Advertisement

Mathematical modeling of a vehicle crash test based on elasto-plastic unloading scenarios of spring-mass models

  • Witold Pawlus
  • Hamid Reza Karimi
  • Kjell Gunnar Robbersmyr
Original Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the usability of spring which exhibit nonlinear force-deflection characteristic in the area of mathematical modeling of vehicle crash. We present a method which allows us to obtain parameters of the spring-mass model basing on the full-scale experimental data analysis. Since vehicle collision is a dynamic event, it involves such phenomena as rebound and energy dissipation. Three different spring unloading scenarios (elastic, plastic, and elasto-plastic) are covered and their suitability for vehicle collision simulation is evaluated. Subsequently we assess which of those models fits the best to the real car’s behavior not only in terms of kinematic responses but also in terms of energy distribution.

Keywords

Vehicle crash Spring-mass model Unloading stiffness Coefficient of restitution Total crash energy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pawlus W, Nielsen JE, Karimi HR, Robbersmyr KG (2010) Mathematical modeling and analysis of a vehicle crash. In: The 4th European computing conference, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pawlus W, Nielsen JE, Karimi HR, Robbersmyr KG (2010) Development of mathematical models for analysis of a vehicle crash. WSEAS Trans Appl Theor Mech 5(2):156–165Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pawlus W, Nielsen JE, Karimi HR, Robbersmyr KG (2010) Further results on mathematical models of vehicle localized impact. In: The 3rd international symposium on systems and control in aeronautics and astronautics, Harbin, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karimi HR, Robbersmyr KG (2010) Wavelet-based signal analysis of a vehicle crash test with a fixed safety barrier. In: WSEAS 4th European computing conference, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Šušteršič G, Grabec I, Prebil I (2007) Statistical model of a vehicle-to-barrier collision. Int J Impact Eng 34(10):1585–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trusca D, Soica A, Benea B, Tarulescu S (2009) Computer simulation and experimental research of the vehicle impact. WSEAS Trans Comput 8(1):1185–1194Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vangi D (2009) Energy loss in vehicle to vehicle oblique impact. Int J Impact Eng 36(3):512–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giavotto V, Puccinelli L, Borri M, Edelman A, Heijer T (1983) Vehicle dynamics and crash dynamics with minicomputer. Comput Struct 16(1):381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harmati IA, Rovid A, Szeidl L, Varlaki P (2008) Energy distribution modeling of car body deformation using LPV representations and fuzzy reasoning. WSEAS Trans Syst 7(1):1228–1237Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Omar T, Eskandarian A, Bedewi N (1998) Vehicle crash modelling using recurrent neural networks. Math Comput Model 28(9):31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pawlus W, Nielsen JE, Karimi HR, Robbersmyr KG (2010) Comparative analysis of vehicle to pole collision models established using analytical methods and neural networks. In: The 5th IET international system safety conference, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Várkonyi-Kóczy AR, Rövid A, Várlaki P (2004) Intelligent methods for car deformation modeling and crash speed estimation. In: The 1st Romanian–Hungarian joint symposium on applied computational intelligence, Timisoara, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Laan E, Veldpaus F, de Jager B, Steinbuch M (2008) LPV modeling of vehicle occupants. In: AVEC ’08 9th international symposium on advanced vehicle control, Kobe, JapanGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elmarakbi AM, Zu JW (2006) Crash analysis and modeling of two vehicles in frontal collisions using two types of smart front-end structures: an analytical approach using IHBM. Int J Crashworthiness 11(5):467–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fang H, Rais-Rohani M, Liu Z, Horstemeyer MF (2005) A comparative study of metamodeling methods for multiobjective crashworthiness optimization. Comput Struct 83(25–26):2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Conroy C, Tominaga GT, Erwin S, Pacyna S, Velky T, Kennedy F, Sise M, Coimbra R (2008) The influence of vehicle damage on injury severity of drivers in head-on motor vehicle crashes. Accident Anal Prev 40(4):1589–1594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niu Y, Shen W, Stuhmiller JH (2007) Finite element models of rib as an inhomogeneous beam structure under high-speed impacts. Med Eng Phys 29(7):788–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim JK, Ulfarssonn GF, Shankar VN, Mannering FL (2010) A note on modeling pedestrian-injury severity in motor-vehicle crashes with the mixed logit model. Accident Anal Prev 42(6):1751–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ma J, Kockelman KM, Damien P (2008) A multivariate Poisson-lognormal regression model for prediction of crash counts by severity, using Bayesian methods. Accident Anal Prev 40(3):964–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robbersmyr KG (2004) Calibration test of a standard ford fiesta 1.1l, model year 1987, according to NS - EN 12767. Technical Report 43/2004, Agder Research, GrimstadGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang M (2002) Vehicle crash mechanics. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Witold Pawlus
    • 1
  • Hamid Reza Karimi
    • 1
  • Kjell Gunnar Robbersmyr
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and ScienceUniversity of AgderGrimstadNorway

Personalised recommendations