Numerical and experimental impact analysis of square crash box structure with holes

2,256 views

Published on

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,256
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
107
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Numerical and experimental impact analysis of square crash box structure with holes

  1. 1. Thesis DefenceNumerical and Experimental Impact Analysis of Square Crash Box Structure with Holes By: Sahril Afandi Sitompul 23611004 Supervisors: Dr. Tatacipta Dirgantara Dr. Leonardo Gunawan Prof. Dr. Ichsan S. Putra Lightweight Structure Research Group Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Institut Teknologi Bandung Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung 40132, INDONESIA
  2. 2. Presentation Outline Introduction • Research Background • Research Objectives • Scope of works • Methodology Axial Crushing • Theoretical Analysis Finite Element Methods • Computational Mechanics •Explicit Finite Element Method • Structural Model • Modeling Procedure Experimental Tests • Tensile Testing • Dynamic Axial Crushing Testing Result and Analysis • Numerical and Experimental Results Conclusions and Future WorksLightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  3. 3. IntroductionResearch Background Auto Motor und Sport spezial 1992, photo H.P. SeufertLightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  4. 4. Introduction Research BackgroundT. Frank and K. Gruber. Numerical simulation of frontal impact and offset J. Marsolek and H. G. Reimerdes. Energy absorption of metallic cylindrical shells with induced non-collisions.Cray Research Inc., CRAY Channels: 2–6, 1992. axisymmetric folding patterns. International Journal of Impact Engineering 30 (2004) 1209-1223. Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  5. 5. Introduction Research BackgroundLightweight Structure Research Group Concentrating on one of Crashworthiness Safety research areas: STRUCTURAL IMPACT PRESERVES SUFFICIENT SURVIVAL SPACE around the ENGINEERING occupants to limit bodily injury during an accident. CONTROLLING THE DECELERATION within an acceptable safety level to prevent the injury to the passenger. Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  6. 6. Introduction Research ObjectivesTo study the behavior of extruded aluminum thin-walled columns with squarecross-section and to examine the EFFECT OF INSERTING OF CIRCULAR HOLE(S)as a crush initiator subjected to impact loadingCrashworthy Meet acceptable Light-weight vehicle Peak Crushing safety level structurePerformance Load Crushing Crushing Force Crash box Parameters Efficiency design Reduce fuel consumption Mean Crushing Reduce CO2 Force emissions Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  7. 7. IntroductionScope of Works• The numerical and experimental analysis are limited to asquare column with cross section 38 x 38 mm and thickness1.15 mm subjected to axial impact load with initial velocitybelow 4.5 m/s.• In parametric study, the column width is varied from 40 to 80mm with uniform thickness of 1.2 mm. The impact velocity is4.5 m/s.• The material used in this work was the aluminum extrusionAA 6063-T1.•The holes inserted on the column have the diameter tocolumn width ratios ranged from 0 – 0.8.Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  8. 8. IntroductionMethodology Axial Crushing of Square Crash Box Experimental Numerical Tensile Testing Parametric Study Axial Crushing Testing Numerical and Experimental Analysis Conclusions and Future WorksLightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  9. 9. Axial Crushing Theoretical Analysis Loading Thin-Walled Structures Material Independent of Strain RateAxial Crushing Column Dependent of Strain Rate Static Progressive Buckling Low Velocity (up to 10 m/s) Dynamic Progressive Buckling High Velocity Dynamic Plastic Buckling Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering N Jones. Structural Impact. 2003. Ly Hung Anh. 2007.
  10. 10. Axial CrushingTheoretical Analysis Folding Mechanism of Square Column Annisa Jusuf. 2012.Super folding Element. Inextensional mode plastic deformation. Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  11. 11. Axial Crushing Theoretical Analysis 60 Pmax Instantaneous Crushing Force Curve MEAN CRUSHING FORCE Instantaneous Crushing Force, P (kN) Mean Crushing Force Curve MAXIMUMPEAK CRUSHING 40 FORCE Pm CRUSHING FORCE EFFICIENCY 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Crushing Length, (mm) Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  12. 12. Finite Element MethodsComputational Mechanics NANOMECHANICS & MICROMECHANICS SOLID MECHANICS CONTINUUM MECHANICS FLUID MECHANICS (CFD) SYSTEMS FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION (FSI) DISCRETIZATION FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (FEM) SPATIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENT METHOD (BEM) FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD (FDM) FINITE VOLUME METHOD (FVM) EXPLICIT SMOOTHED PARTICLE HYDRODYNAMICS FINITE ELEMENT (SPH) METHODS TIME EXPLICIT IMPLICIT Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  13. 13. Finite Element MethodsExplicit Finite Element Methods Used in LS-DYNA commercial code Non-iterative Formulations Small time step (conditional stability) Finite Element Steps Increment 1 Increment 2 Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  14. 14. Finite Element MethodsStructural Model Impact Impac Number b (mm) t (mm) D/b Velocity t Mass of Holes (m/s) (kg) Set 1 (Experimental and Numerical ) 0 4.3684 0.3 4.3751 38 1.15 1 45.5 0.5 4.4538 0.7 4.3824 Set 2 (Experimental and Numerical ) 0.2 4.3812 45.5 38 1.15 0.3 2 4.3602 0.5 4.4024 Set 3 (Numerical ) 40, 0,0.1,Lightweight Structure Laboratory 50,…,80 …,0.8 Structural Impact4.5 1&2 Engineering 80
  15. 15. Finite Element Methods Modeling Procedure FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF THE COLUMN IMPACTING mass 1 The impactor was modeled as a rigid body usinghexahedral eight-node solid rigid element HOLE location VELOCITY 2 The hole was introduced in the column model to achieve a stable deformation Impact Velocity direction mode and reduce initial peak load during loading 4 3 BOUNDARY condition The column was fixed in all directions, the constraints are located on every nodes from the lower end of the 5 columns to 12 mm above to simulate the lower jig in the COLUMN wall experiment The column was fully modeled using The impactor was constrained in all direction except quadrilateral Belytscko-Tsay four-nodes shell along the vertical axis which coincides with the direction elements with size 1 mm x 1 mm of the impact in order to ensure the impacting mass did not rotate during impact Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  16. 16. Experimental TestsTensile Testing High Speed Material Testing Machine for INTERMEDIATE STRAIN RATE TENSILE TEST (strain rate 1/s, 10/s, 100/s)INSTRON 5585 for QUASI-STATIC TENSILE TEST(strain rate 0.001/s, 0.1/s) The behavior of AA 6063-T1 is INDEPENDENT OF THE STRAIN RATE Engineering Stress – Strain Curve Mechanical Properties of AA 6063 T1 160 AA 6063-T1 Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 7.32.104 Stress, σ (MPa) 120 Yield stress, y (MPa) 83.81 80 Tensile stress, u (MPa) 154 40 Poisson’s ratio,  0.3 Density,  (kg/mm3) 2.7×10–6 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering Strain, ε
  17. 17. Experimental Tests Dynamic Axial Crushing Testing Hoist Clamp DROP WEIGHT IMPACT TESTING Wheel MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS : FrameWeightening mass Max. Impact Mass 150 kg Impactor head Max. Impact Height 5m Guide column Speed sensor Max. Impact Velocity 9.8 m/s Specimen Load cell Steel plateConcrete base DAQ Data acquisition Schematic drawing and picture of equipment dropped weight impact testing machine in the Computer Lightweight Structure Laboratory, Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Institut Teknologi Bandung Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  18. 18. Experimental TestsDynamic Axial Crushing Testing Crushing Force History Provide the output Convert a physical Adjust the signal signal representing DAQ NI USB- property change into type and range of the the measurement in 6211, Sampling Rate an electrical signal output a digital code 250 kHz Wheatstone Bridge Strain Gage Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  19. 19. Experimental TestsDynamic Axial Crushing Testing Displacement History Trapezoidal Integration rule applied Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  20. 20. Result and AnalysisSquare Tubes with One Hole COLLAPSE DEFORMATION MODES INSTANTANEOUS CRUSHING FORCE 25 Experimental Crushing Force, P (kN) 20 Experimental (smoothing) Numerical 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70square crash box with D/b = 0 (without hole) Crushing Length,  (mm) 25 Experimental Crushing Force, P (kN) 20 Experimental (smoothing) Numerical 15 Hole 10 location 5 0 square crash box with D/b = 0.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Crushing Length,  (mm) Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  21. 21. Result and Analysis Square Tubes with One Hole 10 30 10 30 Mean Crushing Force, Pm (kN) Peak Crushing Force, P MaxMean Crushing Force, Pm (kN) Peak Crushing Force, P Max 8 8 25 25 20 20 6 6 (kN) 15 15 (kN) 4 4 Experimental Experimental 10 10 Experimental Experimental 2 2 Numerical Numerical 55 Numerical Numerical 0 0 00 0 0 0.20.2 0.40.4 0.60.6 0.80.8 00 0.20.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 D/b D/b D/b D/b 0.5 Crushing Force Efficiency, CFE 0.4 Experimental Numerical 0.3 D/b Pm Pmax CFE Pm Pmax CFE (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) 0.2 Experimental Experimenta 0 8.09 24.45 0.33 6.78 18.62 0.36 0.1 l Numerical 0.3 8.24 22.60 0.36 6.62 17.76 0.37 0.5 7.63 21.55 0.35 6.76 16.39 0.41 0 0.7 7.84 22.88 0.34 6.19 14.67 0.42 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 D/b D/b Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  22. 22. Result and AnalysisSquare Tubes with Two Holes COLLAPSE DEFORMATION MODES INSTANTANEOUS CRUSHING FORCE 25 Experimental 20 Experimental (smoothing) Crushing Force, P (kN) Numerical 15 10 Hole location 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Crushing Length,  (mm) square crash box with D/b = 0.2 Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  23. 23. Result and AnalysisSquare Tubes with Two Holes 30 10 Peak Crushing Force, P Max (kN)Mean Crushing Force, Pm (kN) 25 8 20 6 15 4 Experimental 10 Experimental 2 Numerical 5 Numerical 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 D/b D/b 0.5Crushing Force Efficiency, CFE Experimental Numerical 0.4 D/b Pm Pmax CFE Pm Pmax CFE 0.3 (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) 0.2 Experimental 0 8.09 24.45 0.33 6.78 18.62 0.36 0.1 Numerical 0.2 7.71 22.63 0.34 6.29 17.79 0.35 0 0.3 7.72 21.43 0.36 6.34 17.21 0.37 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 D/b 0.5 7.59 19.55 0.39 6.40 15.29 0.42 Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  24. 24. Result and Analysis Parametric Study Square Columns with One Hole 25 D/b = 0 Instantaneous Crushing Force, P (kN) D/b = 0.2 20 D/b = 0.3 D/b = 0.4 D/b = 0.5 15 D/b = 0.6 D/b = 0.7 D/b = 0.8 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Displacement, mmDeformation modes of square crash boxwith b = 40: (a) D/b = 0.3; (b) D/b = 0.4. Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  25. 25. Result and Analysis Parametric Study Square Columns with One Hole 12 60 b = 40 Peak Crushing Force, P MaxMean Crushing Force, Pm (kN) b = 50 10 50 b = 60 8 40 b = 70 b = 80 6 30 (kN) b = 40 4 b = 50 20 b = 60 2 b = 70 10 b = 80 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 D/b D/b 0.5 Crushing Force Efficiency, CFE 0.4 0.3 b = 40 0.2 b = 50 b = 60 0.1 b = 70 b = 80 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 D/b Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  26. 26. Result and Analysis Parametric Study Square Columns with Two Holes 25 D/b = 0 Instantaneous Crushing Force, P (kN) D/b = 0.2 20 D/b = 0.3 D/b = 0.4 D/b = 0.5 15 D/b = 0.6 D/b = 0.7 D/b = 0.8 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Displacement, mmDeformation modes of square crash boxwith b = 50: (a) D/b = 0.3; (b) D/b = 0.5. Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  27. 27. Result and Analysis Parametric Study Square Columns with Two Holes 60 b = 40 12 Peak Crushing Force, P Max (kN)Mean Crushing Force, Pm (kN) b = 50 10 50 b = 60 40 b = 70 8 b = 80 6 30 b = 40 4 b = 50 20 2 b = 60 b = 70 10 0 b = 80 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 D/b D/b 0.5 Crushing Force Efficiency, CFE 0.4 0.3 0.2 b = 40 b = 50 0.1 b = 60 b = 70 0 b = 80 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Lightweight Structure Laboratory D/b Structural Impact Engineering
  28. 28. Conclusions and Future WorksConclusions• The numerical simulation can predict the deformation modecompared to the experiment results.• It is found that inserting holes in a square box column willdecrease the peak crushing force and increase the CFE of thecolumn.Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  29. 29. Conclusions and Future WorksFuture Works• Perform numerical and experimental analysis to obtain ahigher value of CFE with different geometricalconfigurations and location of the discontinuities.• Perform numerical and experimental analysis to study theeffect of discontinuities for different material properties.Lightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering
  30. 30. Thank YouLightweight Structure Laboratory Structural Impact Engineering

×