663 Ea0076
663 Ea0076
663 Ea0076
1, February 2014
I. INTRODUCTION
A vehicle crashworthy structure has been developed by
engineers and researchers around the world from two decades
until now as a purpose to improve vehicle safety during
collision event [1]-[8]. During the progressive collapse of
crashworthy structures it has an ability to protect the
occupants from severe injury in collision accidents, including
side impacts with other vehicles and roadside objects [1].
Side collisions are among the most dangerous car accidents
[2]. While in frontal and rear-end collision the occupant can
be well protected by deformation elements (crash boxes)
placed outside the occupant cell, there is no room for such
crush zones in bodys side [3]. For this reason the side body
of the car and the structural frame must be designed in order
to avoid excessive deformation. Strength and stiffness,
however, are not the only requirements for improving
resistance to side impacts: provided a sufficient amount of
kinetic energy, absorbed in an impulsive way by the impacted
vehicle, even the stiffer structure will plastically deform to a
certain amount [4]-[7]. Therefore, side structures must also
absorb a large amount of plastic deformation energy and,
unlike axial absorbers, find a compromise between the
minimization of the maximum transmitted load and the
DOI: 10.7763/IJET.2014.V6.663
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, February 2014
4.E +09
4.E +09
3.E +09
3.E +09
2.E +09
2.E +09
1.E +09
TITANIUM ALLOY
0.E +00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
NOMINAL STRAIN
W Pds
(2)
5.E +08
(1)
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, February 2014
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
DISPLACEMENT (M)
[W-T 0.001m:V 10m/s]
Type A
DYNAMIC LOAD (N) VERSUS DISPLACEMENT (M)
30000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
DISPLACEMENT (M)
[W-T 0.001m:V 10m/s]
Type B
DYNAMIC MEAN LOAD (N) VERSUS DISPLACEMENT (M)
30000
20000
15000
10000
5000
20000
DISPLACEMENT (M)
18000
3500
16041.9
Type C
Fig. 4. Dynamic (N) versus displacement (m) tubular of foam-filled profile.
13887.7
14000
11886.6
10970.4
2500
10722.1
9668.98
10000
2000
8998.49
1620.71
8000
7225.21
6163.73
1375.43
721.438
4000 620.385
1592.81
1463.3
1590.71
7734.11
6840.72
1324.79
6137.01
1097.79
5231.9
903.156
1115.38
952.955
6000
3000
13304.6
11343.3
12000
15592.9
14706.4
15559.5
16000
1500
1177.72
1074.51
1000
783.784
693.549
619.509
533.087
500
2000
[V=20m/s]
[V=10m/s]
[V=20m/s]
[V=10m/s]
[V=20m/s]
[V=10m/s]
0
[V=10m/s]
0
[V=20m/s]
[V=10m/s]
[V=20m/s]
0.1
[V=10m/s]
0.08
[V=20m/s]
0.06
[V=20m/s]
0.04
[V=10m/s]
0.02
[V=20m/s]
[V=10m/s]
25000
[V=20m/s]
25000
[V=10m/s]
25000
Fig. 5. Dynamic absorbed energy (Joule) type of double cell type of A, B and
C foam-filled profile [Wall-Thickness = 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 mm] (Velocity=10
and 20 m/s).
V. CONCLUSION
The test element results model presented here confirm that
the mass related mean load level may considerably be
45
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, February 2014
Type A
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Type B
Type C
Fig. 6. Deformation pattern of double cell type of A tube profile
[Velocity=10m/s; Wall-Thickness = 1.0 mm].
46