Crash Simulation of a Beam Structure

under Axial Impact

DENM033: Vehicular Crashworthiness

Nakibul Hussain Nuhash
130760034

Abstract –
Non-linear finite element software ‘ABAQUS’ is used to investigate the crush test and energy
absorption of high-strength thin-walled beam structure of three different cross-sectional area,
under an impact from a rigid wall. Results of the three various shaped beams are compared.
The relationships between load (force) and displacement, energy absorption properties,
displacement and acceleration responses are obtained and discussed in this report.

Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 2
Background Theory.............................................................................................................................. 2
Methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 4
Model Validation ................................................................................................................................... 6
Results ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Calculations ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Discussions ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 11

1
Introduction –
In this report, the non-linear finite element software ‘Abaqus-Explicit’ is used to analyse the
crash behaviour of various thin-walled and hollow beam structures under axial impact.
Several cross-sections have been examined: hexagonal, circular and square. Some of the
key parameters of the structures, such as cross-sectional area, material, length and wall
thickness are kept constant for all geometries. This is done to understand the crash
behaviour and deformation of different cross-section geometries, subject to compression by
a rigid wall with initial velocity of 10000 mm/s (36 km/h). Thin-walled members are chosen
for this study because they are superior in absorbing energy via plastic strain energy. The
problem is related to the behaviour of energy absorbers, crash boxes or front rails impacted
by a rigid plate. The purpose of the front rails or crash boxes is to provide safety to the
vehicle components as well as passengers, and this is assured by energy absorbing
elements. Hence thin walled tubes of various cross-sections are investigated through a
series of analysis. The energy absorption properties, the relationships between force and
displacement as well as stress and strain, also acceleration, velocity and displacement of the
impactor are obtained from the simulations, which are then summoned up and conclusions
are made from that point.

Background Theory –
The study of this report is to understand the behaviour of energy absorbers, crash boxes or
front rails. Generally, front rails are built to move and deform in such a way that the energy
can be absorbed and the vehicle can travel a longer time during its deformation. As a result,
the forces on the vehicle components are decreased due to reduced deceleration.
Under axial impact, a thin walled beam absorbs the impact energy by plastic deformation.
The design of the structure influences its energy absorbing efficiency. That is why it is
necessary to have knowledge about the characteristics of the process in which thin-walled
beams are collapsed, in order to describe effectively the dynamic response of thin-walled
structures under slow and high velocity impact. The factors that affect the absorption of
energy when a structure collapses, are:
 Impact speed
 Inertia of the impact mass
 Material properties
 Geometric configuration of the front rail
 Collapse mode

The material properties of aluminium alloy A2014-T6 is used for all simulations. The
numerical simulations of dynamic deformation of metal alloys have become very important in
various fields, such as automotive industry, in order to predict dynamic events in advance.
The accuracy and reliability of the predictions depend on numerical algorithm, physical
simplification and material constitutive model which elucidate the flow stress as a function of
strain, strain rate, temperature, etc. The five-parameter empirical Johnson-Cook constitutive
model is used in this simulation of high strain rate deformation because of high velocity
impact of the rigid wall. The elasticity of the material is defined by Young’s Modulus and
Poisson’s ratio, whereas the plasticity is defined by Johnson Cook hardening model. In this
experiment elasto-viscoplastic material law is used to illustrate inelastic behaviour that
means that the material undergoes unrecoverable deformations when a certain level of
stress is applied (F. Szmytka, 2013). Viscoplastic material models undergo not only
permanent deformations after the application of stress but continue to exhibit a creep flow as
a function of time under the influence of the applied stress.

The energy is absorbed through collapse of the structure. It is essential that the structure
should absorb as much energy as possible. Basically, there are two ways for a crash box or
front rail to collapse in a crash. First one is axially collapse, which is desired collapse mode

2
and that is what the crash box should be designed to handle. Second, there is global
bending, which is natural but unwanted collapse mode. An axial collapse is easier to
regulate compared to bending collapse, and also absorbs more energy. That is why ‘triggers’
are designed to initiate axial collapse and prevent bending. A ‘trigger’ is a geometrical
difference in the structure that is made to help the structure to collapse in the desired way.
They are also called crush initiators or beads. Often there is chance of axial folding followed
by global bending i.e. the collapse starts with axial collapse but then turns into a global
bending. This is a typical behaviour in collapses of structures. From the simulation it can be
figured out whether a ‘trigger’ is needed in this case or not.

To start the collapse in an axial folding way, the first triggering should be designed to initiate
the buckling. Buckling refers to the loss of stability of a structure and in its simplest form, is
independent of material strength and it is considered that this loss of stability occurs within
the elastic range of the material. It is primarily characterised by a loss of structural stiffness
and cannot be modelled using basic finite element analysis. Buckling is a treacherous
phenomenon in structural engineering, where the structure undergoes large displacements
transversal to the load. There are two types of buckling that can happen in a structure, global
and local buckling. The global buckling occurs when the entire field buckles whereas local
buckling happens when local parts buckle. The buckling can also be divided into two
categories, static and dynamic buckling. Static buckling has two forms, stable and unstable
buckling. Stable buckling is the phenomenon in which case displacements rises in a
controlled fashion as loads are increased, the structure’s ability to withstand stresses is
maintained. On the other hand unstable buckling is the case where deformations increase
instantaneously, the load carrying capacity nose-dives, which results in the structure to
collapse drastically. A dynamic buckling is a complicated phenomenon, which results in a
buckling wave. It is an impact-strain wave that occurs with impact in a beam.

The steps that describe the process of buckling to collapse of a structure are mentioned
below:
 1st Step – After the impact with the rigid wall, the axial load increases rapidly.
 2nd Step – When the force (load) is raised to a certain value, buckling first starts to
happen at the weakest plate of the column; this is known as local buckling. The other
plates then start to buckle one after another under the influence of the first local
buckling, and this leads to a buckling wave.
 3rd Step – At one point the buckling plated cannot withstand the force (load)
anymore. As a result distortion of the plate increases and stress concentrates at the
edges of the structure.
 4th Step – When the load is increased to its maximum value, the edges yield. This
causes the column to collapse and its plates are folded according to the preceding
buckling wave.
 5th Step – After that the next buckling and yielding occurs. The following load peaks
are lower than the first load peak since small waves have been generated over the
plates as a result of the first local buckling.

Figure 1: Phases to collapse of a structure (Back, 2009)

3
The plastic buckling of a beam under axial loading can be divided two sectors, dynamic
progressive buckling and dynamic plastic buckling. When a component withstands a slower
impact, elements from one end to the other slowly starts to form overlapping shrinkage; this
process is called dynamic progressive buckling. In contrast dynamic plastic buckling is the
entire buckling characteristic that is due to the repeated reflection of the stress wave when
the component is under an impact of high-velocity.

Although the most important factor for a front rail is to achieve high energy levels, but it is
also crucial that the crush force should be maintained as low as possible. This is because if
crush force is large enough, then the transformation of force from the crush element to the
vehicle components is going to be comparatively high; this is hazardous for the
crashworthiness of the vehicle components. Hence the peak crush force should be
minimised as much as possible in order to prevent this unwanted situation. Generally it is
tough to achieve a good crashworthy geometric configuration by just comparing the peak
crush force or energy absorption values separately. That is why maximum crush forces and
absorbed energy values should be considered together by determining the ‘crush force
efficiency’.
The ‘crush force efficiency’ is stated as the ratio of the ‘mean crush force’ to the ‘peak crush
force’. So if a front rail has high energy absorption and low peak force, that means it has a
high ‘crush force efficiency’.

Fmean
Crush force efficiency =
Fmax

‘Mean crush force’ ( Fmean ) is stated as the total energy absorption divided by the overall
crush displacement.
ET
Fmean =
max

And the ‘peak crush force’ is defined as the maximum peak force that appears in the axial
direction during the impact. ‘Peak crush force’ needs to as low as possible to make sure that
the force transferred to the vehicle components is relatively low.

Methodology –
In order to determine the suitable cross-sectional geometry for the front rail, the software
‘ABAQUS’ is used to model the structure of the beam, apply the loading conditions and then
perform the crush simulation. Abaqus is a suite of software applications for finite element
analysis and computer-aided engineering. To draw a model and perform the right simulation,
there are a few steps that need to be done.

Three different types of beam model, namely square, circular and hexagonal, of deformable
extruded shell part are designed on ‘ABAQUS’. The simulation is carried out on each model
separately. Since the experiment is conducted to figure out the suitable geometry for the
crush test, so for the validity of the experiment it is made sure that the cross-sectional area
and length of each beam are equal.
Circular beam cross-sectional area, AC = π x (radius)2 = π x (33)2 = 3421.1944mm2
Square beam cross-sectional area, AS= (side)2 = (58.49097708)2 = 3421.1944mm2
Octagonal beam cross-sectional area, AO = 2 x (1 + 2 ) x (length of each side)2
= 2 x (1 + 2 ) x (26.6186506)2
= 3421.1944mm2

4
For each simulation, an impactor model of 3D analytical rigid extruded shell part is created.
The point mass of value 0.5 t and inertias (I11 = I22 = I33 = 1) of the rigid wall (impactor) are
assigned to the reference point, which is the selected to be the centre-point of the square
shaped rigid wall with dimension of 80 mm and thickness of 80 mm as well.
‘ABAQUS’ is dimensionless software so that means all the units for the values inputted into
the program need to be consistent in order to obtain accurate results.

The material out of which the beams are going to be made, needs to be chosen and its
properties as well. The material chosen for this project is an aluminium alloy A2014-T6 and
its properties are displayed below:
Density = 2.8 x 10-9 tmm-3
Yield strength, σY = 414 MPa
Elastic properties –
Young’s Modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio

73 x 103 0.33

Plastic properties –
Johnson-Cook parameters
A B n
400 MPa 600 MPa 0.13

Here,
 Parameter A defines the initial yield stress at the reference strain.
 Parameter B is the hardening term.
 n is the exponent on cumulative equivalent plastic strain in hardening term. It is
dimensionless.
The material properties are then assigned to the each of the beam sections for each
simulation.

For simulation of the dynamic axial impact, the rear end of each beam is designed to be
built-in (encastre) and is constrained in all degrees of freedom. The front end is free and is
subjected to axial compression by the rigid body (impactor), which has a certain initial
velocity set to 10000 mm/s (36km/h), moving towards the front end of the beam. In order to
avoid penetration and sliding between the rigid wall and the front end of the beam during
contact, the interface is using the contact constraint: surface to surface command of
interaction module in ‘ABAQUS’. The interface force between the rigid wall and the beam is
used to achieve the force vs. displacement, stress vs. strain response and energy absorption
values. The friction coefficient between the contact surfaces is assigned to 0.2. In addition,
when the thin-walled beam structure experiences overlapping shrinkage, the contact
property between the lobes is chosen to be self-contact with a friction coefficient of 0.2 as
well; this prevents the lobes from penetrating each other during the deformation process.
Before meshing it is made sure that the computation time is set to 0.05s and the outputs for
every 0.001s are derived. Since the simulation is conducted to model the deformation of
each beam in a crash, which is a non-linear behaviour, so capturing the local high-speed
behaviour of the structures as they deform is important, that is why the finite element
analysis (FEA) is using explicit time integration analysis. Typically, the time step size for
explicit dynamics is of the order of a microsecond.

After all the required parameters have been assigned to the model, the last step is to mesh
the model and run the simulation. The desired global seed size has been assigned to the
model and more number of mesh elements is used to ensure that reliable and accurate
results are achieved from the simulation.

5
The last phase is post-processing, where the validity of the solution is checked and the
values of primary quantities (such as displacement, velocity, energy etc.) are examined.
Additional quantities (such as stress vs. strain, force vs. displacement responses etc.) are
also derived and investigated..

Model Validation –
It seems considerable that higher mesh quality produces more accurate and reliable results.
Higher mesh quality leads to mesh convergence and so stress, velocity values drop to a
steady value and the steady solution is obtained from the simulation to make sure that the
results are valid and reliable.

In order to assure the accuracy of the FEA model, the results from the simulation need to be
validated by existent numerical models for axial impacts of thin-walled tubes. The results are
compared with two different reports in the literature. The energy absorption values, velocity
and deceleration responses from the simulation are validated in accordance with the study
done by (TEJASAGAR AMBATI, 2012) and the force vs. displacement graphs are validated
according to the study done by (Mehmet A. Guler, 2010).

Results –
The raw results obtained from the simulation are manipulated and graphs are plotted in
order to study the effect of cross-sectional geometry on the energy absorption characteristics
and crush force efficiency of the front rails. The results obtained different cross-sectional
geometry structures are then compared to each other to determine the ideal shape of the
beam structure.

Displacement vs. time

300

238.831
250
224.636
Displacement (mm)

200
209.784

150

100

50

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Time

Circular cross-section Square cross-section Octagonal cross-section

Figure 2: Displacement vs. time graph of axial impact crash test for three different geometries.

6
 Velocity vs. time
12,000.00
10,000.00
Velocity (mm/s)

8,000.00
6,000.00
4,000.00
2,000.00
0.00 0.0440 0.0450
0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600
Time (s)
Circular cross-section Octagonal cross-section Square cross-section

Figure 3: Velocity graph of the different cross-sectional beam.

Total Energy ( Kinetic energy + Internal Total Energy ( Kinetic energy + Internal
energy) for circular cross-section energy) for square cross-section
30000000 30000000

25000000 25000000
24,122, 23,973,
20000000 100.00 20000000 500.00
Energy (mJ)

Energy (mJ)

15000000 15000000

10000000 10000000

5000000 5000000

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Time (s) Time (s)
I.E Circle K.E Circle T.E Circle I.E square K.E square T.E square

Total Energy ( Kinetic energy + Internal energy) for

octagonal cross-section

30000000

25000000
23,713,50
20000000 0.00
Energy (mJ)

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Time (s)
I.E Octagonal K.E Octagonal T.E Octagonal

Figure 4: Energy approach of each cross-sectional geometry structure.

7
 Force vs. displacement response
450000

400000 4.02E+05
Fmax of circular geometry = 2.86E+05
350000

300000 Fmax of octagonal geometry = 2.97E+05

Force (N)

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Dismplacement (mm)

Circular cylinder Octagonal Square

Figure 5: Force–displacement graph for different section geometries.

Deceleration graph

Time (s)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
0

100000
Deceleratiom (mm/s2)

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000
Octagonal Square Circular

Figure 6: Deceleration against time for all geometries.

8
 No. of Global Visualisation Von Mises Stress (MPa)
Elements Seed Size
Von Mises Minimum Maximum
2
1802 7 1.128x10 9.824x102

2452 6 1.457x02 9.633x102

3364 5.6 77.93 9.834x102

4052 5 77.91 9.834x102

Table 1: Mesh refinement (Mesh convergence)

9
Calculations –
ET
Mean crash force, Fmean =
max
In this equation,
 ET is the total energy absorption value, which is basically the total internal energy
stored during the impact.
 And max is the total crush displacement.

Therefore by using the graphs above, it can be deduced that

24122100
‘Mean crush force’ for circular cross-section geometry = = 101001N
238.831

23973500
Mean crush force’ for square cross-section geometry = = 114277N
209.784

23713500
Mean crush force’ for octagonal cross-section geometry = = 105564N
224.636

Hence, the ‘crush force efficiency’ can be calculated using:

Fmean
Crush force efficiency =
Fmax
So,
101001
‘Crush force efficiency’ of circular cross-section geometry = = 0.3532N
2.86x105

114277
‘Crush force efficiency’ of square cross-section geometry = = 0.2843N
4.02x105

105564
‘Crush force efficiency’ of circular cross-section geometry = = 0.3530N
2.99x105

Discussions –
From Figure 2 it can clearly be seen that the displacement of circular beam is the highest
compared to other two, so that means it has experienced most deformation (i.e. highest
plastic strain) which is desirable. This is because it is going to absorb more energy (Kinetic
energy converts to Internal energy) by crumpling, as a result the force of impact is going to
be redistributed; that amount of force is used up on bending and collapsing the frame and so
a small amount of impact force gets transmitted to the vehicle components. This increases
the safety of vehicular crashworthiness.

It can be observed from Figure 3 that the octagonal and square shaped front rails rebound
within the computational time. This is unwanted as it increases the impulse of the impact.

Figure 5 clearly illustrates that the total energy (T.E) during the impact remains constant,
assuming no gain or loss in energy during the crush. Only Kinetic energy (K.E) is converted
to Internal energy (I.E), which is the absorption energy. The beam of circular cross-sectional
area absorbs the highest energy compared to other two.

10
Peak crush force of circular beam is highest and is lowest for square beam as shown in
Figure 4. As mentioned before ‘peak crush force’ should be minimum to ensure that the
force transferred to the vehicle components is relatively low. Square cross-section has
highest Fmax because it has more sharp edges where stress is concentrated, thus it
experiences more impact force and most likely to exhibit global bending instead of axial
collapse.

Deceleration is highest for square shaped front rail, which is hazardous for vehicular
crashworthiness. It can be observed from Figure 6 that deceleration is maximum at the initial
point of the impact and then reduces rapidly within a fraction of time. The fluctuations can be
seen in all curves of Figure 6; this is because of dynamic progressive buckling, where
elements of the beam starts to form overlapping shrinkage.

As the mesh gets more refined the accuracy of the results obtained the simulation is
increased, which is expected. Reducing the mesh size improves the results both visually and
numerically. This is mainly because of more number of elements which results in a
subsequent increase in the mesh density as can be observed from the images in Table 1. It
can also be seen in Table 1 that the meshes are completely converged since increasing the
number of elements above 3364, does not have any considerable impact on the raw results.
For all the results mentioned above, the finest mesh (the one with number of elements =
4052) is used in order to get the most accurate solutions. When the number of mesh
elements is increased from 1802 to 2452, the Von Mises Stress decreases (this doesn’t
follow the pattern). This phenomenon is observed due to the convergence and divergence
for a particular mesh because of the difference in the number of nodes.

Reducing the mesh size increases the time to simulate each case. This is mainly because of
more number of elements which results in a subsequent increase in the mesh density as can
be observed from the images in Table 1. As a result a higher complexity is found in the
shape of the design; hence a lot of time is needed to simulate the model

Conclusion –
It can be concluded that the square cross-sectioned energy absorber has the lowest crush
force efficiency among three cross-section geometries. The crush force efficiency is found to
be the highest for the circular absorber. This proves that the suitable geometry for the front
rail is circular cross-section structure as it introduces more safety to vehicular
crashworthiness compared to other two. Further researches can be conducted on modifying
the design of the crash absorber, for example – the structure can be made conical, thickness
of the structure can be varied, semi-apical angle can be introduced to the geometry structure
etc. Overall, since the results of this reports match with two different reports in the literature
so it can be said that the experiment is valid and reliable.

Bibliography
 Back, P.-E. (2009). Deformation Behaviour of. Luleå University of Technology, Applied
Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Division of Solid Mechanics, Luleå.
 F. Szmytka, M. H. (2013). An implicit integration procedure for an elasto-viscoplastic model
and its application to thermomechanical fatigue design of automotive parts. Computers and
Structures, 155-165.
 Mehmet A. Guler, M. E. (2010). The effect of geometrical parameters on the energy
absorption characteristics of thin-walled structures under axial impact loading. International
Journal of Crashworthiness.
 TEJASAGAR AMBATI, K. S. (2012). SIMULATION OF VEHICULAR FRONTAL CRASH-
TEST. International Journal of Applied Research in Mechanical Engineering (IJARME).

11