Analysis of Proton Exora Dashboard Using SolidWorks and ABAQUS

Nik Mohamad Idham Nik Hassan

Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.

Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to measure the reliability of MPV dashboard to withstand interior impact. A finite element analysis (FEA) method was used to achieve the objective. A model which represents MPV dashboard was made using SolidWorks and the impact simulation was done using ABAQUS. Current material being used for dashboard is ABS-GF40 and this material was proven to be reliable to withstand interior impact through the simulation that has been done in this thesis. This thesis also serve the purpose to reduce manufacturing cost using alternative materials with no less reliability compared to ABS-GF40. Similar simulation routines were applied for ABS copolymer, PP copolymer, and PVC copolymer. The simulation results showed that ABS-CF40 performance is similar to ABS-GF40, whereas the PP-CF10, PP-GF10, and PVC-GF30 exhibit almost identical behavior under impact loading. Cost assessment was carried out for all materials to assist in selecting alternative material for replacement of ABS-GF40. Hence, it was found that PP-GF10 can be used as an alternative material with cost reduction up to RM33.17 on each dashboard. Keywords: Impact analysis, simulation, ABAQUS.

1. Introduction
Analytical Module Analysis for Cockpit

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 (FMVSS 201), numerical analysis of head impact and knee impact protection, thermal deformation, natural frequency extraction and sag analysis, has been frequently adopted as effective means of design verification. Most of the analytical tools used for cockpit module safety and comfort analyses are based on Finite Element Methods (FEM), which have become increasingly robust and powerful over the years due to the advance in computing power [1]. The key in design and engineering of a high performance cockpit module is to apply FEA and other analytical tools from concept to final production design. In the process, FEA is mostly in the leading role in meeting performance targets while design takes the lead in packaging, tooling and GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerance).

A cockpit module is one of the extremely complex vehicle components. The cockpit module of automobiles usually consists of an instrument panel (IP), a steering column system, a HVAC system, a glove box, a cowl cross structure, various trays, an audio and navigation system, and decorative facials. Development of a cockpit module requires a lot of simulation work to verify its performance prior to prototyping. To satisfy its design goals which are the quality requirements specified by manufacturer and to meet safety regulations such as Federal Motor

Interior Impact Simulation

The purpose for this analysis is to measure crashworthiness of automobile dashboard against interior impact which is commonly caused by passenger during frontal crash. Dashboard is the largest part of the interior cockpit that serves many purposes including passenger safety. The development of dashboard is crucial whereby the designer need to design a dashboard that can sustain impact without yielding as well as to protect passenger during collision. In this thesis, the dashboard is designed with few consideration which are the dashboard is assumed to be not equipped with air bag, all compartments remained closed during collision, passenger does not wear seat belt. Actual impact test require a lot of works from equipment setup, preparing fixture for impact test, preparation of specimen, data collection and management, and analysis. Actual impact test for automobile dashboard is impossible to be done in house with lack of funding and time necessary. To achieve it, an interior impact simulation was created using finite element software which is ABAQUS. FEA software was used for product development due to its advantage to shorten analysis period. Validation of simulation result can be carried out with actual impact test once the optimum solution is obtained from simulation. With these, reduction of manufacturing cost by mean of finding an alternative material to substitute current material is possible. For safety issues, the cockpit modules should be designed to fulfill performance requirements defined by safety regulations, such as FMVSS 201 - Interior Impact Protection. At the initial development phase, predictions of safety-related performance of the cockpit module have a higher priority than other items and are mostly accomplished by numerical simulations before making prototypes [2]. ABAQUS have the capability to perform general contact which can be used to simulate collision such as the head impact with dashboard. A simulation of head impact protection was conducted for different material type and its results will be compared.

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methods used in carrying out this project which involves only simulation works. The head form, dashboard, and cross cowl structure assembly are shown in Figure 3.4. This simulation is developed to determine the impact energy resulted from the collision of head form and dashboard. From the energy plot, analysis of crashworthiness can be done in order to determine whether the current design can withstand interior impact. Similar test method was used with different materials so that a comparison can be made between the selected materials and to find the best alternative material to replace current material used for dashboard. The graphical presentation of workflow is shown in Figure 3.1 and detail of each steps were explained in this chapter.

Figure 1: Flowchart for work methodology.

2.2 Modeling
The modeling methodology consists of a head form that represents the human head model and a dashboard complete with cross-cowling structures. The head form model was built using ABAQUS/CAE and defined as a discrete rigid element. Dashboard dimensions are measured using measuring tape for major dimensions and using CMM for complex contour dimensions. All models in SolidWorks and ABAQUS/CAE were drawn in actual dimension using. The default length dimension for SolidWorks is millimeter (mm) and for ABAQUS/CAE is meter (m). The dashboard model was built using Surface operation in SolidWorks 2009. Surface operation can reduce imprecise geometry of the model when being transferred into ABAQUS using IGES format. The dashboard part is scaled by a factor of 0.001 and defined as deformable element in the ABAQUS/CAE.

Figure 3: Mesh assignment using ABAQUS/CAE.

2.4 Analysis
The choice of time integration algorithm is an essential criterion to ensure efficiency and robustness of the numerical simulations. Difficulty in this choice resides in being able to combine robustness, accuracy and stability of the algorithm. Implicit algorithms require iterative solutions for each time increment (time step), contrarily to explicit ones. But for stability reasons, explicit methods use smaller time steps than implicit ones [3]. A dynamic explicit step was used for the impact simulation for stability reasons. The explicit dynamics procedure performs a large number of small time increments efficiently. An explicit centraldifference time integration rule is used; each increment is relatively inexpensive (compared to the direct-integration dynamic analysis procedure available in ABAQUS/Standard) because there is no solution for a set of simultaneous equations. The explicit central-difference operator satisfies the dynamic equilibrium equations at the beginning of the increment, t; the accelerations calculated at time t are used to advance the velocity solution to time and the displacement solution to time .

Figure 2: Surface modeling using SolidWorks.

2.3 Meshing
Meshing operations are carried out using ABAQUS/CAE. Head form and dashboard were meshed using hexagonal mesh. Iteration time can be greatly reduced with hexagonal element instead of tetrahedron element. The head form was meshed with R3D4 element which is the 4-node 3-D bilinear rigid quadrilateral. For the dashboard, element C3D8R was used which is the 8-node linear brick, reduced integration, hourglass control.

The simulation step period for impact is 0.05 s because impact occurs in a very short time interval. 50 milliseconds period is suffice for the impact and shape regain to occur.

2.5 Requested result outputs

It is important to select required analysis output only, by selecting fewer outputs which are necessary for analysis is important in order to reduce iteration time. The necessary field output request is stress components and invariants. From the field output, Von Mises stress can be obtained which determine the maximum stress in the component thus, determine the failure occurred due to impact. Energy output is selected from History Output option to obtain all energy curves for this simulation. The author interest is in the kinetic energy, internal energy, artificial strain energy, frictional dissipation, strain energy, and total energy.

2.8 Predefined Field

Velocity is selected as the predefined field and the region selected at the center on of head form. Velocity along z-axis is defined at 6.69 m/s (24km/h).

2.9 Simulation of impact

Impact is a highly nonlinear dynamic event dynamic event with many contact regions and damage / failure. The simulation will be done on a predetermined location on the dashboard which was marked in yellow spot as in Figure 3. Methodology for impact analysis is to start simple and add increasing complexity.

2.6 Interaction
Interaction between different surfaces is essential in an impact event by creating a contact simulation using contact pairs or general contact in ABAQUS. General Contact Interaction was used which allow the author to define contact between many or all regions of the model with a single interaction. The Interaction Properties in this simulation is Tangential Behavior with Penalty type for friction formulation.

2.7 Boundary Conditions

The simulation of boundary conditions and other forms of constraint is probably the single most difficult part of the accurate modeling of a structure for finite element analysis. Boundary elements are used to force specific nonzero displacements on a structure. Boundary elements can also be useful in modeling boundary conditions that are askew from the global coordinate system. Boundary conditions were assigned to all bolting point and mounting point on the dashboard. The assigned boundary condition defined as fixed BC which is zero displacement for all axes.

Figure 4: Location of head form impact marked as yellow spot.

3. Result
The impact assessment of dashboard was analyzed numerically using FEA software; ABAQUS/Explicit. The geometry/model being used was the same for all analysis. The input variable is material which is thermoset polymer or engineering polymer. The materials being assessed were Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) copolymer, Polypropylene (PP) copolymers, and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) copolymers. The requested Field Output and History Output are Von Misses stress, kinetic energy, frictional dissipation, internal energy, strain energy and total energy. The highest stress value resulting from impact was obtained from Von Misses stress and compared with yield stress of the respected material. From this comparison one can conclude whether the material fails during the collision of the impact energy can be sustained by the dashboard. From the result, one needs to find the most optimum solution which must satisfy impact crashworthiness, cost and manufacturability requirement. The goal is to reduce cost by replacing current material with a cheaper material in the market regardless the crashworthiness requirements.

balance. ETOTAL should be maintained as a constant theoretically for any event according to the law of energy conservation. Slight variation in ETOTAL with less than 0.1% during the whole event means that the results are quite reasonable and acceptable. From the result for both ABS materials in Figure 4(a), the ALLKE showed a significant reduction within a very short interval. Kinetic energy is reduced from 107 J to a minimum of 3.5J in only 23 milliseconds for ABS-GF10 and minimum of 4.45J in 13 milliseconds for ABS-CF10. This result pattern can be related to rigidity properties of the ABS materials. ABS-CF10 has higher Youngs modulus value compared to ABS-GF10 which makes it stiffer and thus the kinetic energy from the impact can be greatly reduced. The other result from the graph plot to be discussed is the ALLSE plot. From the plot, ABS-CF10 showed higher strain energy compared to ABS-GF10 and the strain energy dissipation is faster. Strain energy is the energy expanded from the impact of head form in deforming the dashboard. For PP-CF10, PP-GF10, and PVC-GF30, the material behavior during impact simulation are quite similar to each other. As shown in Figure 4(b), ALLKE decreases quadraticaly after the indenter contacted with dashboard surface. Minimum kinetic energy reduction for each material is shown in Table 1.

3.1 Simulation results

The result outputs from the simulation are kinetic energy (ALLKE), strain energy (ALLSE), internal energy (ALLIE), and total energy (ETOTAL). The energy plot during the whole event should be monitored carefully and any sudden changes in the plot trend from the ALLKE, ALLIE, ALLSE, and ETOTAL will be analyzed to determine the possible cause. Theoretically, the ALLKE plot will decrease in quadratic manner as soon as the head form in contact with the dashboard because the kinetic energy is dissipated onto the dashboard and converted to internal and strain energy. The ETOTAL is the summation of all energy and is defined as the energy Table 1: Minimum kinetic energy for PP and PVC copolymer. Material PP-CF10 PP-GF10 PVC-GF30 Kinetic energy at t=0.036 s (J) 4.729 4.707 3.717

This result can be related to rigidity properties of material. ABS-CF10 has higher Youngs modulus value compared to ABS-GF10 which makes it stiffer and thus the kinetic energy from the impact can be highly reduced.

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 4(a), 4(b), & 4(c): All energy plots for all materials.

The other result from the graph plot to be discussed is ALLSE. Strain energy is the energy expanded from the impact of head form in deforming the dashboard. ABS-CF10 has higher strain energy and the energy dissipation is faster compared to ABS-GF10. Figure 4(c) shows all energy plots for PP-PTFE where it can be seen that the material exhibit large difference in material behavior compared to other PP copolymers. PP-PTFE is not suitable since it shows a

long impulse time during impact which also indicates that the material is too ductile. This behavior restricting the use of PP-PTFE with current design of MPV dashboard. Due to its soft behavior, large deformation occurred on the dashboard which is caused by impact of head form. The dashboard displacement due to impact of head form are shown in Figure 5 and the visualizations of impact of simulation are shown in Table 2.

Figure 5: Maximum node displacement on dashboard due to head form impact.

Table 2: Maximum dashboard deformation.

Table 2 shows dashboard deformation. It was found that none among the selected material fails during the impact simulation. From the results, it can be seen that all material pass the requirement of non failure under impact loading.

3.2 Cost assessment

Mass for all materials type can be obtained from ABAQUS/CAE. The value of mass is verified using Equation 4.1 which is the density-volume relationship. Volume of the dashboard model is 0.00415m3. Mass for all different type of materials selection are shown in Table 3. Hence, the raw material cost can be calculated using Equation 4.2 and from the raw material price in Table 3.

= where; M = mass = density V = volume =

() ( )

(1)

(2)

Table 3: Raw material price of each polymer material to produce dashboard. Material ABS-CF40 ABS-GF40 PP-CF10 PP-GF10 PP-PTFE PVC-GF30 Volume, V (m3) 0.00415 0.00415 0.00415 0.00415 0.00415 0.00415 Density, (kg/m3) 1305 1427.5 950 1180 2250 1580 Mass, M (kg) 5.42 5.93 3.94 4.90 9.34 6.56 Raw plastic price (RM/kg) 18.30 15.41 14.77 11.88 9.22 14.70 Price (RM) 99.19 91.38 58.19 58.21 86.11 96.43

From the energy plot, PP-GF10 is the most favorable choice based on the raw material price and material behavior under impact which is no less inferior to ABS plastics. Switching to PP-GF10 as alternative material can reduce cost up to minimum of RM 33.17 for every single dashboard produced.

3.3 Von Mises stress of dashboard

The value of Von Misses stress must not surpass yield stress which indicates material failure during collision. If the dashboard breaks, the crack may cause severe external injury to passenger. The best solution is for the dashboard to absorb impact energy without material failure in order to minimize passenger internal and external injury. The Von Mises stress of each materials are shown in Figure 6 together with yield stress of respective materials. From Table 4, all material for dashboard shows no failures during the impact. The substitute materials

chosen satisfy the requirement to withstand impact from the head form without yielding. The safety factor of each material does not play important role for material selection. Each material must be able to absorb as much kinetic energy from head form during impact so that internal injury of the passenger can be reduced, thus the minimum allowable value for safety factor should be 1. The equation used to obtain safety factor is shown below in equation 3. . =

(3)

Table 4: Safety factor of all material under impact loading. Material ABS-CF40 ABS-GF40 PP-CF10 PP-GF10 PP-PTFE PVC-GF30 F.S 1.36 2.10 1.25 1.15 1.73 1.00

Figure 6: Von Mises stress for all material under impact loading.

4. Discussion
The impact was simulated at 50 millisecond interval for all type of materials. Since impact occurs in a very short interval, dashboard must be able to absorb most of the impact energy and the dashboard itself must not fail. Polymeric material which exhibits a low yield stress, with a high Youngs modulus and a large plastic strain to failure (highly ductile) should be considered for replacement [4]. ABS is the most stiff based on the high elastic modulus value and it was proven from the energy plot with a very short response time. Despite its short response time, this behavior for ABS may inflict internal damage to the passenger. Material behavior during the impact simulation for PP-CF10, PP-GF10, and PVC-GF30 are quite similar. PP-PTFE exhibit different material behavior compared to other PP polymers. PP-PTFE is not suitable since it shows a long impulse time during impact.

From the results, PP-GF10 is the most favorable choice based on the raw material price and material behavior under impact which is no less inferior to ABS plastics. Switching to PP-GF10 as alternative material can reduce cost up to minimum of RM 33.17 for every single dashboard produced.

5. Conclusion
Modeling and impact simulation on automobile MPV dashboard was successfully developed using SolidWorks and ABAQUS software. The time for developing a prototype can be greatly reduced from months to only few weeks through the FEA simulation method. From the results, it was proven that the current design is reliable to withstand interior impact according to standard regulations stated in the literature review section. In this thesis, the author also uses this software as a key solver to reduce manufacturing cost of dashboard. It was found from the results that

Polypropylene copolymer can be the replacement material for reinforced ABS which is currently being used to manufacture MPV dashboard. PP-GF10 was chosen as replacement material as it complies with the safety regulation and the material is cheaper than ABS-GF40.

6. Recommendations
(1). Validation of FEA results need to be carried out using experimental method. Results from numerical and experimental methods are evaluated using percentage difference as preliminary step [4]. Several testing procedures need to be carried out (for both numerical and experimental and the procedure with the lowest percentage difference will be selected as the preferred testing procedure. (2). Geometry optimization can be implemented as one of the solutions to impact crashworthiness improvement without material replacement. However, it will lead to higher degree of workload since manufacturing consideration will be the main concern.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to express gratitude to his supervisor, Dr. Mohd Khairol Anuar Bin Mohd Ariffin for precious guidance and encouragements during the whole course of this project. Special thank to Lab Assistants Mr. Mohd Zafri bin Mahdi and Mr. Muhammad Wildan Ilyas b. Mohamed Ghazali, and other staff from the Mechanical Engineering Department who have helped throughout the research work.

References
[1] J.Z. Lin & S.M. Pitrof, Analytical Design of Cockpit Modules for Safety and

Comfort, SAE Technical Paper Series, 2004-01-1481. [2] T. Gholami, J. Lescheticky, & R. Pamann, A. Theobald, W. Jansohn, S. Niedermeyer, EDAG, M. Schrank, & B. Engelmann, "Finite Element Analysis of Head Impact According to Extended FMVSS 201," ABAQUS Users' Conference, Newport, Rhode Island, 2002, page 1-11. [3] L. Noels, L. Stainier, J. P. Phontot, Combined Implicit/Explicit Algorithms for Crashworthiness Analysis, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 30, 2004, page 11611177. [4] A. William, P. Saverio, Z. Nader & G. Robert, An Experimental and Finite Element Investigation Into The Energy Absorption Characteristic of A Steering Wheel Armature In An Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 27, 2002, page 197212. [5] T. Kovavic, S. Lanka & M. Marks, Development of an Integrated Structural HVAC Instrument Panel Cockpit System, SAE 2002-01-0309 [6] T.-J. Yeo & J. Park, A Unified Modeling Approach To An Automobile Cockpit Module, 2003 [7] G.R. Johnson & S.R. Beissel, Damping Algorithms and Effects for Explicit Dynamics Computations, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 25, 2001, page 911925. [8] R.G. Budynas & Nisbett, Shigleys Mechanical Engineering Design, 8th edition McGraw Hill, 2008, page 935-945. [9] J.L Meriam & L.G. Kraige, Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics, 5th Edition, Wiley, 2001, page 213-216. [10] S.W. Gong, H.P. Lee, & C. Lu, Computational Simulation of The Human Head Response To Non-Contact Impact, Computers and Structures, vol. 86, 2008, page 758-770. [11] NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, department of Transportation, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201: Occupant

Protection in Interior Impact, 10-1-08 Edition, 1995, page 644-665. [12] Ser van der Ven, Polypropylene and Other Polyefins, Polimerization and Characterization, Elsevier, 1990, page 158173. [13] G.J. Lee, Can Drop Test and Simulation Work, 2009, page 35-37. [14] Y.Y Zhang, L. Chen, Impact Simulation Using Simplified Meshless Method, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 36, 2009, page 651-658. [15] G.E. Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, 1986, page 10-12, 77-80, 496-500. [16] W.F. Smith & J. Hasemi, Foundations of Material Science and Engineering, 4th Edition, McGraw Hill, 2006, page 469-559. [17] R.C Hibbeler, Mechanics of Materials, 6th Edition, Pearson, 2005, page 85-117. [18] J. Holnicki-Szulc & L. Knap, Adaptive Crashworthiness Concept, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 30, 2004, page 639663. [19] P.A Du Bois, S. Kolling, M. Koesters, & T. Frank, Material Behaviour of Polymers under Impact Loading, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 32, 2006, page 725740. [20] A. Weber, Plastic in Automotive Engineering; Use and Reuse, Materials & Design Vol. 12, No. 14, 1991, page 199-208.

[21] L. Karger, J. Baaran, A. Gunnion, & R. Thomson, Evaluation of Impact Assesment Methodologies. Part I: Applied Methods, Composites: Part B, vol. 40, 2009, page 6570. [22] G.R. Consolazio, J.H. Chung, & K.R. Gurley, Impact Simulation and Full Scale Crash Testing af A Low Profile Concrete Work Zone Barrier, Computers and Structures, vol. 81, 2003, page 13591374. [23] K.C. Indermuehle, Dynamic and Impact Analysis of Aerospace Vehicles Using ABAQUS/Explicit, Presented at the 2004 FEMCI Workshop NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, 2004. [24] J.L. ODaniela, K.L. Koudelab, & T. Krauthammer, Numerical Simulation and Validation of Distributed Impact Events, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 31, 2005, page 1013-1038. [25] Mike & P. Brady, Developments in automotive plastics, Society of Plastics Engineers (SPE)'S Third Annual Automotive Engineering Plastics Conference, 2008, page 37-40. [26] J.L. Bucaille, E. Felder, & G. Hochstetter, Mechanical Analysis of The Scratch Test on Elastic And Perfectly Plastic Materials With The Three-Dimensional Finite Element Modeling, Wear vol. 249, 2001, page 422432.