Current Front Stiffness of European Vehicles With Regard To Compatibility
Current Front Stiffness of European Vehicles With Regard To Compatibility
Current Front Stiffness of European Vehicles With Regard To Compatibility
Jos Huibers
Eric de Beer
TNO Automotive Crash Safety Centre
The Netherlands
Paper No. ID#239
characteristics. This car category is expected to mass ratio, incompatible crash behaviour further
behave less compatible hitting small cars or medium depends on the two other major factors for
size passenger cars. A longer crushable space for this compatibility, global stiffness (deceleration) and
category is desired, which is in conflict with the geometrical effects (interaction) [7 ]. The global
special look for these vehicles. stiffness is partly indirect dependent on how the
Huibers 1
energy absorbing structure interacts. Good interaction This paper deals with current global vehicle front end
is essential to effectively use the build in global stiffnesses like in Figure 1 derived from EuroNcap
stiffness in order to absorb the impact energy in an tests on different car classes.
early stage of the collision and to avoid intrusion into
the passenger cell.
LOADCELL DATA INFORMATION.
Geometrical incompatibility is strongly related to
intrusions of structural car parts into the passenger In order to obtain this global stiffness’, load cell
cabin, which should be avoided as much as possible, barriers have been used behind the deformable barrier
since accident investigations have learned that most in the EuroNCAP tests carried out at the TNO Crash
of serious and fatal injuries are intrusion related. In [8 Safety Centre and TRL. The objective was to get
] it is shown that it is very difficult to tackle the information about the load distribution and the global
question whether or not cars are compatible with stiffnesses (force deflection characteristics) of the
respect to these geometrical effects. vehicle fronts. As there is no clear information
available about the barrier intrusion in time, we have
An important measure to avoid intrusions is the
to limit ourselves to force displacement
characteristics for the vehicle.
Force
The loadcell pattern as used at TRL is displayed in
Figure 2.The loadcell pattern and positioning as used
at the TNO Crash laboratory is displayed in Figure 3.
The measured signals are filtered with CFC60
according to SAEJ211.
Ud,1 Ud,2
Ce ll 1,1 C ell 1 ,2
deflection car 1 deflection car 2 Ce ll 2,1 C ell 2 ,2
Ce ll 3,1 C ell 3 ,2
Figure 1 Force balance for small (car1) and Ce ll 4,1 C ell 4 ,2
large car (car2). Gray area:absorbed energy
2 50 mm fro m g ro un d
design of a frontal crush zone that dissipates as much Figure 2 Loadcell arrangement TRL.
deformation energy as possible in the case of an
accident before the passenger compartment is
damaged, e.g. [9]. A way to achieve this is shown in
1000
Figure 1. The force deflection curves for the two
vehicles allow sufficient energy absorption in both
vehicles and increase at certain deformations LCA1 LCA2 LCB1 LCB2
designed for these particular vehicles in order to be FI96861P FI96848P FI97180P FI96849P
interaction in order to let the forces build up in the FI96187P FI95588P FI97168P FI97181P
1000
colliding cars penetrate each other without FI97197P FI96834P FI96865P FI97183P
obviously is not the case with cars running into FI97162P FI96838P FI97192P FI97196P
Floor
SUV’s.
Figure 3 Loadcell arrangement TNO.
Huibers 2
The number of cells and pattern differs between the this category because of the size. The cars, which
two laboratories. However in the evaluation of the have been analysed, are summarised in Table 1.
data there is no difference any more, since the level
Data was analysed of phases 3, the medium size
of detail of the TNO data is restricted to left and right
family cars, phase 4 the large saloon/executive cars,
half of the load cells (A,C/B,D). Furthermore, most
phase 6 MPV’s and phase 7a/7b small family cars.
of the TRL tests were carried out with RHD vehicles
whereas TNO tests were carried out with LHD cars. Table 1
For clarification Aup in the figures coincides with
Sample of the analysed cars.
Cell 1,1 for TRL loadcell pattern etc.
KERB TEST
SPEED
CAR CATEGORY MASS MASS
M/S
DATA ANALYSIS KG KG
Phase 3 medium size
family cars
Method
Volkswagen Golf 1140 1336 17.8
Citroen Xsara 1080 1100 17.8
Loadcell data was not collected in the first series of
Mitsubishi Lancer 1244 1257 17.8
ENCAP tests. For the tests with missing loadcell
data, the global force displacement characteristics Renault Megane 1060 1296 17.8
were obtained by multiplying the measured Suzuki Baleno 960 1170 17.8
acceleration with the test mass of the vehicle (m*a). Toyota Corolla 1060 1275 17.8
For the acceleration the B pillar base signal of the VW Beatle 1228 1518 17.8
impacted side was used filtered with CFC15 (cut off Ford Focus 1080 1383 17.9
frequency 25kHz according to SAEJ211. The Opel Astra 1100 1325 17.8
displacement was obtained by double integration of Ford Escort 1080 1363 17.9
that signal (for all used displacements in this paper). Mercedes A 1070 1267 17.8
Force displacement (FD) characteristics obtained in Phase 4 large saloon
this way are an approximation because during the cars
crash the active mass reduces. This reduction is partly BMW 520I 1485 1682 17.9
compensated by the mass of the occupants, coming Saab 95 1485 1713 17.7
into effect later in the crash. To get an impression of Toyota Camry 1385 1604 17.8
this approximation FD curves obtained from the Mercedes E200 1440 1650 17.8
loadcell data were compared with FD curves from the
Opel Omega 1455 1666 17.8
m*a approximation. This is done for each car
Audi A6 1400 1663 17.8
analysed. When looking to the majority of
Volvo S70 1430 1597 17.8
approximations it could be concluded that the m*a
Phase 6 MPV’s
curves correlated well with the loadcell curves, with
Renault Espace 1520 1713 17.9
some exceptions.
Chrysler Voyager 1800 2040 17.8
In some occasions like the Audi A6, it was likely that Mitsubishi. Space Wagon 1570 1768 17.9
the differences were caused by the engine contact VW Sharan 1690 1906 18.0
with the barrier, like sliding off the edge of the
Peugeot 806 1550 1748 17.8
barrier later in the crash event.
Vauxhall Sintra 1650 1933 17.8
Phase 7 small family
Car Categories cars
Lancia Ypsilon 7a 895 1136 17.8
The cars, which were analysed, were put as much as Renault Clio xxx 1150 17.8
possible in the same categories as used in the ENCAP VW Polo xxx 1174 17.8
phases. Some cars of category phase 3 were tested
Seat Ibiza xxx 1227 17.9
later as the official phase 3 release but were put in
Peugeot 206 xxx 1193 17.8
Citroen Saxo xxx 1051 17.8
Huibers 3
Ford Focus
100 TOTAL
For all the cars the following output was generated. 0 m*a
• Force time history for load cell data. In case of -100 0 0.5 1 1.5
force [kN]
TNO data the level of detail was reduced to two -200
columns horizontally and 4 rows vertically, -300
which is similar to the TRL data. Each upper and -400
lower segment part were added up to get the total
-500
for the segment and all segments were added up
-600
to get the total barrier force. B pill displ. [m]
• Force displacement/m*a for the total barrier Figure 4 Force Displacement curev Ford Focus
force.
Figure 6 shows the force displacement characteristic.
• Force displacement summary of each category + Again a good correlation between loadcell data and
average force displacement of each category m*a (CFC15). Interesting is the steep load increase
where this average was obtained by averaging after 0.4 m displacement even much higher then the
both displacements and forces for the same data Ford Focus , which has a higher mass Table 1. This
points. car is an example of a short crushable space, but able
Not all the analysed data will be discussed and to withstand high loads.
presented here for each car. However the summary
figures of the force displacement data for all the cars Mercedes A
will be discussed.
100
0
Phase 3 medium size family car analysis. -100
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
TOTA
Force [kN]
-200 TOTB
Figure 4 shows the force displacement curve for the TOTC
Ford Focus as an example car of this phase. The -300 TOTD
TOTAL
figure shows both the curves obtained from the -400
The general observation is that for the first 0.4 m the Figure 5 Barrier segment loads Mercedes A
load keeps about constant over 100 kN. This appears
to be the barrier characteristic. After this 0.4 m the
force is increasing along an almost linear slope.
Mercedes A
Figure 7 shows the force time history of the Ford 100 TOTAL
Focus. The load distribution shows a dominant 0 m*a
influence of the engine contact area with the barrier
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
(segment Dup). The position of the side member
force [kN]
-200
could not be identified by means of the load
distribution. This means that the barrier is a too -300
strong filter for this data. This means also that a more -400
detailed pattern for the load cells does not give more -500
information when using this barrier. -600
B pill displ. [m]
The next car discussed is the Mercedes A class.
Figure 6 Force Displacement curve Mercedes A
Figure 5 Shows the barrier segment loads of the
Merceds A. The engine influence is clear (segment
Tot D).
Huibers 4
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-50 -50
-100 Ford Focus -100
-150 -150
Aup Bup
-200 -200
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
Alw Blw
-200 -200
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
Cup Dup
-200 -200
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-50 -50
-100 -100
time [s] time [s]
-150 -150
Clw Dlw
-200 -200
Huibers 5
Phase 3 Suzuki Bal
100
Toyota Cor
0 Renault Meg
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 VW Golf
-100
Citroen Xsar
force [kN]
VW Beetle
-300
Opel Astra
Ford Focus
-500
Mercedes A
Mercedes E200 The next car to be discussed for this phase is the Audi
100
A6.
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Figure 11 Shows the barrier segment forces for this
-100
TOTA
car. The shape of the segment-D loads is quite
Force [kN]
-200 TOTB different from the Mercedes E200. The peak is much
-300
TOTC earlier. This could be caused by early contact of rigid
TOTD
TOTAL
parts of the engine with the rigid barrier.
-400
-500
Figure 12 Shows the force displacement curve. For
this car the correlation between loadcell data and m*a
-600
time[s] (CFC15) is not good. The m*a shows a much more
logic shape than the loadcell. The early peak is also
Figure 9 Barrier segment forces Mercedes E
visible here. Because of the drop in load before
200. maximum displacement, it looks like the car structure
collapses. This could not be concluded from the
Mercedes E200 visual inspection of the car. A possible explanation
100 TOTAL
could be that the engine slides off the rigid barrier
0 m*a
edge. Like for phase 3, the area, which is covered by
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
the engine, shows the major contribution to the
force [kN]
-200 forces. This is true for all the analysed cars (not
-300 shown in this paper).
-400 Figure 13 shows the overview of the force
-500 displacement curves for this phase. Most of the
-600
B pill displ. [m]
curves are obtained by m*a because of the lack of
loadcell data.
Figure 10 Force displacement curve Mercedes
E 200
Huibers 6
Audi A6 Phase 6 MPV analysis
100
-200 TOTA
TOTB
-300 TOTC Renault Espace
100
TOTD
-400
TOTAL
0
-500 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100
-600 TOTA
Force [kN]
time[s] -200 TOTB
TOTC
Figure 11 Barrier load cell segments forces Audi -300 TOTD
A6. TOTAL
-400
-500
-600
Audi A6 time[s]
100 TOTAL
0 m*a Figure 14 Barrier load cell segments Renault
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5 Espace.
force [kN]
-200
-300 Figure 15 shows the force displacements. A good
-400 correlation between loadcell data and calculated m*a
-500
(CFC15) curves could be observed. The car shows a
good stable behavior.
-600
B pill displ. [m]
Audi A6
barr. force [kN]
-200
MercedesE200
(LoacCell)
Volvo S70(Loadcell)
-300
Average
-400
obtained by m*a
unless otherwise
-500 specified
-600
displ [m]
Huibers 7
Renault Espace
100 Vauxhall Sintra RHD
100
0
0
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
force [kN]
force [kN]
-200 TOTAL
-200 TOTAL
-300 m*a
-300 m*a
-400
-400
-500
-500
-600
B pill displ. [m] -600
B pill displ. [m]
-200 TOTB
occurs. Visual inspection of the photographs of the
TOTC post test confirms this [10]. The correlation between
-300
TOTD loadcell data and m*a ( CFC15) is not good in this
-400 TOTAL
case.
-500
Figure 17 shows the overall overview for phase 6
-600 with the average. The average looks a little too low,
time[s]
which is caused by the relative weak Sintra and the
Figure 16 Barrier segment loads Vauxhall Chrysler Voyager, which also shows a cabin collapse
Sintra later in the crash.
0 VW Sharan
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
MPV
-100
Renault Esp
barr. force [kN]
Vauxhall Sint-201
-300
Average
-400
-500
-600
displ [m]
Huibers 8
Phase 7 small family cars analysis. Comparison all categories.
Almost all good performers with respect to structural Figure 22 shows the average curves for the force
behavior in this phase showed about the same force displacements for all available phases as discussed
displacement curves. Only one (good) example will here.
be discussed in detail here, the Renault Clio.
Up to 600 mm displacement all the curves look
Figure 19 gives the barrier segment loads for the similar ap[art from the MPV’s, which show higher
Renault Clio. Good correlation between loadcell data forces. At this displacement the MPV's start to
and m*a could be observed. progressively increase the loadlevels. For the small
family car this rapid increase starts at 800 mm
Renault Clio displacement and for the executive cars at about 1150
100
mm. Up to 1150 mm the curves for the executive and
0 family car coincide very well. The displacement of
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100 most of the family cars comes to an end at 1200 mm
TOTA without a clear increase of the loadlevel. Looking
Force [kN]
-200 TOTB
TOTC
closer to the details of phase 3 results, this increase
-300 however was visible for the VW Golf, Renault
TOTD
-400 TOTAL Megane and Citroen Xsara, but was filtered out by
-500
drawing the average curve. This filtering also might
be misleading for determining the peak loads.
-600
time[s] However only m*a data was available for these cars
so a good comparison could not be made for these
Figure 19 Barrier segment loads Renault Clio. cars compared to cars where loadcell data was
available. Some cars (Ford Escort, Ford Focus) show
Renault Clio slight higher peak loads.
100
The masses of the large executive cars don't differ
0
much from the masses of the MPV's, but the general
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
trend is that the displacements of the executive cars
force [kN]
-200 TOTAL
are bigger then those of the MPV's. This less
m*a
-300 available crushable space often results in higher
-400 loadlevels for the MPV's at lower deformation. Only
-500 two out of 7 phase 4 cars reach 500kN were five of 7
-600
MPV’s reach this value .
B pill displ. [m]
Huibers 9
phase 7
100
VWPolo
0 SeatIbiza
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-100 LanciaYps
barr. force [kN]
RenClio
-200
CitrSaxo
-300
Peug206 m*a
-500
-600
displ [m]
-300
-400
-500
-600
displ [m]
Huibers 10
CONCLUSIONS car-car crash. For side impact this is not
beneficial.
4. Looking to the global stiffnesses only, phase 3,4
General
and 7 look quite “compatible”. Each type of car
1. The load distribution shows a dominant is able to deform any other type of car. Even the
influence of the engine contact. small family car can deform the large executive
car. This does not mean that for each collision
2. Trends for force displacements derived from speed this compatibility statement is true. For a
acceleration times mass are basically the same as collision of a small car against a heavy vehicle,
those derived from loadcell data with some the vehicles are compatible to a speed where the
exceptions. maximum energy is absorbed for the lighter
3. The barrier seems to give an average resistance vehicle. Above that speed the small vehicle
of about 100 kN until bottoming out at about 400 might collapse or might take more energy. A test
mm. with a higher speed (overload test) would be
necessary to give that answer.
4. Phase 3 (medium size family cars) and 4 (large
executive cars) show about the same force 5. Phase 6 vehicles, because of their higher mass
displacement curves up to 1200 mm where phase and stiffness can be considered as more
3 cars stop and phase 4 cars build up a higher aggressive to the others and will overload the
load to account for the extra energy absorption other cars at a lower collision speed. This
because of the higher masses. negative trend can only be changed by increase
of the crushable space of the MPV's.
5. Phase 7 (small family cars) show the same force
displacement curves as 3+4 up to 800 mm. After 6. The trend of increased vehicle front stiffness
that a progressive increase can be observed up to should be reflected in the barrier characteristic
the maximum displacement of 1100 mm. for the European side impact regulation, since
the current characteristic is based on the average
6. Phase 6 (MPV’s) show the same characteristic up of old cars.
to 600 mm after which a rapid increase of the
load can be observed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
Huibers 11
REFERENCES
Huibers 12