ECCM15 - 15TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012
CRASHWORTHINESS ANALYSIS OF A COMPOSITE AND
THERMOPLASTIC FOAM STRUCTURE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
BUMPER SUBSYSTEM
Giovanni Belingardi1, Ermias Gebrekidan Koricho1, Alem Tekalign Beyene1,
Brunetto Martorana 2, Mangino Enrico2
1
Politecnico di Torino, Dipartimento di Meccanica, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 – 10129 Torino
2
Centro Ricerca Fiat, Strada Torino, 10043 Orbassano Torino, Italy
e-mail: {giovanni.belingardi, ermias.koricho, alem.beyene}@polito.it,{brunetto.martorana,
enrico.mangino}@crf.it
Key words: Bumper transverse beam, Composite, foam, Hot melt adhesive, adhesive joint ,
and pedestrian safety.
Abstract
In addition to protecting nearby components during low velocity impact, great care should be
taken for pedestrian and occupant safety during bumper subsystem design. choice of proper
material and appropriate connecting mechanism will significantly varies the crash behave of
the bumper and reduce one of the most important factor which is peak load
This paper covers material characterizations of hot melt adhesive (Prodas 1400), 30% glass
fibre in polyamide matrix and CFRP, for analyze their usage for a bumper subsystem and
comparing them with the commonly used bumper materials. Furthermore the currently used
mechanical joint between bumper beam and polymer foam is compared with adhesive
solution on the bases of crash resistance and stiffness. Result shows, CFRP composite beam
has comparative performance with better energy absorption and weight saving and adhesive
solution gives reduced peak load.
1. Introduction
In automotive industries, factors, such as vehicle weight reduction and energy absorption
through the large deformation but in a controlled manner of the frontal vehicle structure, is
getting researcher attention over the last few years, with particular reference to pedestrian
safety. Now a days an increasing knowledge of mechanical properties of composite materials
makes this group of material as a potential candidate for this applications.
Different researchers have analyzed bumper beams which are made from different types of
composite materials, such as carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), glass fiber reinforced
plastic (GFRP), sheet molding compound (SMC) and glass mat thermoplastic (GMT) in order
to improve the bumper subsystem performance by weight reduction and energy absorption,
[2-4]. Even though CFRP and GFRP can offer better mechanical performances, SMC and
GMT are widely used material due to their easier formability and lower material and
manufacturing costs.
Currently, in the European Union (EU) countries, about 75%, in fleet average, of each vehicle
is recyclable at its end-of-life, in particular its metallic parts. The rest (~25%) of the vehicle is
considered to be wasted and generally goes to landfills [5]. EU legislation requires the
1
ECCM15 - 15TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012
reduction of this waste to a maximum of 5% by 2015. Taking in to account this important
directive, in this study the implementation of recyclable material, and specifically polyamide
with 30% glass fiber, for the bumper beam construction is developed and the resulting
bumper performance is compared with the alternative solutions made of the reference
material, steel, and CFRP, i.e. a composite material that has recycling problem.
This paper intends to address material characterizations, design aspects and method of
analysis with particular reference to the application of composites (CFRP or, in alternative,
30% glass fiber in polyamide matrix), recyclable thermoplastic foam and adhesives materials
to automotive front bumper design. Particular attention is also paid to energy absorption,
reaction pick load, weight reduction and manufacturability of the bumper transverse beam to
evaluate the performance of proposed solutions.
2. Numerical modelling of Fiat-500 frontal transverse beam
The FIAT-500 transverse beam is studied to obtain lightweight bumper subsystem. The
reverse engineering process was applied to the actual frontal transverse bumper beam which
was taken from commercially available automotive spare parts, as shown in Figure 1 and
Figure 2. Detailed dimensions of each section were taken carefully to avoid the influence of
inappropriate geometry representation on the actual response of bumper subsystem during
impact phenomenon. The CAD model was developed using CATIA from the measured
dimensions. Furthermore, the geometries were edited in ABAQUS geometry editor to prepare
the model for meshing and numerical simulation. Besides, joining techniques, method of
manufacturing process and type of materials for each part were studied carefully in order to
use the appropriate design and material parameters inside ABAQUS environment.
Figure 1. Bumper subsystem for FIAT-500 model
In this work some of the challenging tasks finalized to develop an optimized numerical model,
in order to save computational effort, were the choice of element size and shape, contact
2
ECCM15 - 15TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012
definitions and assignment of appropriate constraints. To deal with these problems, the
complex shapes were subjected to localize meshing to keep the desired shape of the bumpers
beam. Also 3-node triangular general-purpose shells and 4-node doubly curved shell were
considered to avoid analytical and convergence problems due to unacceptable element aspect
ratio. At initial stage some preliminary analysis were performed to choose the element size
and shape, contribution of additional components on the global response, and to control the
required computation time. Based on the found results, new solutions were proposed: some
parts such as crash box and joining techniques were modeled by appropriate equivalent
constraints, this leads to relevant reduction of the computational time without significant
variation of the dynamic response, such as impact force, acceleration and kinetic energy. The
final FEM model is shown in Figure 3.
Foam Beam
Figure 2. Fiat-500 model
Figure 3. Numerical bumper subsystem model
3. Modelling of Composite material
Two types of materials were taken in to consideration to substitute the steel of the existing
bumper beam and thus to obtain lightweight bumper subsystem: CFRP twill fabric, and 30%
short glass fibers in polyamide matrix. In the case of polyamide material, two types of
polyamide (i.e. thermoplastic materials), PA66 and PA66 with 30% short glass fiber, were
considered and samples were manufactured using the injection molding machine available in
CRF. At initial stage, unreinforced PA66 was chosen as a design option for bumper beam
application. However, after material characterization, the results put in evidence that the
strength and the stiffness of this polyamide plastic are much lower than the existing material
solutions for bumper beam production. Hence, an alternative choice was implemented to
improve the mechanical behavior PA66. In this regard, material and manufacturing costs were
3
ECCM15 - 15TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012
the main factor to choose feasible solution for bumper beam application. Based on these
factors, short glass fiber material was selected to be the reinforcement inside PPA66 matrix.
Then, 30% of short glass fibers was added inside PA66 matrix and samples produced using
injection molding machine. Test results showed that the tensile strength and modulus of
elasticity of PPA6 were improved by 125 % and 220 %, respectively. Detailed material data
are listed in Table 1.
Composite Fiber volume Max. tensile stress Max. compressive E (GPa) ν12
fraction (MPa) stress(MPa)
Polyamide 30% glass fiber 0.3 143.08 154.63 10.35 0.405
Table 1 Elastic properties for polyamide 30% glass fiber
CFRP and steel test data were taken from [6] and [7], respectively. Also the characteristic of
polypropylene foam which was utilized as energy absorber for pedestrian safety was taken
from previous work performed in the Department Labs [8]. Regarding adhesive material,
Prodas 1400 hot melt adhesive was chosen and characterized for joining of composite
transverse beam with polypropylene foam.
4. Standards for low-speed frontal impact
To setup the appropriate boundary condition and the needed general variables of the bumper
subsystem, it is worth to survey existing standards related to design of bumper under impact
load condition. Currently, there are three low-speed impact regulations to check the
performance during crashing condition: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) Code 49 part 58 [9], the ECE Regulation No. 42 [10], and the Canadian Motor
Vehicle Safety Regulation (CMVSR) [11]. The NHTSA safety regulation has the same safety
requirement and damage limitation as the CMVSR, however, the speed is reduced by half. In
this paper, NHTSA standard was chosen to perform car-into-barrier impact tests. The impact
test against the barrier was conducted at 4 km/h on the full-width of the frontal bumper, as
shown in Figure 3. This standard requires that the light system, bonnet and doors can be
operated after the impact as in the normal operation conditions, beside all essential features
should be still appropriately functional or serviceable.
5. Bumper beam thickness determination
To study crash behaviour of the above mentioned bumper beam materials, two approaches
were adopted; material comparison with thickness equal to the reference solution (steel) and
material comparison with deflection (bending stiffness) equal to reference solution. The first
approach is the simplest one and allows substituting the material without altering the
geometry profile of bumper beam. Whereas, the second approach needs to calculate the
thickness of each proposed materials to obtain the same stiffness value with the reference
solution based on proposed method in [13]. Calculated bumper beam thickness for each
material type are reported in Table 2.
CFRP [0/90]4s, 30% glass fiber polyamide
Thickness, ℎ [mm] 3.2 5.45
Table 2 - Bumper beam thickness for each material type
6. Result Discussion
In Figure 4 the crash performance of the bumper is compared based on material substitution.
Steel bumper beam performed appreciably since it absorbs a quite interesting quantity of
4
ECCM15 - 15TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012
energy while the reaction force peak, that could be transferred to the passengers, remained the
smaller. At the initial phase of impact scenario, steel bumper beam was stiffer than CFRP and
30% glass fiber polyamide bumper beams. This means that the steel beam resists better to the
applied load, however, approximately after 20ms, it becomes weaker due large plastic
deformation. As a consequence the remaining impact phenomenon asks for the crash box
involvement. Hence, it can be clearly seen in the Figure 4 that the reaction force is increased
monotonically because of rigid crashbox involvement. On the other hand, CFRP and 30%
glass fiber polyamide bumper beam exhibited softer property from the very beginning.
Reaction force comparison for differnt materials
70000
60000
CFRP composite beam
Reaction force, [N]
50000
Polyamide_30% glass
40000 Steel Beam
30000
20000
10000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time, [sec]
Figure 4. Reaction force vs. time curves of bumper beam on the bases of equal thickness, 2 mm (without
reinforcement).
To obtain equivalent performance between the reference steel bumper beam and the
alternative composite beams, the thickness of each composite beam was modified on the basis
of equal bending stiffness criterion. Figure 5 shows the impact force response of modified
composite beams. It can be clearly seen that some relevant improvements were obtained at the
initial stage of impact scenario, especially in the case of CFRP bumper beam. For what
concerns the reaction load peak, in the case of 30% glass polyamide, the pick decreased
significantly, while insignificant improvement was observed in the case of CFRP beam.
Reaction force comparison for differnt materials
60000
50000
CFRP composite beam
Reaction force, [N]
40000 Polyamide_30% glass
Steel Beam
30000
20000
10000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time, [sec]
Figure 5. Reaction force vs. time curve of bumper beam on the bases of equal stiffness (without reinforcement)
To improve the composite bumper beam performance, the stress distribution and mode of
deformation were analyzed, particularly at initial stage of impact. The results revealed that
localized high deformation and stress were observed near to the end of beam back support
5
ECCM15 - 15TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012
which is adjacent to the crash box, as shown in Figure 6. In order to re-distribute the
concentrated stress, reinforcements were incorporated as a design solution on both ends of
beam back support, as shown in Figure 7. The reinforcement developed considerable stress
redistribution and reduced the maximum principal stress peak on the main bumper beam by
23.6%. By applying this new design solution, appreciable improvements regarding peak
reaction load were obtained, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 6. Local stress formation at the bumper critical section.
Figure 7. Introduction of reinforcements to reduce the stress concentration.
The CFRP solution reduced the peak reaction load by 20.3 % due these additional
reinforcements. More interestingly, progressive failure was found in this solution which is
very essential from the point of view of the energy absorption to improve the occupant safety.
On the other hand, 30% glass polyamide based bumper beam solution exhibited insignificant
reduction (-1.3 %) of the reaction load peak.
Reaction force comparison for differnt materials
60000
50000
CFRP composite beam
Reaction force, [N]
40000 Polyamide_30% glass
Steel Beam
30000
20000
10000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time, [sec]
Figure 8. Reaction force vs. time curve of bumper beam on the bases of equal stiffness (with reinforcement)
6
ECCM15 - 15TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012
This means that 30% glass polyamide material solution, despite of the above described
structure modifications, still needs the involvement of the crash-box to absorb energy during
this impact. This behavior can be explained by its lower strength, stiffness and strain to failure
properties.
Another interesting result from the point of view of lightweight is weight reduction. With
respect to the reference steel bumper beam solution, CFRP and 30% glass fiber polyamide
bumper beams reduce the weight by 67.8% and 45%, respectively.
Regarding joining techniques, through analysis of beam and foam connecting techniques, the
currently used mechanical press fitting approach, as shown in Figure 9, is compared with
adhesive solution. As it is well known, mechanical press fitting, needs holes on the beam
which usually cause stress concentration and ultimately beam strength reduction. Whereas,
the proposed adhesive joining, as it is clearly shown in Figure 10, in addition to preventing
the above mentioned problems, reduces slightly the reaction force peak, which is one of the
main factors to be controlled during crashworthiness analysis.
a) b)
Figure 9. Joint techniques between bumper beam and energy absorver: a) mechanical fitting; b) adhesive joint
Reaction force comparison for differnt joining mechanism
60000
50000
Mechancial fitting joint
Adhesive joint
40000
Reaction force, [N]
30000
20000
10000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time, [sec]
Figure 10. Comparison of reaction force vs. time curves of bumper beam using mechanical fit and adhesive joint
7. Conclusions
In the study, the re-design of a front bumper subsystem has been developed finalised to
lightweight. Alternative solutions have been considered by substituting the used steel with
other suitable materials. The bumper beam solutions, based on these alternative materials,
have been developed on the bases of equal thickness and equal stiffness criteria. Comparison
of the obtained FE simulation results illustrates how the choice of material can significantly
7
ECCM15 - 15TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012
affects the performance of bumper subsystem. The introductions of local reinforcements at the
stress concentration point enhance the composite bumper beam performance by redistributing
the stress and preventing local failures. However the PA66 solution, even if reinforced with
short glass fibres, does not reach comparable result with respect to the CFRP solution.
Looking at the results from another point of view, the polyamide with 30% glass solution
leads to better results in term of possible material recycling at the end of life, while CFRP has
still problematic perspective. Therefore, taking into account the EU recycling requirements,
the polyamide with 30% glass solution can be considered an alternative solution. Some
improvements can certainly be obtained with further geometry optimization.
Finally, regarding the joining techniques, the proposed adhesive joint using hot melt adhesive,
in addition to prevent high stress concentration and inconvenient manufacturing process,
reduces slightly the reaction force peak, which is one of the main factors to be controlled
during crashworthiness analysis.
Acknowledgements
The activities were performed in the frame of the project “CESPERT” (DM29021) funded by
the M.I.U.R.
References
[1] “Structural Bumper Beams made in GMTexTM“ Technical Information, Quadrant
Plastic Composites site.
[2] Davoodi M.M., Sapuan S.M., Ahmad D., Aidy A., Khalian A., Jonoobi M. – “Concept
selection of car bumper beam with developed hybrid bio-composite.”, Material and
Design,
[3] Marzbanrad J., Alijanpour M., Kiasat M. S. – “Design and analysis of an automotive
bumper beam in low-speed frontal crashes.”, Thin wall structures, 2009, vol. 47,
pp.:902-911
[4] Cheon S.S., Choi J.H. , Lee D.G. – “Development of the composite beam for passenger
cars.”, Composite Structures, 1995, vol. 32, pp. 491-499
[5] Kanari N., Pineau J.L., Shallari S. – “End-of-life vehicle recycling in the European
Union.”, The minerals, metals & material society, 2003,
[6] Belingardi G., Koricho E.G. – “Implementation of composite material car body
structural joint and investigation of its characteristics with geometry modifications”,
proc. of the 14th European Conference On Composite Materials, 7-10 June 2010,
Budapest, Hungary.
[7] Belingardi G., Koricho E.G. – “Implementation of Hybrid solution in car body
structural joints”, AIAS XXXIX Nat. Conf., 7-10 September 2010, Maratea, Italy.
[8] Avalle M., Belingardi G., Montanini R. – “Characterization of polymeric structural
foams under compressive impact loading by means of energy-absorption diagram”, Int.
J. of Impact Engineering, 25 (2001), pp. 455-472
[9] NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – “Laboratory Test
Procedure for Regulation Part 581 Bumper Standard Safety Assurance”; 1990.
[10] ECE – “Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicle with regard to frontal
and rear protective device”; 1980.
[11] CRC - “Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations”; 2009
[12] G. Belingardi, Ermias G. Koricho, Brunetto Martorana, Design Optimization and
Implementation of Composite and Recyclable Thermoplastic Materials for Automotive
Bumper. Fifth International Conference on Advanced Computational Methods in
Engineering (ACOMEN 2011), 14-17 November 2011, Liège, Belgium
