Search Results

The objective of this paper focused on the modeling of an adaptive energy absorbing steering column which is the first phase of a study to develop a modeling methodology for an advanced steering wheel and column assembly. Early steering column designs often consisted of a simple long steel rod connecting the steering wheel to the steering gear box. In frontal collisions, a single-piece design steering column would often be displaced toward the driver as a result of front-end crush. Over time, engineers recognized the need to reduce the chance that a steering column would be displaced toward the driver in a frontal crash. As a result, collapsible, detachable, and other energy absorbing steering columns emerged as safer steering column designs. The safety-enhanced construction of the steering columns, whether collapsible, detachable, or other types, absorb rather than transfer frontal impact energy.

Motivated by a combination of increasing consumer demand for fuel efficient vehicles, more stringent greenhouse gas, and anticipated future Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, automotive manufacturers are working to innovate in all areas of vehicle design to improve fuel efficiency. In addition to improving aerodynamics, enhancing internal combustion engines and transmission technologies, and developing alternative fuel vehicles, reducing vehicle weight by using lighter materials and/or higher strength materials has been identified as one of the strategies in future vehicle development. Weight reduction in vehicle components, subsystems and systems not only reduces the energy needed to overcome inertia forces but also triggers additional mass reduction elsewhere and enables mass reduction in full vehicle levels.

To achieve optimal axial and bending crush performance using dual phase steels for components designed for crash energy absorption and/or intrusion resistance applications, the cross sections of the components need to be optimized. In this study, Altair HyperMorph™ and HyperStudy® optimization software were used in defining the shape design variables and the optimization problem setup, and non-linear finite element code LS-DYNA® software was used in crush simulations. Correlated crash simulation models were utilized and the square cross-section was selected as the baseline. The optimized cross-sections for bending and axial crush performance resulted in significant mass and cost savings, particularly with the application of dual phase steels.

The optimization method and CAE analysis have been widely used in structure design for crash safety. Combining the CAE analysis and optimization approach, vehicle structure design for crash can be implemented more efficiently. One of the recent safety desirables in structure design is to reduce vehicle pitch and drop. At frontal impact tests with unbelted occupants, the interaction between occupant's head and interior header/sun visor, which is caused by excessive vehicle pitch and drop, is not desired in vehicle crash development. In order to comply with the federal frontal crash requirements for unbelted occupant, it is necessary to manage the vehicle pitch and drop by improving structure design. In this paper, a systematic process of CAE analysis with optimization approach is applied for discovering the major structural components affecting vehicle pitch and drop.

The frontal rail is one of the most important components of a vehicle in determining crash performance, especially for a body on frame vehicle. Prior research [1] has shown that the frontal rail absorbs a significant amount of impact energy in a crash condition. In order to optimize crash performance, a component level sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect different types of triggers would have on the performance of the frontal rail. The objective of this study is to determine the sensitivity of trigger size, trigger shape, and trigger orientation as well as to improve corresponding trigger modeling methodology by comparing crushed components to crushed CAE models. In this sensitivity study, the location of the triggers was held fixed, while the size, shape, and orientation were varied. The metric that will be used to compare the performance of these different trigger shapes is the overall stiffness of the frontal rail.