Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) represent a serious threat to vehicles. These IEDs can partially or fully damage the vehicle and the onboard equipment and, threaten the lives of its crew. To protect against these devices, modifications to specialized vehicles are made in different parts. Among these latter, the present work focuses on the effects of the suspension system on the dynamic response of the vehicle. The behaviour of a McPherson suspension system of a light vehicle is numerically studied in order to optimize the dimensions of selected components. Three models based on different approaches are developed. The first is based on an Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) formulation with fluid-structure coupling, which gives a more realistic representation of the blast phenomena. However, it needs significant calculation time and computational power. The second is a simplified, purely Lagrangian, model which requires less computational resources but includes several assumptions. The third model is based on a meta-modelling approach. This latter is used to optimize the dimensions of selected sub-systems of the vehicle suspension via a genetic optimization algorithm.
DathanJ. Explosive violence monitor 2020. Action On Armed Violence, 2021.
2.
TrajkovskiJPerendaJKuncR. Blast response of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) with flat and V-hull floor. Thin Wall Struct2018; 131: 238–244.
3.
AgeshMRahulJAureaR, et al. Finite element analysis of response of V-shaped hull plates under blast loading. In: IOP Conference series: Materials science and engineering, 2021, paper no. 1114(1), pp.12065.
4.
BaranowskiPMalachowskiJ. Numerical study of selected military vehicle chassis subjected to blast loading in terms of tire strength improving. Bull Pol Acad Sci Tech2015; 63: 867–878.
5.
TarlochanF. Sandwich structures for energy absorption applications: a review. Materials2021; 14(16): 4731.
6.
LiYLvZWangY. Blast response of aluminum foam sandwich panel with double V-shaped face plate. Int J Impact Eng2020; 144: 103666.
7.
QiCYangSYangLJ, et al. Blast resistance and multi-objective optimization of aluminum foam-cored sandwich panels. Compos Struct2013; 105: 45–57.
8.
DolceF. Blast impact simulation on composite military armours. PhD Thesis, University of Bath, UK, 2009.
9.
WangIT. Simulation and experimental validation of the dynamic pressure of shock wave under free-field blast loading. J Vibroengineering2014; 16(7): 3547–3556.
10.
SchwerLSlavikT. Buried charge engineering model : verification and validation. In: 9th European LS-DYNA Conference, Manchester, UK, 2–4 June 2013.
11.
WestinePSMorrisBLCoxPA, et al. Development of computer program for floor plate response from land mine explosions. Report for the US Army Tank-Automotive Command. Report no. 13045, 1985, USA.
12.
TremblayJE. Impulse on blast deflectors from a landmine explosion. Report for the Defence Research Establishment. Valcartier, Quebec, Canada, 1998.
13.
SchwerLHailongTSouliM. Ls-dyna air blast techniques : Comparisons with experiments for close-in charges. In: 10th European LS-DYNA Conference, Würzburg, Germany, 15–17 June 2015, pp.18–22.
14.
HargatherMJSettlesGS. Laboratory-scale techniques for the measurement of a material response to an explosive blast. Int J Impact Eng2009; 36(7): 940–947.
15.
NeubergerAPelesSRittelD. Springback of circular clamped armor steel plates subjected to spherical air-blast loading. Int J Impact Eng2009; 36(1): 53–60.
16.
ErdikAKilicSAKilicN, et al. Numerical simulation of armored vehicles subjected to undercarriage landmine blasts. Shock Waves2016; 26(4): 449–464.
17.
SławińskiGMalesaPŚwierczewskiM. Analysis regarding the risk of injuries of soldiers inside a vehicle during accidents caused by improvised explosive devices. Appl Sci2019; 9(19): 4077.
18.
VannucciPMasiFStefanouI. A comparative study on the effects of blast actions on a monumental structure. UVSQ – ENPC, 2017.
19.
SeifiAHassannejadR. Parameters uncertainty in pareto optimization of nonlinear inerter-based suspension system under nonstationary random road excitation. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2022; 236(12): 2725–2744.
20.
AhmedMEl-GindyMLangH. A novel adaptive-rear axles steering controller for an 8 × 8 combat vehicle. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2022; 236(2): 738–751.
21.
GuBCongJZhaoJ, et al. A novel robust finite time control approach for a nonlinear disturbed quarter-vehicle suspension system with time delay actuation. Automatika2022; 63(4): 627–639.
22.
CiampagliaASantiniABelingardiG. Design and analysis of automotive lightweight materials suspension based on finite element analysis. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2021; 235(9): 1501–1511.
23.
ShenYHuaJFanW, et al. Optimal design and dynamic performance analysis of a fractional-order electrical network-based vehicle mechatronic ISD suspension. Mech Syst Signal Process2023; 184: 109718.
24.
WangYZhaoWZhouG, et al. Analysis and parametric optimization of a novel sandwich panel with double-V auxetic structure core under air blast loading. Int J Mech Sci2018; 142–143: 245–254.
25.
JohnsonTEBasudharA. A metamodel-based shape optimization approach for shallow-buried blast-loaded flexible underbody targets. Int J Impact Eng2015; 75: 229–240.
26.
AltinMAcarEGülerM. Crashworthiness optimization of hierarchical hexagonal honeycombs under out-of-plane impact. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2021; 235(6): 963–974.
27.
GorguluarslanRM. Multi-objective design optimization of additively manufactured lattice structures for improved energy absorption performance. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2022; 236(1): 3–15.
28.
KhalfallahSGhenaietABeniniE, et al. Surrogate-based shape optimization of stall margin and efficiency of a centrifugal compressor. J Propulsion Power2015; 31(6): 1607–1620.
29.
NacharSBoucardPNéronD. Optimisation de structures par couplage métamodèles multi-fidélité et modèles réduits. In: 23ème Congrès Français de Mécanique [CFM2017], Lille, France, 28 August–1 September 2017.
30.
BeniniEPonzaR. Nonparametric fitting of aerodynamic data using smoothing thin-plate splines. AIAA J2010; 48(7): 1403–1419.
31.
TyasA. Experimental measurement of pressure loading from near-field blast events: techniques, findings and future challenges. Proc MDPI20182018; 2(8): 471.
32.
RogerE. Mines buried in dry and saturated soils: blast experiments, soil modeling and simulations. PhD Thesis, Université Grenoble Alpes, France, 2015.
33.
PeeryJSCarrollDE. Multi-material ALE methods in unstructured grids. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng2000; 187(3–4): 591–619.
34.
RebeloHBCismasiuC. AA Comparison between three air blast simulation techniques in LS-DYNA. In: 11th European LS-DYNA conference, Salzburg, Austria, 9–11 May 2017.
35.
Kurtoğluİ. An Assessment of ALE mapping technique for buried charge simulations. In: 10th European LS-DYNA Conference, Würzburg, Germany, 15–17 June 2015.
36.
LapoujadeVVan DorsselaerNKevorkianS, et al. A study of mapping technique for air blast modeling. In: 11th International LS-DYNA Users conference, Dearborn, USA, 2010.
37.
DoneaJHuertaAPonthotJ-P, et al. Encyclopedia of computational mechanics Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian Methods. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New Jersey, 2004. pp.413–437.
38.
WilkinsML. Calculation of elastic-plastic flow. California University Livermore Radiation Lab, USA, 1963.
39.
KreigRKeyS. Implementation of a time dependent plasticity theory into structural computer programs, constitutive equations in viscoplasticity. Comput Eng Aspects1976; 20: 125–137.
40.
LSTC. LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual, volume I, Version R10.0. October2017.
41.
FicheraCPeroniLScapinM. Numerical simulation of landmine explosions: comparison between different modelling approaches. In: Proceedings of the V international conference on computational methods for coupled problems in science and engineering, CIMNE, 2013, pp.708–719.
42.
NikraveshPE. Planar multibody dynamics: formulation, programming with MATLAB, and Applications. 2nd ed.Taylor & Francis Group, New york, 2018, pp.174–175.
43.
BaranowskiPMalachowskiJMazurkiewiczL. Numerical and experimental testing of vehicle tyre under impulse loading conditions. Int J Mech Sci2016; 106: 346–356.
44.
BaranowskiPMalachowskiJJaniszewskiJ, et al. Detailed tyre FE modelling with multistage validation for dynamic analysis. Mater Des2016; 96: 68–79.
45.
BaranowskiPJaniszewskiJMałachowskiJ. Tire rubber testing procedure over a wide range of strain rates. J Theor Appl Mech2017; 55(2): 727–739.
46.
BaranowskiPMałachowskiJMazurkiewicz. Local blast wave interaction with tire structure. Def Technol2020; 16(3): 520–529.
47.
SlavinskiGSwierczewskiM. Modelling and numerical analysis of explosion under the wheel of light armoured military vehicle. Eng Trans2017; 65(4): 587–599.
48.
BastienCGuoHBlundelMV, et al. A detailed aircraft tyre finite element model for hard landing safety assessment. In: 9th European LS-DYNA conference, Manchester, UK, 2–4 June 2013.
49.
UmaleSDeckCBourdetN, et al. Experimental and finite element analysis for prediction of kidney injury under blunt impact. J Biomech2017; 52: 2–10.
50.
PisipatiVKrishnarajSQuinto CamposE. Investigation of finite element material models for instrument panel head impact simulation. SAE technical paper 2014-01-1028, 2014.
51.
MarkiewiczEDucrocqPDrazeticP. An inverse approach to determine the constitutive model parameters from axial crushing of thin-walled square tubes. Int J Impact Eng1998; 21(6): 433–449.
52.
HalgasPDroppaPStiavnickyM. Analysis of vehicle bottom structures in terms of blast protection using ls-dyna. Biuletyn WAT2012; 61(3): 195–209.
53.
WangYShuDFujiiY, et al. Comparison between numerical analysis and the levitation mass method measurement test of a spherical structure early impacting water. Adv Mech Eng2018; 10(1): 1–15.
54.
Randers-PehrsonGBannisterKA. Airblast loading model for dyna2d and dyna3d. Report for Army research lab aberdeen proving Ground MD. March1997.
55.
KleijnenJPCSargentRG. A methodology for fitting and validating metamodels in simulation1Two anonymous referees’ comments on the first draft lead to an improved organization of our paper.1. Eur J Oper Res2000; 120(1): 14–29.
56.
KhalfallahSLehtihetHE. A multi-objective optimization methodology based on multi-mid-range meta-models for multimodal deterministic/robust problems. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2019; 60(6): 2373–2389.
57.
HassanMZAzizMKHADelbressineF, et al. Numerical analysis of spring stiffness in vehicle design development stage. Int J Appl Eng Res2016; 11(7): 5163–5168.
58.
ShiLYangRJZhuP. A method for selecting surrogate models in crashworthiness optimization. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2012; 46(2): 159–170.
59.
DebKPratapAAgarwalS, et al. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput2002; 6(2): 182–197.
