More Crashworthy Than Minimum Crash Test Requirement Biology Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Todays passenger vehicles are more crashworthy than minimum crash test requirement, especially in frontal crashes. As occupant protection in frontal crashes improves, the relative importance of protection in side impacts also increases. According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) from the early 1980s until 2000, driver death rates per million cars registered decreased 47 %. For frontal crashes, driver death rates decreased 52 %. In contrast, the decrease in side impacts was only 24 %.

In crashes with another passenger vehicle during 2000 to 2001, 51 percent of driver deaths in side impacts in recent model cars, up from 31 % in 1980 to 1981. During the same time, the numbers of deaths in frontal impacts decrease from 61 % to 43 %.

There are 2 factors that contribute to these effects. The first factor is significant improvements in frontal crash protection like standard airbags, improved structural designs, and higher belt use rates, for example. At the same time, growing sales of sport utility vehicles (SUV) and pickups at United States (US) have cause height mismatches among passenger vehicles, thereby increasing the risks to occupants of many vehicles struck in the side. In crashes between cars and other passenger vehicles during 2000 to 2001, almost 60 % of the driver deaths in the cars struck on the driver side were hit by sport utility vehicles (SUV) or pickups, increase about 30 % during 1980 to 1981.

In order to get better protection in side impact crash, most automotive companies implement simulation test on their car. Simulation has become common practice in automotive developments because it speeds up the development cycle and decreases costs. Usually simulation gives 70 % accuracy from real impact test.


The objectives of the study are:

To investigate damage on a front door due to side impact.

To determine an optimal design for the front door.


Side impact crash is more dangerous than frontal impact since there is less crumple zone on car's side. For simulation purpose, we need to understand about side impact crash test. A simple model of front door must be design for simulation purpose.


Develop a finite element model for the front door.

Simple impact experiment on an aluminum sheet to verify the software.

Perform side impact analysis using software to obtain the damage behavior on the front door.



There are various standards in side impact crash test. Each standard has different requirement. The general standard uses by car manufacturer are European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Other side impact crash test standards are Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC) in Germany, Japan New Car Assessment Program (JNCAP), and China New Car Assessment Program (C-NCAP).


European governments through European Experimental Vehicle Committee (EEVC) had been working to develop procedures and equipment for evaluation various aspects of car secondary factor from 1970s. Full scale crash test has been developing in early 1990 for protection of car occupants in frontal and side impact, and a component test procedure for pedestrian protection assessment. For early period, only full width rigid block impact required for full scale crash test.

At that time no dummy test has been used. Requirement for side impact and pedestrian protection do not exist yet at that time. This test just wants to control steering column intrusion. Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC), a German motor club with Auto Motor und Sport magazine start to introduce offset rigid wall frontal crash test. The results are published in magazine as consumer information. EEVC offset deformable frontal impact test is used as a single series of frontal test. United Kingdom (UK) Departments of Transport and International Testing also jointly funded this test.

Figure 2.1.1: Euro NCAP


2.1.1 Proposal

At first many car manufacturers do not agree with this legislation since it can affect their vehicle sales. On June 1994, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) proposed to United Kingdom (UK) Department of Transport to introduce New Car Assessment Programme (NCAP) in United Kingdom (UK). Then the NCAP would be introducing in other Europe countries. The United Kingdom (UK) Department of Transport approved this proposal. The proposal state benefits of the programs, proposed this program to be more comprehensive and it should be based on EEVC's test procedures.

TRL start to develop a new car assessment program in 1995. At the same time, interested parties met and discuss at European Commission how to implement the program in Europe. All testing and assessment were ensuring to base on scientific method. To gain experience from other parties, TRL had visited other assessment programs in the world. For the first phase of tests, 7 supermini sized cars were used all information about the cars were given from manufacturers. In 1996, Swedish National Road Administration (SNRA), Federation Internationale de Automobile (FIA) and international testing join this program and Euro NCAP was formed. In 1998, Euro NCAP became an Internal Association under Belgian law.

The first results were presented to media at a press conference and exhibition at TRL. The results were presented as Euro NCAP ratings. On first result, there is no car that achieves 4 stars. In 1997, Volvo S40 become the first car achieves 4 star for occupant protection. In 2001, Renault Laguna became the first car to achieve 5 star for occupant protection. In 2004, Renault Modus become the first compact car to gain 5 stars, although some people feel that the requirement is too strict for compact car.

2.1.2 Side Impact Test

Car to car side impact protection is the second most important crash configuration. To simulate side impact crash, Euro NCAP has moving deformable barrier (MDB) to impact the driver's door at 50 km/h. From side impact crash test, car side's intrusion can be controlled. To get better rating, most of latest car come with side impact airbags.


Figure Side impact barrier test assesses protection



The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has mandate to form Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) as standard regulation for all vehicles in United States. FMVSS 209 (Seat Belt Assemblies) is the first standard to become effective on 1st March, 1967. FMVSS is regulation written in terms of minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Figure 2.2.1 NHTSA's Logo


According to Kahane (2007), these requirements and standards are specified to make sure that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury in the event crashes do occur.

2.2.1 Side Impact Test

FMVSS Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection was introduced to assure occupant protection in a dynamic test that simulates a sever right-angle collision. Statistic shows that side impacts accounted for 6922 of passenger car occupant's fatalities (Bostrom et al. 2003). Car's side is the second most frequent impact location in crashes, after frontal impact.

For FMVSS, a 3000 pound moving deformable barrier (MDB) moving 30 mph or 52 km/h and hit at a right angle to the vehicle's door. Unlike other side impact crash test standard, the MDB travel at an angle of 63 degrees with the longitudinal centerline of a stationary test vehicle. The MDB's wheels are locked 27 degrees toward rear of the test vehicle to get a right-angle contact.

Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB)

Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB)

Figure MDB angle at centerline


2.3 IIHS

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is a nonprofit research and communications organization funded by auto insurers. For many years IIHS has been done many researchs and tests to reduce motor vehicle crashes in the first place and reduce injuries in the vehicle crashes that still occur. IIHS's research focuses on three factors in motor vehicle crashes which are human, vehicle, and environmental. It also study any interventions that can occur before, during, and after crashes to reduce losses. In 1992 the Vehicle Research Center (VRC) was opened. This center has many sophisticated and latest equipment for crash test. Each car that had been tested in IIHS would get rating from Good, Acceptable, Margin and Poor.

Before 1960s, the main way to reduce vehicle crash is to change driver attitude. Carmakers said that main cause of vehicle crash is driving behavior, not the car's characteristic. However in late 1960s, scientific approach becomes more concern since United States (US) government introduce vehicle safety standard for all new vehicles. United States US auto insurers also interested to join the safety standard. In 1969, Dr. William Haddon becomes president of IIHS.

Figure 2.3.1: Logo of IIHS


2.3.1 Side Impact Protection

For side impact crash test, 1500 kg MDB with impact velocity of 50 km/h strikes the vehicle on driver's side at a 90 degree angle. The longitudinal impact point of the barrier on the side of test vehicle depends on vehicle's wheelbase. It is called Impact Reference Distance (IRD) or distance rearward from test vehicle's front axle to the closest edge of the MDB when it first contacts the vehicle.

Table Formula for IRD

IRD calculation:

If wheelbase < 250 cm

IRD = 61 cm

If 250 cm < wheelbase < 290 cm

IRD = (wheelbase ÷ 2) - 64 cm

If wheelbase > 290 cm

IRD = 81 cm

The MDB is accelerated until 50 km/h by the propulsion system 25 cm before impact point with test vehicle. The impact point tolerance is + 2.5 cm of target in vertical and horizontal axes. The impact speed tolerance is 50 + 1 km/h. The MDB braking system is activated 1 second after it is released from propulsion system. Brake on vehicle test is not activate during crash test.

Crash cart on IIHS's standard is similar with the one use in FMVSS but it has several modifications to imitate impact of sport utility vehicle (SUV) and pickup truck. 25% of new cars sold in US are fall in this category. For IIHS, front aluminum mounting plate is raised 100 mm higher from ground and taller than 200 mm than FMVSS standard. To increase mass of cart, steel plates are added. The MDB element is 1676 mm wide, 759 mm height and 379 mm ground clearance.


Figure MDB with test vehicle



Figure 2.3.2: IIHS MDB element


2.3.2 Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Specification Version 4 General Description

The side impact moving deformable barrier has two main parts which are a main honeycomb block and a bumper consisting of three honeycomb elements. Both honeycomb layers are covered with aluminum sheets and adhesively bonded to each other. The dimensions of the moving deformable barrier are shown in Figure 1. All dimensions allow a tolerance of ± 2.5 mm and ± 0.5 degrees unless otherwise specified.

Figure General Assembly of MDB Version 4

(Source: (2007)) Main Honeycomb Block Material

The main honeycomb block is manufactured from aluminum 5052, with has 9.5 mm cell size, 25.6 kg/m3 ± 4 kg/m3 density, and a crush strength of 310 kPa ± 17 kPa, measured in accordance with the certification procedure described in United States (US) Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Lab Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 214 "Dynamic" Side Impact Protection, TP214D Appendix C TP214D-07 C-1 (Hirth et al. 2004). The main honeycomb block is cut or shaped from one honeycomb block to exhibit the length, width, height, and bevel dimensions, with the foil ribbon running parallel to the length dimension and the cell axis running parallel to the height dimension.

Figure Main Honeycomb Block

(Source: (2007)) Bumper Element Honeycomb Material

The bumper element honeycomb is manufactured from aluminum 3003, with 6.35 mm cell size, 83.0 kg/m3 ± 4 kg/m3 density, and 1690 kPa ± 103 kPa crush strength, measured in accordance with the certification procedure described in US Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Lab Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 214 "Dynamic" Side Impact Protection, TP214D Appendix C TP214D-07 C-1. The bumper section contains of three individual honeycomb elements that are cut from one honeycomb block to exhibit the length, width, height, bevel, and contour dimensions, with the foil ribbon running parallel to the width dimension and the cell axis running parallel to the height dimension.

Figure Bumper Element Honeycomb Blocks

(Source: (2007)) Main Honeycomb Base Plate

The backing sheet has 860 mm ± 1.0 mm height and 1676 mm width ± 1.0 mm. The main honeycomb backing sheet is manufactured from aluminum 5251 H22 or 5052 H34, with 0.8 mm ± 0.05mm thickness.

Figure Base Plate

(Source: (2007)) Main Honeycomb Top Cladding

The cladding sheet covers the top and front face of the main honeycomb block. The cladding sheet blank is cut to the dimensions and then bent along the indicated folding lines to attain a folded shape that matches the top and front surfaces of the main honeycomb block. The main honeycomb cladding sheet is manufactured from aluminum 5251 H24 or 5052 H34, with 0.7 mm ± 0.04 mm thickness.

Figure Main Honeycomb Top Cladding

(Source: (2007))

Figure Main Honeycomb Top Cladding (Folded)

(Source: (2007)) Main Honeycomb Upper Corner Plate

The top corner plate covers the intersection of the top and front face of the main honeycomb. The top corner plate blank is cut to the dimensions and then bent along the indicated folding lines to attain the contoured shape. The top corner plate is manufactured from aluminum 5251 H24 or 5052 H34, with 1.6 mm ± 0.07 mm thickness.

Figure Upper Corner Plate

(Source: (2007))

Figure Upper Corner Plate (Folded)

(Source: (2007)) Bumper Element Base Plate

The bumper element backing sheet blank has 203 mm ± 1.0 mm height and is bent to the dimensions, matching the final shape of the front surface of the main honeycomb cladding sheet after this cladding sheet has been bonded to the main honeycomb block. The bumper element backing sheet is manufactured from aluminum 5251 H22 or 5052 H34, with 3.0 mm ± 0.07 mm thickness.

Figure Bumper Base Plate (Folded)

(Source: (2007)) Bumper Element Profile Sheet

The bumper element cladding sheet blank has 159 mm ± 1.0 mm height and shall be bent to the dimensions. The bumper element backing sheet is manufactured from aluminum 5251 H22 or 5052 H34, with 3.0 mm ± 0.07 mm thickness. Bonding Strength Tests

To measure bond strength of adhesive according to ASTM C 297, flatwise tensile testing is used (Bostrom et al. 2003). The test pieces should be 100 mm Ã-100 mm, and 15mm deep, bonded to a sample of the back plate material. The honeycomb used should be representative of that in the impactor. The minimum bonding strength shall be 0.6 MPa (87 psi). The adhesive is only applied to the aluminum sheet surfaces when bonding aluminum sheets to honeycomb surfaces. A maximum of 0.5 kg/m2 must be applied evenly over the surface, giving a maximum film thickness of 0.5 mm.


According to Kahane (2007), from 1975 until 2004 number of fatalities in US is same while vehicle miles of travel (VMT) increase more than double. Figure 2.4.1 show fatalities in light trucks and vans (LTV) increase with the increasing of LTV to cars ratio. However, side impact on LTV is underrated because it is less vulnerable in side impact. Fatalities in passenger cars starting to decline from 8000 to 7000 in 1996-2004. The decline could be cause by better side impact protection in passenger car in recent years.


Figure 2.4.1: Car and LTV Occupant Fatalities in All side Impacts, 1975-2004

(Source: Kahane, (2007))


One of earliest technology in side impact protection is padding. Installing padding on car doors can reduces probability of occupant injury since the door structure has contact with occupant. Padding is thick plastic foam to absorb significant energy at force-deflection rate safe for occupants. Padding avoid more rigid components have contact with occupant. Padding is located in the door at points where hip or chest contacts are highly risk.

Other technology that contributes in side impact protection is structure modifications. Modification that been made includes strengthening side door beams and pillars, sills, roof rails, seats or cross-members of a car. Manufacturers able to identify the weakest points in the structure of cars by test procedure on side impact crash test.

In 1990s, manufacturers and suppliers start to develop torso air bags that deploy from seat or door. Torso airbags act same thing like padding. The airbags is used as cushion to absorb energy between the occupant's torso and side structure of the vehicle during side impact. But torso airbags absorb more energy than padding. Another type of airbag that provide protection during side impact crash is head-protection airbag. Head-protection airbag can reduce torso and head injuries. Head injuries account for 37% to 54% of life threatening injuries in side impact crash (Bastrom et al. 2003).

There are currently 2 types of head-protection airbags:

"Curtains" or "tubes" that deploy down from roof tail into the side-window area. These types of head-protection airbags usually share components such as sensors and control module but separate from torso airbags. It also improve Thoracic Trauma Index for dummy or TTI(d).

"Torso/head combination airbags" that deploy from seat. It can protect torso and extend upward to protect head around side window.

Figure 2.5.1: Torso airbag


Figure 2.5.2: Head airbags



According to Kahane (2007), NHTSA has conduct test to evaluate improvement in certain vehicle. To get improvement result in existing vehicle, each exist-model's TTI(d) results and side-structure are tracked, and groups of make-models that substantially improved their TTI(d) without side air bags and received major structural upgrades at some point are identified. These are the models that have best chance of observing a statistically significant reduction of side-impact fatalities after TTI(d) was improved. Likewise, other make-models whose TTI(d) has not changed over time are identified. They may serve as a control in some of the analyses. Table 2.6.1 show improvement in each tested car model. Most of the improvement contributes by structural reinforcements in the body side structure and energy-absorbing foam in the door panels.

Table 2.6.1: Improvement in TTD(i) without side airbag


MY of TTI(d) Improvement




Vehicle Changes

Dodge Intrepid /Concorde/Vision (4 door)





Major Structure

Ford Mustang (2 door)






Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable (4 door)





Major Structure + Pad

Chevrolet Corvette (2 door)






Chevrolet Cavalier/Pontiac Sunfire (2 door)





Pad + Minimum Strucure

Chevrolet Monte Carlo (2 door)






Pontiac Grand Am/Achieva/Skylark 2 door






Nissan Sentra 4 door





Major Structure + Pad

Honda Civic 2 door





Major Structure

Honda Accord 2 door






Honda Accord 4 door





Major Structure

Subaru Legacy 4 door






Subaru Impreza 4 door






Toyota Corrola/Geo Prizm (4 door)





Major Structure + Pad

Mitsubishi Eclipse 2 door










Literature review

Variable side impact crash test standards study

Problem analysis

Modeling front door by using Abaqus software

Collecting raw data from books, journal and online sources









Experiment conduct

Experiment analysis

Set up experiment




Software validation

Validation and reporting



Literature review is a reference document which focuses on specific objectives and topics. In literature review, all journals, articles, and books regarding with side impact crash test are searched. All of these sources can be found from the library and internet. After discussions with supervisor, the best sources are choosing as main contents in literature review. All findings, research and discussion from previous test that have been done by all of the organizations are elaborate in this report. From these sources, information about front door design, fatalities on occupant and technology to reduce fatalities in side impact can be found.


There are many organizations that carry out side impact crash test. Each organization has their own method and requirement depends on condition and safety rules in that region. For example, MDB for IIHS side impact test has 300 mm more ground clearance compare to MDB for FMVSS side impact test since IIHS try to simulate SUV and truck pickup condition. To simplify this project, several standards from this entire standard are choose as main study.


Problem analysis method is the method where the related questions and problems are collected. All problems regarding with side impact are analyzed. All problems that contribute to side impact injury are determined. There are some problems that had been found and will be analyzed:

Different criteria in all side impact crash test standards

How to conduct an experiment that can validate the Abacus software

Which is the best standard to choose in front door modelling

From the problem, all solution for the problems is examined such as new technology on front door and latest design on front door.


Front door from first generation of Perodua Kancil is selected since Perodua Kancil easily available in our road. Even many driving academy use Perodua Kancil to train new driver. All dimension and design in front door of Perodua Kancil are taken. Then the front door is modeled by using computer aided design (CAD) software. In this project, modeling on front door is done by using CATIA software. The model will be use as finite element model. From the finite element model, side impact analysis will be performing by using Abaqus software to obtain the damage behavior on the front door. The analysis will be made in PSM 2.

Figure 3.5.1: Front Door CAD Model


Figure 3.5.2: Front door of Perodua Kancil


To validate result from software simulation, impact experiment need to be conducted. In this experiment, rod impact mild steel which has approximately 1.5 kg to 2 kg weight is smash on an aluminum sheet. The rod impact will be fall through PVC from certain height. 5 aluminum sheets will be used in this experiment and 5 readings will be taken. This experiment will be recorded by using high speed camera.

A jig is needed to hold the aluminum sheet during the experiment. Since there is no jig for the experiment, new jig is design and built. After has some discussion with lecturer and technician, the jig is completely designed. Then the jig starts to be built. The jig is built form mild steel angle and plate.

Figure 3.6.1: Jig CAD model

After finish the jig, rod impact is built. The rod needs to have weight around 1.5 kg to 2 kg. The rod doesn't have any specific length. During the experiment, the rod impact will fall through PVC pipe to reduce drag force from x-axis and y-axis so the rod will fall straight to the aluminum sheet. PVC pipe will be hold by using retort stand.

Figure 3.6.2: Rod Impact CAD model

For aluminum sheet, 5 aluminum plates which have 3 mm thickness will be cut into 250 mm x 250 mm size. Rod impact will fall on these plates during experiment. 5 readings are taken from all 5 aluminum sheets. Reading is taken by measure deformation of aluminum sheet in z-axis. All impact will be recording by using high speed camera.


The jig is mounted by screwing at 4 points on the table to fix the position of the jig. Aluminum sheet is screwed on the jig to make sure the aluminum sheet in fix position. The rod impact will be hook on ceiling. To make sure the rod impact fall directly on aluminum sheet, PVC pipe will be use so rod impact will fall through the PVC pipe. The PVC pipe is hold by using retort stand. All impacts are recorded by using high speed camera. The experiment will be run in 5 times.

Figure 3.7.1: Impact experiment in CAD model


To compare the simulation result with experiment result, simulation test will be done on aluminum sheet. Data from experiment result will be used to validate data from simulation result. After data from aluminum sheet simulation has been validate, the data will be compare with simulation result for front door since there is no experiment for side impact on front door due to high cost. All the simulation and finite element analysis will be done by using Abaqus software.



From this project, it shows that side impact test is very crucial test in automotive world nowadays. Percentage cause by side impact has been increase while percentage cause by front impact has decrease since more research and test is more focus on front impact. Rating system provide by various organization for side impact crash test nowadays can provide better protection on vehicle. Automotive consumers can get benefit from this rating system since they can decide which car is the best in terms of side impact protection. More study regarding with side impact need to be done so more modification and improvement can be applied on front door.

In the future, front door from other car model can be study to differ side impact protection provided in Perodua Kancil with other car model. Other than Abaqus software, finite element analysis can be conduct by using Pastran, Nastran or other software to compare the simulation results. For simulation test in this project, front door design is simplify to get fast simulation result. In future finite element analysis can be done on more complex front door design to get more detail result.


Bostrom, O. Judd, R., Fildes, B., Morris, A. Sparke, L. & Smith, S., (2003). "A Cost Effective for Side Crash Simulation." International Journal of Crashworthiness. Vol. 8, pp 307-313

Kahane, C.J., (2007). "An Evaluation of side Impact Protection." Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Of Solids and Structures. pp 40:1465-1487


Allix, O., & Hild, F., (2002). "Continuum Damage Mechanics of Material and Structures." Amsterdam: Elsevier

Anand, L., Gurtin, M.E., (2003). "A Theory of Amorphous Solids Undergoing Large Deformations, With Application to Polymeric Glasses." International Journal

Archer, J.S., (1963). "Consistent Mass Matrix for Distributed Mass Systems." Proceedings of The American Society of Civil Engineering, Journal of the Structural. 89. pp 161-178.

Arruda, E.M., Boyce, M.C. (1993). "A Three-Dimensional Constitutive Model for the Large Stretch Behavior of Rubber Elastic Materials." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. pp 41:389-412

Azzi, V.D., Tsai, S.W., (1965). "Anisotropic Strength of Composites. "Journal of Experimental Mechanics. 5. pp 283-288

Babuska, I., Suri, M., (1992). "Locking Effects in the Finite Element Approximation of Elasticity Problems." Numerische Mathematik. 62. pp 439-463

Bao. Y, (2003). "Prediction of Ductile crack Formation in Uncracked Bodies." Massachusets Institute of Technology: PhD Thesis

Bazant, Z.P., & Cedolin, L., (1991). "Stability of Structures." New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press

Belytschko, T., Black, T., (1999). "Elastic Crack Growth in Finite Elements with Minimal Remeshing." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 45. pp 601-620

Benz, W., Asphaug, E., (1994). "Impact Simulation with Fracture: I." Methods and Tests. ICARUS 107. pp 98-116

Burk, R.C., (1983). "Standard Failure Criteria Needed for Advanced Composites." Journal of Composite Materials. 21. pp 58-62

Chang, F-K, Chang K-Y, (1987). "Post Failure Analysis of Bolted Composite Joints in Tension or Shear Out Mode Failure." Journal of Composite Materials. 21. pp 809-833

Chhabildas, L.C., Knudson M.D., (2005). "Techniques to Launch Projectile Plates to Very High Velocities." In: Chhabildas L C, Davison L, Horie Y (eds) High Pressure Shock Compression of Solids VIII.

Cockcroft, M.G., Latham, D.J., (1968). "Ductility and the Workability of Metals." Journal of the Institute of Metals. 96. p 33-39

Cockroft, M.G., and Latham, D.J., (1968). "Ductility and The Workability of Metals." Journal of the Institute of Metal. pp 33-39

Davison, L., Horie Y., Shahinpoor, M., (1997). "High Pressure Shock Compression of Solids IV - Response of Highly Porous Solids to Shock Loading." New York: Springer

Doyoyo, M., Wierzbicki, T. (2003). "Experimental Studies on the Yield Behavior of Ductile and Brittle Aluminum Foams." International Journal of Plasticity. 19. pp 1194-1214

Dr. Tore, T., (2006). "Alternative Models of the Offset and Side Impact Deformable Barriers." 9th International LS-DYNA Users Conference. pp 1-8

G'Sell, C., Hiver, J.M., Dahoun, A., Souahi, A., (1992). "Video Controlled Tensile Testing of Polymers and Metals Beyond the Necking Point." Journal of Materials Science. 27. pp 5031-5039

Gearing, B.P., (2002) "Constitutive Equations and Failure Criteria for Amorphous Polymeric Solids." Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Ph.D. Thesis

Hancock, J.W., Mackenzie, A.C., (1976). "On the Mechanism of Ductile Failure in High-Strength Steels Subjected to Multi-Axial Stress States." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 24. pp 147-169

Hatch, J.E., (1984). "Aluminum, Properties and Physical Metallurgy." Detroit: American Society for Metals, pp 371-372

Hiermaier, S.J., (2008). "Structures Under Crash and Impact." Freiburg: Springer. pp 362-365

Hirth, A., Bois, P.D., and Dr. Weimar, K., (2004). "A Material Model for Transversely Anisotropic Crushable Foams in LS-DYNA." 7th International LS-DYNA Users Conference. pp 16-23 - 16-34

Hoffman, O., (1967). "The Brittle Strength of Orthotropic Materials." Journal of Composite Materials 1. pp 200-206

Holian, K.S., (1984). T-4 Handbook of Material Properties Data Base, Vol Ic: Equation of State." Los Alamos: Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-10160-MS

Shigeki, K., Tsuyoshi, Y., & Koji, O., (2007)."Application of Shell Honeycomb Model to IIHS MDB Model." 6th European LS-DYN Users' Conference. pp 1-10

Tsuyoshi, Y., & Nariko, W., (2001). "Vehicle Crash Analysis applications to a Vehicle Development." Aichi: Toyota Motor Corporation. pp 54-59