Performance design, development and verification of honeycomb aluminium barrier for vehicle side impact

References

• NHTSA Technical Report. Evaluation of FMVSS 214 side impact protection dynamic performance requirement. DOT HS 809 004, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• NHTSA. Preliminary regulatory impact analysis: new requirements for passenger cars to meet a dynamic side impact test. Fmvss 214 Dot HS. 1988;807(220):21–22.
   Google Scholar
• Arbelaez RA. Comparison of eurosi-2 and si-iis in vehicle side impact tests with the IIHS barrier. SAE Technical Paper 2002-22-0019, Nov 13, 2002. doi: 10.4271/2002-22-0019.
   Google Scholar
• DakinG J , ArbelaezR A , NolanJ M ,et al.Insurance institute for highway safety side impact crashworthiness evaluation program: impact configuration and rationale. The 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper Number 172, Nagoya, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Mueller BC. Comparison of higher severity side impact tests of IIHS-good-rated vehicles struck by LTVs and a modified IIHS barrier with the current IIHS side test and real-world crashes. The 26th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper Number 193, Eindhoven, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• IIHS. "IIHS Side Impact 2.0 Barrier Development", April , 2020.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. Council of the European Union, offificial. J. Eur. Commun. 1997;18:0007–0050.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts AK. Progress on the development of the advanced european mobile deformable barrier face(AE-MDB). Impact Tests, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Seyer K. International harmonized research activities side impact group status report, 18th International Technical, Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper Number 151, Nagoya, 2003. National Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper Number 126, Nagoya, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Shkolnikov MB. Honeycomb Modeling for Side Impact Moving Barrier (MDB). international IS, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• ECE R95. Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a lateral collision, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• W. Xiuchun, W. Bo and T. Guohong, "Research on Finite Element Model of Moving Deformable Barrier in Side Impact, 2010 Third International Conference on Intelligent Networks and Intelligent Systems, Shenyang, China, 2010, pp. 450–454.
   Google Scholar
• EuroNCAP. "AE-MDB Specification Version 1.0", TB014, April 29, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• EuroNCAP. "SIDE IMPACT MOBILE DEFORMABLE BARRIERTESTING PROTOCOL", April, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• China automotive technology research center Co., ltd, Annual report on automobile safety in China. Soc Sci Literat Press. 2020;1(1):2–10.
   Google Scholar
• Vermissen T, Van Schijndel M. Development and evaluation of the side impact test procedure proposed by IHRA, The 20th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper Number 07-0310, Lyon, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter R, Fix R, Lee F, et al. Using force-displacement data to predict the EBS of car into barrier impacts, SAE Technical Paper,2016-01-1483,May4, 2016. doi: 10.4271/2016-01-1483.
   Google Scholar
• Hisajima K. A consideration on face barrier face specification of side impact MDB The 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper Number 221, Amsterdam, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Ellway JD, van Ratingen M. The advanced European mobile deformable barrier specifification for use in EuroNCAP side impact testing. 23rd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Seoul, Paper Number: 13-0069, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu HX, Mills NJ. The in-plane non-linear compression of regular honeycombs. Int J Solids Struct. 2000;37(13):1931–1949. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7683(98)00324-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamashita M, Gotoh M. Impact behavior of honey-comb structures with various cell specifications numerical simulation and experiment. Int J Impact Eng. 2005;32(1–4):618–630. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Zhang MF, Zhang J, et al. A study on the properties of honeycombs in vitro. Int Mech Sci. 1992;34(6):475–489. doi: 10.1016/0020-7403(92)90013-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buitragoa BL, Santiustea C, Sanchez-Saeza S, et al. Modelling of composite sandwich structures with honeycomb core subjected to high-velocity impact, compos. Struct. 2010;92(9):2090–2096.
   Google Scholar
• Pawlus W, Gunnar Robbersmyr KR, Karimi HR. Mathematical modeling and parameters estimation of a car crash using data-based regressive model approach appl. Math Model. 2011;35(10):5091–5107. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2011.04.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roussarie M, Zeitouni R, Adalian C. Enhancement of side impact protection using an improved test procedure. In The 20th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles conference, Paper number 07-0245, Lyon, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez M, Aparicio F. Application of a model of collision between cars to the analysis of compatibility and its sensitivity to the variation of certain design parameters. IJVD. 2004;34(2):142–157. doi: 10.1504/IJVD.2004.003898.
   Google Scholar
• Ueno M, Hatano K. Development of new generation mobile deformable barrier. The 20th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper Number 07-0299, Lyon, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Zhang H, Wen Z. Experimental and numerical studies on the crush resistance of aluminum honeycombs with various cell confifigurations. Int J Impact Eng. 2014;66:48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.12.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao H, Elnasri I, Abdennadher S. An experimental study on the behavior under impact loading of metallic cellular materials. Int J Mech Sci. 2005;47(4–5):757–774. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.12.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar