981013
Vehicle Structural Design Utilizing Optimized
Copyright © 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
A study of an existing B-pillar was conducted to examine
the changes required to increase the lateral load
carrying capability by a factor of ten. A finite element
optimization package was used to adjust the geometric
and material characteristics simultaneously while
minimizing weight. The results show that the weight and
cost necessary for the ten-fold improvement in lateral
load carrying capability were very low. Further, the
results illustrate how structural design optimization with
finite element modeling can be effectively utilized to
create cost effective elements for use in an integrated
occupant protection system.
INTRODUCTION
A large number of restrained occupants of vehicles in the
United States suffer severe head and neck injuries
during rollover accidents. Occupant protection in rollover
impacts can be provided through the appropriate
integration of selected components, one of which is the
vehicle structure. To ensure the occupant survival space
is maintained, it is possible to design an efficient vehicle
roof structure capable of handling the loads which can be
expected in a rollover.
A study of an existing production B-pillar was undertaken
to demonstrate how to enhance its lateral load carrying
capability by a factor of ten. To do this, real world
examples of failure modes of this component were first
examined. Then the design of the B-pillar was input into
1
COSMOS/M, a finite element modeling package.
Testing was conducted to determine applicable material
properties. Analyses were then conducted to validate
that the failure observed would occur in the location seen
in rollover accidents. An optimization study was
conducted in which the geometric shape and component
material thickness were adjusted to provide the desired
improvement in load carrying capability.
Finite Element Modeling
Keith Friedman
Friedman Research
Mehran Mobrem
Mobrem Consulting
The results showed that the weight and cost necessary
for the ten-fold improvement in lateral load carrying
capability were very low. Further, the results illustrate
how structural design optimization with finite element
modeling can be effectively used to create cost effective
elements of an occupant protection system.
BACKGROUND
The Finite Element Method (FEM) for solving complex
2
structural problems was first introduced in the 1950’s.
Some of the earliest work reported using modern
numerical methods in the automobile industry occurred in
3
the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Vehicle crush
predictions using finite element techniques have been in
use at least since 1973. To assist automotive structure
engineers in developing, evaluating, and refining
4
designs, Thompson at Chrysler reported on the
extension of an existing small elastic deflection finite
element approach to allow for large inelastic deflections.
Lumped mass modeling techniques had been used since
the 1960’s in various applications associated with the
vehicle design and occupant protection and were
reasonable for gross parametric studies. However, the
finite element techniques allowed for detailed analysis of
the local car structure.
While numerous papers had been written previously, in
1974 Park and DuVall of Ford reported that computer
graphic Finite Element Structural Analysis techniques
could be used successfully as a powerful design tool for
5
body components. Also in 1974, an iterative approach to
design, based on the FEM results, was reported when
Nagy at Ford described modifying successfully a design
based on the analytical findings and reported the belief
that the analysis would significantly contribute to
reducing the design and testing cycle, as well as
 6
producing a better product.
Chang at General Motors reported in 1974 on effects of
flexible connections and their effects associated with
loading the A, B, and C posts and pillars under various
7
loading conditions including roof loads. Kajio and
Hagiwara at Nissan reported on a nonlinear analysis
8
explicitly focused on roof strength.
9
In 1974 Toyo-Kogyo’s Kirioka reported the successful
use of nonlinear analysis to determine the macroscopic
relationship between load and displacement for the
collapse loads for the front seat torso belt anchor points
of a Mazda RX-2.
In 1976 Nissan’s Kajio and Hagiwara reported the use of
static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of the car body
structure, as part of their process to introduce high
strength materials such as high strength low alloyed
steel or aluminum. They recognized the need to design
for collision safety and the necessity to test the behavior
of the body under various loads; their paper focused
primarily on the strength of the roof. They concluded
that their methods showed that the maximum load of the
structure for a FMVSS 216 test with their 4 door vehicle
was determined by the strength of the center pillar. They
also compared peak B-pillar axial g’s from a rollover
experiment with calculated values; while they were not
sure of the impact velocity to use, the range of values
they used provided results which bracketed the
experimental values observed. Thus, they concluded
that an estimation of acceleration on the body under
impact imposition was enabled by the dynamic nonlinear
analysis.
By 1979 Ford, Firestone, General Motors, Nissan and
others had reported on further refinements and
10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18
applications. At that time Kecman and
19
Miles reported that FEM had been utilized by a
manufacturer to self-certify a new vehicle for FMVSS 214
and 216 (side and roof crush standards, respectively).
In 1981 Osborn and Thiel reported on the optimal design
of minimum weight structures, using a system developed
for the British Aerospace industry, which utilized a few
elements which had only three degrees of freedom. The
system utilized the concept of an objective function,
20
weight, expressed in terms of element variables,
typically element cross-section or thickness. It appears
that the system was a collection of modules which could
be called upon by the engineer, and that geometric
changes or concepts were specified by the user.
In 1982 an optimization program based on a fully
stressed design method was described for use with
rectangular thin walled beams, where the design
variables were the thickness, height and width; the
program was tested on a beam model of a car body for
21
static loading cases.
By 1985 work had been reported demonstrating the use
of FEM in predicting structural deformation in collisions,
rollover protection, and occupant protection, as well as
22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32
specific vehicle subsystems.
Design optimization of a truck frame using ANSYS
PC/OPT on a PC in conjunction with ANSYS-PC/LINEAR
was reported in 1986. The optimization procedure
demonstrated was based on selection of design
variables which defined the beam elements. After the
random variation of the design variables, the objective
function and the behavioral constraint functions were
approximated in quadratic form in terms of the design
variables. The optimization module then began iterating
toward a minimum weight solution based on these
33
approximate functions. Also in 1986 Audi reported on a
structural modification method which allowed a lot of
structural variations to be investigated and an optimized
34
structure to be worked out.
By 1990 numerous reports in the literature show that the
overall vehicle design efforts were being supported with
FEM analyses including designing for
35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48
crashworthiness. Work continues
to be reported regarding crash simulation and vehicle
49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,
design.
68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78
Also, much work has been reported on
the use of FEM to incorporate occupant response into
79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87
vehicle design.
Recently, efforts to apply new approaches for
optimization have been reported, including the use of
neural networks, the traction method, the SKO method,
and the Box Complex method modified for constraints.
88,89,90,91
METHOD
The goal of optimization is to minimize or maximize an
objective, such as weight, stress, or natural frequency,
that is subject to constraint on structural response and
design parameters. The constraints can be any of the
structural responses, such as stress, displacement,
natural frequency, and elastic buckling for linear
analysis, and stress and displacement for the nonlinear
analysis. The design parameters are element size and
structural geometry or shape. In general, the modification
of the geometry or shape optimization is more involved
than the size optimization.
The first step in using a finite element software for design
optimization includes preprocessing, required analysis,
and post-processing, just as in standard finite element
analysis (FEA). In the second step, the optimization
objective and response constraints are defined. Finally,
the program will determine the optimum design through
an automated iterative process.
The general process for COSMOS/M optimization is
presented in Figure 1. At first, the geometry is modeled
by the use of parametric commands. Then the initial
analysis is performed, such as linear or nonlinear static
analysis. Note, the initial analysis could be a combination
of different analyses depending on the defined
constraints. After the initial analysis has been performed,
then the user will define the design variables, objective,
and behavior constraints. The program will generate the
approximate functions relating the objective and
constraints to the design variables. These relations are
established by a least-squares curve fitting technique.
Figure 1
Once the approximate objective and constraint functions
are generated, then the optimizer solves the nonlinear
optimization problem using the either Modified Feasible
Direction (MFD) or Sequential Linear Programming
(SLP) methods, which results in improved design
variables. Based on the new design parameters, the
optimization program generates a new model and
repeats the analysis until the design converges to its
optimum configuration. During the analysis iteration, the
optimization program allows the user to monitor the
progress of the design, stop it if necessary, change the
design conditions, and restart.
In general, any response generated in COSMOS/M can
be used either as an objective function or as a constraint,
a useful tool to solve a large variety of structural
optimization problems.
B-PILLAR OPTIMIZATION
The lateral failure of a typical B-pillar in a rollover is due
to either material yielding which would result in plastic
deformation and/or elastic instability or buckling which
would result in large deformation (sometimes the
buckling term is used in a more general term for failure,
but here it is used in the context of elastic stability).
Therefore to improve the lateral load carrying capability,
the elastic buckling should be considered in addition to
plastic deformation.
There are two approaches to optimizing the B-pillar
design for lateral load carrying capability using the finite
element optimization method.
First, the direct method based on nonlinear static
analysis: At first a nonlinear analysis of the B-pillar
baseline (initial) design is performed to determine the
critical load which would result in large deformation. The
term large deformation is used for deformation beyond
the elastic region due to either plastic deformation or
elastic buckling. As in any nonlinear finite element
analysis, the material nonlinearity and large
displacement capability should be used. Here, the goal is
to optimize the design to increase the critical load
obtained in the first step by a factor of ten. Then, the
structural weight or volume is selected for the objective,
the response displacement obtained in the first step is
used for the maximum displacement limit, while the
critical load obtained in the first step is increased by a
factor of ten and used for the applied load.
Second, the indirect method based on linear static and
buckling analysis: At first a linear static analysis is
performed and the maximum stress is determined for an
arbitrary applied load. Also a separate elastic buckling
analysis is performed to determine the critical buckling
load. Then, structural weight or volume is selected for
the objective; the maximum response stress obtained in
the first step is used for the maximum stress limit. Also
the response critical buckling load determined in the first
step is used for the minimum critical buckling load limit,
and the applied load used in the first step is increased
by a factor of ten.
The optimization analysis used in COSMOS/M is an
iterative process in which the design parameters are
modified in a systematic way until the design converges
to the user defined tolerances as long as the response
constraints are not violated. At each design iteration the
required finite element analysis is performed, which
depends on the type of response constraints. In the first
approach, a nonlinear static analysis is performed at
each design iteration. Note, the nonlinear analysis is also
an iterative process in which the step size depends on
the degree of the nonlinearity and accuracy
requirements.
In the second approach, a linear static analysis plus an
elastic buckling analysis are performed at each design
iteration.
The second approach was selected for this study based
 2
on its efficiency and ease of use. The results are also Yield Stress, N/M (psi) 102 (35500)
verified by a nonlinear analysis. Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
2 5
Tangent Modulus, N/m (psi) 287.3 (1 x 10 )

*Based on actual test results for the inner skin. Other

components varied.

RESULTS

The second approach discussed in the previous section

was examined by analyzing a typical B-pillar structure. Table 2: B-pillar Properties
The finite element model of the B-pillar critical section
Response Under 444.8N (100lbs) Critical elastic Weight
(55.9 cm [22 inches] from the roof rail) was generated Maximum Stress Maximum Deflection buckling N(lbs) kg (lbs)
based on the actual dimensions of the outer surfaces. 2
N/m (psi) m(inch)
The finite element model, applied load location, and 3 -3
Baseline 59.2 (20.6x10 ) 3.8x10 (.1498) 3385 (760) 1.943(4.28)
boundary conditions are presented in Figure 2. An
arbitrary load of 444.8N (100 pounds) was applied to the 3
Optimized 6.4 (2.23x10 )
-4
2.5x10 (.0097)
4
6.06x10 (13600) 4.243 (9.345)
tip where the B-pillar attaches to the roof rail. In general
the B-pillar behaved as a cantilevered beam. The
material properties used in the analysis are presented in
Table 1. The response maximum stress, maximum
deflection, and critical buckling load are presented in
Table 2. Figure 3 presents the response stress plot. Note
the B-pillar would start to yield at about 756N (170
pounds) since the maximum stress is about 58% of its
yielding allowable and would buckle at about 3381N (760
pounds).

Figure 3

The B-pillar was optimized using COSMOS/M

optimization module by minimizing the weight subject to
stress and critical buckling load constraints. The MFD
method was chosen for this analysis. The selected
design parameters were the thickness of the outer skins
and the variation of the depth of the center section which
faces toward the car interior.

The finite element model of the optimized B-pillar is

presented in Figure 4. Note, four design variables for the
variation of the depth and two design variables for the
outer skins thickness were used in the analysis.

The weight increase of the B-pillar is about 2.30kg (5.1

pounds); stress was the critical constraint. To compare
Figure 2 the improved B-pillar to its original design, again 444.8N
(100 pounds) was applied at the tip where the B-pillar
attaches to the roof rail. The response maximum stress,
maximum deflection, and critical buckling load are
Table 1: Material Properties *, Tested Steel presented in Table 2. Figure 5 presents the response
2 4 6
stress plot. Note, the modified B-pillar would start to
Modulus of Elasticity, N/m (psi) 8.62 x 10 (30 x 10 ) yield at about 7082N (1592 pounds) since the maximum
3 3 -6
Density, kg/m (lb/in ) 2.23 x 10 (0.3) stress is about 6.3% of its yielding allowable and would
buckle at about 60495N (13600 pounds).

Figure 6

Figure 4

Figure 7

Figure 5

The B-pillar was optimized based on the linear static and

buckling analysis. In order to examine the B-pillar
behavior in the post-failure mode, a nonlinear analysis
was performed using COSMOS/M nonlinear module. The
baseline and optimized B-pillar were allowed to deflect
about 2.54cm (one inch) at their tip where the 444.8N
(100 pound) loads were applied. The responses force
factor versus deflection of the tip are presented in
Figures 6 and 7 for the baseline and optimized design,
respectively. It is worth noting that about 14675N (3299
pounds) is required to deflect the optimized B-pillar tip up
to 2.54cm (one inch) while about 1428N (321 pounds)
would deflect the baseline; thus the capability was
increased by a factor of ten. The deformed shape of the
baseline B-pillar under 1428N (321 pounds) is presented Figure 8
in Figure 8 which depicts an actual failure mode.
DISCUSSION
The analysis illustrates the feasibility of substantially
improving the capability of roof pillars using finite
element analysis. We have demonstrated the
optimization using 6 design parameters; many more can
be used resulting in further improvements. We have also
constrained our approach to considering only lateral
inward changes on the interior surface. During the initial
stages of vehicle concept development, the designer
would, of course, have the freedom to vary virtually all of
the design parameters and would likely be able to
accomplish substantial improvements with alternative
design changes, including selective use of different
materials and allowing the geometry to vary in other
directions. Thus, it is felt that the results shown here are
conservative.
There are various additional considerations which could
have been handled more extensively which would likely
change the absolute values of the failure loads required.
However, their consideration would not have changed
the results with regard to the amount of material needed
to accomplish a ten-fold increase in lateral load carrying
capability. The analysis demonstrates the feasibility of
substantially increasing the lateral load carrying
capability by a factor of ten with only a small increase in
mass and cost.
The feasibility of substantially increased roof pillar lateral
load carrying capability with very little increase in mass
has been demonstrated.
The results of the analysis indicate that, for a relatively
small change in the design of a roof pillar, a large
improvement in material failure occurs. Integrated with
the original design, the additional costs for a B-pillar
would be approximately as follows:
HSLA TESTED
Steel Steel
weight (kg): 2.30 2.30
cost/kg: $.75 $.64
material cost: $1.73 $1.47
approximate increase
in elastic buckling: 17.9 17.9
approximate increase:
in material failure: 40 10
CONCLUSIONS
The results show that the weight and cost necessary for
the ten-fold improvement in lateral load carrying
capability for the roof pillar are very low.
The cost is low to increase the effective strength of the
roof structural elements of the rollover occupant
protection system to ensure a survival space for the
occupant.
The design of a roof structure which ensures adequate
survival space for the occupant can be supported with
the use of finite element analysis optimization tools.
Further, the results illustrate how structural design
optimization with finite element modeling can be
effectively used to create cost effective elements of an
occupant protection system.
REFERENCES
1
Structural Research & Analysis Corporation, COSMOS/M, Santa
Monica, CA
2
Huang, Y., “Finite Element Method - Structure Analysis by
Simulation”, SAE 730446
3
Kirioka, K., “Analysis of Body Structures”, SAE 650026
4
Thompson, J.E., “Vehicle Crush Prediction Using Finite-Element
Techniques”, SAE 730157
5
Park, S.W. and DuVall, F.W., “Finite Element Structural Analysis is
Applied to an Automotive Door Structure”, SAE 740320
6
Nagy, L.I., “Static Analysis Via Substructuring of an Experimental
Vehicle Front-End Body Structure”, SAE 740323
7
Chang, D.C., “Effects of Flexible Connections on Body Structural
Response”, SAE 740041
8
Kajio, Y. and Hagiwara, I., “Nonlinear Analysis of Car Body
Structure”, SAE 760022
9
Kirioka, K., Hotta, Y., and Saji, H., “Elasto-Plastic Analysis of
Automobile Body Structure by the Finite Element Method”, SAE
740039
10
Ridha, R.A. “Finite Element Stress Analysis of Automotive Wheels”,
SAE 760085
11
Tang, S.C., “Elasto-Plastic and Large Deflection Analysis of Thin
Shells by the Flow Theory of Plasticity”, SAE 770590
12
Kowalski, M.F. and Katnik, R.B., “A Substructuring Approach to
Localized Plasticity Analysis,” SAE 770602
13
Citipitioglu, E., Nicolas, V.T., and Tolani, S.K., “Finite Element
Method in Stress Analysis Practice”, SAE 770605
14
Parekh, C.J., Basas, J.E., and Kothawala, K.S., “Application of
Isoparametric Finite Elements in Vehicle Structural Mechanics”, SAE
770606
15
Katoh, H. and Tahara, H., “Pre-processor for Finite Element
Analysis and Its Application to Body Structure”, SAE 780363
16
Kirioka, K., Shitasaw, K., et al. “Application of Finite Element
Method to Automobile Safety Evaluation”, 17th FISITA Congress
(1978), Budapest, Hungary
17
Egert, J. and Sarkozi, L., “Strength Analysis of Bus-Siderframe by
Finite Element Method Using Bar and Plane Elements”, 17th FISITA
Congress (1978), Budapest, Hungary
18
Calderale, P., Carro, A., and Logenzi, C., “Car Accident
Mathematical Model: Femur and Pelvis Stress Analysis of a
Passenger Car”, SAE 790990
19
Kecman, D. and Miles, J., “Application of Finite Element Method to
the Door Intrusion and Roof Crush Analysis of a Passenger Car”, SAE
790990
20
Osborn, J. and Thiel, L., “Optimal Design of Minimum Weight
Structures”, SAE 810686
21
Hasselgren, A. and Svanberg, K., “Beam models as tools for light
weight design of car bodies using Finite Element Methods”, 19th
FISITA Congress (1982), Melbourne, Australia
22
Hunckler, C.J., Purdy, R.J., and Austin, R.D., “Nonlinear Analysis of
the Terex Scraper Rollover Protective Cab”, SAE 850788
23
Igarashi, M. and Atsumi, M., “An Analysis of 3 pt Belted Occupant
Impact Dynamics in Frontal Collision and Its Application”, SAE 850436
24
Winter, R., Courzet-Pascal, J., and Pifko, A.B., “Front Crash
Analysis of a Steel Frame Auto Using a Finite Element Computer
Code”, SAE 840728
25
Yamaoka, H., Sakai, H., Ariyoshi, T., and Fujii, M., “Computer
Simulation of Automotive Body Crash Response”, SAE 851685
26
Kecman, D. and Tidbury, G.H., Theoretical Prediction of the
Complete Collapse Behaviour of a Coach Subject to the Proposed Full
Scale Rollover Test, 19th FISITA Congress (1982) Melbourne, Australia
27
Austin, D. and Moore, G.G., Finite Element Modeling of Vehicle
Bodies Using Substructuring Methods, Vehicle Structures, I Mech E
Conf. (1984-7)
28
Amos, R.J., Structural Design Analysis of Commercial Vehicle
Cabs, Vehicle Noise and Vibration, I Mech E Conf. (1984-5)
29
Packwood, J. and Aurora, B., Application of the Finite Element
Method to the Design of the Front Door of a Light Commercial Vehicle,
20th FISITA Congress (1984), Vienna, Austria
30
Kecman, D. and Tidbury, G., “Optimization of a Bus Superstructure
from the Rollover Safety Point of View, “10th International Technical
Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles, (1985) Oxford, England
31
Suthurst, G., Ng.P., and Sadeghi, M., “Inclusion of Crashworthiness
in Concept Design”, 10th International Technical Conference on
Experimental Safety Vehicles (1985) Oxford, England
32
Brashce, R., Giazitzis, G., and Schmitt, H., “Collapse Behavior
Development of Body Components”, 10th International Technical
Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (1985) Oxford, England
33
Johnson, D., “Finite Element Design Optimization of the WABCO
170 ton Haulpak Truck Frame”, SAE 860748
34
Dirscmid, W., “Structural Modification for the Automated Design
Process”, SAE 860806
35
Hardy, R., “Towards Optimised Side Impact Vehicle Structures”, 11th
International Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (1987),
Washington, D.C.
36
Grew, N. and Beecroft, G., “Designing a Passive Restraint System”,
11th International Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (1987),
Washington, D.C.
37
Kamal, M., “The Birth of the Spaceframe at General Motors, 22nd
FISITA Congress” (1988), Dearborn, MI, USA
38
Scharnhorst, T., “FEM CRASH - A Supercomputer Application”,
SAE 880897
39
Steyer, C., Mack, P., et al, “Mathematical Modelisation of Side
Collisions”, 12th International Technical Conference on Experimental
Safety Vehicles (1989) Goetborg, Sweden
40
Sakuria, T. and Aoki, T., “On the Safety Body Structure of Finite
Element Method Analysis”, 12th International Technical Conference on
Experimental Safety Vehicles (1989) Goetborg, Sweden
41
Kurimoto, K, Taga, K., et al, “Simulation of Vehicle Crashworthiness
and Its Application”, 12th International Technical Conference on
Experimental Safety Vehicles (1989) Goetborg, Sweden
42
Seeds, A., Nardini, D., and Cassessi, F., “The Development of a
Center Cell Structure in Bonded Aluminum for the Ferrari 408
Research Vehicle, SAE 890717
43
Sakura, T., “Application of Finite Element Analysis of Structural
Crashworthiness for Body Design Stage”, SAE 891225
44
Ginsberg, M. and Katnik, R., “Improving Vectorization of a
Crashworthiness Code”, SAE 891985
45
Igarashi, M., “1989 Suzuki Sidekick/Geo Tracker Body Structure
Analysis”, SAE 892536
46
Hunter, J., “I-DEAS improves Jaguar XJ-S convertible, Automotive
Engineering”, April 1990
47
Nakagawa, K. and Ootsubo, T., “Crash Simulation of a Passenger
Car”, SAE 900464
48
McGregor, I., Seeds, A., and Nardini, D., “The Design of Impact
Absorbing Members for Aluminum Structured Vehicles”, SAE 900796
49
Yagawa, G., Yoshimura, S., and Nakao, K., Tsuru, D., and Ohji,
M., “Development of an Automatic Mesh Generation System of Shell
Structure Based on Fuzzy Knowledge Processing”, SAE 912173
50
Mizuno, R., Nishio, S., and Igarashi, M., “Development of Optimal
Design Analysis System for Three dimension Shell Structure”, SAE
912174
51
Khalil, T.B., Wasko, R.J., Hallquist, J.O., and Stillman, D.J., “Finite
Element Simulation of Airbag Deployment and Interactions With an
Occupant Model Using DYNA3D”, 13th International Technical
Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (1991) Paris, France
52
Igarashi, M., and Nagai, K., “Various Aspects on Crashworthiness
Calculations”, 13th International Technical Conference on Experimental
Safety Vehicles (1991) Paris, France
53
Giavotto, V., and Sala, G., “Crash Performance of RTM
Composites for Automotive Applications”, Materials Innovation and
Their Applications in the Transportation Industry (1991) Torino, Italy
54
Langdon, M.G., “Simulation of Side Impact on Cars”, SAE Trans.,
Vol. 205, No. D2
55
Nishimura, I., and Sakurai, T., “Prediction of the Crashworthiness of
Vehicle Body Aided Computer”, SAE 912581
56
Park, K.H., Shin, S.H., Cho, H.S., and Jinn, J.T., “Application of the
Finite Element Method for Improvement of Vehicle Crashworthiness”,
SAE 912582
57
Mizuno, R., Nishio, S., and Igarashi, M., “Development of Optimal
Design Analysis System for Three Dimension Shell Structure”, SAE
912174
58
Ni, X., Lasry, D., Huag, E., and Hoffman, R., “Advances in
Problem-Adaptive Occupant Modeling with PAM-SAFE”, 13th
International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles
(1991) Paris, France
59
Benedetto,A., Bigi, D., Gilardi, M.,and Montacchini, L., “Side Impact
Simulation”, 3rd International Conference Innovation and Reliability in
Automotive Design and Testing (1992) Firenze, Italy
60
Piano, L., Moruzzi, P., and Pidello, A., “CAE Tools for Mission
Simulation Analysis of Car Body Structures”, 3rd International
Conference Innovation and Reliability in Automotive Design Testing
(1992) Firenze, Italy
61
Kaiser, A., “Some Examples of Numerical Simulation in Vehicle
Safety Development”, SAE 921074
62
Dandekar, B. and Van, V., “Transient Dynamic Analysis of an
Automotive Bumper System”, SAE 921076
63
Schriever, T. and Alber, P., “Development of Energy Absorbing
Front Underrun Guard for Trucks”, Road Traffic Safety (1993) Munich,
Germany
64
“CAE Techniques in Body Structures and Surfaces”, Automotive
Engineer, Vol.18, No.2, p. 16 (9 pp)
65
Mizuno, K., Yonezawa, H., Toyofuku, Y., Irie, Y., Tateishi, M., and
Maeda, K., “Study of Side Impact Collision by Dynamic Model”, JSAE
Autumn Convention (1993) Nagoya, Japan
66
Inotani, F., “Study of Basic Vehicle Body Structure Using Structural
Optimization Technique”, JSAE Autumn Convention (1993) Nagoya,
Japan
67
Kitagawa, Y., and Hagiwara, I., “Crash Simulation”, Journal of the
Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, Vol. 47, No.4, p. 57 (5pp)
68
Nishio, S., Amir, H., and Igarashi, M., “Development of 3D-Shell
Structural Design Optimization System (SOPT), and its application”,
JSAE Spring Convention (1993) Kanagawa, Japan
69
Kumagai, K., Kabeshita, Y., Enomoto, H., and Shimojima, S., “An
Analysis Method for Rollover Strength of Bus Structures”, 14th
International Technical Conference on Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
(1994) Munich, Germany
70
Kitagawa, Y., Hagiwara, I., and Torigaki, T., “Crash Analysis of
Vehicle Body Structures Using a Buckling Sensitivity Analysis”, 14th
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles (1994) Munich, Germany
71
Ricardo, L., “Structural Analysis of the Joint B-Pillar x Roof of
Passenger Car”, SAE 952240
72
Mahmood, H., Baccouche, M., and Bakkar, J., “Designing for Offset
Crash: A Trade-Off in Constraints”, SAE 951075
73
Piatak, M., Sheh, M., Young, S., and Chen, J., “Using Nonlinear
Finite Element Method in Convertible Crashworthiness Design”, SAE
951077
74
Logan, R., Perfect, S., and Parkinson, R., “Energy Absorption in
Aluminum Extrusions for a Spaceframe Chassis”, SAE 951079
75
Lakshminarayan, V., Wang, H., Williams, W.J., Harajli, Y., and
Chen, S., “Application of CAE Nonlinear Crash Analysis to Aluminum
Automotive Crashworthiness Design”, SAE 951080
76
Faruque, O., Marvasti, M., “Crash Analysis Methodology for Brittle
Material”, SAE 951082
77
Syamal, P., Yang, C.J., “Crashworthiness Simulation, Design and
Development of Cross-Car Stiffener Subsystem”, SAE 951083
78
Syamal, P., Bhatti, M., “Rear Full Overlap High Speed Car-to-Car
Impact Simulation”, SAE 951085
79
Shyu, S., Mani, A., Krishnaswamy, P., Conroy, R., Shermetaro, M.,
and Exner, G., “Designing Energy Absorbing Steering Wheels Through
Finite Element Impact Simulation”, SAE 931844
80
Renaudin, F., Guillemot, H., Lavaste, F., Skalli, W., Lesage, F., and
Pecheux, C., “A 3-D Finite Element Model of Pelvis in Side Impact”,
37th Stapp Car Crash Conference (1993) San Antonio, Texas, USA
81
Eppinger, R., Kleinberger, M., Morgan, R., Khaewpong, N., Bandak,
F., and Haffner, M., “Advanced Injury Criteria and Crash Evaluation
Techniques”,14th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles (1994) Munich, Germany
82
Plank, G., Kleinberger, M., and Eppinger, R., “Finite Element
Modeling and Analysis of Thorax/Restraint System Interaction”, 14th
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles (1994) Munich, Germany
83
Maurer, D., Kohlhoff, S., and DuBois, P., “Advances in Side Impact
Simulation Procedures”, 14th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (1994) Munich, Germany
84
Ruckert, J., Marcault, P., Schlosser, J., Lasry, D., Haug, E., Roger,
J., Cesari, D., Bermond, F., and Bouquet, R., “Advances in Finite
Element Modeling of the EUROSID-1 Dummy”, 14th International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (1994)
Munich, Germany
85
Franz, J., Hoffmann, R., and Vasen, J., and Hillenbrand, K.,
“Numerical and Experimental Simulation of Different Load Cases in
Side Impacts”, 14th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (1994) Munich, Germany
86
DiMasi, F., Eppinger, R., and Bandak, F., “Computational Analysis
of Head Impact Response Under Car Crash Loadings”, SAE 952718
87
Tilakasiri, A. and Johnson, D., “Super Computer Simulation of
Vehicles and Occupants for Front and Side Impact Protection at Ford”,
The European Automotive Industry Meets the Challenges of the Year
2000 – 5th International Congress of the European Automobile
Engineers Cooperation (1995) Strasbourgh, France
86
Botkin, M. and Lust, R., “A Neural Network Application to Shape
Optimization”, SAE 951102
89
Shimoda, M., Azegami, H., and Sakurai, R., “A Traction Method
Approach to Shape Optimization of Linear Elastic Structures Subject
to Multiple Loading Conditions”, SAE 951103
90
Harzheim, L. and Graf, G., “Optimization of Engineering
Components with the SKO Method”, SAE 951104
91
Pant, R. and Cheng, J., “Integration of Vehicle Interior Models into
Crash Up-Front Process with Optimization”, SAE 951107