Contract 031321

1

• Contract 031321
• TST5 - CT - 2006 031321
• AAFernandes, AFerreira, G.Cirrone,R.Adams,
  F.Araujo, M.Scamuzzi, J.Ruiz, F.Fernandes,
  T.Vicente, O.Salomon, G.Ziegmann, M.Burman,
  U.Mauri, L.Vergani
• TRA 2008 - 133 Innovative Design Production

2

• Contract 031321
• TST5 - CT - 2006 031321
• AAFernandes, AFerreira, G.Cirrone,R.Adams,
  F.Araujo, M.Scamuzzi, J.Ruiz, F.Fernandes,
  T.Vicente, O.Salomon, G.Ziegmann, M.Burman,
  U.Mauri, L.Vergani
• TRA 2008 - 133 Innovative Design Production

3

• Contract 031321
• TST5 - CT - 2006 031321
• AAFernandes, AFerreira, G.Cirrone,R.Adams,
  F.Araujo, M.Scamuzzi, J.Ruiz, F.Fernandes,
  T.Vicente, O.Salomon, G.Ziegmann, M.Burman,
  U.Mauri, L.Vergani
• TRA 2008 - 133 Innovative Design Production

4
The project
Commencement date 1st October 2006 Duration
36 months Commission Grant 2 Million
Euros Selected Topic for Call 3B Development
of advanced, low-mass material structures and
systems for vehicles and vessels offering product
structural and functional integrity for rated
performance at low cost.
5
The project
Commencement date 1st October 2006 Duration
36 months Commission Grant 2 Million
Euros Selected Topic for Call 3B Development
of advanced, low-mass material structures and
systems for vehicles and vessels offering product
structural and functional integrity for rated
performance at low cost.
6
The consortium

• NTET
• Clausthal Univ.
• SUNSUNDEGUI
• MAURI
• UP Madrid

• INEGI (Coordinator)
• CaetanoBus
• Fibersensing
• CIMNE
• Giugiaro-Italdesign
• UP Milano
• U Oxford
• KTH

Coordinator contact Professor A. A
.Fernandes Email aaf_at_fe.up.pt Tel [phone]
1491
7
The consortium

• NTET
• Clausthal Univ.
• SUNSUNDEGUI
• MAURI
• UP Madrid

• INEGI (Coordinator)
• CaetanoBus
• Fibersensing
• CIMNE
• Giugiaro-Italdesign
• UP Milano
• U Oxford
• KTH

Coordinator contact Professor A. A
.Fernandes Email aaf_at_fe.up.pt Tel [phone]
1491
8
Buses and coaches play a key role in public
transport
ENERGY TRANSPORT IN FIGURES 2006 Part 3
Transport ,EU DG Energy and Transport Internation
al Road transport Union,2000
9
Comparison EU-25 - World Passenger Transport
EU-25 Performance by Mode for Passenger Transport
ENERGY TRANSPORT IN FIGURES 2006 Part 3
Transport ,EU DG Energy and Transport Internation
al Road transport Union,2000
10
Road Fatalities by Type of User
ENERGY TRANSPORT IN FIGURES 2006 Part 3
Transport, EU DG Energy and Transport Internation
al Road transport Union,2000
11
Road Fatalities by Type of User
ENERGY TRANSPORT IN FIGURES 2006 Part 3
Transport, EU DG Energy and Transport Internation
al Road transport Union,2000
12
GOAL
- Contribute to reduction of CO2 Emissions -
Reduce Total Cost of Ownership of Buses/Coaches
GROSS BUS WEIGHT REDUCTION OF 20 ALONE WILL
RESULT IN AT LEAST 20 IMPROVEMENT IN FUEL
EFFICIENCY AT GROSS WEIGHT
13
GOAL
Contribute to reduction of CO2 Emissions Reduce
Total Cost of Ownership of Buses/Coaches
GROSS BUS WEIGHT REDUCTION OF 20 ALONE WILL
RESULT IN AT LEAST 20 IMPROVEMENT IN FUEL
EFFICIENCY AT GROSS WEIGHT
14
The total weight of a body in whiteof a
Bus/Coach will be 60 lighter than comparable
steel bodies.The stiffness of the body will be
equivalent to steel bodyCrashworthiness and
passive safety performance will be greater than
bolted aluminium alloy structures and better than
welded steel structures.20 noise reduction and
enhanced vibration properties.The cost of the
structure should be 10 lower than comparable
steel body through reduction of production lead
time.Greater corrosion resistance and fire
safety ( structural and toxicity)
Objectives
15
Interior space increase ( at least 10 ), thus
improving quality of journey and increased
passenger capacityManufacturing lead time
should be reduced 30 through the use of modular
large panels, easier and faster to assemble and
join together, with built in functions.Tooling
costs will be reduced 50, since sandwich panel
jigs are considerably less expensive than
stamping dies or jigs for welded construction.
Objectives
16
Interior space increase ( at least 10 ), thus
improving quality of journey and increased
passenger capacityManufacturing lead time
should be reduced 30 through the use of modular
large panels, easier and faster to assemble and
join together, with built in functions.Tooling
costs will be reduced 50, since sandwich panel
jigs are considerably less expensive than
stamping dies or jigs for welded construction.
Objectives
17
LiteBus Front-loaded Development Schedule
Project Schedule - Time 36 Months
Time Before Launch
Capability-Building Phase
Concept
Concept Development

• 1
• Confirm Vision

• 4
• Functional Verification

• 7
• Ramp-Up

• 2
• Agree on Goals

• 3
• Confirm Bus Concept

• 6
• Product Verification

Gateways
Package
Package Development
Styling
Exterior Styling
Engineering/ CAE
Simulations,Digital Mock Ups,Digital assembly
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT
1st Prototypes
Prototype Build

• Rollover Test

Integration Verification
Prototype Verification
Bus Cell Testing
Durability Tests
Component Verification
Adapted from S HThomke,2007
18
Generation of new concept vehicle architecture
19
Current State of the Art

20

21
Package 2D

22
Package 3D

23
Idea Generation

24
Isometric Views
25
Isometric Views
Window Double glass
Window Cutout
L Billet
Sandwich U Panel
26
Isometric Views
Sandwich U Panel
Ring Pillars
27
Isometric Views
Reinforcement shape
L Billet
Flap for fixation
Window Cutout
Sandwich U Panel
Ring Pillars
L Billet
Reinforcement shape
Window Double glass
28
Isometric Views
Window Double glass
Sandwich U Panel
Ring Pillar
Front View
Cross Section View
Sandwich U Panel
29
Materials Assembly Process

30
Different possible Assembly Concepts
31
Selected Assembly Concept
With processing techniques for different parts of
the Litebus
Sandwich with Foam Core
Pultruded Corner Profile
Overroll-Panel in InfusionTechnique
32
Processing Technique Infusion Techniques
RTM
33
Adhesive Bonding Experiment

• AV118
• High strength steel
• 12.5mm overlap
• Adherend thickness 2mm
• Adhesive thickness 0.2 and 0.5mm

• Sikaflex 552
• Mild steel
• 25mm overlap
• Adherend thickness 2mm
• Adhesive thickness 0.2

34
Experiments Failure Mode AV118
a) RT-mixed mode failure
b1) -40ºC-mixed mode failure b2)
-40ºC- cohesive failure
c) 80ºC - adhesive failure
35
Engineering CAE
36
First model, worst case (with SUNSUNDEGUI)
We can obtain the efforts in a section in normal
conditions
37
Efforts on rail and guide of seat's anchorage
RESTRAINT SYSTEMS SEATS, ANCHORAGES AND SAFETY
BELTS
Static for the anchorages of seats
38
Benchmark FEM Analysis
FEM analysis of sections with the initial
dimensions (only one window)
SUNSUNDEGUI
MAURI
CAETANO BUS
39
Tests on CAETANOs section
Inclinometer Load Cell
Threat sensor
40
Rollover Test Current Structure
CRASHWORTHINESS Studies
41

• New geometry for analysis including
• New low-corner pultrusion profile
• Lateral and roof panels
• Lateral metallic rail
• Windows
• Foams (rough approx.)

42
Materials
inner 80_0º, 20_45º shear 80_45,
20_0º outer shear Innshear inner shear
(10.mm)
43
Analysis results
Displacements for 40.kN horizontal force at each
frame
Material parameters (mechanical characterisation)
must be updated according to experimental tests
updated glass-fibre and matrix mechanical
properties
44
Health Monitoring Fiber Optic
Nervous system architecture providing 30 sensors
on each fibre and fibre failure
45
Evolution
46
Evolution