Group no.8.RUPD Analysis

A
PROJECT REPORT
ON
“Design and Analysis of Rear Under-Run Protection Device

(RUPD)”
Submitted
By
Sontakke Nilkanth A.
Exam Seat no.
Under the guidance of
Prof. Gholap U. S.
SKN Sinhgad College Of Engineering, Pandharpur

Department of Mechaniacal Engineering
2019-2020
i
SKN Sinhgad College of Engineering, Pandharpur
Department of Mechanical Engineering

2019-2020
Certificate
This is to certify that the project Report entitled
(RUPD)”
has been submitted by
Sontakke Nilkanth A.
B.E. Mechancal
Exam seat no.
as a partial fulfillment for the Bachelor Degree in Mechanical
Engineering of P.A.H. University of Solapur.
Prof. Gholap.U.S. Prof. Aradhye.A.A Prof. Kulkarni.S.S.

GUIDE PG CO-ORDINATOR H.O.D
ii
PUNYASHLOK AHILYADEVI HOLKAR SOLAPUR UNIVERSITY
Certificate
This is to certify that
Sontakke N.A.
Exam seat no.
Student of B.E. (MECH) is examined in the Project
Entitled
(RUPD)”
ON
15/05/2020
at
Department of Mechanical Engineering
SKN Sinhgad College Of Engineering Korti.
2019-2020
Internal Examiner External Examiner
iii
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank all the people who have helped me in the completion of my project
stage-II . I would like to take this opportunity to express my respect, deep gratitude & regards to
my guide Prof. Gholap.U.S. Without whose help this project report would not have been
successful. I express my sincere thanks to Prof. P.P.Kulkarni for giving me all his support &
cooperation for my project work.
Lastly words fall short to express my sincere gratitude & thanks to all my staff members
and friends who knowingly or unknowingly encouraged & constantly assisted me in every work.
Name:- Sontakke Nilkanth Appa

Exam seat no.
iv
Design and Analysis of Rear Under-Run Protection Device (RUPD)
CONTENTS
Certificate iii
Acknowledgement iv
List of Figure ix
Abstract xi
Page
Chapter No Title of Chapter
No.
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation 12
1.2 Significance 15
1.3 Objective 15
1.4 Tools Used 15
1.5 Progress achieved 16
1.6 Difficulties encountered 16
1.7 Plan of action ( Flow chart ) 17
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 18
2.1 Under run Protection Devices (UPD) 18

2.1.1 Front underrun protection device (FUPD) 21
2.1.2 Rear underrun protection device (RUPD) 21
2.1.3 Side underrun protection device (SUPD) 22
2.2 Car Crumple Zone and its significance 24
2.3 Crash comparisons without RUPD and with RUPD 26
2.4 Computational Approval Of Rear Underrun Protection Device With Msc.Nastran 27
Chapter 3 ECE REGULATION 58 30
Chapter 4 TEST PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS 36
4.1 RUPD test setup 36

Chapter 5 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS 37
5.1 Units 37
5.2 Engineering assumptions 37
5
5.3 Meshing procedure 37

5.3.1 Meshing on fillet 38
5.3.2 Meshing of flange or Rib 38
5.3.3 Mesh transition 39
5.3.3.1 Mesh around 40
5.3.3.2 Element quality criteria 41
5.3.3.3 Warpage 41
5.3.3.4 aspect ratio 41
5.3.3.5 Jacobian 42
5.3.3.6 length 42
5.4 FEA tools – ANSYS 43
5.4.1 History 43
5.4.2 Typical uses 44
5.4.3 Capabilities 44
5.4.4 Application 45
5.5 CATIA V5 45
5.5.1 key post processing features 46
Chapter 6 MODEL ANALYSIS RESULTS 48
6.1 F.E.model information 48
6.2 Material and Thickness details 49
Chapter 7 RESULTS FROM ANSYS SOFTWARE 50
7.1 Results ( Material case - structural steel) 50
7.1.1 Overall plots 50
7.1.2Material data 53
7.2 Observation and conclusion 56
7.3 Results (Material case – stainless steel) 57
7.3.1 Material Data 60
7.5 Results ( Material case – AL6061 T6) 64
7.5.1Material data 67
6
Chapter 8 Result By Comparing The Graphs Of Three Materials 71

8.1 Total Deformation 71
8.2 Equivalent Stress 71
8.3 Equivalent Strain 72
Chapter 9 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE 73
Chapter 10 REFRENCES 74
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. Page
Title
No. No.
13
1 Typical Rear Underride Accident
14
3 Project Flow Chart
20
4 Typical Front Underrun Protection Device (FUPD)
21
5 Rear Underrun Protection Device (RUPD)
22
6 Side Underrun Protection Device (SUPD)
23
7 Design and Mounting Demands of RUPD
26
8 Rear Impact without RUPD
27
9 Displacements of the protection device under test force P1
28
28
36
12 RUPD Test Setup
48
13 CAD Model Of RUPD
Material and thickness details 49

14
50
15 Total deformation
51
16 Equivalent strain
8
52
17 Equivalent stress
57
58
59
64
65
66
71
71
72
9
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph. Page
Graph Title
No. No.
13
1 Death in Crashes Involving Large Trucks
shows the percentage of fatalities occurred due to accident between car and 14
2
Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV)
42
3 Total deformation
47
4 Equivalent stress
52
5 Equivalent strain
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE. Page
Table Title
No. No.
14
1 All Accidents in year 2009
53
2 Material Data (structured steel)
60
3 Material Data (Stainless steel)
67
4 Material Data (AL6061 T6)
10
Abstract
Many times we see a passenger car going down the heavy commercial vehicle
(like truck or trailer) either from rear, front or side. During a collision between such a
truck and a passenger vehicle, there is a risk that the passenger vehicle will penetrate
under the front or rear part of the truck and thus be jammed between the road surface and
the underside of the frame or load carrier of the vehicle. The result may be that the rear
part of the truck will enter the passenger compartment of the vehicle with great force,
which in turn may cause serious injuries to the passengers of the vehicle. In this article
we will see basic types of Under Run Protection Devices which are used on commercial
vehicle to avoid severity of accident .
The heavy commercial vehicles are equipped with under-run protection devices
(UPD) to enhance safety of occupants in small vehicles in the event of under-run. These
UPD are popularly classified as RUPD (rear under-run protection devices), SUPD (side
under-run protection devices), FUPD (front under-run protection devices). These devices
primarily work to improve safety of smaller vehicles by changing its interaction with
heavy vehicles thereby resulting in change in small vehicle structural engagement for
energy absorption. Without UPD, smaller vehicle passenger compartment is likely to
interact with stiff commercial vehicle chassis frame structures.
The main objective of project is to design and optimize RUPD using computational
methods to maximize occupant safety during crash event of Heavy Vehicle and a Car.
The RUPD is required to comply with the ECE R 58 regulation, which provides strict
requirements in terms of device design and its behavior under loading that the device
needs to fulfill for the approval of load carrying vehicles. The regulation allows for
computational safety inspection of the protection device, which has prompted research
into exploring the possibilities of computational simulation of RUPD behavior under
loading.
11
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
Every day, many motor vehicle occupants are either killed or severely injured because of
different crash situations such as front, rear and side and many more. Out of all these accidents,
truck related accidents incur significantly more fatalities. The vehicles with gross vehicle weight
ratio (GVWR) of more than 10,000 lbs will be considered as a truck. All these accidents are much
more fatal because of mass difference between large truck and small vehicles such as passenger
cars and the difference in stiffness of construction structures. Truck under ride accidents
represents most part of the truck related accidents. Every year, thousands of people killed or
seriously injured in under ride accidents throughout the world. Under ride accidents are of
different types; front, rear and side under rides. These under rides may be the result of vehicle
mismatch and vehicle aggressively [3].
Under ride occurs when a small passenger vehicle strikes either front or rear or side of the
larger vehicle with relatively higher mass and bigger in structure, the front hood part of smaller
vehicle goes under the rear, front or side of the bigger vehicle. The small passenger car under
rides the larger truck in the worst case, and the large truck’s high profiled structure can enter the
passenger compartment of the smaller car and will collide with the occupants directly at their
head and chest level. This is one of the most highly frequent events that happen in an under ride
crash environment. This is called as “passenger compartment intrusion”, (PCI).
It has been estimated that excessive under ride occurs in 30-40 % of all fatal accidents in
which a passenger car crashes into the rear of the truck. In all truck related fatal crashes, 85% of
cars had intrusion in frontal passenger compartment and 17% had intrusion till the back of the
compartment.
12
Figure 1 Typical Rear Underride Accident
Figure 2 shows typical rear underride accident, where the car completely under rides the truck
and the truck bed structure intrudes the passenger compartment intrusion by breaking the A-
pillars and Windshield. In all these accidents, occupants of smaller passenger vehicles account for
the most of deaths (94%) in large truck – passenger vehicle crashes, because the occupants of
lighter vehicles experience greater forces than the occupants of heavier vehicles.
Graph 1 shows the number of people dying in all truck related accidents, not only
the under ride accidents. Data is taken from Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS).
Graph 1 Death in Crashes Involving Large Trucks

13
Occupant Type Deaths %
Passenger Vehicle Occupants 2771 97
Large Vehicle Occupants 72 3
All Occupant Deaths 2843 100
Table 1 All Accidents in year 2009
Table1 shows the occupant deaths in two-vehicle crashes involving large truck and passenger
vehicles in the year 2005 in USA and it shows that ninety seven percent (2771 deaths) of
passenger vehicle occupants are killed in two-vehicle crashes involving a passenger vehicle and
large truck and only 3% (72 deaths)of large truck occupants are dying. Once again the data from
Graph 2 is from all the accidents in the year 2009 [1].
Graph 2 shows the percentage of fatalities occurred due to accident between car and Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV)
in all types of Underride crashes in different countries
Thousands of lives can be saved all over the world if we can reduce the possibility of passenger
compartment intrusion. Devastating accidents can happen even at low speeds which can lead to
14
fatal injuries to the occupants to the passenger cars. Existing under ride guard on the rear of the
truck has some limitations in reducing the severity of the under ride accidents and may be unable
to prevent the passenger compartment intrusion (PCI). There is some life threatening accidents
due to the limitations of the existing guard. The primary objective of the existing under ride guard
is to save the lives of the people at the time of the under ride accidents [1].
1.2. Significance
 Over 100,000 people die in India in road accidents
 Rate of fatalities is particularly high in case of vehicle under-run
 Such an under-run can also cause damage to the heavy vehicle
 Under run protection devices such as Rear under Run Protection Device (RUPD) and
Lateral under Run Protection Device (LPD) are mandatory on heavy vehicles as per IS
14812 and IS 14682 respectively.
 Use of simulation tools will eliminate the heavy cost involved in actual testing and
prototyping.
1.3. Objective
 Regulation study and extraction of design and safety requirements of RUPD.
 Design of RUPD with reference to applied regulations, Cost and Manufacturing
considerations.
 Optimization of RUPD structure to lower weight and increase energy absorption using
tools like LS Dyna and Hyper Works Module.
 Comparison of Rear Crash event in three cases for RUPD design.
- Without RUPD
- With Original RUPD design
- With Optimized RUPD design.
 Further insight to use of nontraditional materials and methodologies for RUPD design.
1.4. Tools Used

 Ansys
It is Mechanical finite element analysis software is used to simulate computer models of
structures, electronics, or machine components for analyzing strength, toughness, elasticity,
temperature distribution, electromagnetism, fluid flow, and other attributes.
 CATIA V5R20
15
It is an acronym for Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application. It is one of

the leading 3D software used by organizations in multiple industries ranging from aerospace,
automobile to consumer products.
 What does CATIA do?
Part Design: The most essential workbench needed for solid modelling. This CATIA module
makes it possible to design precise 3D mechanical parts with an intuitive and flexible user
interface, from sketching in an assembly context to iterative detailed design.
Generative Shape Design: allows you to quickly model both simple and complex shapes using
wireframe and surface features. It provides a large set of tools for creating and editing shape
designs. Though not essential, knowledge of Part Design will be very handy in better
utilization of this module.
Assembly: The basics of product structure, constraints, and moving assemblies and parts can
be learned quickly. This is the workbench that allows connecting all the parts to form a
machine or a component.
Kinematic Simulation: Kinematics involves an assembly of parts that are connected together
by a series of joints, referred to as a mechanism. These joints define how an assembly can
perform motion. It addresses the design review environment of digital mock-ups. This
workbench shows how a machine will move in the real world.
1.5. Progress Achieved

 Importance of RUPD, available literature and finding, design methodologies are very
well studied to finalize scope of the project.
 Current applicable regulations such as ECE R58 are studied to extract the design
considerations.
 Test procedure is understood and loading device dimensions are extracted.
1.6. Difficulties encountered

 Detail and methodical document understanding is required to extract all applicable design
parameters design as the vehicle regulations are a legal and generic documents.
 Test Procedure was extracted from regulation and detail understanding of it was achieved.
16
 Plan of action. (Project flow chart)
Figure 2 Project Flow Chart
17
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1. Under run Protection Devices (UPD)

The heavy commercial vehicles are equipped with under-run protection devices (UPD) to
enhance safety of occupants in small vehicles in the event of under-run. These UPD are popularly
classified as RUPD (rear under-run protection devices), SUPD (side under-run protection
devices), and FUPD (front under-run protection devices).
Sr Publis
no Title of paper Authors her
Work focused on
year
1 2014
Heavy duty truck rear Onur Erk, H. Rear under run protection device design
under run protection Ali Solak, Berna should obey the safety regulative rules
design for regulative and successfully pass several test

Balta
conditions. In order to minimize the
load cases
design iteration phase of the heavy duty
truck RUPD, an effective finite element
model have been constructed for the
necessary impact loading conditions via
RADIOSS software
2 2014 In this paper, a detailed energy absorption

Energy absorption Satish Gombi, analysis of Carbon/Epoxy composite
analysis of rupd Mahendra .S.B, RUPD and Steel RUPD was carried out
Amithkumar H numerically. The energy absorption

behavior of the Carbon/Epoxy RUPD was
carried out. The main aim was to see that
the car does not penetrate under the truck
bed.
3 Design & optimization Mr.George 2013 The work focus on optimization of

of rear underrun Joseph RUPD structure using FEA tool like
protection device using LS-DYNA & hyperworks module &
LS-DYNA stress calculation for guard pipe has
18
been performed
4 Design and Dr.T.Ramamoha 2013 RUPD is tested for occupant safety by

optimization of front n Rao. performing crash analysis with 800
underrun protection kg hitting the FUPD with certain
device. velocity analyzing its performance &
changing design to improve crash
result .
5 Finite element analysis Kaustubh joshi 2012 This paper explains the FEA analysis
of rear under run of RUPD for impact loading all the
protection device for result obtained from the CAE analysis
impact loading are evaluate against the requirements
of IS 14812-2005. Which could
reduces the process development time
& cost involved in the same.
6 Research on the Liu-Hong fei & 2010 In this paper based on the related
intelligent RUPD peng tao actuality in china the whole process of
system for truks RUPD simulation & analyzed by
applying non linear F.E. program
7 Computational Prof.dr.Zoran 2010 The study comprises elastic &

approval of RUPD with Ren elestoplastic simulation of chosen
MCS. NASTRAN RUPD which has been exepermently
result leads to the conclusion that
computational analysis with Nastran.
8 RUPD in commercial Klaus langwieder 2006 In this paper look at federal statistics
vehicle. martin kandler reveals that 395689 traffic accident
involving injuries in year . it becomes
clear that the danger of suffering fatal
injuries in truck collisions is almost
twice.
19
These devices primarily work to improve safety of smaller vehicles by changing its
interaction with heavy vehicles thereby resulting in change in small vehicle structural engagement
for energy absorption. Without UPD, smaller vehicle passenger compartment is likely to interact
with stiff commercial vehicle chassis frame structures. However with UPD, the smaller vehicle
front-end structure gets involved in the crash which helps in controlled energy absorption and
safe-guards the passenger compartment.
At present, regulatory criteria have been defined for the minimum static strength, stiffness
requirements at component level for these UPD besides dimensional requirements for their
installations on the commercial vehicles. In a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Heavy Vehicle Underrun
Protection, Australia’s Monash University Accident Research Centre cited that the most common
head-on crash (346 crashes, or 98%) occurred where one of the vehicles was traveling on the
wrong side of the road and neither vehicle was overtaking. It concluded that as a passive safety
device, underrun protection will not reduce the number of crashes involving trucks and lighter
vehicles. However, they can ensure that crashes that do occur are less severe than they might
otherwise have been [2].
Front underrun protection device (FUPD)
It is designed to avoid the under run entry of colliding vehicle during head to head collision.
Figure 3 Typical Front Underrun Protection Device (FUPD)
20
It is at the front of the vehicle.
Rear underrun protection device (RUPD)

An increasing number of cases involving vehicles crashing into the rear of stationary heavy
vehicles have prompted the implementation of international specifications governing the
installation of rear underrrun protective devices on commercial vehicles.
In a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Heavy Vehicle Underrun Protection, Australia’s Monash

University Accident Research Centre cited that the most common head-on crash (346 crashes, or
98%) occurred where one of the vehicles was traveling on the wrong side of the road Existing
underride guard on the rear of the truck has some limitations in reducing the severity of the
underride accidents and may be unable to prevent the passenger compartment intrusion (PCI).
There is some life threatening accidents due to the limitations of the existing guard.
21
Side underrun protection device (SUPD)

This prevents the entry of a vehicle under the truck side body. It is mounted on the side rail of
Figure 4 Side Underrun Protection Device (SUPD)
chassis ladder or can be mounted on truck body. Side underrun protection is installed on heavy
goods vehicles to prevent pedestrians, bicycle riders and motorcyclists from falling under the
wheels of the heavy good vehicle when it turns. In the Netherlands, research indicates that the
existing legislative requirement is limited and that an improved side underrun protection system
could reduce pedestrian and cyclist deaths in such situations by about 10%.
Detailed Rear underrun protection device
The RUPD should be should be positioned as close as possible to the rear end of the vehicle
chassis. The width of the device should not in any case exceed the largest width of the rear
vehicle axle (measured at the outer tire edges) and it should not be shorter for more than 100 mm
on each side, see Fig. 2. If the device is integrated into the vehicle chassis, which exceeds the
largest width of the rear vehicle axle, the device can be wider than the rear axle but it should not
exceed the width of the rear end of chassis. The height of the bottom edge of RUPD above the
ground for unladen vehicle should not exceed 550 mm along the whole width of the device. The
height of the transversal profile of the device should not be smaller than 100 mm. The side edges
of this profile should not be curved back and should not have any sharp edges (recommended
rounding radius is at least 2.5 mm).
22
Figure 5 Design and Mounting Demands of RUPD
The RUPD must offer appropriate resistance to forces that act along or parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis, and should be in the working position firmly connected to longitudinal
cantilevers of the vehicle chassis or corresponding parts of the vehicle. The fundamental design
demand is that the horizontal distance between the end of the vehicle and the end of the RUPD
does not exceed 400 mm, even under the largest deformation of the protection device when
subjected to nominal testing forces [3].
23
2.2. Car Crumple Zone and its significance

Whenever a car is involved in a crash, intense kinetic forces are at work. A given amount of force
is present during any crash. The actual numbers vary based on the speed and mass of the car and
the speed and mass of whatever it hits. Physicists measure this force as acceleration -- even when
moving from a high speed to a lower speed, any change in speed over time is scientifically
referred to as acceleration. To avoid confusion, we will refer to crash acceleration as deceleration.
Crumple zones accomplish two safety goals. They reduce the initial force of the crash, and they
redistribute the force before it reaches the vehicle's occupants.
The best way to reduce the initial force in a crash with a given amount of mass and speed is to
slow down the deceleration. You've seen this effect for yourself if you've had to slam on your
brakes for any reason. The forces you experience in an emergency stop are much greater than
when you gradually slow down for a stoplight. In a collision, slowing down the deceleration by
even a few tenths of a second can create a drastic reduction in the force involved. Force is a
simple equation:
Force = mass * acceleration
Cutting the deceleration in half also cuts the force in half. Therefore, changing the deceleration
time from 0.2 seconds to 0.8 seconds will result in a 75 percent reduction in total force (4).
Crumple zones accomplish this by creating a buffer zone around the perimeter of the car. Certain
parts of a car are inherently rigid and resistant to deforming, such as the passenger compartment
and the engine. If those rigid parts hit something, they will decelerate very quickly, resulting in a
lot of force. Surrounding those parts with crumple zones allows the less rigid materials to take the
initial impact. The car begins decelerating as soon as the crumple zone starts crumpling,
extending the deceleration over a few extra tenths of a second.
Crumple zones also help redistribute the force of impact. All of the force has to go somewhere --
the goal is to send it away from the occupants. Think of the force involved in a crash as a force
budget. Everything that happens to the car during an impact and every person inside of the car at
the time of the impact spends some of the force. If the car hits a non-stationary object, like a
parked car, then some force is transferred to that object. If the car hits something with a glancing
blow and spins or rolls, much of the force is spent on the spinning and rolling. If parts of the car
24
fly off, even more force is spent. Most importantly, damage to the car itself spends force. Bending
parts of the frame, smashing body panels, shattering glass -- all of these actions require energy.
Think of how much force is needed to bend the steel frame of a car. That amount of force is spent
on bending the frame, so it is never transmitted to the occupants.
Crumple zones are based on that concept. Parts of the car are built with special structures
inside them that are designed to be damaged, crumpled, crushed and broken. We'll explain the
structures themselves shortly, but the fundamental idea is that it takes force to damage them.
Crumple zones spend as much force as possible so that other parts of the car as well as the
occupants don't suffer the effects [2].
25
2.3. Crash comparisons without RUPD and with RUPD

As we see in the above pictures it is very much clear that in case of the without RUPD crash the
impact of the truck is on the passenger compartment due to the underrunning of the car under the
truck so the energy absorption is not there before the impact of truck will take place to the
passenger compartment so due to this high energy of collision the there are more fatalities will
occur. But in the next case that is with RUPD the energy absorption is in the bonnet of the car
before the impact will take place to the passenger compartment due to avoiding of the
underruning of the car. Therefore, in this case the fatalities are less. It has been estimated that
energy-absorbing front, rear and side under-run protection could reduce deaths in car to lorry
impacts by about 12%. An EU requirement was introduced in 2000 based on ECE Regulation 93
requiring mandatory rigid front under run protection defining a rigid front under run protection
system for trucks with a gross weight over 3.5 tones. Studies performed have shown that
passenger cars can ‘survive’ a frontal truck collision with a relative speed of 75 km/h if the truck
is equipped with an energy absorbing underrun protection system. Furthermore, these systems
Figure 6 Rear Impact without RUPD
26
could reduce about 1176 deaths and 23660 seriously injured car occupants in Europe per year (4).
2.4. Computational Approval Of Rear Underrun Protection Device With

Msc.Nastran
Mr. Matej Glavac, Prof. Dr. Zoran Ren, in “COMPUTATIONAL APPROVAL OF REAR
UNDERRUN PROTECTION DEVICE WITH MSC.NASTRAN” paper explores the possibilities
of new computational safety inspection of rear under run protection device (RUPD) with
MSC.Nastran. The RUPD is required to comply with the ECE R 58 regulation, which provides
strict requirements in terms of device design and its behavior under loading that the device needs
to fulfill for the approval of load carrying vehicles. The regulation allows for computational
safety inspection of the protection device, which has prompted research into exploring the
possibilities of computational simulation of RUPD behavior under loading. The paper describes
the conditions and procedures for proper computational simulations, which are based on the finite
element method. MSC.Nastran is used as a tool for optimizing the RUPD in terms of weight and
geometric characteristic to satisfy the ECE R 58 regulation. The study comprises elastic and
elasto-plastic simulations of the chosen RUPD, which has been also experimentally tested.
Reasonably good agreement of computational and experimental results leads to the conclusion
that computational analysis with MSC.Nastran can be successfully used for inspection and
approval of RUPD. The potential savings are substantial, since only virtual testing is required,
which is far cheaper than regulated experimental testing.
Figure 7 Displacements of the protection device under test force P1
27
The paper illustrates the possibilities of computational simulation for the RUPD approval. The
results of elasto-plastic computational analysis show good agreement with the experimental
results. This leads to the conclusion that the presented computational procedure can be safely
28
used for approval of the RUPD. The procedure is furthermore suitable for design and
optimisation of new RUPDs and is currently being applied in RTI. The potential savings are
substantial, since only virtual testing is required, which is far cheaper then regulated experimental
testing. The MSC.Nastran is clearly appropriate and extremely efficient tool for such simulations
[3].
29
3. ECE Regulation 58
Uniform provisions concerning the approval of:
Rear under run protective devices (Rupds)
Vehicles with regard to the installation of a rupd of an approved type
Vehicles with regard to their rear under run protection (rup)
1. SCOPE
1.1. This Regulation applies to:
1.1.1. PART I: the RUPDs which are intended to be fitted to vehicles of categories N2, N3,
03 and 04; 1/
1.1.2. PART II: the installation on vehicles of categories N2, N3, 03 and 04 1/ of RUPDs
which have been type approved to Part I of this Regulation;
1.1.3. PART III: vehicles of categories N2, N3, 03 and 04 1/ equipped with an RUPD which
has not been separately approved according to Part I of this Regulation or so
designed and/or equipped that its component parts can be regarded as totally or
partially fulfilling the function of the RUPD.
1.2. This Regulation does not apply to:
1.2.1. Tractive units for articulated vehicles;
1.2.2. Trailers specially designed and constructed for the carriage of very long loads of
indivisible length, such as timber, steel bars, etc.;
1.2.3. Vehicles where any RUPD is incompatible with their use.
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Regulation is to offer effective protection against underrunning of

vehicles mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Regulation in the event of rear collision with vehicles
of category M1 and N1 1/.
30
3. REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The section height of the cross-member must not be less than 100 mm. The lateral
extremities of the cross-member must not bend to the rear or have a sharp outer
edge; this condition is fulfilled when the lateral extremities of the cross-member are
rounded on the outside and have a radius of curvature of not less than 2.5 mm.
3.2. The RUPD may be so designed to have several positions at the rear of the vehicle.
In this event, there must be a guaranteed method of securing it in the service position
so that any unintentional change of position is precluded. The force applied by the
operator to vary the position of the device must not exceed 40 daN.
3.3. The RUPD must offer adequate resistance to forces applied parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle. (This shall be demonstrated in accordance with the
test procedure and test conditions specified in Annex 5 to this Regulation.) The
maximum horizontal deflection of the RUPD observed during and after the
application of the test forces specified in Annex 5 shall be recorded on the type
approval communication (Annex 1, item 8).
3.4. For vehicles fitted with a platform lift at the rear, the underrun device may be
interrupted for the purposes of the mechanism. In this case, the following special
requirements apply:
3.4.1. The maximum lateral clearance measured between the elements of the underrun
device and the elements of the platform lift, which move through the interruption
when the lift is operated and which make the interruption necessary, may amount to
no more than 2.5 cm.
3.4.2. The individual elements of the underrun protection, including those outboard of the
lift mechanism, where provided, must have an effective surface area, in each case, of
at least 350 cm2.
However, in the case of vehicles having a width of less than 2,000 mm and where
it is impossible to achieve the above requirement, the effective surface may be reduced on
the condition that the resistance criteria are met.
4. REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF AN APPROVED RUPD
4.1. The ground clearance with respect to the underside of the protective device, even
when the vehicle is unladen, must not exceed 550 mm over its entire width and shall
31
be such that the height above the ground of the points of application of the test forces
applied to the device according to Part I of this Regulation and recorded in the type
approval communication form (Annex 1, item 7) does not exceed 600 mm.
4.2. The width of the rear protective device must at no point exceed the width of the rear
axle measured at the outermost points of the wheels, excluding the bulging of the
tyres close to the ground, nor must it be more than 100 mm shorter on either side.
Where there is more than one rear axle, the width to be considered is that of the
widest rear axle. In addition the requirements of paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of
Annex 5 relating the distance of the points of application of the test forces from the
outer edges of the rear wheels (Annex 1, item 7) must be verified and recorded in the
type approval communication form.
4.3. The device must be so fitted that the horizontal distance between the rear of the
device and the rear extremity of the vehicle, including any platform lift mechanism,
does not exceed 400 mm diminished by the recorded deformation (paragraph 7.3 of
Part I) measured at any of the points where the test forces have been applied (Annex
1, item 8) during the type approval of the rear underrun protective device in
conformity with the provisions of Part I of this Regulation and recorded in the type
approval communication form. In measuring this distance, any part of the vehicle
which is more than 2 m above the ground when the vehicle is unladen shall be
excluded.
4.4. The maximum mass of a vehicle type for which approval is requested shall not exceed the
value indicated on the type approval communication form of each approved RUPD
intended to be installed on that vehicle.
5. REQUIREMENTS FOR RUPD
5.1. The ground clearance with respect to the underside of the RUPD, even when the
vehicle is unladen, must not exceed 550 mm over its entire width.
5.2. The RUP must be situated as close to the rear of the vehicle as possible.
5.3. The width of the RUP must at no point exceed the width of the rear axle measured at
the outermost points of the wheels, excluding the bulging of the tyres close to the
32
ground, nor must it be more than 100 mm shorter on either side. Where there is
more than one rear axle, the width to be considered is that of the widest rear axle.
Where the device is contained in or comprised by the vehicle bodywork which itself
extends beyond the width of the rear axle the requirement that the width of the RUP
must not exceed that of the rear axle shall not apply.
5.4. The section height of the RUPD must not be less than 100 mm. The lateral
extremities of the RUP must not bend to the rear or have a sharp outer edge, this
condition is fulfilled when the lateral extremities of the RUP are rounded on the
outside and have a radius of curvature of not less than 2.5 mm.
5.5. The RUP may be so designed to have several positions at the rear of the vehicle. In
this event, there must be a guaranteed method of securing it in the service position so
that any unintentional change of position is precluded. The force applied by the
operator to vary the position of the RUP must not exceed 40 daN.
5.6. The RUP must offer adequate resistance to forces applied parallel to the longitudinal
axis of the vehicle and be connected, when in the service position, with the chassis
side-members or whatever replaces them. This requirement will be satisfied if it is
shown that both during and after the application of the forces described in Annex 5
the horizontal distance between the rear of the RUP and the rear extremity of the
vehicle, including any platform lift mechanism, does not exceed 400 mm at any of
the points where the test forces are applied. In measuring this distance, any part of
the vehicle which is more than 2 m above the ground when the vehicle is unladen
must be excluded.
5.7. A practical test shall not be required where it can be shown by calculation that the
requirements of Annex 5, paragraph 3, are met. Where a practical test is carried out,
the device must be connected to the chassis side-members of the vehicle or to a
significant part of these or to other structural members.
5.8. For vehicles fitted with a platform lift at the rear, the underrun device may be
interrupted for the purposes of the mechanism. In this case, the following special
requirements apply:
33
5.8.1. The maximum lateral clearance measured between the elements of the underrun
device and the elements of the platform lift, which move through the interruption
when the lift is operated and which make the interruption necessary, may amount to
no more than 2.5 cm.
5.8.2. The individual elements of the underrun protection, including those outboard of the
lift mechanism, where provided, must have an effective surface area, in each case, of
at least 350 cm2.
However, in the case of vehicles having a width of less than 2,000 mm and where it is
impossible to achieve the above requirement, the effective surface may be reduced on the
condition that the resistance criteria are met.
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES
1. TEST CONDITIONS FOR RUPDs
1.1. At the request of the manufacturer the test may be conducted either:
1.1.1. On a vehicle of the type for which RUPD is intended; in this case the conditions set
out in paragraph 2 shall be observed; or
1.1.2. On a part of the chassis of the vehicle type for which the RUPD is intended; this part
shall be representative of the vehicle type(s) in question; or
1.1.3. On a rigid test bench.
1.2. In the case of paragraphs 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 the parts used to connect the RUPD to part
of the vehicle chassis or to the rigid test bench shall be equivalent to those which are
used to secure the RUPD when it is installed on the vehicle.
1.3. At the request of the manufacturer and with the consent of the Technical Service the
test procedure described in paragraph 3 may be simulated by calculation.
2. TEST CONDITIONS FOR VEHICLES
2.1. The vehicle shall be at rest on a level, flat, rigid and smooth surface.
2.2. The front wheels shall be in the straight-ahead position.
34
2.3. The tyres shall be inflated to the pressure recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.
2.4. The vehicle may, if necessary to achieve the test forces required in paragraph 3.1
below, be restrained by any method, this method to be specified by the vehicle
manufacturer.
2.5. Vehicles equipped with hydropneumatic, hydraulic or pneumatic suspension or a

device for automatic levelling according to load shall be tested with the suspension
or device in the normal running condition specified by the manufacturer.
35
4. Test Procedure and Requirements
 RUPD Test Setup
Impacting Device Figure 10 RUPD Test Setup
 As per the regulations whole device is constructed as shown in the above image and
calculated its load caring capacity.
 For calculating load carrying capacity we have constructed one Device in front of the
RUPD and standard velocity 59km/hr is given to that Device and this device is impacted on
RUPD.
 This test carried out three times for three different materials. Materials used for this test are
1) structural steel 2) stainless steel 3) AL6061 T6
 From this test we have calculated results in the form of stress , strain and deformation. And
finally we selected one material from these three materials depending on the results.
 The maximum bolt force required for clamping the model to the chassis is also known. The
FE model consists of reduced truck model cut at around 2000mm location from the rear end
of the chassis. The RUPD is attached to the chassis through bolt connections.
The order in which the forces are applied may be specified by the manufacturer. A Quasi
Static analysis was conducted on the Rear Guard assembly and its load bearing capacity is
tested. A Quasi test is a slow form of the dynamic test and is used when a dynamic code is
used to produce static result.
36
5. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
This section contains a detailed description of the Finite Element (FE) or computer model.
Structure used to write this chapter was as per the guidelines of AC 20-146 for documentation.
This section includes discussion on the topics like unit system, assumptions used for FE model,
material models used, constraints applied in model etc. in the following sections.
5.1.1 Units
Figure 15 FE Model Unit System
5.2.2 Engineering Assumptions

Development of FE model always comes with certain engineering assumptions because
modeler has to maintain balance between CPU cost and modeling of small features of
geometry.Small features like surface fillets with small radius or very small holes have to remove
while meshing so as to maintain computational time step. Some of the components which does
not include in primary load path or some plastic parts which does not contribute to stiffness of the
structure such as life vest, video monitor or tray were omitted from FE model. Ballast weights
were used to compensate the weight of these removed components and mass of the FE model was
maintained same as test article.
5.3 Meshing Procedures
This section describes guidelines those were followed for meshing. These are some of the
do's and don'ts those should be followed while meshing so as to avoid some common mistakes.
37
5.3.1 Meshing of Fillets

Fillets with radius less than 10mm were removed and meshed with sharp edges and an
example for this kind of meshing is shown in Figure
Figure 16 Meshing at Fillets
Fillets with radius larger than 10mm were meshed with at least 2 elements and 1 node on the
corner and an example for this kind of meshing is shown in Figure.
Figure 17 Meshing at Fillets
5.3.2 Meshing of Flange or Rib
38
Minimum of 3 elements were kept on the sides of flanges or ribs so as to maintain correct stiffness
of the part. If only 2 elements used on flanges or ribs then it might be possible that these elements
buckle at a lower load just because of incorrect stiffness. This kind of mesh might also succumb to hourglass
modes. For an example for this kind of meshing is shown in Figure.
Figure 18 Meshing of Flange
5.3.3 Mesh Transition

Triangular elements were used for the mesh transition. Triangular elements show stiff
behavior than quad elements so total number of triangular elements in the model were kept less than 5%.
Example of mesh transition is shown in Figure.
Figure 19 Mesh Transition
39
During mesh transition care was taken that triangular elements should not direct towards each
other as shown in Figure. This kind of mesh transition can be avoided by merging these triangular
Figure 20 Mesh Pattern 1
elements.
Try to avoid mesh concentration of triangular elements as shown in Figure.
5.3.3.1 Mesh Around Hole

Holes with diameter less than 10 mm were removed from the geometry but care was taken to
place a node at the center of the hole so as to get exact node for connection. Holes with diameter
greater than 10 mm were kept and meshed using washer definition in Hypermesh.
While meshing around hole minimum of 6 or even number of nodes were kept. Also care
was taken that there are no triangular elements around hole. Desirable and not desirable mesh
around hole can be seen in the Figure.
Figure 21 Mesh Pattern 2

40
Fig no 22. Mesh pattern 3
5.3.3.2 Element Quality Criteria

This section describes the quality criteria parameters for meshing with their minimum and
maximum limits. All these quality criteria's were satisfied before finalizing the mesh.
5.3.3.3 Warpage
Warpage is defined as the angle by which an element or element face (in case of solid
elements) deviates from being planar. 15 degrees of warpage angle was used as limit for
meshing. Geometrical representation of warpage angle is shown in Figure. Warpage
Figure 23 Warpage
angle for quad elements is calculated by splitting the quad element twice into two
triangular elements using both diagonals and finding the angle between the two planes
which the trias form. Maximum of this angle is called as the warpage angle of the
element.
5.3.3.4 Aspect Ratio
Aspect ratio is the ratio of breadth and height of an element and calculation for aspect
ratio is shown in Figure 3-12. To avoid the instability caused by unusual travel of stress
Figure 24 Aspect Ratio

41
wave, aspect ratio should be less than 5:1.
5.3.3.5 Jacobian
Jacobian ratio is a measure of the deviation of a given element from an ideally shaped element.
The jacobian value ranges from -1.0 to 1.0, where 1.0 represents a perfectly shaped element. The
ideal shape for an element depends on the element type. The check is performed by mapping an
ideal element in parametric coordinates onto the actual element defined in global coordinates. For
example, the coordinates of the corners of an ideal quad element in parametric coordinates are (-1,-
1), (1,-1), (1,1), and (-1,1). The determinant of the jacobian relates the local stretching of the
parametric space required to fit it onto global coordinate space.
Skew
Skew angle for quad elements is ninety degrees minus minimum angle made by two lines joining
mid points of opposite sides. Skew in quad and trias is shown in Figure 3-13. Skew angle was
Figure 25 Skew
maintained less than 60º
5.3.3.6 Length
Minimum side length for elements was maintained above 5mm. This minimum length condition
needs to be satisfied so as to keep the computational time step for ANSYS above 1micro second.
Following are the calculations for time step with element made with aluminum material and
minimum side length of 5 mm.
42
FEA Tools
The following software’s are utilized for Pre Processing (FEA model discritization),
solving (FEA computation code) and Post Processing (FEA result visulization)
Pre Processor - CATIA V5R20

Solver -ANSYS
Post Processor -CATIA V5R20 , ANSYS
5.4 ANSYS
Ansys:
Mechanical finite element analysis software is used to simulate computer models of
structures, electronics, or machine components for analyzing strength, toughness, elasticity,
temperature distribution, electromagnetism, fluid flow, and other attributes
Place founded: Canonsburg
Founders: John A. Swanson
History
He first commercial version of Ansys software was labeled version 2.0 and released in
1971. At the time, the software was made up of boxes of punch cards, and the program was
typically run overnight to get results the following morning. In 1975, non-linear and thermo-
electric features were added. The software was exclusively used on mainframes, until
version 3.0 (the second release) was introduced for the VAXstation in 1979. Version 3 had a
command line interface like DOS.
In 1980, Apple II was released, allowing Ansys to convert to a graphical user interface in
version 4 later that year. Version 4 of the Ansys software was easier to use and added
features to simulate electromagnetism. In 1989, Ansys began working with
Compuflo. Compuflo's Flotran fluid dynamics software was integrated into Ansys by
version 5, which was released in 1993. Performance improvements in version 5.1 shortened
processing time two to four-fold, and was followed by a series of performance
improvements to keep pace with advancements in computing. Ansys also began integrating
its software with CAD software, such as Autodesk.
In 1996, Ansys released the Design Space structural analysis software, the LS-DYNA crash
and drop test simulation product, and the Ansys Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
simulator. Ansys also added parallel processing support for PCs with multiple
processors. The educational product Analysed was introduced in 1998.[4] Version 6.0 of the
main Ansys product was released in December 2001.[4] Version 6.0 made large-scale
modeling practical for the first time, but many users were frustrated by a new blue user
interface. The interface was redone a few months later in 6.1. Version 8.0 introduced the
Ansys multi-field solver, which allows users to simulate how multiple physics problems
would interact with one another. Version 8.0 was published in 2005 and introduced
Ansys' fluid–structure interaction software which simulates the effect structures and fluids
have on one another. Ansys also released its Probabilistic Design System and Design
explorer software products, which both deal with probabilities and randomness of physical
43
elements. In 2009 version 12 was released with an overhauled second version of

Workbench. Ansys also began increasingly consolidating features into the Workbench
software.
Version 15 of Ansys was released in 2014. It added a new features for composites, bolted
connections, and better mesh tools. In February 2015, version 16 introduced the AIM
physics engine and Electronics Desktop, which is for semiconductor design. The following
year, version 17 introduced a new user interface and performance improvement for
computing fluid dynamics problems. In January 2017, Ansys released version 18. Version
18 allowed users to collect real-world data from products and then incorporate that data into
future simulations. The Ansys Application Builder, which allows engineers to build, use,
and sell custom engineering tools, was also introduced with version 18.
Released in January 2020, Ansys R1 2020 updates Ansys’ simulation process and data
management (SPDM), materials information and electromagnetics product offerings. In
early 2020, the Ansys Academic Program surpassed one million student downloads.
Typical uses
Nonlinear means at least one (and sometimes all) of the following complications:
 Changing boundary conditions (such as contact between parts that changes over time)
 Large deformations (for example the crumpling of sheet metal parts)
 Nonlinear materials that do not exhibit ideally elastic behavior (for example
thermoplastic polymers)
 Transient dynamic means analyzing high speed, short duration events where inertial
forces are important. Typical uses include:
 Automotive crash (deformation of chassis, airbag inflation, seatbelt tensioning, ...)
 Explosions (underwater mines, shaped charges, ...)
 Manufacturing (sheet metal stamping, ...)
Capabilities
ANSYS's potential applications are numerous and can be tailored to many fields. ANSYS is
not limited to any particular type of simulation. In a given simulation, any of ANSYS's many
features can be combined to model a wide variety of physical events. An example of a simulation
that involves a unique combination of features is the NASA JPL Mars Pathfinder landing which
simulated the space probe's use of airbags to aid in its landing.
 ANSYS's analysis capabilities
44
 Full 2D & 3D capabilities

 Nonlinear dynamics
 Rigid body dynamics
 Quasi-static simulations
 Normal modes
 Linear statics
 Thermal analysis
 Fluid analysis
 Eulerian capabilities
 ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian)
 FSI (Fluid-Structure Interaction)
 Navier-Stokes fluids
 Compressible fluid solver, CESE (Conservation Element & Solution Element)
 FEM-rigid multi-body dynamics coupling (MADYMO, Cal3D)
 Underwater shock
 Failure analysis
 Crack propagation
 Real-time acoustics
 Implicit springback
 Multi-physics coupling
 Structural-thermal coupling
 Adaptive remeshing
 SPH (Smoothed particle hydrodynamics)
 EFG (Element Free Galerkin)
 Radiation transport
 EM (Electromagnetism)
Applications
ANSYS is widely used by the automotive industry to analyze vehicle designs. ANSYS
accurately predicts a car's behaviour in a collision and the effects of the collision upon the car's
occupants. With ANSYS, automotive companies and their suppliers can test car designs without
having to tool or experimentally test a prototype, thus saving time and expense.
5.4.1 Catia V5R20
45
CATIA software is an acronym of computer-aided three-dimensional interactive application) is a

multi-platform software suite for computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing
(CAM), computer-aided engineering (CAE), PLM and 3D, developed by the French company
Dassault Systèmes.
Software genre: Computer-aided design
Developer: Dassault Systèmes
History
 CATIA started as an in-house development in 1977 by French aircraft

manufacturer AVIONS MARCEL DASSAULT, at that time customer of
the CADAM software to develop Dassault's Mirage fighter jet. It was later adopted by the
aerospace, automotive, shipbuilding, and other industries.
 Initially named CATI (conception assistée tridimensionnelle interactive – French
for interactive aided three-dimensional design ), it was renamed CATIA in 1981 when
Dassault created a subsidiary to develop and sell the software and signed a non-exclusive
distribution agreement with IBM.
 In 1984, the Boeing Company chose CATIA V2 as its main 3D CAD tool, becoming its
largest customer.
 In 1988, CATIA V3 was ported from mainframe computers to Unix.
 In 1990, General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp chose CATIA as its main 3D CAD tool to
design the U.S. Navy's Virginia class submarine. Also, Lockheed was selling its CADAM
system worldwide through the channel of IBM since 1978.
 In 1992, CADAM was purchased from IBM, and the next year CATIA CADAM V4 was
published.
 In 1996, it was ported from one to four Unix operating systems, including IBM AIX, Silicon
Graphics IRIX, Sun Microsystems SunOS, and Hewlett-Packard HP-UX.
 In 1998, V5 was released and was an entirely rewritten version of CATIA with support for
UNIX, Windows NT and Windows XP (since 2001).
 In the years prior to 2000, problems caused by incompatibility between versions of CATIA
(Version 4 and Version 5) led to $6.1B in additional costs due to years of project delays in
production of the Airbus A380.
 In 2008, Dassault Systèmes released CATIA V6. While the server can run on Microsoft
Windows, Linux or AIX, client support for any operating system other than Microsoft
Windows was dropped.
 In November 2010, Dassault Systèmes launched CATIA V6R2011x, the latest release of its
PLM2.0 platform, while continuing to support and improve its CATIA V5 software.
 In June 2011, Dassault Systèmes launched V6 R2012.
 In 2012, Dassault Systèmes launched V6 2013x.
46

In 2014, Dassault Systèmes launched 3DEXPERIENCE Platform R2014x and CATIA on the
Cloud, a cloud version of its software.
 In 2018, Dassault Systèmes launched 3DExperience Marketplaces to connect CATIA Users,
with manufacturers, standard parts creators and engineers.
 In 2019, 3DExperience Marketplaces launched an Add-in in Catia, to connect directly
manufacturers with designers.
47
6. Model Analysis Results
6.1 FE Model Information -
The modeling of the Rear Under-Run Protection Device has been done in CATIA V5
R20. The full assembly model of the rear under Guard and its different components are shown in
following figures.
Truck
Chassis RUPD
Fig.no 26. CAD Model of RUPD
The figure26 shows the chassis and the Guard Pipe. The chassis is part on which whole body
structure of the vehicle is mounted and the guard pipe comes in contact of the striking vehicle.
48
6.2 Material & Thickness Details :- For each part three material properties are given
for three different tests. 1)Stainless steel 2) Structural steel 3)AL6061 T6
Thickness:- 5mm Thickness:- 5mm
Thickness:- 5mm Thickness:- 5mm
Figure 27. Material & Thickness Details
49
7. RESULTS FROM ANSYSIS SOFTWARE
7.1 Results (Material case- structural Steel)
The baseline model is been designed according to the ECE R-58 and AIS 14812-2005
Regulation but it fails to meet the load requirement. All other parts like the vehicle body and
engine are not taken into consideration. The reduction in modeling takes less processing time and
more accuracy is achieved. The objective is to increase the stiffness of the different elements.
7.1.1Overall Plots DEFORMATION
FIGURE 2
Total Deformation
50
STRAIN
FIGURE
Equivalent Strain
51
STRESS
FIGURE 4
Equivalent Stress
52
7.1.2Material Data
Structural Steel
TABLE
Structural Steel > Constants
Density 7850 kg m^-3
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 1.2e-005 C^-1
Specific Heat 434 J kg^-1 C^-1
Thermal Conductivity 60.5 W m^-1 C^-1
Resistivity 1.7e-007 ohm m
TABLE
Structural Steel > Compressive Ultimate Strength
Compressive Ultimate Strength Pa
TABLE
Structural Steel > Compressive Yield Strength
Compressive Yield Strength Pa
2.5e+008
TABLE
Structural Steel > Tensile Yield Strength
Tensile Yield Strength Pa
2.5e+008
TABLE
Structural Steel > Tensile Ultimate Strength
Tensile Ultimate Strength Pa
53
4.6e+008
TABLE
Structural Steel > Isotropic Secant Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Reference Temperature C
22
TABLE
Structural Steel > Alternating Stress Mean Stress
Alternating Stress Pa Cycles Mean Stress Pa
3.999e+009 10 0
2.827e+009 20 0
1.896e+009 50 0
1.413e+009 100 0
1.069e+009 200 0
4.41e+008 2000 0
2.62e+008 10000 0
2.14e+008 20000 0
1.38e+008 1.e+005 0
1.14e+008 2.e+005 0
8.62e+007 1.e+006 0
TABLE
Structural Steel > Strain-Life Parameters
Cyclic Strain
Strength Strength Ductility Ductility Cyclic Strength
Hardening
Coefficient Pa Exponent Coefficient Exponent Coefficient Pa
Exponent
9.2e+008 -0.106 0.213 -0.47 1.e+009 0.2
54
TABLE
Structural Steel > Isotropic Elasticity
Temperature C Young's Modulus Pa Poisson's Ratio Bulk Modulus Pa Shear Modulus Pa
2.e+011 0.3 1.6667e+011 7.6923e+010
TABLE
Structural Steel > Isotropic Relative Permeability
Relative Permeability
10000
55
7.2 Observation & Conclusion (for Structural Steel)
Observation
 The equivalent stress observed is 1.432e11 Pa.
 The equivalent Strain observed is 1.7402.
 The total deformation observed is 0.62207m.
 All parts show localized high plastic strains hence structural integrity is assumed
safe.
Conclusion
 Attachment bracket connecting Pipe & C – channels shows large displacement

& need to be strengthened.
56
7.3 Results (Material case – stainless steel)
DEFORMATION
FIGURE
Total Deformation
57
STRESS
FIGURE
Equivalent Stress
58
STRAIN
FIGURE 4
Equivalent Strain
59
7.3.1 Material Data
 Structural Steel
TABLE 24
TABLE 25
TABLE 26
2.5e+008
TABLE 27
2.5e+008
TABLE 28
4.6e+008
60
TABLE 29
22
TABLE 30
3.999e+009 10 0
2.827e+009 20 0
1.896e+009 50 0
1.413e+009 100 0
1.069e+009 200 0
4.41e+008 2000 0
2.62e+008 10000 0
2.14e+008 20000 0
1.38e+008 1.e+005 0
1.14e+008 2.e+005 0
8.62e+007 1.e+006 0
TABLE 31
Cyclic Strain
Hardening
Exponent
9.2e+008 -0.106 0.213 -0.47 1.e+009 0.2
TABLE 32
61
2.e+011 0.3 1.6667e+011 7.6923e+010
TABLE 33
10000
STNL.STEEL
TABLE 34
STNL.STEEL > Constants
TABLE 35
STNL.STEEL > Shock EOS Linear
Gruneisen Coefficient Parameter C1 m s^-1 Parameter S1 Parameter Quadratic S2 s m^-1
1.67 4610 1.73 0
TABLE 36
STNL.STEEL > Shear Modulus
Shear Modulus Pa
7.3e+010
TABLE 37
STNL.STEEL > Multilinear Isotropic Hardening
Stress Pa Plastic Strain m m^-1 Temperature C
6.89e+008 0 0
1.e+009 0.3 0
1.e+009 1.e+020 0
62
7.4 Observation & Conclusion ( for stainless steel)
Observation
• The equivalent stress observed is 1.0135e11 Pa.
• The equivalent strain observed is 3.25 m/m.
• The total deformation observed is 1.3918m.
• All parts show plastic strains below material failure limit. Hence structural
integrity is met.
Conclusion
 Attachment bracket connecting Pipe & C – channels shows large displacement

& need to be strengthened.
63
7.5 Results (Material case – AL6061 T6):
DEFORMATION
FIGURE
Total Deformation
64
STRESS
FIGURE
Equivalent Stress
65
STRAIN
FIGURE
Equivalent Elastic Strain
66
7.5.1Material Data
Structural Steel
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
2.5e+008
TABLE
2.5e+008
TABLE
4.6e+008
67
TABLE
22
TABLE
3.999e+009 10 0
2.827e+009 20 0
1.896e+009 50 0
1.413e+009 100 0
1.069e+009 200 0
4.41e+008 2000 0
2.62e+008 10000 0
2.14e+008 20000 0
1.38e+008 1.e+005 0
1.14e+008 2.e+005 0
8.62e+007 1.e+006 0
TABLE
Cyclic Strain
Hardening
Exponent
9.2e+008 -0.106 0.213 -0.47 1.e+009 0.2
TABLE
68
2.e+011 0.3 1.6667e+011 7.6923e+010
TABLE
10000
AL 6061-T6
TABLE
AL 6061-T6 > Constants
TABLE
AL 6061-T6 > Shock EOS Linear
Gruneisen Coefficient Parameter C1 m s^-1 Parameter S1 Parameter Quadratic S2 s m^-1
1.97 5240 1.4 0
TABLE
AL 6061-T6 > Steinberg Guinan Strength
Initial Maximum
Hardening Hardening Derivative Derivative Melting
Yield Yield Derivative
Constant Exponent dG/dP dG/dT G'T Temperature
Stress Y Stress dY/dP Y'P
B n G'P Pa C^-1 Tmelt C
Pa Ymax Pa
1.8908e-
2.9e+008 6.8e+008 125 0.1 1.8 -1.7e+007 946.85
002
TABLE
AL 6061-T6 > Shear Modulus
Shear Modulus Pa
2.76e+010
69
7.6 Observation & Conclusion ( for AL6061 T6)
Observation
• The equivalent stress observed is 1.2257e11 Pa.
• The equivalent strain observed is 5.38 m/m.
• The total deformation observed is 0.55752m.
• All parts show plastic strains below material failure limit. Hence structural
integrity is met.
Conclusion
• RUPD design is very strong for this material case and easily meets requirements.
• Hence no material change is suggested.
70
8. comparing the graphs of three materials
8.1 Total Deformation :-
8.2 Equivalent Stress:-
71
8.3 Equivalent Strain :-
72
9. Conclusion
• Three Analysis are done for design analysis of RUPD. It shows incremental
improvement in stress, strain and deformation carrying capacity
• The deformation Of RUPD is Observed for AL6061 T6 material is 0.5575m and

it is minimum for same impact cases as compared to other materials.
• Also from above graphs we can conclude that the stress and strain carrying
capacity of AL6061 T6 is also more as compared to other two materials.
• The RUPD design thus achieved through incremental material changes is close to
optimum design.
• Basic shaped design parts like C- Channels, pipe & stiffener plates were used to
meet regulatory requirements. Thus the cost of RUPD is kept low.
Future Scope:
 Further use of mechanisms like spring damper systems, crushable aluminum

section etc can be verified to achieve long life for RUPD and improved
crashworthiness characteristics.
 Use of alternate materials like carbon fiber, foams, plastics etc can be studied to
lower the RUPD mass.
 Intelligent RUPD design can be thought of which can retract while reversing of
vehicle & operating normally when truck cruises in forward direction.
 FEA prediction of tests can be further improved by using finer mesh size, accurate
modeling of welds, prediction of weld failure, consideration to material property
variation, 3D bolt modeling etc.
73
10. References
[1] Satish Gombi, Mahendra .S.B, Amithkumar H (2014) “Energy absorption

analysis of rupd. International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology EISSN: 2319-1163 | PISSN: 2321-7308. Pp.208 -214.
[2] Onur Erk, H. Ali Solak, Berna Balta(2014) "Heavy duty truck rear underrun
protection design for regulative load cases” Otomotiv Teknolojileri Kongresi
pp.26 – 27 May 2014, bursa.
[3] Khore, A. K., & Jain, T. “Effect of Change in Thickness of Rear Under Run
Protection Device on Energy Absorption & Crashworthiness”(2013). s.l. :
International Journal of Engineering.
[4] Leneman, F., Kellendonk, G., & de Coo, P. J. A.(2004) ,’’Assessment of energy
absorbing underrun protection devices’’), October, DEKRA/VDI Symposium
Sicherheit von Nutzfahrzeugen, pp. pp. 20-21.
[5] Wei, S., Lei, Z., Lei, M., & Liu, Y. (2011),,’’The comparative analysis of the
crank-slider-CST and traditional low rear protective device of truck: The
comarison of three kinds of low rear protective devices of truck’’. April,
Consumer Electronics, Communications and Networks (CECNet), International
Conference IEEE, pp. pp. 821-824.
[6] Rao, T. R., & Krishna, A. R(2013). “Design and Optimization of Front Underrun
Protection Device”. International Journal of Engineering.pp.132-136
[7] Economic Commission For Europe. (2013). Regulation_ECER58_r058r2e.doc.

www.unece.org. [Online] .
[8] Hong-fei, L., Tao, P., Hong-guo, X., Li-dong, T., & Li-li, S,(2010). “Research on
the intelligent rear under-run protection system for trucks. In Intelligent Control
and Automation (WCICA)”.), 8th World Congress IEEE pp. pp. 5274-5278.
[9] Knight, T L Smith and I(2004). “Review of Side and Underrun gard regulations
and exemptions. s.l. : TRL Limited”,.
[10] Anderson,J., Gwehenberger, J., Bende, J., & Leneman, (2003),

“Truck/trailer compatibility with cars and related topics from VC-COMPAT. F’’.
International Conference of Commercial Vehicle Safety, Hungary.pp 65-69
74
[11] Matthew L. Brumbelow and Laura Blanar,(2012) “Evaluation of US Rear

Underride Guard Regulation for Large Trucks Using Energy Real-World
Crashes”, Paper Number: 2010-22-0007
75
76
77
78
79
80
81

Group no.8.RUPD Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group no.8.RUPD Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group no.8.RUPD Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

“Design and Analysis of Rear Under-Run Protection Device

SKN Sinhgad College Of Engineering, Pandharpur

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Prof. Gholap.U.S. Prof. Aradhye.A.A Prof. Kulkarni.S.S.

Internal Examiner External Examiner

Name:- Sontakke Nilkanth Appa

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 18

2.1 Under run Protection Devices (UPD) 18

Chapter 3 ECE REGULATION 58 30

Chapter 4 TEST PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS 36

4.1 RUPD test setup 36

5.3 Meshing procedure 37

Chapter 8 Result By Comparing The Graphs Of Three Materials 71

Material and thickness details 49

Figure 1 Typical Rear Underride Accident

Graph 1 Death in Crashes Involving Large Trucks

Occupant Type Deaths %

Passenger Vehicle Occupants 2771 97

Large Vehicle Occupants 72 3

All Occupant Deaths 2843 100

Table 1 All Accidents in year 2009

1.4. Tools Used

It is an acronym for Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application. It is one of

 What does CATIA do?

1.5. Progress Achieved

1.6. Difficulties encountered

 Plan of action. (Project flow chart)

Figure 2 Project Flow Chart

2.1. Under run Protection Devices (UPD)

design for regulative and successfully pass several test

2 2014 In this paper, a detailed energy absorption

Amithkumar H numerically. The energy absorption

3 Design & optimization Mr.George 2013 The work focus on optimization of

4 Design and Dr.T.Ramamoha 2013 RUPD is tested for occupant safety by

7 Computational Prof.dr.Zoran 2010 The study comprises elastic &

Front underrun protection device (FUPD)

Figure 3 Typical Front Underrun Protection Device (FUPD)

It is at the front of the vehicle.

Rear underrun protection device (RUPD)

In a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Heavy Vehicle Underrun Protection, Australia’s Monash

Side underrun protection device (SUPD)

Figure 4 Side Underrun Protection Device (SUPD)

Detailed Rear underrun protection device

Figure 5 Design and Mounting Demands of RUPD

2.2. Car Crumple Zone and its significance

Force = mass * acceleration

2.3. Crash comparisons without RUPD and with RUPD

Figure 6 Rear Impact without RUPD

2.4. Computational Approval Of Rear Underrun Protection Device With

Figure 7 Displacements of the protection device under test force P1

Figure 8 Displacements of the protection device under test force P2

Figure 9 Displacements of the protection device under test force P3

Uniform provisions concerning the approval of:

Rear under run protective devices (Rupds)

Vehicles with regard to the installation of a rupd of an approved type

Vehicles with regard to their rear under run protection (rup)

1.1. This Regulation applies to:

1.2. This Regulation does not apply to: