CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk
Provided by International Journal of Science Engineering and Advance Technology (IJSEAT)

International Journal of Science Engineering and Advance Technology, ISSN 2321-6905

IJSEAT, Vol 2, Issue 10 October-2014

Impact Analysis of A Car Bumper Using Carbon Fiber Reinforced PEI And
S2 Glass/Epoxy Materials By Solid Works Software

Ayyappa Swamy GV #1, P Satish Reddy #2, Matta Manoj #3, P.Bhaskar #4
ME Department, Prasiddha College of Engg and Technology, Anathavaram
1 2 3 4
swamy16@rocketmail.com, satish2436@gmail.com, mattamanoj13@gmail.com, smilybobbys@gmail.com

Abstract- Bumper is an important part which is used Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215
as protection for passengers from front and rear (FMVSS 215), "Exterior Protection," took effect on 1
collision. The intend of this study was to investigate September 1972 — when most automakers would
the structure and material employed for car bumper in begin producing their model year 1973 vehicles. The
one of the car manufacturer. In this study, the most standard prohibited functional damage to specified
important variables like material, structures, shapes and safety-related components such as headlamps and fuel
impact conditions are studied for analysis of the system components when the vehicle is subjected to
bumper beam in order to improve the crashworthiness barrier crash tests at 5 miles per hour (8 km/h) for front
during collision. and 2.5 miles per hour (4 km/h) for rear bumper
systems.
The simulation of a bumper is characterized
by impact modeling using Pro/Engineer, impact The standards were further beefed up for the
analysis is done by COSMOS according to the speed 1974 model year passenger cars with standardized
that is 13.3 m sec-1 (48 km h-1) given in order to height front and rear bumpers that could take angle
analyze the results. This speed is according to impacts at 5 mile-per-hour (8 km/h) with no damage to
regulations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, the car's lights, safety equipment, and engine. In 1990,
FMVSS 208- Occupant Crash Protection whereby the IIHS conducted four crash tests on three different-year
purpose and scope of this standard specifies examples of the Plymouth Horizon. The results
requirements to afford impact protection for illustrated the effect of the changes to the U.S. bumper
passengers. regulations (repair costs quoted in 1990 United States
dollars).
Keywords-Bumper, Simulation, COSMOS,
FMVSS 208
In early 2009, Canada's regulation shifted to
I. INTRODUCTION harmonize with U.S. Federal standards and
international ECE regulations. Consumer groups are
upset with the change, but Canadian regulators assert
An automobile's bumper is the front-most or that the 4 km/h (2.5 mph) test speed is used worldwide
rear-most part, ostensibly designed to allow the car to and is more compatible with improved pedestrian
sustain an impact without damage to the vehicle's protection in vehicle-pedestrian crashes.
safety systems. They are not capable of reducing injury
to vehicle occupants in high-speed impacts, but are II TYPES OF BUMPERS
increasingly being designed to mitigate injury to
pedestrians struck by cars.  Plastic bumper- Most modern cars use a
reinforced thermoplastic bumper, as they are
In 1971, the U.S. National Highway Traffic cheap to manufacture, easy to fit and absorb
Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the country's more energy during a crash.
first regulation applicable to passenger car bumpers.

www.ijseat.com Page 565

 International Journal of Science Engineering and Advance Technology, ISSN 2321-6905
IJSEAT, Vol 2, Issue 10 October-2014

 Body kit bumper- Modified cars often now foam. Better bumpers often have hydraulic shock
have a full body kit rather than just a front and absorbers instead of, or in addition to, the foam.
rear bumper. These kits act as a skirt around
the entire body of the car and improve Today's plastic auto bumpers and fascia systems
performance by reducing the amount of air are aesthetically pleasing, while offering advantages to
flowing underneath the car and so reducing both designers and drivers. The majority of modern
drag. plastic car bumper system fascias are made of
 Carbon fiber bumper- Carbon fiber body work thermoplastic olefins (TPOs), polycarbonates,
is normally the thing of super-cars, but many polyesters, polypropylene, polyurethanes, polyamides,
car companies, and specialist modifiers, are or blends of these with, for instance, glass fibers, for
starting to use it for replacement body part on strength and structural rigidity. The use of plastic in
everyday cars. auto bumpers and fascias gives designers a tremendous
amount of freedom when it comes to styling a
 Steel bumper- Originally plated steel was used prototype vehicle, or improving an existing model.
for the entire body of a car, including the Plastic bumpers contain reinforcements that allow them
bumper. This material worked well, as it was to be as impact-resistant as metals while being less
very strong in a crash, but it was very heavy expensive to replace than their metal equivalents.
and dented performance. As car engine design Plastic car bumpers generally expand at the same rate
has improved, steel bumpers have pretty much as metal bumpers under normal driving temperatures
disappeared for anything except classic cars. and do not usually require special fixtures to keep them
Replacing one involves a lot of searching for in place.
scrap cars or having one specially made.

III MATERIALS USED IN BUMPER IV DESIGN AND MODELING-Actual Car Bumper

At one time, most car bumpers were made of steel.

Then, most were made of chrome or a chrome-plated
material. Today, car bumpers can be made from
anything from chrome-plated material to a variety of
different rubber materials or plastics. This makes
detailing car bumpers somewhat more complicated, as
bumpers made from different materials require very
different detailing treatments.

Detailing a chrome-plated bumper requires a bit of

Fig-1: Model of a Car Bumper
patience and a light sanding touch, but it is certainly
something that even the most casual car owner can
accomplish in a day or less. The primary enemy of
chrome-plated bumpers is oxidation (rust). The longer
you allow rust spots to remain on your bumper, the
more difficult the detailing process is going to be.

Bumpers on most new cars are color-coordinated

plastic "wrappers," molded sleekly around the front
and back ends of the vehicles. They may please the
eye, but whether these bumpers protect the vehicle they
surround from damage in low-speed impacts is another
matter. According to the National Institute for
Highway Safety, how well the car is protected depends
Fig-2: Stresses for actual Bumper-Alloy Steel at Speed
largely on what's underneath the plastic. Bumper
systems usually include a reinforcement bar plus 48km/hr
energy-absorbing material, such as polypropylene

www.ijseat.com Page 566

 International Journal of Science Engineering and Advance Technology, ISSN 2321-6905
IJSEAT, Vol 2, Issue 10 October-2014

Fig-3: Stresses for actual Bumper-Alloy Steel at Speed Fig-6: Stress for actual bumper-S2glass/Epoxy at speed
120 km/hr 48Km/hr

Fig-7: Stress for actual bumper-S2glass/Epoxy at speed

120 Km/hr
Fig-4: Stress for actual bumper-Carbon Fiber
Reinforced PEI at speed 48 km/hr V DESIGN AND MODELING- Modified Bumper

Fig-5: Stress for actual bumper-Carbon Fiber

Reinforced PEI at speed 120 Km/hr

www.ijseat.com Page 567

 International Journal of Science Engineering and Advance Technology, ISSN 2321-6905
IJSEAT, Vol 2, Issue 10 October-2014

Fig-8: Stress for modified bumper-alloy steel at speed

48Km/hr

Fig-12: Stress comparison at speed 120 km/hr

Fig-9: Stress for modified bumper-Carbon fiber
reinforced PEI at speed 48km/hr

Fig-10: Stress for modified bumper-S2glass/Epoxy Fig-13: Weight Comparison

at speed 48km/hr VI CONCLUSION

1. In our thesis, actual model of a car bumper is

designed and a modified model to the actual is also
designed.

2. Impact analysis is done on the car bumper for

different speeds of 48Km/hr and 120Km/hr. The
analysis is done on the car bumper for different
materials Alloy Steel, S2 Glass/Epoxy and Carbon
Fiber Reinforced PEI.

3. Present used material for car bumper is steel. By

using steel the weight of the car bumper is more
but by using composites the weight of the bumper
is reduced since densities are very less compared
with steel. By using S2 Glass/Epoxy, the weight is
Fig-11: Stress comparison at speed 48 km/hr almost reduced by 4Kgs and by using carbon Fiber
Reinforced PEI it is almost reduced by 5Kgs.

www.ijseat.com Page 568

 International Journal of Science Engineering and Advance Technology, ISSN 2321-6905
IJSEAT, Vol 2, Issue 10 October-2014

P. Ballard and F. Marikar, TMS-New Jersey,

4. By observing the analysis results for both the 1990, pp 85-96.
designs, the analyzed stress and displacement
values are more for the actual model than the 5. T. W. Clyne, An Introductory Overview of
modified model. So it can be concluded that MMC System, Types and Developments in
modifying the original design is better. Comprehensive Composite Materials,; Metal
Matrix Composites, T. W Clyne (ed), Elsevier,
5. By observing the analysis results, the analyzed Vol-3 (2000): pp.1-26.
stress values when steel and PEI are used are safe
when impacted at a speed of 48km/hr, but the 6. L.M.Manocha & A.R. Bunsell “Advances in
stress values for those materials when impacted at composite materials”, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
a speed of 120km/hr is not safe since their Vol.2, (1980) p 1233-1240.
analyzed stress values are more than their
respective yield stress values. So using Steel and
Carbon Fiber-Reinforced PEI at a speed of
7. Berghezan,A.Nucleus,8(5),(1966),(Nucleus A
Editeur,1,rhe,Chalgrin,Paris, 16(e).
120km/hr is not better.

6. But the analyzed stress values when S2 8. Suchetclan Van, Philips Res. Repts. Volume 27,
Glass/Epoxy is used impacted at both the speeds is (1972): p. 28.
safe since the stress values are less than its yield
stress value. So we can conclude that using S2 9. Agarwal B.D. and Broutman L.J., “Analysis and
Glass/Epoxy is better. performance of fiber composites” John Wiley
& Sons, New York, (1980): p. 3-12.
VII SCOPE OF FUTURE RESEARCH
10. Bledzki A K, Gassan J., “Composites
By this thesis, it is proved analytically that reinforced with cellulose based fibers”.
using composites is better for bumper than steel due to Progress in Polymer Science , Volume 24,
the reduction in weight and also stresses. But more (1999): p. 221-274
experiments have to done for feasible using of
composites considering cost and other conditions. 11. Hosseinzadeh RM, Shokrieh M, and Lessard
LB, “Parametric study of automotive
VIII REFERENCES composite bumper beams subjected to low -
velocity impacts”, J. Composite Stuct., 68
(2005):419 - 427.
1. A.K.Dhingra, “metal replacement by
composite”, JOM 1986, Vol 38 (03), p. 17. 12. Marzbanrad JM, Alijanpour M, and Kiasat MS,
“Design and analysis of automotive bumper
beam in low speed frontal crashesh”, Thin
2. K.Upadhya, “composite materials for aerospace Walled Struct., 47 (2009): 902-911.
applications, developments in ceramic and
metal matrix composites”, Kamaleshwar
Upadhya, ed., warren dale, PA: TMS
publications, 1992, pp. 3-24.

3. Greg Fisher, “Composite: Engineering the

ultimate material”, Am. Ceram. Soc, Bull, Vol.
63 (2) (1984): pp. 360-364.

4. T.G.Nieh, K.R. Forbes, T.C. Chou and J.

Wadsworth, “Microstructure and deformation
properties of an Al2O3-Ni3Al composite from
room temp to 14000C”, High Performance
Composites for the 1990’s Eds. S. K. Das, C.

www.ijseat.com Page 569