Design and Crashworthiness Analysis of Rear Underrun Protection Device

Abstract

Each year, thousands of people are passed away due to car accidents. Although technological improvements provided for passenger safety day by day, collision be-tween passenger car and heavy vehicles are still the most dangerous issue. In this pa-per, a new rear underrun protection device was designed. Three different support bracket thicknesses that vary with 4-6 mm whereas investigated and their crash performance and structural integrity were compared to each other. RUPD finite element models were created and analysed for Dodge Neon (1996) collided at 63 km/h vehicle impact speed under full overlap crash scenario. Abaqus/Explicit dynamic analysis that is special tool for highly non-linear Dynamics phenomenon was used for the analyses. Axial deformations, plastic strains, and axial displacement of right seat accelerometer were obtained and compared to evaluating of each design. The optimum support bracket thickness was determined for the new developed RUPD against vehicle colli-sion. The results were also compared to the ref[13] and it is seen that they were good agreement.

Keywords

• Abaqus
• Economic Commission Europe Regulation-58 (ECE R58); Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
• Rear Underrun Protection Device (RUPD)

References

1. [1] Web: Sönümleyici tampon zorunlu hale getirilmeli ! Ac-cess : https://www.pusulahaber.com.tr/darbe-sonumleyici-tampon-zorunlu-hale-getirilmeli-1691897h.htm
2. [2] Web: Fatalities in truck rear-end collisions in the USA. 2017. Ac-cess: https://www.dekra-roadsafety.com/media/fatalities-in-truck-rear-end-collisions.jpg
3. [3] Web: UNECE R58-03 Regulation. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2017/R058r3e.pdf
4. [4] S. Lerspalungsanti, N. Pitaksapsin, P. Viriyarattanasak, P. Wattan-awongsakun and N. Suebnunta, “Design approach of heavy goods vehicle underrun protection using morphological analysis,” J. of Automobile Engineering, Vol. 236/6, 2021
5. [5] M. Carrera, L. Castejón, R. Miralbés and D. Valladares, “Behav-iour of rear underrun protection system on car-to-tank vehicle im-pact used for fuel transportation,” Int. J. Heavy Vehicle Systems, Vol. 17, Nos. 3/4, 2010
6. [6] Z. F.Al-Bahash, M.N.M. Ansari and Q. H. Shah, “Design and simulation of a rear underride protection device (RUPD) for heavy vehicles” International Journal of Crashworthiness, Vol 23/1, 2018
7. [7] S. Pooudom, S. Chanthanumataporn, S. Koetniyom and J. Carmai, “Design and Development of Truck Rear Underrun Protection De-vice”, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 501/01, 2017
8. [8] F. Cappello, T. Ingrassia and V. Nigrelli, “Design of a new high energy rear underrun protective device”, High Performance Struc-tures and Materials IV, Vol. 97, 2008

9. [9] A. K. Khore, T. Jain and K. Tripathi, “Impact crashworthiness of rear under run protection device in heavy vehicle using finite ele-ment analysis” Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. Vol.3/1, 2014
10. [10] A. O. Atahan, A. S. Joshi and M. El-Gindy, “A rear-end protec-tion device for heavy vehicles”, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress, 2003
11. [11] ABAQUS Theory Manuel (v6.6)
12. [12] National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC), Dodge Neon car model, http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/vml/models.html
13. [13] Web: Crash Test Performance Of Large Truck Rear Underrıde Guards” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, United States. Access: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFTy0bCE66A