sign in sign up
<<
Home , Automotive safety, Car door

MODULAR SYSTEM FOR SIDE IMPACT OF MOTOR John Townsend, Michael Kaczmar Joalto Design Inc., Southfield MI 48034, USA Mohamed El-Sayed Kettering University, Flint MI 48504, USA Paper: 479

ABSTRACT demands the structural engineer to compromise between weight savings and . These Side impact collision is one of the toughest demands, combined with the recent sharp increase in safety challenges facing the Auto Industry today. the amount of Light Truck Vehicles (LTV’s) on Over thirteen thousand , due to side impact, North American roadways, has brought the matter of occurred during 1998 in the United States alone. The incompatibility and the crashworthiness of main difficulty in designing for side impact collisions smaller vehicles to the attention of the automotive is the limited between the impacting consumer. vehicle and the impacted occupant. At the 1998 International Enhancement of the This paper presents a proprietary side impact Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference, numerous protective door system within the space between the papers from leading experts in the field of vehicle outer skin of a door and the occupant, which will crashworthiness were presented [1]. Three different be as efficient as those already standard in frontal parameters of side impact were argued to be the most impact. The main objective for introducing the side crucial contributor. Firstly, there was the belief that impact structural system is to maximize energy vehicle mass is the most important aspect that needs absorption and minimize injury to the occupant. to be addressed. Others believed that geometry, i.e. The developed structural side impact door variance in main vehicle structure heights, was the system acts as a Primary Structure, to be assembled most critical design issue. Finally, a third contingent as a truly modular entity. This primary structure is argued that the variable stiffness between full-framed also packaging modular in the sense that it acts as a and unit-body type vehicle structures should be carrier for the door latch, window regulator and considered the most influential factor in developing hinges. compatible vehicles. While all arguments were based A variation in safety and structural performance on test data and analysis, the vast difference of of the developed door system can be achieved by opinion indicated that the solution to incompatibility integrating the structural modular door with the could not be reduced to one factor alone. After vehicle body, using a patented integration system further investigation, it was apparent that since no known as Door And -frame Integration single variable was the dominant cause, a safety Technology (DACIT). Unlike the traditional , system that worked to improve vehicle compatibility that are just suspended weights, the modular door is in terms of stiffness and geometry would be a truly structural and therefore adds strength to the valuable vehicle component. vehicle body. When DACIT is used with the door In this paper we discuss the Joalto proprietary system the vehicle door becomes part of the overall side impact protective door systems introduced vehicle structure. within the space between the outer skin of a The design and development of the side impact and the occupant, which will be as efficient as those modular door system for different size vehicles with already standard in frontal impact. The main and without DACIT will be discussed. In addition, objective for introducing the side impact structural the five stars rating achieved during several side system is to maximize energy absorption and impact crash tests simulating Sport Utility Vehicles minimize injury to the occupant. hitting mid-size vehicles, equipped with the developed modular door system, will be presented. JOALTO MODULAR DOOR TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION To address several issues, Joalto Design Inc. has developed a structurally With the ongoing development of lighter, fuel- modular door technology with several attributes. The efficient that are subjected to ever increasing patented modular door technology [2], combines light safety requirements, the automotive engineer must weight, reduced cost, structural stiffness, durability strive to meet all the structural requirements of what and packaging modularity in a set of space frame has typically been thought of as conflicting criteria. door modules. The developed structural door Enabling a vehicle to be safe and fuel-efficient often modules act as Primary Structures, to be assembled

Townsend 1 as truly modular entities. Each primary structure is packaging modular in the sense that it acts as a carrier for the door latch, window regulator and hinges. The most important attribute of the developed modular door technology, however, is the side impact safety performance. The Joalto door technology has been developed based on the Cruciform Side Intrusion Beam (XSIB), [3], which incorporates the side intrusion beam and the primary door structure as one element Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Joalto’s assembled modular door.

The developed Joalto modular door system can be produced through different manufacturing options and materials. Figure 2, shows a stamped steel module while Figures 3-5, show different assembly options for hydro-formed tubes.

Figure 1.

Cruciform Side Intrusion Beam (XSIB).

The XSIB equipped door design is intended to resist deformation into the passenger compartment using geometry that provides protection to a larger range of impact heights. In comparison, standard tubular side intrusion beams leave the occupant vulnerable to impacting vehicle encroachment above and below it’s smaller cross-section. A variation in safety and structural performance of the developed door system can be achieved by integrating the structural modular door with the vehicle body, using a patented integration system known as Door And Chassis-frame Integration Technology (DACIT), [4]. The reintegration is intended to distribute the impact energy throughout most of the vehicle sides and further reduce the localized door deformation. Unlike the traditional doors that are just Figure 3. suspended weights, the modular door is truly structural and therefore adds strength to the vehicle Hydro-formed modular door and frame. body. When DACIT is used with the door system the vehicle door becomes part of the overall vehicle structure.

Townsend 2 components, for example, window regulators can be supported better by a frame structure than by a panel. This design aims at separating the door outer panel from the load carrying structure. In general, this increases the styling design flexibility, both regarding shapes and material types” [5].

SIDE IMPACT TESTS

To demonstrate the crash performance of the Joalto door systems, a set of side impact tests were designed to reflect the current fleet of vehicles on North American . The developed Joalto side impact tests resembled a collision from an average into a midsize door. The goal of these tests was to simulate side impact with a sport utility vehicle in terms of height. Figure 4. In order to test the door structure in a side impact, without actually testing the crashworthiness Modular door with separate secondary beam. of the entire vehicle, a test apparatus was developed where midsize sedan doors, seats and seatbelts can be interchanged on a reusable, test bed in Figure 6. The crash apparatus was developed to allow reuse of the attachments such as the hinge face (A- ) and the rocker panel. These parts were made of reinforced steel plate in order to be able to sustain impact from multiple tests. A fabricated B-pillar that replicated the bending moment of the production piece was used in place of an actual pillar. The B- pillar was made to be deformable and replaceable so that it would deform like a production model and not be too rigid to allow deformation of the door. The target door and bumper were placed such that the FMVSS-214 specified 27°angle of impact was achieved. Instead of creating the specified hex- cell movable deformable barrier (MDB), a production light truck bumper was used. The bullet apparatus consisted of a bumper assembly from a popular late model pickup. The stock bumper was trimmed to clear the A-pillar of the target vehicle in order to minimize the role of the A-pillar in dissipating the energy of the collision. The stock bumper brackets Figure 5. were replicated in structure and welded to generic frame rails that, like the B-pillar, matched the same Modular door with separate frame. bending moment as the production units for the first 12 inches of the striking . In a recent independent study for modular doors The average LTV bumper height was found to be technology, it was concluded that the Joalto door 24 inches from ground level, and this value was used module while being the least in manufacturing cost: for the test. Additionally, the average weight of these “provides the opportunity for performance vehicles was computed to be approximately 4000 lbs. improvements with regards to crash performance It was intended to use both this bumper height and (side impact), vehicle driving performance bullet mass in replacement of the FMVSS-214 (increasing the stiffness of the entire car body), as specified parameters. However, the facility in which well as to the durability of the door itself. these crash tests were performed could not generate Furthermore, heavy and load introducing the increased level of impact energy that the increased weight required. Therefore, the weight

Townsend 3 remained at 3027 lbs., and for the test its incoming door deformation and maximum bumper loads were speed was 30.2 mph. Since baseline doors were compared between the baseline and modified doors tested, any performance difference between the stock, and, where applicable, to the threshold standards for unmodified doors and the prototype door systems the FMVSS-214 tests as shown in Table 1. Finally would be evident, regardless of weight the unofficial “star” ratings were compared. Four three-axis load cells were placed behind the Maximum door deformation in test 247 was frame rails of the bumper apparatus, two on each rail. decreased by 2.4 inches over the baseline doors. Test In order to capture any moment in the frame rails one 249, which uses the cruciform beam utilizing load cell was placed above and one below each frame DACIT, showed a reduction of 3.6 inches. rail. Accelerometers were placed in 5 locations on the Additionally, the final displacement of the Joalto door, one at each corner of the inside panel and one doors were 3.0 and 4.6 inches less than that of the at the center of the cruciform. One accelerometer was production sedan doors respectively. placed on the B-pillar, aft of the striker latch. A BioSID test dummy was used to measure the Table 1. occupant loads in this crash situation. Comparative Crash Results

Standard Sedan Joalto Joalto Door Cruciform Cruciform R0098247 Door Door R0098248 w/ DACIT R0098249 TTI (g’s) 76.46 52.70 61.37 Pelvic 49.41 46.80 49.97 Acceleration (g’s) Head Injury 87.29 61.69 88.09 Criteria (HIC) Mid-door -18.0 -15.6 -14.4 Displacement (in) Mid-door -17.28 -14.28 -12.72 Figure 6. Displacement (in) @ 150 ms Top Front (lbf) 12040 13132 17324 Rig. Bottom Front (lbf) 8884 4633 5306 Top Rear (lbf) 3673 4765 4690 Since the crash tests performed used a new Bottom Rear (lbf) 4412 4290 5485 apparatus and the geometry was somewhat different from the crash facilities regular tests. Several preliminary impacts at lower speeds were carried out. Figure 7, summarizes mid-door deformation. The actual crash data used for analysis consisted of The mid-door deformation at 150 ms represents the four tests. The first two tests were carried out using final position of the center of the inner door panel on the production sedan doors, one without the BioSID, the production door, and the location of the upper- and the second with the BioSID. The data from the center component in the cruciform beams. The non-dummy equipped baseline test was used to prove differences in the maximum deformation and the consistency of results between impacts. The third test final deformation illustrate the elastic deformation or featured the cruciform side intrusion beam and was “spring-back” in the door beams. This indicates that carried out with a BioSID dummy positioned and the prototype beams need to be modified such that belted into the production sedan seat. The final test there is more plastic deformation. used a cruciform beam that structurally reintegrated The Joalto XSIB showed a reduction in the the door with the vehicle body using DACIT. Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI). This was decreased by

32% in test 248 and 19.8% in test 249. This increased RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS the subjective “star” ratings from a 3 star to a 5 star.

This means that compared to the production baseline After filtering the raw data, several door, the Joalto Cruciform door showed a marked measurements were used to rate the performance of increase in the level of side impact protection. One of the doors. The Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI), Pelvic the goals set before the test was to show that Acceleration, Head Injury Criteria (HIC), maximum

Townsend 4 structural reintegration of the door would be the most 249. This indicates that the door intrusion near the B- beneficial side impact protection system. Test results pillar and seatback area was significantly less. indicate that the beam was too rigid and therefore raised the acceleration levels as a result of the Comparison of TTI reduction in intrusion. The level of spring-back that occurred in this test supports this conclusion. With Standard Lumina Door fine-tuning of the beam, this can be eliminated. R0098247

Joalto Cruciform Door R0098248 Door Deformation Joalto Crucif orm Door w / Standard Lumina DACIT R0098249 Door R0098247

0 102030405060708090 Joalto Cruciform Door R0098248 Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) (g)

Joalto Cruciform Door w/ DACIT R0098249 Figure 8. 0 2 4 6 8 1012141618 Maximum Intrusion (in) Mid-door Displacement (in) @ 150 ms TTI Comparison. Mid-door Displacement (in)

Figure 7. Comparison of Pelvic Acceleration Door Deformation and Spring-back. Maximum Allowable (FMVSS-214 Requirements)

Compared to the baseline, production door, the Standard Lumina Door R0098247 BioSID dummy showed a lower pelvic acceleration Joalto Cruciform Door R0098248 in the Joalto Cruciform Door (248). The pelvic Joalto Cruciform Door w/ DACIT R0098249 accelerations were reduced by 5.3% with the 248 beam but increased slightly when the beam was 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 structurally reintegrated with the body. This is Pelvic Acceleration (g) attributed to a localized beam failure that occurred in near the hip point of the test dummy. The failure Figure 9. occurred near a pie-cut and welded section of the beam. This reflects the way the prototype beams were Pelvic Acceleration Comparison. fabricated. This feature and fabrication method would not occur in a production environment and therefore in a production beam this material anomaly would The deformation of the bumper in the 248 test not exist. was markedly greater than that used in the 247 test. Analysis of the peak bumper loads in each of the The bumper was folded in the center showing a larger tests showed that the Joalto door distributed the fork effect and was flattened in a greater amount. impact load across a broader area than the production This indicates that the door and B-pillar system was door, thereby creating a lower localized intrusion into able to withstand a higher impact energy threshold the occupant cabin. and energy dissipation was directed back into the After inspection of the parts used in the impact impacting vehicle. tests, visual conclusions could be made as well. A The overall results of this test show that the closer look at the deformation of the seatbacks as a Joalto Design Cruciform side intrusion beams have result of door intrusion showed that the seat used in potential for increased passenger safety, not only in the production door impact test was bent inward at a disparate situations like a LTV-midsize sedan impact, much greater angle than the seat used in the Joalto but in impacts between vehicles in the same class. door beam (248) test. This trend continued through With additional development, the safety benefits can test 249. be maximized, and if used in conjunction with other The seat back accelerometers showed that the systems, the occupant protection potential can be seat back in test 247 was deformed 32.4 in., 6 in. less fully realized. deformation occurred in test 248, 18 in less in test

Townsend 5

REFERENCES

1. Disparity of Vehicle Size in Side Impact Accidents, NHSTA International Conference, Windsor, , June 1998. 2. Vehicle Closure Panel Having An Intrusion Beam as Primary Structure, Patent Number 6196619, March 2001. 3. Improvements in Sliding Automobile Door, Patent Number 5524960, June 1996. 4. Integrated Motor Vehicle Door and Chassis, Patent Number 5908216, June 1999. 5. Automotive Door Modules, ITB Group Ltd., September 2000.

Townsend 6