汽车铝应用手册-AAM-design-5-case-study-cms.pdfVIP

Design – Case study: Crash Management Systems (CMS) Table of contents 5 Case study: Crash Management Systems (CMS) 2  5.1 Introduction 2  5.1.1 Purpose of a bumper system 3  5.1.2 Additional functionality 4  5.2 Design Aspects 5  5.2.1 Design Boundary Conditions 5  5.2.2 Design options assessment 6  5.2.3 Whole vehicle system considerations 7  5.2.4 Requirements for Crash Management System (CMS) components 8  5.2.5 Main advantages of aluminium components 12  5.2.6 Value Analysis 14  5.2.7 Comparison of two ‘state of the art’ bumper systems 15  5.3 Performance evaluation 19  5.3.1 Comparison of the performance of an Aluminium and a Steel CMS 21  5.4 Market Penetration 23  5.5 Conclusions from CMS case study 24  Version 2011 © European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 1 5 Case study: Crash Management Systems (CMS) 5.1 Introduction Crash protection priorities vary with car speed when crash occurs:  at speeds up to 15 km/h, the main goal is to minimize repair costs;  at speeds between 15 and 40 km/h, first aim is to protect pedestrians;  at speed over 40 km/h, the most important concern is to guarantee occupant protection. The overall objective remains to reduce the aggressiveness of the crash event. These issues are solved through controlled crash deformation. This case study deals with the effectiveness of the crash management system, composed of the bumper and the crash tubes. Engine Bumper cradle/Subframe beams Longitudinal Crash Bumper