Major compliance joint modelling survey for automotive body structures Online publication date: Tue, 29-Jun-2010
by Ali M. Shahhosseini, Glen Prater, Gary M. Osborne, Everett Y. Kuo, P. Rajendra Mehta
International Journal of Vehicle Systems Modelling and Testing (IJVSMT), Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010
Abstract: There are two distinct classes of vehicle body CAE abstractions that can be used to support vehicle body design and development, detailed models and concept models. A detailed finite element model achieves computational accuracy by precisely simulating component geometries and assembly interfaces. On the other hand, a concept model simulates stiffness behaviour of joints and major load-carrying members (e.g. pillars, rails, rockers, etc.) in a body structure. The main difference between various kinds of concept models is the representation of body joints. Joints are important components of the auto body because they affect significantly, and in some cases, they even dominate, the static and dynamic behaviour of a model. This paper reviews generic characteristics of two typical joint representation methods: a superelement elastic representation and tri-spring representation. The benefits of using a tri-spring representation over a superelement elastic representation are discussed.
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Vehicle Systems Modelling and Testing (IJVSMT):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com
Our Blog 
Follow us on Twitter 
Visit us on Facebook