International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014)

Strategic Selection of Alternative Material for Automotive

Roof to Improve Crashworthiness in Rollover Accidents
Sainath A. Waghmare1, Prashant D. Deshmukh2
1
Research Scholar-ME, Datta Meghe College of Engineering, Airoli, Navi Mumbai
2
Asst. Prof. Mechanical Department, Datta Meghe College of Engineering, Airoli, Navi Mumbai
Abstract— With the developments in automobile In this paper, various alternate materials and their
technologies; more focus is given to the vehicle weight mechanical properties were studied and compared against
reduction. About 30% weight is contributed by the existing materials on the basis of requirements that are
automobile body. Now-a-days, plastic composites are used essential in rollover accidents and weight reduction. The
to manufacture automobile bodies as they are strong, light,
loading condition in rollover accidents was also
corrosion resistant and easy to use. This paper represents
the selection of plastic composites to build vehicle roof as a explained in this paper.
replacement of conventional metal roof. Different types of
plastics and plastic composites were studied and their II. MATERIALS FOR AUTOMOTIVE .
mechanical properties and cost were compared with steel In the engineering materials, steel is the best material
and aluminium.
for building structures as it offers greater strength. The
Keywords— Aalternative materials, crashworthiness, main problems with the steel are the corrosion and
FMVSS standard, rollover, roof crush. weight per volume. Aluminium alloys is the best
alternate material in weight reduction and offers
I. INTRODUCTION considerable strength. Hence BIW section of modern
vehicles is made of aluminium steel with spot welds.
The automobile industry is one of the fastest growing Varity of alloy configurations in aluminium may possible
fields as thousands of researches and inventions arise. A with certain amount of Mg and Li content.
full attention is given to the vehicle performances, fuel Composite materials become newest trends in the field
economy and safety. These three requirements may of engineering materials. Two or more materials are
shapes the modern vehicle design and opens the big
combined together with the help of engineering
research area for the automobile engineers. An overall
techniques to obtained the combined properties of its
weight reduction is the key point in vehicle performances constituents are called as composite materials. Now days
and fuel economy but the major problem occurred with composites finds their usages mostly in aerospace and
occupant as well as vehicle safety. Many automotive marine applications as they offered light weight,
manufacturers focus on occupant safety than mechanical strength, corrosion resistivity, ease of
performances and fuel economy. Various safety criteria
manufacturing and ease in maintenance. Because of these
like FMVSS and IIHS are developed which gives vehicle advantages of composites, it becomes popular in
safety ratings in all kinds of accident conditions. So here automotive frameworks. The configurations of
the task arrived to engineers to reduce vehicle weight in composites are so flexible that it can accommodate any
such a way that above safety criteria must fulfilled. material which is suitable for engineering applications.
In the topic of overall weight reduction of a vehicle, Hence it may categorise like plastic composites, plastic-
most of weight gained by the body and the framework. In
metal hybrid composites, ceramic composites, fibre
the BIW (Body in White) section of a vehicle, maximum composites etc. In case of reduction in weight, plastics
concentration of weight could be found in roof section. In and plastic composites or polymer composites are
traditional vehicles, the roof is made of metals, can be preferred. The use of plastic for manufacturing
replaced by alternate material having less weight and components in the automotive industry has been
equal or more strength. Plastic composites offer greater
increasing over the last decades. The average vehicle
strength and contribute lesser weight compared to metals.
uses about 150 kg of plastics and plastic composites
As the roof and pillars protects the occupant from the versus 1163 kg of iron and steel and currently it is
head and neck injuries, these sections must be strong moving around 10-15 % of total weight of the car [2].
enough to withstand in rollover accidents. The strength of Plastics and plastic composites were used to build not
a roof can be specified according to FMVSS 216 only the internal parts but also the exterior components in
regulations. Hence the task is to select suitable materials
automotive like bumpers to body panels, laminated safety
which are lighter than metals and fulfil the FMVSS 216 glasses, trims and other small components.
regulations.

132
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014)
III. MATERIAL & CRITERIA FOR ROOF APPLICATION Here, the strength of roof material plays an important
Vehicle roof is subjected to the rollover accidents role by deforming less when force applied. Steel showed
which are most dangerous among all kinds of accidents best strength in this case but now-days new composites
since it is directly attack occupant’s head and neck. The with proper configurations could achieve same or even
chances of vehicle rollover are very less i.e. 3% in more strength than steel. In BIW section of vehicle, roof
overall accidents but the risk of life is high. Hence the is attached and supported by the pillars which act as a
material used for manufacturing the roof must have high simply supported beam. These pillars are the integrated
flexural strength to deform less for the given load and part of a body and reactions acting on wheels (Fig. 1).
high energy and impact absorption capacity. Steel has The simplified solution is represented in fig. 3 as a 3
very less shock absorption capacity and it may transmit point bending test. Here flexural strength of material is
shock to the occupant during collision of roof with the more important along with tensile strength because when
ground. Here plastic with the best supporting material the material or body undergo bending, its outer portion
can become the solution as plastic were famous for shock sustain tension (Fig. 3-B).
absorption capacity. Different plastics like acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene (ABS), Polybutylene Terephthalate
(PBT) and plastic composites like Glass Fiber Reinforced
plastics (GFRP), Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic
(CFRP) which were suitable for roof application were
elaborated in subsequent sections on the basis of
following requirements.
A. Mechanical Strength Fig. 3 Typical representation of 3 point bend test.

The mechanical strength of roof material of a Different materials which replaced the traditional steel
vehicle is the most important criteria since it directly in BIW used this type of flexural test for comparison. But
related to occupant safety. The mechanical strength of the along with flexural strength, other mechanical properties
material used for roof must be as high as possible. Since must be considered while selecting an alternate material
FMVSS 216 is based on Strength to Weight ratio, more for steel in automotive. Fig. 4 and 5 shows the tensile
the strength more will be the ratio. According to FMVSS strength and modulus of elasticity of materials.
216 norms, the rollover conditions is reverted i.e. vehicle 1800
kept stationary and force is applied on roof in certain 1600
angle (Fig. 1). This force is generated due to vehicle hits
1400
the ground. Hence the roof part and supporting pillars
1200
Tensile Strength (MPa)

deformed and crushed inside the occupant’s cabin

(Fig. 2). 1000
800
600
400
200
0
Aluminium

Nylon 66

SMC
ABS

FRP
GFRP

CFRP-Epoxy
Kevlar 49
Steel

BMC

CFRP

Boron Fiber
PBT

Fig. 4 Tensile Strength (MPa) comparison of materials [12,13]

Fig. 1 Force and reaction in FMVSS 216 roof crush case

Fig. 2 Deformed shape of roof after crushing

133
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014)
225
200 625
175

Flexural Modulus (GPa)

Elasticity (GPa)

150
Modulus of

125 125
100
75
50 25
25
0
SMC
Aluminium

Nylon 66
ABS

FRP
GFRP

CFRP-Epoxy
Steel

BMC

Kevlar 49
CFRP

Boron Fiber
PBT

Fig. 5 Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) comparison of materials [12] 1

CFRP-Epoxy
SMC
Aluminium

Nylon 66
ABS

FRP
GFRP

Kevlar 49
Steel

BMC

CFRP

Boron Fiber
PBT
From these figures it can be seen that steel having
maximum modulus of elasticity among above stated
materials. Composite materials like CFRP-Epoxy, aramid
Kevlar 49 and Boron fiber having tensile strength more Fig. 7 Flexural Modulus (GPa) comparison of materials [12]
than steel and aluminium and had best flexural properties
(fig. 6 and 7). In plastic composites SMC and BMC fair 1200
tensile properties but showed better results in flexural 1100
cases. 1000
900
2500 800
Specific Strength (kN-m/kg)

2250 700
2000 600
500
Flexural Strength (MPa)

1750
400
1500 300
1250 200
100
1000
0
750
Nylon 66

SMC
Aluminium

FRP
GFRP
ABS

BMC

CFRP-Epoxy
Kevlar 49
Steel

Boron Fiber
CFRP
PBT

500
250
0
Aluminium

Nylon 66

SMC
ABS

FRP
GFRP

CFRP-Epoxy
Steel

BMC

Kevlar 49
CFRP

Boron Fiber
PBT

Fig. 8 Specific Strength (kN-m/kg) comparison of materials

When talking about material strength in automobile

application, the most useful term is Specific Strength. It
is defined as a ratio of force per unit area at failure to the
Fig. 6 Flexural Strength (MPa) comparison of materials [12,13]
density of that material. It is also knows as Strength to
Weight ratio. In this, the material having less weight can
have more specific strength. The advantage of weight
reduction was explained in subsequent sections. Fig. 8
shows comparison between specific strength of
alternating material.

134
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014)
B. Light weight (Density) The term perfect composite conveys not only perfect
The Weight reduction of automobile parts may lead to quantity of resin and fibre but the way they were
higher fuel economy. Among all the techniques related to engineered i.e. the methods like RTM (Resin transfer
increased fuel economy, weight reduction plays a major Moulding), infusion moulding, sheet moulding etc. on
role since 30% weight reduction gives 15-20% greater the basis of major constituents of composites i.e.
fuel economy. It is based on simple logic that an engine strengthening element and matrix, various combinations
has to work less to accelerate and move the light parts. may possible and wide range of strength can be achieved
Another advantage of weight reduction through lighter but the cost and complexity in manufacturing constraints
materials is minimization of overall CO2 reduction. The their applications.
weight of the materials depends on their density. Steel 35
having density 7850 kg/m3 contributes more weight than 30
a composite having density 1470 kg/m3. Fig. 9 shows
25

Cost ($/Kg)
density of various materials.
20
9
15
8
10
7
Density (g/cc)

6 5
5 0

Nylon 66

SMC
Aluminium

CFRP
ABS

FRP
GFRP
Steel

BMC

CFRP-Epoxy
Kevlar 49
Boron Fiber
PBT
4
3
2
1
0 Fig. 10 Cost ($/kg) comparison of materials [14]
SMC
Aluminium

Nylon 66
ABS

FRP
GFRP

CFRP-Epoxy
Kevlar 49
Boron Fiber
Steel

BMC

CFRP
PBT

Fig. 10 shows the cost comparison of materials. Note

that this showed the material cost only. Total cost may be
different including joining cost (Adhesives), processing
Fig. 9 Density (g/cc) comparison of materials [12,13]
cost and labour costs. At primary level, just material cost
per kg became the base for their comparison.
Lighter materials can lead better performance of
vehicle like acceleration and handling. Let’s have a D. Shock/Energy absorption capability
simple formula, While replacing existing materials of automobile roof,
the main aspect is its crashworthiness. The
Force = mass X acceleration. crashworthiness is defined as an ability of vehicle of a
Here, reduction in mass results in less force to component to protect an occupant from serious injuries at
accelerate the things. Another advantage of lowering a time of accidents. Selection of material with high
weight at the top of vehicle i.e. roof, results in lowering energy absorption capability is the base of
the centre of gravity of vehicle. This reduces the risk of crashworthiness design. The amount of energy or impact
vehicle rollover and improved vehicle performance other absorbed by a material is given by EA (Energy
than fuel economy. Light weighted parts gives less load Absorption) is the area under the load vs. displacement.
to suspension system of vehicle with reduction in noise While comparing the performance of energy absorbers
and vibration. Light weighted materials gives automobile the useful property considered is the Specific Energy
engineer to design a vehicle with more luggage space and Absorption (SEA) which is defined as the energy
capacity that can be moved by the same engine. absorbed per unit mass of crushed structure expressed in
J/g. Though the geometry of a component helps in
C. Cost and Ease in Manufacturing increasing SEA i.e. folding method and cross section, the
The cost is an important parameter in selection of material selection has more impact on it. Fig 11 and 12
alternative material from composites. Composite shows typical load vs. displacement curve of steel
materials are very emerging field so far and day by day component with folding and that of glass/polyester
new inventions and techniques arrived for their mass composite. Composite materials consist of two or more
production that minimizes the production cost per unit. materials e.g. glass polyester composites. Glass
Making a perfect composite is not an easy task for contributes the strength and polyester became a matrix
manufacturers since various complicated process were which is a softer material that absorbs shock.
involved.

135
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014)
Hence it acts like an ideal energy absorber, compared 50
to the metallic structure, as the load level and energy
absorption capacity is more stable.
40

Charpy notched (J/cm2)

30

20

10

Nylon 66

SMC
Aluminium

FRP
GFRP
ABS

BMC

CFRP-Epoxy
Kevlar 49
Steel

Boron Fiber
CFRP
PBT
Fig. 11 Load vs. disp. Curve of folding metallic structure

Fig. 13 Charpy test result comparison of materials [12,13,14]

IV. SUMMARY AND C ONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper described the proposed study of possible
alternative materials which were suitable for roof crush
analysis with weight reduction. These materials were
compared by their mechanical properties and cost. A
single property couldn’t help for proper selection for this
purpose; hence grouped property comparison was carried
out. Fig 14 shows the comparison of materials along with
density, cost and specific strength. CFRP, GFRP, Kevlar-
Fig. 12 Load vs. disp. Curve of glass/polyester composites. 49 were always best in strength, weight and performance
but it contributes high cost. The concentration of weight
In such accident cases an object is applied on vehicle
and cost curve was formed near SMC, FRP and BMC
became impact type of loading. The ability of a material
column; it means these materials having lowest cost for
to absorb rapidly applied energy is called as Impact
respective specific strength and density. ABS and nylon
resistance. It is based on the shape, size, thickness and
had lowest density and cost but lesser specific strength
type of material. Impact resistance can be measured by
than BMC and PBT. Kevlar and CFRP were best in
impact tests like Izod, Charpy impact tests etc. The
specific strength with less weight; hence they were
results from these tests do not useful in designing a part
widely used in aerospace and marine applications. These
but it helps design engineer to compare the relative
materials were used in high end cars like supercars,
impact resistance of various materials. Fig 13 shows the
SUVs, sport cars. In sport cars weight reduction is the
results of Charpy impact tests carried on various
main requirement for speed and acceleration as well as
materials. GFRP shows the best results in Charpy impact
safety features as the running velocity is very high.
test than Kevlar 49 and Boron fiber.

136
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014)
In case of accidents, the energy absorption along with While designing any part the main consideration is
strength became the platform for comparison fig. 15. always the strength of material before its cost. Cost can
GFRP and Kevlar are the best energy absorbers than be minimised by the optimisation techniques or cost
boron fiber and CFRP. In plastic composites SMC reduction techniques but compromise in strength is not
absorbs maximum energy than BMC and FRP. CFRP affordable at all since it directly affects the human health.
with vinylester and polyester resin showed poor result in Excess strength can be a best part in any design but it has
Charpy impact testing but with Epoxy its impact strength no use if it couldn’t affordable to customer. For roof
increased considerably. PBT had good tensile strength application plastic composite has enough strength to pass
but very much poor in energy absorption. strength criteria and weight reduction. SMC and BMC
had cost advantage as well as good specific strength as
compared with steel and aluminium. Basically SMC,
Density (g/cc) Cost ($/Kg) Specific Strength (kN-m/kg)
1000
BMC and FRP are pretty much similar in configuration,
properties but differ in manufacturing techniques and
characteristics. SMC and FRP have a wide range of
configuration with glass filled content and it has live
examples for automotive body too. Hence alternative
100 material with above stated requirements in roof design,
plastic composites stands better than in all respect.
Tensile Strength (MPa) Cost ($/Kg)
Flexural Strength (MPa)
10
10000

1000

1
GFRP
Nylon 66

SMC

FRP
ABS

Kevlar 49

CFRP-Epoxy

BMC
CFRP

Boron Fiber
PBT

100

10

Fig. 14 Grouped comparison of materials on the basis of density,

cost and specific strength. 1
CFRP-Epoxy
Nylon 66

SMC
ABS

Kevlar 49

FRP

GFRP
BMC
CFRP

Boron Fiber
PBT

Tensile Strength (MPa) Cost ($/Kg) Charpy notched (J/cm2)

10000
Fig. 16 Combined comparison of materials on the basis of tensile
strength, flexural strength and cost.

1000 REFERENCES
[1] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 - Roof Crush
Resistance. CFR 49 571.216. October 1997.
100 [2] Katarína Szeteiová. Automotive materials plastics in automotive
markets today. Slovak University of Technology Bratislava,
Slovak Republic.
[3] Erica R.H. Fuchs, Frank R. Field, Richard Roth and Randolph E.
10 Kirchain 2008. Strategic materials selection in the automobile
body: Economic opportunities for polymer composite design.
Elsevier, Composites Science and Technology 68 (2008) 1989–
2002.
1 [4] Pooja Doke, Mohammad Fard and Reza Jazar. Vehicle concept
FRP
Nylon 66

SMC
ABS

GFRP
Kevlar 49

CFRP-Epoxy

BMC
CFRP

Boron Fiber

modelling: A new technology for structures weight reduction.

PBT

Elsevier, Procedia Engineering 49 ( 2012 ) 287 – 293

[5] Kirshan K. Chawla. Composite Materials. Springer publications.
0.1 Second Edition, reprint (2006).
Fig. 15 Grouped comparison of materials on the basis of tensile
strength, cost and Charpy test

137
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014)
[6] Y.Z. Wan, G.C. Chen, Y. Huang, Q.Y. Li, F.G. Zhou, J.Y. Xin [10] Sujit Das 2001. The cost of automotive polymer composites: a
and Y.L. Wang 2005. Characterization of three-dimensional review and assessment of doe's lightweight materials composites
braided carbon/Kevlar hybrid composites for orthopedic usage. research. Office of Advanced Automotive Technology.
Elsevier, Materials Science and Engineering A 398 (2005) 227– ORNL/TM-2000/283
232 [11] Composite materials Handbook 2002. Volume 3. Polymer matrix
[7] Nicholas Lutsey 2010. Review of technical literature and trends composites materials usage, design, and analysis. Department of
related to automobile mass-reduction technology. California Air defence, USA. June 2002
Resources Board (May 2010) [12] Matweb – Material Property Data, www.matweb.com, May 2014.
[8] Pradeep Mohan, Vinay Nagabhushana, Cing-Dao (Steve) Kan and [13] Material Property Data, www.azom.com, May 2014
Jon Riley. Innovative approach for Improving roof crush
[14] Material Property Data, http://www.alibaba.com, May 2014
resistance. LS-Dyna Anwenderforum. Ulm 2006.
[9] Xiao-yun Zhang, Xian-long Jin, Wen-guo Qi and Yi-zhi Guo.
Vehicle crash accident reconstruction based on the analysis 3D
deformation of the auto-body. Elsevier, Advances in Engineering
Software 39 (2008) 459–465

138