
correlate the numerical model with the results obtained from the physical testing.

3.6.4 Impactor material


For the Impactor, the geometry was built with the next dimensions: 150 x 150 x
20 mm. Related to the mechanical properties, Steel properties were used. The
density was adjusted to obtain a final weight of 80 kg.

Table 3-15. Impactor properties, *MAT_20 formulation

3.7 Contact definition


Selecting a proper contact between the parts of each model, Aluminium and
CFRP tubes filled with Aluminium foam, assures that the FE model avoids
penetration between the geometric boundaries of the parts during their
movement.

For the Aluminium tube, two different contact types were employed:

a) To define the contact between the Impactor and the Aluminium tube, the
formulation employed was *NODES_TO_SURFACE, with a friction
coefficient equal to 0.23.

39
b) For the Aluminium tube, *AUTOMATIC_SINGLE_SURFACE contact was
defined, using 0.23 as the friction coefficient.

In the case of the CFRP tube, three different types of contact interface were used
in the numerical modelling:

a) The contact type


*AUTOMATIC_ONE_WAY_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_TIEBREAK was
used to represent the bonding between the inner layer and outer layer of
geometrical model of the composite tube. To define the correct direction
for the normal, contact surfaces was created. Tiebreak is active for the
nodes which are initially in contact. The delamination occurred when the
stress on the interface satisfy the tiebreak criterion:
2 2
|𝜎𝑛 | |𝜎𝑆 | 3-15
( ) +( ) ≥1
𝑁𝐹𝐿𝑆 𝑆𝐹𝐿𝑆

In which δn and δs are the normal and shear stresses acting on the interface, and
NFLS and SFLS are equal to 63.6 MPa. The friction coefficient in this contact
interface was set to 0.23.

After failure of the bonding, this contact algorithm behaves as


*SURFACE_TO_SURFACE contact type [16].

b) The *AUTOMATIC_GENERAL type was used to represent the contact of


the tube with itself. Again, the friction coefficient between shell
components was fixed to 0.23.
c) The *AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE type was used between
the composite tubes and the rigid wall. The friction coefficients in all
contact interfaces were set to be 0.05. In this contact, impactor was
defined as master and shell tubes (internal and external) was defined as
slave.
In the case of filled tubes, the *AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE contact
type was defined for the foam and structure walls (this formulation apply for the
Aluminium and CFRP tube). To define the ideal friction coefficient, Pirmohammad
and Saravani executed experiments and created numerical models to achieve a

40
good correlation. Based on their findings, a value of 0.23 was defined in LS–
DYNA [20].

Finally, to capture the Force vs Displacement curve in each case, the contact
type *FORCE_TRANSDUCER_PENALTY was defined for the Impactor.

3.8 Loading and boundary conditions


The Impactor was restricted to move only along the Z–direction. For the static
analysis, the plate moved a distance of 75 mm with a velocity of 60 mm/min using
*BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_RIGID card, and in the dynamic
simulation, it moved with an initial velocity of 5 m/s applying the
*INITIAL_VELOCITY condition. A fixed condition was defined for the end of the
Aluminium tube, the composite tube and the Aluminium foam.

Figure 3-11. Boundary Conditions for the Aluminium and CFRP tube.

For the composite tube, simulation results showed that the performance of the
trigger zone is sensitive to loading speed. Higher speeds and high strength
parameters usually result in a peak load that is much larger than the experimental
value [16].

41
3.9 Control cards for LS – DYNA errors
It is important to clarify some points related to the control cards used in LS–DYNA
to achieve numerical stability in the solution and prevent common errors like
negative volume for solid components.

3.9.1 Negative volume


In materials that undergo extremely large deformations, such as soft foams, an
element may become so distorted that the volume of the element is calculated as
negative. This may occur without the material reaching a failure criterion [35]. To
prevent this problem inside LS – DYNA, there are several alternatives:

• Activate ERODE option (set to 1) in *CONTROL_TIMESTEP card.


• Set DTMIN parameter inside *CONTROL_TERMINATION card to any
nonzero value.
• Define hourglass formulation for the foam according to impact velocity:
type 6 with a coefficient equal to 0.1 for low–velocity impact, and type 2 or
3 with 0.1 of hourglass coefficient if the problem involves high velocities.
• For foam component, define *CONTACT_INTERIOR to achieve uniform
compression.

3.9.2 Shell Formulations


• For shell and solid components, between the most important
recommendations we have:

*CONTROL_ACCURACY

• It is recommend to invoke invariant node numbering by setting INN = 2


(shells) or INN = 4 (shells/thick shells/solids). This is especially important
when the material is orthotropic [36].

*CONTROL_SHELL

• Activating Laminate Shell Theory (LAMSHT) will amend the incorrect


assumption of uniform constant shear strain through the thickness of the
shell.

42
• Most composites do not stretch significantly before breaking. To promote
numerical stability, shell thinning option should not be invoked (leave
parameter ISTUPD to zero).
• NFAIL1 and NFAIL4 can be invoked to automatically delete highly
distorted shells (negative jacobians) before they lead to an overall
instability [37].

*CONTROL_BULK_VISCOSITY

In the compressive modes, it is important to set this card to TYPE = 2.

*CONTROL_TIMESTEP

Often, the time step scale factor TSSFAC will need to be reduced to a value of
0.6 or less when modelling aerospace events. The greater the relative impact
velocity, the more that TSSFAC will need to be reduced [38].

3.9.3 Implicit Analysis


To run a quasi–static analysis inside LS–DYNA, there are some control cards
should be define to active the implicit analysis option [39]:

• *CONTROL_IMPLICIT_GENERAL (required): this control card activates


the implicit mode and defines the implicit time step size.
• *CONTROL_IMPLICIT_SOLVER (optional): provide controls extra for
debugging.
• *CONTROL_IMPLICIT_SOLUTION (optional): contribute in the definition
of parameters for nonlinear equation solver, controls for the iterative
equilibrium and convergence tolerances.
• *CONTROL_IMPLICIT_AUTO (optional): this control card activates the
automatic time step control, based on convergence history.

43
4 Aluminium and CFRP tubes filled and with double wall
Zhibin et al. [8] executed the study of Aluminium tubes with double–wall, filled
with Aluminium foam with the intention to increase the crashworthiness
performance of the energy absorber. On the other hand, Guangyong et al. [40]
executed a study of aluminium/foam/CFRP hybrid sandwich tubes using an
experimental method.

Figure 4-1. Specimens of aluminium/foam/CFRP hybrid sandwich tubes [40].

In this thesis, a comparison between Aluminium and CRFP tubes with the
double–wall was performed.

44
4.1 Description of the geometry with double wall
In this thesis project, three different cases with double–wall were analysed. In the
first part, Aluminium material was used for the two walls. The second case
considers CFRP material for both walls, with a modification to the geometry of
the foam used to fill the tube. For both study cases, Aluminium foam was used.

Figure 4-2. Double wall geometries studied, a) baseline model (ODII = 0), b) ODII
= 30 mm, c) ODII = 40 mm, d) ODII = 50 mm

Mohammadbagher and Asgari [30] proposed an expression to predict the mean


force of foam–filled circular tubes:
𝑑 𝑠
𝐹𝑎𝑣𝑔(𝑓) = 𝐹𝑎𝑣𝑔 + 𝐹𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 + 𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 𝑑𝑚 𝑡√𝜎𝑓 𝜎𝑦 4-1

The last term indicates the interaction effect between the Aluminium tube and the
foam filler. Cavg is the interaction constant and equals to 2.68 for 50% crush
capacity. For the ODII = 0 mm case which is full–filled, the average force is:

𝑑
𝐹𝑎𝑣𝑔(𝑓) = 75.08 𝑘𝑁 + 17.177 𝑘𝑁 + 15.656 𝑘𝑁 = 𝟏𝟎𝟕. 𝟑 𝒌𝑵

45
4.2 Results using Aluminium material

4.2.1 Aluminium tubes


In the first case of study, a comparative of the geometry of different sections for
the Aluminium foam was executed. The internal tube was assumed to have the
same wall thickness (2.4 mm), the same length (150 mm) and different Outer
Diameter (ODII) according to the configuration:

Table 4-1. Double wall results for the crashworthiness parameters

From previous table, we can see tube with ODII = 50 mm represent the case with
the highest SEA, with 24.535 kJ/kg.

Comparing the full–filled and ODII = 50 mm cases, we can conclude these:

• The Peak Force increased in 68.12%, which is not desirable.


• The Mean Force increased in 56.88%.
• The Total Energy absorbed increased from 6.684 to 10.452, a total of
56.37%.
• Related to the weight, this parameter increased from 0.353 to 0.426 kg, in
percentage 20.67%.

46
Figure 4-3. Deformation contour for the double wall case of the Aluminium tubes,
a) Aluminium tube filled, b) ODII = 30 mm, c) ODII = 40 mm, d) ODII = 50 mm.

Comparing the result obtained from LS–DYNA with the theoretical value using
equation 4–1 , the percentage of error will be:

𝑃𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂 − 𝑃𝑁𝑈𝑀𝐸𝑅𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 107.691 − 89.08


%𝑒 = | | × 100 = | | × 100 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟒𝟐𝟕%
𝑃𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂 107.691

4.2.2 Aluminium tubes with trigger mechanism


For the case of the Aluminium tube with trigger mechanism, the results are shown
in the next table:

47
Table 4-2. Double wall results for the crashworthiness parameters, Aluminium
tube with trigger mechanism

Case ODII = ODII = ODII = ODII =


0 mm 30 mm 40 mm 50 mm
Peak Force (kN) 122.22 177.365 196.138 212.293
Mean Force (kN) 75.86 118.558 125.248 136.809
CFE 0.62 0.668 0.638 0.644
EA (kJ) 5.692 8.895 9.398 10.232
Weight (kg) 0.359 0.421 0.432 0.436
SEA (kJ/kg) 15.855 21.129 21.755 23.686

Doing the same comparison between the full–filled and ODII = 50 mm cases, we
can see these points:

• The Peak Force increased in 73.7%, which is not desirable.


• The Mean Force increased in 80.34%.
• Due to the trigger mechanism in both Aluminium tubes for the ODII = 50
mm case, the CFE increased and step from 0.62 to 0.644, which is closer
to 1.0.

Comparing results between both tables, it is interesting to notice the Peak and
Mean Force were reduced, and the CFE increased for the last case, OD II = 50
mm.

A comparative between the Force vs Displacement curves obtained between the


Aluminium tubes with and without trigger mechanism could be found in the next
figures:

48
120

100
LOAD (kN)

80

60

40

Tube with trigger


20
Tube withour trigger

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 4-4. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for the ODII = 0 mm case.

180

160

140

120
LOAD (kN)

100

80

60
Tube with trigger
40 Tube withour trigger
20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 4-5. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for the ODII = 30 mm case.

49
200

150
LOAD (kN)

100

50
Tube with trigger
Tube withour trigger

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 4-6. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for the ODII = 40 mm case.

200

150
LOAD (kN)

100

50
Tube with trigger
Tube without trigger

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 4-7. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for the ODII = 60 mm case.

50
4.3 Results using CFRP material
Using CFRP as the material for the tube, the results are as shown in the next
table:

Table 4-3. Double wall results for the crashworthiness parameters, CFRP tube.

Case ODII = ODII = ODII = ODII =


0 mm 30 mm 40 mm 50 mm
Peak Force (kN)
82.714 128.803 149.389 154.293
Mean Force (kN)
35.254 60.226 55.628 58.757
CFE
0.426 0.468 0.372 0.381
EA (kJ)
2.662 4.563 4.301 4.498
Weight (kg)
0.245 0.264 0.259 0.248
SEA (kJ/kg)
10.868 17.285 16.607 18.14

Using CFRP material for the tubes, the results are like the values obtained using
Aluminium material:

• The Peak Force increased from 82.714 kN to 154.293 kN, in percentage


86.53%.
• The Mean Force increased a total of 66.66%.
• The Total Energy absorbed increased in 68.97%.
• The SEA increased from 10.868 to 18.14 kJ/kg, a total of 66.91%.

4.4 Interactive effect of hybrid tubes


The extra energy absorbed due to the interaction between the components of the
sandwich structure, EAINTERACTION, can be expressed using the sum of energy
absorption of each part of the double wall configuration [41]:

𝐸𝐴𝐼𝑁𝑇𝐸𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇𝐼𝑂𝑁 = 𝐸𝐴𝐻𝑌𝐵𝑅𝐼𝐷 − (𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐿/𝐶𝐹𝑅𝑃 + 𝐸𝐴𝐹𝑂𝐴𝑀 ) 4-2

51
Where EACFRP is the energy absorption of a separate Aluminium/CFRP tube,
EAFOAM is the energy absorption of single Aluminium foam, and EAHYBRID is the
total energy absorption of the sandwich structure.

In addition to this, the interaction effect ratio of energy absorption, SE, can be
expressed as [40]:

𝐸𝐴𝐼𝑁𝑇𝐸𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇𝐼𝑂𝑁 4-3
𝑆𝐸 = × 100%
(𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐿/𝐶𝐹𝑅𝑃 + 𝐸𝐴𝐹𝑂𝐴𝑀 )

4.4.1 Aluminium tube


In the first case, the comparison considering the Aluminium tube without trigger
mechanism was performed. The results related to crashworthiness parameters
for the Aluminium tubes, foam and Hybrid tube are shown in the next table:

Table 4-4. Crashworthiness parameters for Aluminium tube, single wall case

Parameter Al Tube Foam Hybrid (Aluminium


Tube + Foam)
Peak Force (kN) 128.066 18.957 130.641
Mean Force (kN) 68.941 16.30 89.081
Total EA (kJ) 5.172 1.223 6.684

From previous table, the EAINTERACTION and the SE can be estimated as:

𝐸𝐴𝐼𝑁𝑇𝐸𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇𝐼𝑂𝑁 = 6.684 − (5.172 + 1.223) = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟖𝟗 𝒌𝑱

6.684
𝑆𝐸 = × 100% = 𝟏𝟎𝟒. 𝟓𝟏𝟗%
5.172 + 1.223

Considering the idea to add one more Aluminium tube to the previous case, the
crashworthiness parameters obtained were improved according to the next table:

Table 4-5. Crashworthiness parameters for Aluminium tube, double wall case (ODII
= 50 mm)

52
For this case, the EAINTERACTION and the SE will be:

𝐸𝐴𝐼𝑁𝑇𝐸𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇𝐼𝑂𝑁 = 10.452 − (5.172 + 4.039 + 0.262) = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟕𝟗 𝒌𝑱

10.452
𝑆𝐸 = × 100% = 𝟏𝟏𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟒%
5.172 + 4.039 + 0.262

The final comparison between both cases is summarized on the next points:

• In the first case, due to the interaction between the Aluminium tube and
the Aluminium foam, the total energy absorption of the sandwich hybrid
tube was 0.289 kJ and the interaction effect ratio of energy absorption was
104.519%.
• For the best configuration using double wall, the ODII = 50 mm case, the
total energy absorption due to the sandwich structure was 0.979 kJ, almost
1 kJ, and the interaction effect ratio of energy absorption was 110.334%.
• Due to the minor Aluminium tube, the total energy absorption of the hybrid
tube in the ODII = 50 mm increased in 238.75%.

4.4.2 CFRP tube


For circular CFRP tubes, Boria et al. [42] developed an analytical solution for
predicting the mean crushing force:

𝜋(2ℎ𝑇𝜆2 sin 𝛼 + 𝛼𝜆1 ) 4-4


𝐹𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 =
2ℎ(1 − cos 𝛼 + 𝜇 sin 𝛼)

In which:

53
𝜎0 𝐷 4-5
𝜆1 =
𝑇 2 𝑇 2
2 ((𝑇 − 2 ) + ( 2 ) )

𝜆2 = ℎ𝜎0 + 𝐷𝜎𝑚 4-6

Where T is the wall thickness, h is the crushing displacement, α is the bending


angle of the plies, D is the average diameter, σ0 is the ultimate stress in uni –
axial tension of the laminate, σm is the matrix shear strength and µ is the
coefficient of friction between frond and platen.

For the case of CFRP tubes, the results obtained related to the E A in each case
are shown in the next table:

Table 4-6. Crashworthiness parameters for CFRP tube, double wall case (ODII = 50
mm)

The extra energy absorbed and the interaction effect ratio of energy absorption
will be:

𝐸𝐴𝐼𝑁𝑇𝐸𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇𝐼𝑂𝑁 = 4.498 − (2.237 + 1.43 + 0.262) = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟔𝟗 𝒌𝑱

4.498
𝑆𝐸 = × 100% = 𝟏𝟏𝟒. 𝟒𝟖%
2.237 + 1.43 + 0.262

Due to the interaction between the CFRP walls and the Aluminium foam, the EA
increased in 569 J, which is a positive point for the Energy Absorber considering
the low density for the composite materials.

54
5 Manufacturing process of CFRP tubes
This section describes the steps followed in the manufacturing process of the
tubes and the trigger mechanism to each one. The creation of the tubes was
executed in the Composites Laboratory inside Cranfield University.

Two tubes were manufactured using a 500 mm long metallic mandrel. The
manufacturing process for both tubes was as follow:

1) Cut and create the laminates at different angles (0°, 45° and 90°).
2) Clean the metallic mandrel.
3) Creation of the laminate around the metallic mandrel, considering the
debulking process between laminates.
4) Executed the curing process.
5) Cut the composite tube to create the specimens of 150 mm each.
6) Add the machined triggers on them.

Figure 5-1. Metallic mandrel used during the manufacturing process.

55
5.1 Composite Material MTC510 – UD300 – T700
The tubes were made of MTC510 – UD300 – T700 carbon/epoxy unidirectional
prepreg laminas. The elastic and strength properties are included in the next
tables, which were provided by the material supplier SHD Composites:

Table 5-1. Elastic properties of MTC510 – UD300 – T700 carbon/epoxy laminas.


Elastic Properties Value
E1 (GPa) (+) 119.3
E2 (GPa) (+) 8.2
E1 (GPa) (-) 113.6
E2 (GPa) (-) 9.3
G12 (GPa) 3.6
v12 0.34
v21 0.01

Table 5-2. Strength properties of MTC510 – UD300 – T700 carbon/epoxy laminas.

5.2 Specimen dimensions and parameters


For the experimental step, 6 tubes were manufactured using a trigger mechanism
at 45°: 3 of them for static and the other 3 for the dynamic analysis. The stack
sequence of the UD carbon/epoxy laminas used for the tubes was: [45/-45/0/90]S.
The 0° plies were oriented parallel to the tube longitudinal axis.

56
Figure 5-2. Dimensions for specimens.

As showed in the previous figure, the OD of the tubes was 70 mm with a wall
thickness of 2.4 mm. Trigger configuration was 45° bevel.

5.3 Manufacturing Process for the composite tube

5.3.1 Mould Preparation


Before starting the cleaning process, a dimensional validation of the mould was
done using a Vernier, to use the correct metallic mandrel.

Figure 5-3. Dimensional validation of the metallic mandrel used in the


manufacturing process of the tubes.

The first step of the manufacturing process consisted of clean the metallic mould
to remove all traces of wax, release agents, sealers and buffing compounds.
After this, final cleaning of the mould surface was done using Chemlease® PMR

57
EZ product. In this process, a total of 4 coats were applied, with 15 minutes
between each complete coat, according to recommendations coming from the
datasheet [43]. Finally, a time of 30 minutes was given to allow a full cure.

Figure 5-4. Chemlease® PMR EZ product used in the first step.

5.3.2 Layup preparation


The composite material was provided in a 300 mm width roll where the 8 laminas
required for the layup were extracted from. For the ±45° laminas, a combination
of layers orientated at 45° was done to achieve the desired length.

58
a) b)

Figure 5-5. Layout preparation: a) complete roll, b) extraction process of the


laminas.

Each lamina was cut with different width according to the tube’s OD at each stage
of the laminating process. To leave a gap with the mandrel edges to not ease the
tube releasing, the length of the lamina was defined in 480 mm instead of 500.
The thickness was the same for all the laminates, 0.3 mm. With the idea to
prevent superposition of the laminas during the creation of the tube and avoid
changes in the desire final OD (70 mm), the OD of each lamina was reduced and
because of this, the width changed. For the manufactured width, instead of
considering 0.6 mm as an addition to the previous layer, we took 0.3 mm. Layup
and laminas dimensions, ideal and manufacture constraints, are included in the
next table:

Table 5-3. Lamina dimensions: ideal and manufacturing dimensions.

Layer Ply Ideal Starting Ideal lamina Ideal Starting Manufacture lamina
orientation OD (mm) width (mm) OD (mm) width (mm)
1 45 65.2 204.8 65.2 205
2 -45 65.8 206.7 65.5 206
3 0 66.4 208.6 65.8 207
4 90 67 210.5 66.1 208
5 90 67.6 212.4 66.4 209
6 0 68.2 214.3 66.7 210
7 -45 68.8 216.1 67 211
8 45 69.4 218.0 67.3 212

5.3.3 Layup process


Once all the laminas were cut according to the previous table, they were rolled
around the metallic mandrel. The process to put layer number 4 (90°) is shown
in the next figure:

59
a) b)

Figure 5-6. Laminating procedure, a) position for new lamina, and b) rolling
process.

After putting the laminate, it was important to confirm the layer was in position,
eliminate any kind of impurities originated during the cutting process of the
laminates and press uniformly all around to prevent the creation of irregularities
like voids. A description of this process is shown in the next picture:

Figure 5-7. Rolling and pulling process for laminating of the tube.

After putting the layers, due to the manufacturing width used, a small space was
originated between the final edges of the laminate, as shown in the next picture:

60
Figure 5-8. Space originated between layers in the composite tube.

To fill the space between layers after folded on the metallic mandrel, small pieces
with the same orientation were cut and put in the position to refill the gaps.

Figure 5-9. Filling process for laminates during the layout process.

It is important to notice these minor modifications to the ideal layout process, due
to some possible differences between the physical testing and the numerical
simulation using LS – DYNA. After putting second -45°, second 90° and final 45°
layer, a debulking process, which is a method to reduce the air trapped during
the layup process of the composite tube, was performed. To execute this
operation, shown in Figure 4- 10, the metallic mould was covered by a release
film and bagged into a sealed bag, which was connected to a vacuum pump. The
main goal for the debulking process is the consolidation between the layers and
remove voids from within said composite assembly before curing same.

61
Figure 5-10. Debulking process.

The final tube, after putting all layers in the metallic mould, is shown in next figure:

Figure 5-11. Composite tube after the laminating process.

5.3.4 Curing process


After the laminating and final debulking process was done, the tube was
submitted to a cure process, which is accomplished by exposing the tube to
temperatures and pressures for a predetermined length of time. The elevated
temperatures applied provided the energy required for initiating and maintaining
the chemical reactions in the resin. On the other hand, the pressure provides the
force needed to put out the excess of resin and to consolidate individual plies.
The magnitudes, durations of the temperatures and pressures applied during the
curing process alter the performance of the finished product. Therefore, the cure
cycle must be selected carefully for each application [44].

62
Before proceeding with the curing process, a release film was put all around the
specimen. Over this, a peel ply was used to allow the breathing during the curing,
as shown in the next picture:

Figure 5-12. Peel ply material around the composite tube.

With the idea to prevent the extracted resin come out and make difficult the
extraction of the composite tube from the metallic mould, the top ends were
covered.

Figure 5-13. Detail of the ends of the tube before the curing process.

After the covering process with peel, the entire tube was bagged, and a vacuum
valve was inserted near the top end.

63
Figure 5-14. Tube setup for the curing process.

Some major considerations in selecting a proper cure cycle for a given composite
material are:

• At the end of the cure, all the excess resin is squeezed out from every ply
of the composite and the resin distribution is uniform.
• The material is cured uniformly and completely.
• The cured composite has the lowest possible void content.
• The curing process is achieved in the shortest amount of time.

The cure cycle is generally selected empirically by curing small specimens and
by evaluating the quality of the specimens after cure [44].

In our case, the Cure cycle selected was obtained from the datasheet for MTC510
Epoxy Component Prepreg, which is a resin system designed to cure between
80° and 120° allowing flexibility in component manufacture [45]. The tube was
cured under the following cycle: 1 – 2°C/min + 1 hour @ 120°C + 1.5–hour
cooling.

After the curing and refrigeration process, the composite tube was taken out of
the metallic mould. As expected, the final tube had an OD of 70.0 mm, an ID of
65.2 mm and a length of 480 mm.

64
Figure 5-15. Cured tubes released from the metallic mould.

5.3.5 Cutting and machining process


As discussed previously, a total of six tubes were cut according to the dimensions
provided: a final length of 150 mm, each one with a total thickness of 2.4 mm, an
ID of 65.2 mm and with a stacking sequence of [45/-45/0/90]s. The trigger
mechanism used in all the tubes were the same, B45, which according to Wang
J. et al [46] the 45° angle represents the case with the best energy absorption for
composite tubes.

Table 5-4. Summary of the specimen’s physical parameters.

For the last parameter, the equivalent density was found assuming a cylindrical
shape to simplify the SEA calculation.

65
Figure 5-16. Result obtained after the machining process, a) detail of the trigger
mechanism, b) Specimens ready for physical testing.

66
6 Physical testing of CFRP tubes
The six specimens were tested at the CIC using two different material testing
machines, according to the physical testing to execute (Static or Dynamic).

6.1 Static analysis


In the first section of the physical testing, three tubes (Specimen 1, 2 and 3) were
subjected to a static analysis using a Testometric® machine.

Figure 6-1. CIC’s drop tower rig used for the static analysis of the specimens.

For the static analysis, tubes were vertically loaded. Specimens’ bottom end
boundary conditions were simply supported.

67
Figure 6-2. B45 specimen, a) in position for static analysis, b) ready to start the
physical testing.

During the static test, a velocity of 60 mm/min was used. The results obtained
from the static simulation are shown in the next pictures:

68
Figure 6-3. Static analysis results, a) d = 25 mm, b) d = 50 mm, c) d = 100 mm, d)
d = 125 mm.

69
60

50

40
LOAD (kN)

30

Test 1
20 Test 2
Test 3

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 6-4. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for different specimen in the
static analysis.

From the Force vs Displacement curves obtained from the physical testing, it is
interesting to notice the Specimen 3 experienced a considerable increase in the
Force between 30 and 40 mm, coming from 40 kN to 50 kN and finally returning
to 40 kN. The information related to the Peak Force (kN), Mean Force (kN) and
Energy Absorption is shown in the next table:

Table 6-1. Crashworthiness parameters for Specimen 1, 2 and 3.

Specimen Peak Mean EA (J) SEA (kJ/kg)


number Force (kN) Force (kN)
1 59.886 37.614 2748.1 24.25
2 57.641 39.482 2888.5 25.72
3 60.528 41.743 3050 27.42

In the three cases, the Peak Force remained stable, with Specimen 2 showing
the least force and Specimen 3 showing the highest Peak Force.

70
From the physical results, Specimen 3 shown best SEA capability, followed by
Specimen 2 and finally Specimen 1. These differences could be originated due
to the assumptions made during the manufacturing process followed for the
original composite tube.

6.1.1 Dynamic analysis


For the dynamic analysis, the drop tower rig used is as shown in the next picture.

Figure 6-5. CIC’s drop tower rig used for the dynamic analysis of the specimens.

71
For the dynamic analysis, the three specimens were vertically loaded using a flat
impactor of 80 kg at 5 m/s to produce kinematic energy of 1 kJ. A piece of foam
was used to protect the ring from a possible direct impact with the impactor.

𝐾𝑒 = 1⁄2 𝑚𝑣 2 = 1⁄2 (80 𝑘𝑔)(5 𝑚⁄𝑠)2 = 1000 𝐽

A 400 kN load cell was used to obtain the force response of the tubes from the
test.

Figure 6-6. B45 specimen and safety foam.

After the impact between the tube and the impactor, the resultant tube is as
shown in the next picture:

72
Figure 6-7. Dynamic results obtained after the impact.

The Force vs Displacement curves obtained from the three specimens are shown
in the next picture:

Figure 6-8. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves for different specimen in the
dynamic analysis.

Figure 6-9. Specimens after the Impact testing, frontal view for a) Sample 1, b)
Sample 2, and c) Sample 3.

73
Related to the crashworthiness parameters, in the next table we can see a
summary for the Peak and Mean Force obtained from the specimens subjected
to the dynamic analysis:

Table 6-2. Force Peak (kN) and Mean Force (kN) obtained for specimens in the
dynamic analysis

Specimen number Peak Force (kN) Mean Force (kN)


1 87.048 29.924
2 85.199 27.417
3 76.413 26.366

It is clear the Specimen 3 represent the Energy Absorber with the lowest Peak
and Mean force. On the other hand, Specimen 1 represent the tube with the
highest Peak and Mean Force. In general, the difference between the three
specimens in terms of the crashworthiness parameters is negligible.

74
7 Comparison between numerical and physical results
for the CFRP tubes

Figure 7-1. B45 Specimen 1. Comparison between experimental and numerical


results: Top and Isometric view (a and c, physical testing, and b and d LS–DYNA
model).

90
80 Test 1
70 LS-DYNA model
60
LOAD (kN)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
TIME (ms)

Figure 7-2. Force (kN) vs Time (ms) curves comparative between results obtained
for Specimen 1 from physical testing and LS–DYNA.

75
Figure 7-3. B45 Specimen 2. Comparison between experimental and numerical
results: Top and Isometric view (a and c, physical testing, and b and d LS–DYNA
model).

90

80
Test 2
LS-DYNA model
70

60
LOAD (kN)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
TIME (ms)

Figure 7-4. Force (kN) vs Time (ms) curves comparative between results obtained
for Specimen 2 from physical testing and LS–DYNA.

76
Figure 7-5. B45 Specimen 3. Comparison between experimental and numerical
results: Top and Isometric view (a and c, physical testing, and b and d LS–DYNA
model).

90
80
Test 3
LS-DYNA model
70
60
LOAD (kN)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 TIME6(ms) 8 10 12

Figure 7-6. Force (kN) vs Time (ms) curves comparative between results obtained
for Specimen 3 from physical testing and LS–DYNA.

77
Conclusions and final recommendations
The last part of this thesis project will be extracting the final conclusions and
recommendations for future work:

7.1 Final conclusions


Literature review chapter was a big auxiliary to identify the current investigations
related to the application of Aluminium and CFRP material in the manufacturing
of Energy Absorbers inside the aerospace and automotive industry. The idea to
create a sandwich structure to increase the Energy Absorption capability is not
new; however, the idea will be always looking for lightweight alternatives and
improve crashworthiness parameters like the Peak Force, Mean Force, CFE and
maximum stroke.

The final conclusions obtained from this thesis project will be summarized by
chapter:

7.1.1 Chapter 3: FE model of Aluminium and CFRP tubes in LS–


DYNA
• For the composite tube, in the FE model built in LS–DYNA it was clear the
main parameters affecting the failure mode, the Peak and Mean force
were: 1) the strength parameters (parameters related to the matrix failure),
2) friction coefficient between the impactor and the tube (higher values
than 0.05 result in high Peak Force), 3) the trigger mechanism (in this
project thesis, B45 trigger mechanism was selected) and 4) the element
size for the inner and outer tube (2 mm in this case).
• Related to the Aluminium tube, the parameter with the biggest impact is
the element size. The element size will have an impact in the Force vs
Displacement curve and the Energy absorbed for the Impactor.
• The error obtained for the Mean Force could be reduced; however, an
element size of 2 mm was selected with the intention to reduce the time
spent in the solution.

78
• The control cards related to hourglass energy for the Aluminium foam and
the composite tube are important to obtain a good numerical stability in the
solution.

7.1.2 Chapter 4: Aluminium and CFRP tubes with double wall


• In general, the addition of a wall to the energy absorber will increase the
Peak and Mean Force, and the Energy Absorption capability. The negative
side in this case is the increase in weight due to the second wall (it is
important to remember the density of the Aluminium foam is so low). Was
• With the intention to reduce the Peak Force for the Aluminium and the
CFRP tube, the addition of a trigger mechanism is recommended (for
metal tubes, folding represent a good alternative, meanwhile for the CFRP
tube, bevel is the best option for circular tubes).
• The interaction between the Aluminium foam and the walls of the Energy
Absorber will increase the Energy capability of the component, increasing
the SEA in around 20%.

7.1.3 Chapter 5: Manufacturing process of CFRP tubes


• The manufacturing process of the CFRP tubes was an excellent
opportunity to illustrate the differences between the real life and the FE
models used in LS–DYNA: during the manufacturing process, several
parameters could represent a big impact in the final properties for the
composite tube, like the layout, the debulking and the curing process.
• In addition to this, the conditions of the metallic mould will have a big
impact in the final dimensions of the tube (the ID could be affected).
• Machining process for composite materials represents a big challenge and
normally the desired dimensions are not achieved. Because of this, the
final density for the composite tubes was modified.

7.1.4 Chapter 6: Physical testing of CFRP tubes


• During the physical testing, quasi–static and dynamic analyses were
executed to find the crashworthiness parameters of the composite tubes.
For the three cases, the Peak Force for the static analysis was smaller

79
than the dynamic analysis, and the Mean Force was bigger for static
comparing with the dynamic tests.
• For the specimens, we can identify Mode I interlaminar crack at the outer
0°//90° interface and Mode II delamination at the outer -45°//0° interface
as the predominant failure modes, including lamina bending and fibre
fracture.

7.1.5 Chapter 7: Comparison between numerical and physical


results for the CFRP tubes
• The correlation made between the results obtained from physical testing
and numerical model in LS–DYNA for the dynamic analysis was good,
obtaining the next results:

Table 0-1. Average values for Peak and Mean Force extracted from physical
testing.

Specimen Peak Force Mean Force


number (kN) (kN)
1 76.413 26.366
2 85.199 27.417
3 87.048 29.924
Average 86.123 27.902

Table 0-2. Comparative between physical and numerical results obtained for
composite tube.

Method Peak Force Mean Force


(kN) (kN)
Physical testing 86.123 27.902
LS – DYNA model 85.64 28.15

• For the maximum displacement, LS – DYNA gave a value of 31 mm,


meanwhile the physical results gave an average of 34 mm.

80
7.2 Final recommendations
• The idea to employ the double–wall configuration for the energy absorber
represents a good idea and good opportunity to increase the EA; however,
it is important to investigate new alternatives to the trigger mechanism to
reduce the Peak Force and increase the Mean Force, and because of this,
increase the CFE to a value closer to 1.0
• Related to impact, in most of the case this event occurred with an angle.
Based on this, it is important to analyse the response of the energy
absorber to oblique impacts and under different impact velocities.
• There are different configurations for the Aluminium Foam; change the
mechanical properties and vary the density will represent an opportunity
to analyse the answer of the Energy Absorber and increase the Energy
Capability, for the case of Aluminium and CFRP tubes.
• It is important to verify the numerical results obtained from LS–DYNA with
physical testing with the intention to verify the boundary conditions, control
cards and friction coefficients between the components of the sandwich
structure.
• Related to the manufacturing process of the Composite tubes, the layout
and the thickness of each section (inner and outer) represents the
parameters with the greatest impact for the EA and SEA of the final Energy
Absorber using sandwich configuration.

As an example of this, in the next table we can find a comparative between two
different tubes using a different layout and same thickness (in total 1.6 mm, with
a final weight of 0.183 kg.):

Table 0-3. Crashworthiness comparative between Tube 1 and Tube 2, using ODII =
50 mm.

Parameter Tube 1: [0/90/90/0]s Tube 2: [45/-45/0/90]s


Peak Force (kN) 105.35 94.437
Mean Force (kN) 37.233 34.639
CFE 0.353 0.367

81
EA (kJ) 2.848 2.647
SEA (kJ/kg) 15.562 14.464

Figure 0-1. Failure mode for hybrid tubes, a) layup 1 = [0/90/90/0]s, b) layup 2 =
[45/-45/0/90]s.

Figure 0-2. Force (kN) vs Displacement (mm) curves obtained for the Layout
configuration.

82
REFERENCES
[1] Association for Safe International Road Travel, “Road safety facts,” 2018.
[Online]. Available: https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/.

[2] The Guardian, “Carbon emissions from energy industry rise at fastest rate
since 2011,” 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/11/energy-industry-
carbon-emissions-bp-report-fossil-fuels. [Accessed: 16-Jun-2019].

[3] G. Sun, S. Li, Q. Liu, G. Li, and Q. Li, “Experimental study on


crashworthiness of empty/aluminum foam/honeycomb-filled CFRP tubes,”
Compos. Struct., vol. 152, pp. 969–993, 2016.

[4] A. Atthapreyangkul and B. G. Prusty, “Experimental and numerical analysis


on the geometrical parameters towards the maximum SEA of CFRP
components,” Compos. Struct., vol. 164, pp. 229–236, 2017.

[5] Z. Zhang, W. Sun, Y. Zhao, and S. Hou, “Crashworthiness of different


composite tubes by experiments and simulations,” Compos. Part B Eng.,
vol. 143, no. February, pp. 86–95, 2018.

[6] A. Rabiee and H. Ghasemnejad, “Lightweight design to improve crushing


behaviour of multi-stitched composite tubular structures under impact
loading,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 135, no. November 2018, pp. 109–122,
2019.

[7] J. M. STARBUCK, D. O. ADAMS, and M. COURTEAU, “Energy Absorbing


Damage Mechanisms in Progressive Crushing of Composite Tubes,” 2018.

[8] Z. Li, R. Chen, and F. Lu, “Comparative analysis of crashworthiness of


empty and foam-filled thin-walled tubes,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 124, no.
August 2017, pp. 343–349, 2018.

[9] Z. Xiao, J. Fang, G. Sun, and Q. Li, “Crashworthiness design for


functionally graded foam-filled bumper beam,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 85,
pp. 81–95, 2015.

83
[10] R. E. Zimmerman, J. C. Warrick, A. D. Lane, N. A. Merritt, and A. O.
Bolukbasi, “Aircraft Crash Survival Design Guide Volume III - Aircraft
Structural Crash Resistance,” vol. 3, pp. 1–265, 1989.

[11] R. E. Zimmerman, J. C. Warrick, A. D. Lane, N. A. Merritt, and A. O.


Bolukbasi, “Aircraft Crash Survival Design Guide Volume III - Aircraft
Structural Crash Resistance,” vol. 3, pp. 1–265, 1989.

[12] E. Mahdi, A. M. S. Hamouda, and T. A. Sebaey, “The effect of fiber


orientation on the energy absorption capability of axially crushed composite
tubes,” Mater. Des., vol. 56, pp. 923–928, 2014.

[13] D. Hull, “A Unified Approach to Progressive Crushing of Fibre-Reinforced


Composite Tubes,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 40, pp. 377–421, 1991.

[14] E. Mahdi, A. M. S. Hamouda, and T. A. Sebaey, “The effect of fiber


orientation on the energy absorption capability of axially crushed composite
tubes,” Mater. Des., vol. 56, pp. 923–928, 2014.

[15] G. Farley and R. Jones, “Crushing characteristics of continuous fiber


reinforced composite tubes,” Compos. Mater., 1992.

[16] H. Yu and S. Chen, “Numerical Simulation of CFRP Thin-Walled Tubes


Subjected to Quasi-Static Axial Crushing,” SAE Tech. Pap. Ser., vol. 1,
2017.

[17] S. Palanivelu et al., “Crushing and energy absorption performance of


different geometrical shapes of small-scale glass/polyester composite
tubes under quasi-static loading conditions,” Compos. Struct., vol. 93, no.
2, pp. 992–1007, 2011.

[18] S. Ramakrishna and H. Hamada, “Energy absorption characteristic of


crashworthy structural composite materials,” 1998.

[19] A. A. Nia and J. H. Hamedani, “Comparative analysis of energy absorption


and deformations of thin walled tubes with various section geometries,”
Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 946–954, 2010.

84
[20] S. Pirmohammad and S. A. Saravani, “Crashworthiness Performance of
Stiffened Foam-filled Tapered Structures under Axial and Oblique Dynamic
Loads,” Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct., vol. 15, no. 5, 2018.

[21] F. García-Moreno, “Commercial applications of metal foams: Their


properties and production,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 20–24,
2016.

[22] P. Sathurusinghe, K. R. B. Herath, and S. Herath, “Elastic properties of


open cell metallic foams using finite element analysis and homogenization
technique,” 45th Inst. Eng. Pakistan Conv., no. December, p. 2, 2012.

[23] A. G. Hanssen, M. Langseth, and O. S. Hopperstad, “Optimum design for


energy absorption of square aluminum columns with aluminum foam filler,”
Int. J. Mech. Sci., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 153–176, 2001.

[24] L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby, “Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties.” .

[25] N. Gan, Y. Feng, H. Yin, G. Wen, D. Wang, and X. Huang, “Quasi-static


axial crushing experiment study of foam-filled CFRP and aluminum alloy
thin-walled structures,” Compos. Struct., vol. 157, pp. 303–319, 2016.

[26] “Consistent units.” [Online]. Available:


https://www.dynasupport.com/howtos/general/consistent-units.
[Accessed: 04-Jun-2019].

[27] Lstc, “Material select for LS-DYNA.” .

[28] S. Hou, Q. Li, S. Long, X. Yang, and W. Li, “Crashworthiness design for
foam filled thin-wall structures,” Mater. Des., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 2024–2032,
2009.

[29] A. G. Hanssen, M. Langseth, and O. S. Hopperstad, “Static and dynamic


crushing of circular aluminium extrusions with aluminium foam filler,” Int. J.
Impact Eng., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 475–507, 2002.

[30] M. B. Azimi and M. Asgari, “A new bi-tubular conical-circular structure for


improving crushing behavior under axial and oblique impacts,” Int. J. Mech.

85
Sci., vol. 105, pp. 253–265, 2016.

[31] F. Zhu, L. Zhao, G. Lu, and Z. Wang, “Structural Response and Energy
Absorption of Sandwich Panels with an Aluminium Foam Core under Blast
Loading,” Adv. Struct. Eng., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 525–536, 2008.

[32] S. Abotula and V. B. Chalivendra, “An experimental and numerical


investigation of the static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium
alloys,” J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des., vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 555–565, 2010.

[33] J. L. Berry and T. a Hueckel, “Correlation of Finite Element Analysis to


Impacted Composite Plates,” 2011.

[34] LSTC, LS-DYNA: Keyword User’s Manual: Material Models, vol. II. 2016.

[35] LS - DYNA Support, “Negative volume in soft materials.” .

[36] T. A. Campus, B. Gate, and B. V. Park, “Introduction to Composites


Modelling in LS-DYNA,” vol. 44, no. June, pp. 0–70, 2018.

[37] LS - DYNA Support, “Shell Formulations,” 2019. [Online]. Available:


https://www.dynasupport.com/howtos/element/shell-formulations.
[Accessed: 23-Jul-2019].

[38] Aerospace Working Group, “Modeling Guidelines Document,” 20118.

[39] T. Johansen, “Implicit analyses in LS-DYNA,” DYNAmore Nord. Users


Forum, 2016.

[40] G. Sun, Z. Wang, H. Yu, Z. Gong, and Q. Li, “Experimental and numerical
investigation into the crashworthiness of metal-foam-composite hybrid
structures,” Compos. Struct., vol. 209, no. October 2018, pp. 535–547,
2019.

[41] G. Sun, Z. Wang, H. Yu, Z. Gong, and Q. Li, “Experimental and numerical
investigation into the crashworthiness of metal-foam-composite hybrid
structures,” Compos. Struct., vol. 209, no. October 2018, pp. 535–547,
2019.

86
[42] S. Boria, S. Pettinari, and F. Giannoni, “Theoretical analysis on the collapse
mechanisms of thin-walled composite tubes,” Compos. Struct., vol. 103,
pp. 43–49, 2013.

[43] “Chemlease ® PMR EZ,” p. 102015.

[44] A. C. Loos and G. S. Springer, “Curing of Epoxy Matrix Composites,” vol.


17, no. March, pp. 135–169, 1983.

[45] SHD Composites, “MTC510 Epoxy Prepreg Datasheet,” no. 01 February,


pp. 1–3, 2018.

[46] J. Wang, J. Zhao, T. Liu, Z. He, K. Li, and W. Yang, “Crash analysis of
composite energy-absorbing cylindrical impact attenuator,” J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos., vol. 34, no. 24, pp. 2006–2017, 2015.

87
APPENDICES

Appendix A LS–DYNA control cards used in this thesis


project.
A.1 Aluminium Material

A.2 Composite Material

A.3 Aluminium Foam

88
A.4 LS–DYNA control cards for hybrid tubes

89
A.5 LS–DYNA control cards for ASCII output

90
Appendix B MATLAB code for evaluating Energy
Absorbed for the hybrid tube

% TUBE BIG, ALL OPTIONS


TB1 = [1 X 1000];
TB2 = [1 X 1000];
TB = trapz(TB1,TB2);
PFTB = max(TB2);
AFTB = mean(TB2);

% OPTION A

% HYBRID TUBE, OPTION A


A1 = [1 X 1000];
A2 = [1 X 1000];
A = (trapz(A1,A2))/1000;
PFA = max(A2);
AFA = mean(A2);
WA = 0.353;
SEAA = A/WA;

% FOAM, OPTION A
FA1 = [1 X 1000];
FA2 = [1 X 1000];
FA = trapz(FA1,FA2);
PFFA = max(FA2);
AFFA = mean(FA2);

AG = A-(TB+FA);

% OPTION B
% HYBRID TUBE, OPTION B
B1 = [1 X 1000];
B2 = [1 X 1000];
B = (trapz(B1,B2))/1000;
PFB = max(B2);
AFB = mean(B2);
WB = 0.413;
SEAB = B/WB;

% TUBE SMALL, OPTION B


TSB1 = [1 X 1000];
TSB2 = [1 X 1000];
TSB = trapz(TSB1,TSB2);
PFTSB = max(TSB2);
AFTSB = mean(TSB2);

% FOAM, OPTION B
FB1 = [1 X 1000];
FB2 = [1 X 1000];
FB = trapz(FB1,FB2);
PFFB = max(FB2);
AFFB = mean(FB2);

91
BG = B-(TB+TSB+FB);

%OPTION C
% HYBRID TUBE, OPTION C
C1 = [1 X 1000];
C2 = [1 X 1000];
C = (trapz(C1,C2))/1000;
PFC = max(C2);
AFC = mean(C2);
WC = 0.423;
SEAC = C/WC;

% TUBE SMALL, OPTION C


TSC1 = [1 X 1000];
TSC2 = [1 X 1000];
TSC = trapz(TSC1,TSC2);
PFTSC = max(TSC2);
AFTSC = mean(TSC2);

% FOAM, OPTION C
FC1 = [1 X 1000];
FC2 = [1 X 1000];
FC = trapz(FC1,FC2);
PFFC = max(FC2);
AFFC = mean(FC2);

CG = C-(TB+TSC+FC);

%OPTION D
%HYBRID TUBE, OPTION D
D1 = [1 X 1000];
D2 = [1 X 1000];
D = (trapz(D1,D2))/1000;
PFD = max(D2);
AFD = mean(D2);
WD = 0.426;
SEAD = D/WD;

% TUBE SMALL, OPTION D


TSD1 = [1 X 1000];
TSD2 = [1 X 1000];
TSD = trapz(TSD1,TSD2);
PFTSD = max(TSD2);
AFTSD = mean(TSD2);

% FOAM, OPTION D
FD1 = [1 X 1000];
FD2 = [1 X 1000];
FD = trapz(FD1,FD2);
PFFD = max(FD2);
AFFD = mean(FD2);

DG = D-(TB+TSD+FD);

92