Search Results

Interior compartment doors are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201, to stay closed during physical head impact testing, and when subjected to specific inertia loads. This paper defines interior compartment doors, and shows examples of several different latches designed to keep these doors closed. It also explores the details of the requirements that interior compartment doors and their latches must meet, including differing requirements from automobile manufacturers. It then shows the conventional static method a supplier uses to analyze a latch and door system. And, since static calculations can't always capture the complexities of a dynamic event, this paper also presents a case study of one particular latch and door system showing a way to simulate the forces experienced by a latch. The dynamic simulation is done using Finite Element Analysis and instrumentation of actual hardware in physical tests.

Visteon has developed a CAE procedure to qualify instrument panel (IP) products under the vehicle key life test environments, by employing a set of CAE simulation and durability techniques. The virtual key life test method simulates the same structural configuration and the proving ground road loads as in the physical test. A representative dynamic road load profile model is constructed based on the vehicle proving ground field data. The dynamic stress simulation is realized by employing the finite element transient analysis. The durability evaluation is based on the dynamic stress results and the material fatigue properties of each component. The procedure has helped the IP engineering team to identify and correct potential durability problems at earlier design stage without a prototype. It has shown that the CAE virtual key life test procedure provides a way to speed up IP product development, to minimize prototypes and costs.

GENPAD® is a knowledge-based, three-dimensional modeling computer tool developed by Visteon to create occupant-friendly interiors. GENPAD quickly and easily produces zones to evaluate ergonomic aspects of vehicle interiors such as reach, clearance, vision, and reflection. These zones are produced from automated design studies based on experience and engineering standards accepted by the automotive industry. Without GENPAD, a single study requires an experienced engineer 4-6 hours to complete. Multiple studies require several engineers weeks to perform. The methods used are also error-prone due to complex instructions. To overcome these challenges, GENPAD provides over 50 ergonomic packaging studies that produce accurate results in minutes, not weeks, every time.

Occupant knee impact simulations are performed in the automotive industry as an integrated design process during the course of instrument panel (IP) development. All major automakers have different categories of dynamic testing methods as part of their design process in validating their designs against the FMVSS 208 requirement. This has given rise to a corresponding number of knee impact simulations performed at various stages of product development. This paper investigates the advantages and disadvantages of various types of these knee impact simulations. Only the knee load requirement portion of the FMVSS208 is considered in this paper.

Occupant head impact simulations on automotive instrument panels (IP) are routinely performed as part of an integrated design process during the course of IP development. Based on the requirements (F/CMVSS, ECE), head impact zones on the IP are first established, which are then used to determine the various “hit” locations to be tested/analyzed. Once critical impact locations are identified, CAE simulations performed which is a repetitive process that involves computing impact angles, positioning the rigid head form with an assigned initial velocity and defining suitable contacts within the finite element model. A commercially available CAE process automation tool was used to automate these steps and generate a head impact simulation model. Once the input model is checked for errors by the automated process, it can be submitted to a solver without any user intervention for analysis and report generation.