J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.
(2017) 39:27212734
DOI 10.1007/s40430-017-0747-3
TECHNICAL PAPER
Crashworthiness multiobjective optimization ofthe thinwalled
grooved conical tubes filled withpolyurethane foam
BatoolSarkabiri1 AliJahan2 MohammadJavadRezvani2
Received: 17 August 2016 / Accepted: 28 February 2017 / Published online: 9 March 2017
The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2017
Abstract The study of energy absorbers is a main concern
in various industries. In the automotive industry analyzing
the energy absorbers is considered as a solution to mini-
mize the consequences of traffic collision on occupants
and enhance the automobile safety. Nowadays, thin-walled
tubes have gained massive popularity as one of the most
efficient energy absorption systems. In this research, the
optimization of crashworthiness parameters in thin-walled
grooved conical tubes was performed through computa-
tional experiments. Conical aluminum tube with grooves
on the internal and external surfaces was simulated under
quasi-static loading, while filled with polyurethane foam.
Design of experiments method was applied along with
validated finite element analysis for better performing and
interpreting the results. The applied response surface meth-
odology indicated that the thickness of the tube, foam den-
sity, the depth of the groove and the distance between the
grooves are associated with energy absorption, respectively.
Also, factors such as the density of the foam, the thickness
of the tube, the distance between the grooves, groove depth
and angle are related with crush force efficiency in that
order. Finally, by analyzing all the design criteria, including
absorbed energy of tube, mass of tube, the mean crushing
force and the maximum crushing force, the optimal den-
sity of polyurethane foam and geometric parameters was
Technical Editor: Fernando Antonio Forcellini.
* Ali Jahan
iranalijahan@yahoo.com; a.jahan@semnaniau.ac.ir
1
Faculty ofEngineering, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Semnan, Iran
2
Faculty ofEngineering, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Semnan, Iran
obtained through both multi-objective optimization process
and Pareto diagram. A comparison of results indicated the
significance of grooves depth and thickness of tube as the
most influential parameters.
Keywords Crashworthiness Energy absorption Crush
force efficiency (CFE) Multi-objective optimization
Design of experiments
1Introduction
Due to characteristics, such as the light weight, better
stability during crush, low cost and ease of access, thin-
walled tubes have been prevalently used as collapsible
energy absorbers in the frontal structure of cars, trains
and ships. Such devices are designed to collapse progres-
sively in order to absorb the impact energy in a controlled
manner and protect the occupants and cargo [1]. The dif-
ferences in energy absorption capacity, maximum and
mean crushing load, in the cylindrical, hexagonal, conical
and rectangular aluminum tubes were investigated using
numerical and simulation methods [2]. The results indi-
cated that cylindrical, conical, hexagonal, rectangular
and triangular tubes have the highest energy absorption,
respectively. A relatively new type of energy absorber is
a thin-walled tapered tube, in which one or more sides are
oblique to the longitudinal axis. Tapered tubes have been
established as the impact energy absorbers under axial
loading [36]. As the taper angle increases, the initial
peak load required to crush the tube decreases. Further-
more, the tapered tubes provide a desirable stable mean
crush loaddeflection response under impact loading
and minimize the chance of collapse via global buckling
[79]. The results indicated that the type of crush in the
13

2722 J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734

thin-walled tubes can be controlled by creating various improvement and optimization of the production process
patterns on the tube, which enhances the effectiveness of and can play an important role in engineering design and
this type of absorbent [1016]. Salehghaffari etal. [17] optimization [24]. Response surface method (RSM), as
studied a new and efficient design method to encourage subgroup of DOE techniques, can be helpful in finding
axisymmetric collapsing mode in long tubes. They found optimum design variables in combination with multi-
that cutting wide external grooves along circular metal criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques [2528].
tube length can significantly improve their energy absorp- In this study, the finite element (FE) analysis was carried
tion characteristics. Rezvani etal. [18, 19] showed that out using the explicit code Abaqus to simulate the col-
grooves make crushing process easier and decrease the lapse behavior of the foam-filled grooved conical tubes
maximum crushing load. Also, the load fluctuations dur- under axial loading. The FE model was validated by the
ing deformation of the grooved specimens were much previously established results. Examining the influence
less than those of the groove-less specimen. The influ- of design parameters on specific energy absorption, and
ence of the groove type (triangular, trapezoidal, circular crush force efficiency for thin-walled conical tubes is the
and square) was investigated experimentally on the thin- aim of this work, and finally the study presents a multi-
walled aluminum cylindrical tube [20]. It was found that objective design optimization.
creating an annular groove on interior and exterior sur-
faces of the tube, which is easy in the synthesis process,
can provide us with efficient energy absorption. Increas-
ing the grooves number leads to an increase in the effi- 2Materials andmethods
ciency of the crushing load as well as reduction in the
mean crushing load, fluctuations in the forcedisplace- Figure 1 shows the geometric detail parameters of the
ment curve and reduction in the energy absorption. While grooved conical tube filled with polyurethane foam.
increasing the thickness and filling with foam increases The grooves are created in the inside and outside alter-
the energy absorption [21]. In 2011, optimization of the nately and with the equal distances on the internal and
specific energy absorption and efficiency of the crushing external surfaces of the tubes. As presented in the figure,
load in the steel conical grooved tubes was performed D1 and D2 are the diameters of the conical, t is the tube
by changing the taper angle, number and radius of the wall thickness, t is the wall thickness in the groove, W
groove as well as the thickness of the tube using the sim- is the groove width, d is the groove depth, and finally
ulation method. The results indicated that the maximum is the distance between the grooves. Design variables
efficiency was obtained in the higher number and radius and their ranges were selected based on the studying
of the groove, lower thickness and average taper angle.
However, the maximum energy absorption was seen in
the lower groove radius, higher thickness and smaller
taper angle [22]. The specific energy absorption and peak
crushing force of the cylindrical and conical tubes sub-
jected to dynamic loading and different impact loading
angles were investigated in the two cases of empty tubes
and foam-filled tubes [23]. The results indicated that the
best performance in the specific energy absorption and
peak crushing force is obtained by conical tubes.
Analyzing the recent reports on the advantages of
conical tubes, creating grooves in thin-walled tubes and
using foam for filing the tubes, it seems a systematic
understanding of how these design factors contribute to
crashworthiness performance is still lacking. Due to the
multiplicity of the variables, and complexity of design-
ing such structures, finding the optimum conditions by
changing one-factor-at-one-time experiment would be
extremely costly and time-consuming. But design of
experiments (DOE) can lead to omission of less important
variables, better interpretation of results and mathemati-
cal modeling of design goals by the minimum number of
the experiments. DOE is an important and useful tool for Fig.1Details of the specimen design

13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734 2723

Determining the design variables , , d , , t Determining the design objectives deformation modes and grooves distances. Many studies
have been performed to evaluate the effect of changing
the foam density () on energy absorption criteria. The
Using response surface methodology to create design of experiments range of the variation for this parameter has been deter-
SEA, CFE simulation of specimens with Abaqus software
mined based on the variation of /s, where is the den-
sity of the foam and s, that of the solid of which the
Validation of simulation by comparison with literature
foam is obtained. The s value for polyurethane foam is
equal to 1200kg/m3 [30].
Establishment the mathematical model with response surface methodology The depth of the groove (d) and thickness of the tube
in the groove are related to each other (t = t d) in
Optimization of objectives with software of Design-Expert
which t is the thickness of groove and d is the groove
depth. In this study, the changes in the thickness are
Using Pareto diagram to find best design scenario
obtained by varying d and t. The range of variation in d
and t is defined based on the range of the tube thickness.
Fig.2Intended steps for computational experiments in multi-objec- Groove width is selected 4 because as described in [29],
tive design optimization this relation w>d with groove depth must be satisfied.
For evaluating energy absorption and shock resistance
capability, specific energy absorption (SEA), and crush-
Table1Design constants ing force efficiency (CFE) selected as design goals. SEA
Constant Title Value expresses the total absorbed energy (Eabsorbed) per unit of
tube mass (Eq.2).
L Length of tube 180mm 
W Wide of groove 4mm Eabsorbed = P d
SEA = = (2)
G Shape of groove Circular m m
where P, and m are the crush force, crush distance and
total mass of the specimen/structure undergo deforma-
literature of research. The stages of this study are demon- tion, respectively. CFE is equal to the mean crushing
strated in Fig.2. The steps consist of determining design force divided by the maximum crushing force (Eqs.3, 4).
objectives, creating design of experiments, simulation 
1
and validation, creating mathematical model and finally Fmean = Pd (3)
optimization. t
In this study, the parameters that remain constant
Fmean
(the design constants) include the groove shape (G), the CFE = (4)
Fmax
groove length (L) and the groove width (W), whose val-
ues are presented in Table1. 2.1Material properties
Also, the ranges of the design variables are as follows:
2.1.1Tube
0.6 t (mm) 1.7
0.4 d (mm) 1.3 Aluminum and magnesium alloys, high strength steels
60 (kg/m3 ) 300 (1) and composites are all alternatives to soft steel in the
6  (mm) 10 thin-walled tubes, especially in the automotive industry.
In this study, series 6061-T6 aluminum alloy are selected
0 ( ) 15
for grooved conical tubes. The properties of this material
The range for taper angle was determined between 0 are provided in Table2.
and 15 in all previous studies. Meanwhile, it was shown
that conical and pyramidal (frusta) tube reduces the max-
imum loading more than other tubes [2]. Hosseini Pour Table2Mechanical properties of the aluminum alloy 6061-T6 [31]
and Daneshi [29] demonstrated that creating grooves
Poisson ratio 0.33
can minimize the force fluctuations during deforma-
Density (kg/m3) 2700
tion and improve the uniformity of forcedisplacement
Young modulus (GPa) 69
curve and energy absorption criteria. Thus, the variation
Yield strength (MPa) 311
range of grooves distance () is selected from the grooves
Ultimate strength (MPa) 348
distances in the mentioned study by investigating the

13

2724 J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734

Table3Properties of the used foams in the design of experiments Table4Coded and un-coded values for CCD test matrix
model
xi () (mm) (kg/m3) d (mm) t (mm)
Density Elastic specification Plastic speci-
(kg/m3) fication 2.378 0 6 60 0.4 0.6
1 4.35 7.16 129.55 0.66 0.92
Young modulus (MPa) Poisson ratio k p
0 7.5 8 180 0.85 1.15
60 1.6 0 1 0 1 10.65 8.84 230.45 1.04 1.38
129.55 16 0 1 0 2.378 15 10 300 1.3 1.7
180 25 0 1 0
230.45 48 0 1 0
300 70 0 1 0 fitting a full quadratic response surface model. A CCD has
three groups of design points:

2.1.2Foam (a) two-level factorial or fractional factorial design points

(b) axial points (sometimes called star points)
The mechanical properties of the existing foam in the (c) center points
design of experiment model are required for simulation.
The mechanical properties of these foams are obtained All point descriptions will be in terms of coded values
using graphs and tables provided by [30] and the relation- of the factors (Table4). The two-level factorial part of the
ship of the Gipson model that is expressed in Eqs.58 design consists of all possible combinations of the +1 and
[32]. 1 levels of the factors. For the two-factor case, there are
Linear elastic region four design points:
= E if yield (5) (1, 1) (+1, 1) (1, +1) (+1, +1)
Plateau region Based on the defined range for design variables, the
CCD used in the current study consists of 43 design points
= yield if yield D (1 D1/ m ) (6) including 32 factorial points based on a 25 factorial design,
one center point and 10 axial (star) points with distance
Densification region of =2.378 from the center point. The value for Alpha
1

D
m is calculated in each design for rotatability. The star points
= yield if > D (1 D1/ m ) (7) have all of the factors set to 0, the midpoint, except one fac-
D D
tor, which has the valueAlpha. For a two-factor problem,
where: the star points are:

D = 1 1.4 (8) (Alpha, 0) (+Alpha, 0) (0, Alpha) (0, +Alpha)
s
Center points, as implied by the name, are points with
where and are the engineering stress and strain, all levels set to coded level 0the midpoint of each factor
respectively. E is the Young modulus, yield is the yield range: (0, 0).
strength, and D is the densification strain; m and D are Center points are usually repeated 46 times to get a good
computed based on the deformation micromechanics of estimate of experimental error (pure error). A single center
the cell. The parameters D and m are considered density point was considered here because the FE experiments include
independent, and Gibson suggests the values D =2.73 no actual experimental error, and therefore duplication of the
and m=1.07 for the polyurethane foams [32]. Also, the center point was not necessary. To summarize, central com-
elastic and plastic properties of the different foams are posite designs require five levels of each factor: Alpha, 1,
provided in Table3. 0, 1 and +Alpha. Table5 shows result of experimental design
provided by Design-Expert software according to CCD.
2.2Design ofexperiments strategy
2.3Multiobjective optimization algorithm
The most popular response surface method (RSM) design,
central composite design (CCD), is used in this study. Numerical optimization will search the design space, using
CCDs are designed to estimate the coefficients of a quad- the models created during analysis of variance (ANOVA).
ratic model. CCD is a very flexible and efficient design for Design-Expert software v7.0 is used for ANOVA and

13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734 2725

Table5Computational design of experiments of mathematical transformations. The desirability function

Row Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 involves transformation of each estimated response vari-
Factors () (mm) (kg/m3) d (mm) t (mm) able to a desirability value that is between 0 and 1 and then
selecting the design variables to maximize the overall desir-
1 4.35 7.16 129.55 0.66 0.92 ability of responses. The overall desirability will be defined
2 10.65 7.16 129.55 0.66 0.92 by multiplication of individual desirability. More informa-
3 4.35 8.84 129.55 0.66 0.92 tion and details of mathematical approaches are available in
4 10.65 8.84 129.55 0.66 0.92 [33]. Numerical optimization is a hill climbing technique.
5 4.35 7.16 230.45 0.66 0.92 In addition to the design points, a set of random points are
6 10.65 7.16 230.45 0.66 0.92 checked to see if there is a more desirable solution.
7 4.35 8.84 230.45 0.66 0.92
8 10.65 8.84 230.45 0.66 0.92 1. Let X, a vector of Xi for i=1, 2,,n represent design
9 4.35 7.16 129.55 1.04 0.92 variables over the optimization space which is a subset
10 10.65 7.16 129.55 1.04 0.92 of the design space.
11 4.35 8.84 129.55 1.04 0.92 2. Let yj, Uj, Lj for j=1, 2,,m be responses with upper
12 10.65 8.84 129.55 1.04 0.92 and/or lower bounds serving as constraints.
13 4.35 7.16 230.45 1.04 0.92 3. Let y(X) be the response to be optimized. Then
14 10.65 7.16 230.45 1.04 0.92 f(X)=y(X) for minimization, f(X)=y(X) for maxi-
15 4.35 8.84 230.45 1.04 0.92 mization. Define the constraints as a series of discon-
16 10.65 8.84 230.45 1.04 0.92 tinuous functions:
17 4.35 7.16 129.55 0.66 1.38
18 10.65 7.16 129.55 0.66 1.38
y(x)j Uj y(x)j > Uj
19 4.35 8.84 129.55 0.66 1.38 g(x)j = 0 Lj y(x)j Uj
20 10.65 8.84 129.55 0.66 1.38
Lj y(x)j y(x)j < Lj
21 4.35 7.16 230.45 0.66 1.38
22 10.65 7.16 230.45 0.66 1.38 This produces a system of m constraints that can be
23 4.35 8.84 230.45 0.66 1.38 solved as an unconstrained problem via a penalty function
24 10.65 8.84 230.45 0.66 1.38 approach:
25 4.35 7.16 129.55 1.04 1.38


26 10.65 7.16 129.55 1.04 1.38

Minimize f (x) + p g(x)j
27 4.35 8.84 129.55 1.04 1.38
j

28 10.65 8.84 129.55 1.04 1.38
29 4.35 7.16 230.45 1.04 1.38
where p is a penalty parameter >0 for j=1 to m. The goal
30 10.65 7.16 230.45 1.04 1.38
of the penalty function is to provide a hill to climb when
the optimization starts in an undesirable location. Find-
31 4.35 8.84 230.45 1.04 1.38
ing an initial feasible region can be difficult. The software
32 10.65 8.84 230.45 1.04 1.38
usually starts with a small value of a penalty function in
33 0 8 180 0.85 1.15
a downhill simplex multi-dimensional pattern search [34]
34 15 8 180 0.85 1.15
which converges at either a stationary point or a design
35 7.5 6 180 0.85 1.15
space boundary. The search around the initial convergence
36 7.5 10 180 0.85 1.15
point is restarted using a larger penalty function. Conver-
37 7.5 8 60 0.85 1.15
gence is achieved when the distance moved or objective
38 7.5 8 300 0.85 1.15
function change is less than a 106 ratio.
39 7.5 8 180 0.4 1.15
40 7.5 8 180 1.3 1.15
2.4Numerical simulation
41 7.5 8 180 0.85 0.6
42 7.5 8 180 0.85 1.7
In this study, the nonlinear finite element platform Abaqus
43 7.5 8 180 0.85 1.15 5.6 was used for the numerical analysis of the crushing
behavior of the foam-filled grooved conical tubes.
providing the optimization capabilities based on the desira- In order to verify the numerical simulations, a speci-
bility function. The overall desirability function simultane- men consisting 11 grooves filled with polyurethane foam
ously considers all the responses, transforming a multiple has been simulated based on the given geometry that was
response problem into a single response problem by means extracted from the Ref. [33] and presented in Table6. As

13

2726 J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734

Table6Specification of the () D1 (mm) D2 (mm) L (mm) W (mm) (mm) (kg/m3) d (mm) t (mm)
used experimental reference
specimen for validation of the 4 55.26 38.88 116.71 3 10 266 0.6 2
simulation model

the shock resistance parameters in conical grooved tubes

Fig.3Comparison of the experimental test and numerical simulation
of the loaddisplacement curve for a conical specimen consisting of
11 grooves and filled with reference foam [33]
it can be observed from Fig.3, a good conformity exists
between experimental and numerical simulation tests.
Therefore, the numerical simulation is able to estimate
filled with foam.
Explicit dynamic analysis is used for simulation of
the conical grooved tubes. Aluminum tube and polyure-
thane foam are modeled by C3D8R 8-nodes brick ele-
ments with nonlinear asymmetric deformations. As it
can be observed in Fig.4, rigid bodies are used to model
the upper and lower plates representing the universal
machine jaws in the quasi-static analysis. Also, the ele-
ment used for modeling these plates is a four-node 3D
bilinear rigid quadrilateral (element type R3D4).
The lower plate is constrained in all directions, while
the upper plate is able to move downwards along the axis
of the conical, so no inertial effect occurs in mechanism
formation and also the dynamic effects are neglected. The
properties of the aluminum and foam should be inserted
in the software after modeling. Table2 and 3 show the
material parameters for aluminum and polyurethane foam
based on the crushable foam model. After a convergence
study, element sizes of 3mm for the cylindrical tubes and
4.5mm for the foam filler are found to produce satisfactory
results. Friction is one of the most important characteristics
that must be determined in the process of simulation. For
applying the friction between the components in the sim-
ulation, the penalty friction formulations have been used.

Fig. 4a Loading and bound-

ary condition arrangement on
grooved conical tube; b finite
element mesh

13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734 2727
A self-contact interface is also selected to simulate the
collapse of specimens when the elements of tube wall con-
tact each other. In order to define the contact between the
movable rigid plate, foam and the tube, surface to surface
contact was defined with coefficient of friction of 0.3.
3Results anddiscussion
The simulation results including shapes of the crushing,
loaddisplacement diagrams and the values of the design
goals are obtained from Abaqus software. Statistical anal-
ysis of results, including the influence of design variables
on the responses and multi-objective optimization, has
been performed by Design-Expert software.
3.1Simulation results
Figures5, 6 and 7 indicate the collapsing mode of the conical
tubes filled with foam. As it can be observed, conical tubes
are collapsed in three modes. Symmetric mode, asymmet-
ric mode and combined mode. Samples 18 and 25 collapse
asymmetrically, and the total length of the tube is not crushed.
The collapse of the samples 34 and 40 is occurred in the com-
bined mode, and they are more stable than previous samples
to some extent. The rest of the samples are collapsed sym-
metrically. Figure5 indicates the cut view of the symmetric
collapsing, where the folds are created regularly on each other
and the whole length of the tube is collapsed stably. There-
fore, by increasing the grooves number, the number of the
folds due to the axial compression is increased and the col-
lapsing shape of the conical tubes becomes symmetric.
Among the mentioned collapsing modes, the symmet-
ric mode is the most desirable mode due to the higher
reliability and better performance in energy absorption.
In the samples with the greater distance between the
grooves (less number of grooves), the shape of the col-
lapsing is asymmetric. By increasing the distance
between the grooves (), elongation of the walls between
the grooves increases, which leads to asymmetric col-
lapse and increase in the probability of failure. However,
this phenomenon can be improved by increasing the foam
density. The loaddisplacement curve that specifies the
process of variation in the samples is presented for sam-
ples 13, 20, 21 and 36 (Fig.8). The first peak corresponds
for maximum crushing load, then, in the elastic region,
the folds are formed for each maximum loading. Fewer
fluctuations are preferred in the load curve.
In the maximum crushing load, the material is yielded
in the narrow end of the tube and by formation of the first
plastic hinge, the force is reduced significantly. The reduc-
tion is continued as long as the creation of a complete fold
occurs. Then, the next hinge is formed and again reductions
and increases in the force can be observed. Therefore, it can
be said that each peak in the loaddisplacement curve rep-
resents the formation of a fold. However, in the lower num-
ber of grooves (with more distance between the grooves
like Samples 20 and 36) a series of instability can be seen
in the curve, which are stable for higher number of grooves
(lower distance between the grooves like samples 13 and
21) and less fluctuations can be observed in the loaddis-
placement curve. Although the presence of grooves in the
tube decreases the energy absorption, it creates the uniform
plastic hinges during the crushing. Based on the relations in
the section where the design goal was defined and consider-
ing the obtained values from simulation, energy absorption
criterion and other criteria consisting crush force efficiency,
the mean and the maximum crushing load have been calcu-
lated and the results are presented in Table7.
3.2Results ofstatistical analysis
The influence of the design variables on the responses and
corresponding optimum values are estimated using the
Design-Expert software. In order to study the importance
of factors, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been con-
ducted. In the analysis of the model, the sum of squares
(SS), and the mean sum of squares (MS) are calculated by
evaluating responses. In addition, in this analysis, there are
two parameters named F value and P value. F value repre-
sents the ratio of the MS to MS error, and P value indicates
the importance of a factor. P value=1 and P value=0
correspond to the least and most important factor, respec-
tively. Typically, in the RSM model terms with P value
<0.05 can be used in predicting the behavior of response,
so they are preserved in the mathematical model.
3.2.1Specific energy absorption
Table 8 represents the ANOVA results for specific energy
absorption, in which the P value <0.001 suggests that the
selected model is statistically valid (linear model in here).
By Investigating the P value for model parameters, it can
be concluded that the main effective factors are the dis-
tances between grooves, foam density, groove depth and
the tube thickness in the groove.
Equation(9) indicates the predictability of the variations
in the absorbed energy obtained by a first-order model. The
amount of R-square is equal to 0.76, which means that only
76% of the variation in the SEA is predictable by the dis-
tance between the grooves, foam density, depth and thick-
ness of the tube in the groove.
SEA = 5.54016 0.25640  + 0.00928118
2.02341 d + 2.25841 t (9)
13

2728
Fig.5Samples revealing symmetric crushing
Equation(10) is the normalized form of the Eq.(9),
where the absolute value of coefficients represents the
influence of design variables on SEA.
SEA = 5.84 0.22  + 0.47 0.38 d
+ 0.52 t (10)
The order of the influential factors and the type of their
influence on SEA are clear from Eq.10. For example, the
thickness of the tube is the most influential factor on the
SEA. If we keep constant effect of other factors, increas-
ing one unit of the thickness of the tube in the groove,
and foam density, would result in increasing the specific
13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734
energy absorption by 0.52, and 0.47, respectively. Also,
increasing one unit in depth of grooves, and the distances
between grooves, will result in decreasing SEA by 0.38
and 0.22, respectively (keeping constant effect of other
factors). High value of P value for taper angle (0.2877)
reveals that there is not enough reason to accept the effect
of taper angle on SEA in the conducted study.
3.2.2Crushing force efficiency
Table 9 presents the ANOVA results for CFE, in which
there is insufficient evidence to conclude that taper angle,
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734 2729

Fig.5continued

Fig.6Samples revealing asym-

metric crushing

13

2730
Fig.7Samples revealing com-
bined crushing
distance between the grooves, foam density, depth of
grooves and the tube thickness in the groove do not effect
CFE.
Equation(11) indicates the predictability of the varia-
tions in the crushing force efficiency by a first-order model
(linear). The amount of R-square is equal to 0.83, which
means that 83% of the variation in the CFE is predictable
by the design factors.
CFE = 180.24338 1.84252 10.64788 
+ 0.26663 + 39.86177 d 45.12283 t
(11)
Equation(12) is the normalized form of Eq.11, where
the absolute value of coefficients represents the influence
of design variables on the CFE.
CFE = 111.23 5.81 8.95 
(12)
+ 13.45 + 7.54 d 10.43 t
The most important factor is the foam density, and
after that, the thickness of the tube in the groove, the
groove distance, the groove depth and the taper angle,
respectively. It can be concluded that increasing the foam
density increases both SEA and CFE. This is in line
with the results obtained by [19, 34]. As it was shown in
Sect. 3.1, increasing the grooves number or decreasing
Fig.8Loaddisplacement curves for samples 13, 20, 21 and 36
13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734
the distances between grooves will result in a symmet-
ric crush and less fluctuations in the loaddisplacement
curves. These results seem to be consistent with find-
ings of other researches [2, 19, 29, 35, 36] which con-
firmed the negative correlation between grooves distance
and the CFE. What is interesting in the obtained data is
that increasing the depth of grooves increases CFE but
decreases the SEA. Also, the thickness of the tube was
found to cause a decrease in CFE and an increase in SEA.
These results indicate the need for a multi-objective opti-
mization that will be presented in the next section.
3.3Multiobjective optimization
The response surface methodology as a subgroup of
design of experiments methods is a useful tool for devel-
opment, improvement and optimization of the design and
process. In this study, the optimum values for design var-
iables are obtained from Design-Expert software. In this
software, the optimization process is started by applying
the upper and lower limit of design variables and deter-
mining the goal of optimization (maximization or mini-
mization). Here, the optimization is realized based on
maximizing the objective functions of specific energy
absorption and crush force efficiency (Eqs.13, 14).
Max f1 (x1 , x2 , . . .) = Max SEA(t , d, , , ) (13)
Max f2 (x1 , x2 , . . .) = Max CFE (t , d, , , ) (14)
f1 = SEA = 5.54016 0.25640  + 0.00928118
2.02341 d + 2.25841 t
(15)
f2 = CFE = 180.24338 1.84252 10.64788 
+ 0.26663 + 39.86177 d 45.12283 t
(16)
0.6 t (mm) 1.7 (17)
0.4 d (mm) 1.3 (18)
60 (kg/m3 ) 300 (19)
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734 2731

Table7Simulation results of Row m (kg) Pmax (kN) Pm (kN) Eabsorb (kJ) CFE (%) SEA (kJ/kg)
the samples
1 0.594 42.938 45.14 3.615 105 6.082
2 0.46 30.97 31.217 2.497 100 5.42
3 0.63 37.74 37.37 2.987 99 4.74
4 0.49 32.29 29.07 2.329 90 4.75
5 0.84 55.13 73.93 5.919 134 7.027
6 0.65 40.12 50.513 4.036 125 6.2
7 0.88 63.51 71.34 5.708 112 6.457
8 0.67 35.88 48.319 3.986 134 5.87
9 0.63 30.799 39.22 3.137 127 4.92
10 0.5 22.51 27.37 2.186 121 4.369
11 0.66 29.18 35.24 2.796 120 4.23
12 0.52 32.26 29.57 2.365 91 4.5
13 0.88 40.407 66.99 5.359 165 6.07
14 0.68 34.43 47.62 3.805 138 5.579
15 0.9 46.16 64.62 5.166 140 5.63
16 0.9 40.68 49.05 3.926 120 4.279
17 0.92 74.49 82.68 6.605 110.9 7.17
18 0.54 52.22 45.38 3.596 86 6.65
19 0.7 74.39 57.49 4.597 77 6.565
20 0.55 62.65 47.73 3.822 76 6.837
21 0.92 94.92 94.52 7.564 99 8.168
22 0.72 61.59 65.01 5.207 105 7.23
23 0.95 76.6 76.39 6.12 99 6.4
24 0.74 72.54 67.69 5.421 93 7.297
25 0.72 50.165 56.16 4.497 111 6.211
26 0.57 36.49 39.63 3.141 108 5.51
27 0.75 44.88 46.19 3.7019 102 4.93
28 0.59 51.031 41.69 3.34 81 5.577
29 0.94 50.41 76.92 6.154 152 6.38
30 0.75 48.82 64.69 5.1709 132 6.8488
31 1.02 62.458 69.81 5.588 111 5.57
32 0.77 59.26 62.59 5.0178 105 6.436
33 0.93 49.51 64.48 5.158 130 5.5
34 0.519 38.055 34.86 2.7823 91 5.35
35 0.70 36.17 48.05 3.84 132 5.44
36 0.73 61.82 51.7 4.126 83 5.62
37 0.45 39.18 22.72 1.821 57 4.04
38 0.96 56.69 85.92 6.871 151 7.11
39 0.66 44.87 48.38 3.832 107 5.806
40 0.76 41.39 52.64 4.219 127 5.487
41 0.61 24.34 36.9 2.958 151 4.8
42 0.8 91.44 69.34 5.551 75.8 6.887
43 0.71 42.89 46.61 3.732 108 5.25

Considering the same importance for objective func-

6  (mm) 10 (20) tions, by Design-Expert software, the optimum values for
variables and the corresponding responses are provided
0 ( ) 15 (21) in Table10.

13

2732 J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734

Table8ANOVA results for specific energy absorption in the loaddisplacement curve with less fluctuations and favorable
grooved conical tubes uniformity.
Source Sum of df Mean square F value P value Due to the multiple conflicting goals, the result of a multi-
squares objective optimization problem usually consists of a group
Model 29.96 5 5.99 23.92 <0.0001
of optimal solutions known as Pareto front. Ideally, in deal-
ing with multiple objectives, we would like to find the Pareto
A-Angle of 0.29 1 0.29 1.16 0.2877
taper () optimal solutions. None of the solutions could be superior
B-Grooves 2.01 1 2.01 8.04 0.0074* to the other solutions, unless the designer preferences are
distance () defined. In Fig.10, the optimal Pareto solutions are indicated
C-Density of 9.50 1 9.50 37.90 <0.0001* by the sign of (+). This set is the 43 design of experiments,
foam () which has been indicated in Table7. As it was stated previ-
D-Depth of 6.35 1 6.35 25.33 <0.0001* ously, the goal is maximizing SEA and CFE, or minimizing
grooves (d) 1/SEA and 1/CFE. To assist the design team in the process of
E-Thickness 11.81 1 11.81 47.15 <0.0001* decision making, the optimal point obtained in the optimiza-
of tube (t)
tion process is also marked by the sign (), along with the
Residual 9.27 37 0.25
rest of the points.
Total 39.24 42
According to Fig.10, the design indicated by an arrow is
*
Denotes significant factors more desirable than both other Pareto optimal solutions and
the optimum point obtained from the multi-objective optimi-
zation process. This is probably related to the low R-squared
Table9ANOVA results for crush force efficiency in the grooved index of the regression models (Eqs.15, 16). This is the sam-
conical tubes ple 21 in the design scenarios listed in Table6. The design
Source Sum of df Mean F value P value parameters values in this sample are similar to the optimum
squares square values obtained in Table9 in term of angle of taper, grooves
distance and foam density. The loaddisplacement curve and
Model 19,952.56 5 3990.51 37.73 <0.0001
crushing of this sample are presented in Fig.11. Similar to
A-Angle of 1462.17 1 1462.17 13.82 0.0007*
taper () optimal design in Fig.9, symmetric collapse can be observed
B-Grooves 3472.46 1 3472.46 32.83 <0.0001* here.
distance ()
C-Density of 7838.29 1 7838.29 74.11 <0.0001* 4Conclusions
foam ()
D-Depth of 2463.70 1 2463.70 23.29 <0.0001* Among several results of the conducted study, some may be
grooves (d) contributed to the design of thin-walled conical tubes struc-
E-Thickness of 4715.94 1 4715.94 44.59 <0.0001* tures, while others relate to some new insight on role of
tube (t)
RSM in multi-objective optimization, as follows. From the
Residual 3913.31 37 105.77
viewpoint of the thin-walled conical tubes design, influence
Total 23,865.86 42
of design parameters on the objectives discovered through
*Denotes significant factors regression model and optimum values for design parameters
are determined. It was revealed that the thickness of the tube,
the foam density; the groove depth and the distance between
Specific energy absorption and crushing force efficiency the grooves affect the energy absorption in the mentioned
are equal to 7.305 and 98kJ/kg, respectively. It is clear that order. Also, the foam density, the tube thickness, the distance
by changing the importance level of objectives, the optimum between the grooves, groove depth and the taper angle all
point might change (Pareto optimal). The loaddisplacement influence CFE in the mentioned order. The maximum CFE
curve and crushing shape of the sample with the optimum was accrued in the higher groove number, deeper groove
dimensions are provided in Fig.9. As it can be observed, and lower thickness of the tube. Moreover, the maximum
the crushing includes the desirable symmetric fold and a absorbed energy was observed in the lower groove depth and

Table10Optimum values for Design variable SEA (kJ/kg) CFE (%)

design variables and simulation
results 3
() (mm) (kg/m ) d (mm) t (mm)

4.35 7.16 230.45 0.69 1.36 7.305 98

13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734 2733

Fig.9Loaddisplacement curve and the crushing of the sample with

optimum dimensions
Fig.11Loaddisplacement curve and crushing of the sample 21

comprehensively by the design variables. Therefore, in this

case, Pareto diagram was helpful for designer in order to find
the best solutions among the available design alternatives.
However, the application of Pareto diagram is limited to only
two design objectives and there is abundant room for further
investigations in determining optimum design condition in
the presence of more performance objectives as well as the
economic and environmental objectives.

References

1. Lu G, Yu T (2003) Energy absorption of structures and materials.

Fig.10Optimal set in the Pareto diagram
taper angle. Another important finding was the slight differ-
ences of obtained design parameters values for the thickness
of the tube and depth of grooves in multi-objective optimi-
zation process and that obtained from Pareto diagram. These
results provide further support to suggest thickness of tube
and depth of grooves are the most influential design param-
eters considering the optimization of crashworthiness for
the two mentioned objectives simultaneously. In terms of
multi-objective optimization, a systematic combined RSM
-FEA-MCDM approach was developed and exemplified for
yielding a better description of the method. It was shown
that although ANOVA and the consecutive regression mod-
els clearly reveal the influence of the design variables on
the objectives, usually due to low R-squared index, some
deficiencies exist in explaining the variations of objectives
Elsevier, Amsterdam
2. Alavi Nia A, Haddad HJ (2010) Comparative analysis of energy
absorption and deformations of thin walled tubes with various
section geometries. Thin-Walled Struct 48:946954
3. Mirfendereski L, Salimi M, Ziaei-Rad S (2008) Parametric study
and numerical analysis of empty and foam-filled thin-walled tubes
under static and dynamic loadings. Int J Mech Sci 50:10421057
4. Nagel G, Thambiratnam D (2004) A numerical study on the
impact response and energy absorption of tapered thin-walled
tubes. Int J Mech Sci 46:201216
5. Nagel GM, Thambiratnam DP (2006) Dynamic simulation and
energy absorption of tapered thin-walled tubes under oblique
impact loading. Int J Impact Eng 32:15951620
6. Ataei A, Masoumi A, Shariatpanahi M (2008) Optimum design
of partially tapered rectangular thin-walled tubes in axial crush-
ing. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 222:285291
7. Gupta N, Prasad GE, Gupta S (1997) Plastic collapse of metallic
conical frusta of large semi-apical angles. Int J Crashworthiness
2:349366
8. Liu Y (2008) Design optimisation of tapered thin-walled square
tubes. Int J Crashworthiness 13:543550
9. Nagel G, Thambiratnam D (2005) Computer simulation and
energy absorption of tapered thin-walled rectangular tubes. Thin-
Walled Struct 43:12251242
10. Alavi Nia A, Badnava H, Fallah NK (2011) An experimental
investigation on crack effect on the mechanical behavior and
energy absorption of thin-walled tubes. Mater Des 32:35943607

13

2734
11. Jandaghi Shahi V, Marzbanrad J (2012) Analytical and experi-
mental studies on quasi-static axial crush behavior of thin-walled
tailor-made aluminum tubes. Thin-Walled Struct 60:2437
12. Hong W, Fan H, Xia Z, Jin F, Zhou Q, Fang D (2014) Axial
crushing behaviors of multi-cell tubes with triangular lattices. Int
J Impact Eng 63:106117
13. Alavi Nia A, Parsapour M (2014) Comparative analysis of
energy absorption capacity of simple and multi-cell thin-walled
tubes with triangular, square, hexagonal and octagonal sections.
Thin-Walled Struct 74:155165
14. Tang Z, Liu S, Zhang Z (2013) Analysis of energy absorption
characteristics of cylindrical multi-cell columns. Thin-Walled
Struct 62:7584
15. Zhang X, Zhang H (2013) Energy absorption of multi-cell
stub columns under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct
68:156163
16. Zhang X, Zhang H (2014) Axial crushing of circular multi-cell
columns. Int J Impact Eng 65:110125
17. Mokhtarnezhad F, Salehghaffari S, Tajdari M (2009) Improving
the crashworthiness characteristics of cylindrical tubes subjected
to axial compression by cutting wide grooves from their outer
surface. Int J Crashworthiness 14:601611
18. Rezvani M, Damghani NM (2015) Analytical model for energy
absorption and plastic collapse of thin-walled grooved frusta
tubes. Mech Adv Mater Struct 22:338348
19. Rezvani M, Nouri MD (2014) Axial crumpling of aluminum
frusta tubes with induced axisymmetric folding patterns. Arab J
Sci Eng 39:21792190
20. Nori MD, Rezvani MJ (2012) Experimental and numerical inves-
tigation of grooves shape on the energy absorption of 6061T6
aluminium tubes under axial compression. Int J Mater Struct
Integrity 6(24):151168
21. Damghani Nouri M, Rezvani MJ (2012) Experimental inves-
tigation of polymeric foam and grooves effects on crashwor-
thiness characteristics of thin-walled conical tubes. Exp Tech
38(5):5463
22. Acar E, Guler M, Gerceker B, Cerit M, Bayram B (2011) Multi-
objective crashworthiness optimization of tapered thin-walled
tubes with axisymmetric indentations. Thin-Walled Struct
49:94105
23. Qi C, Yong S (2014) crashworthiness and lightweight optimisa-
tion of thin-walled conical tube subjected an oblique impact. Int
J Crashworthiness 19(4):334351
13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. (2017) 39:27212734
24. Taylor M, Prendergast PJ (2014) Four decades of finite element
analysis of orthopaedic devices: where are we now and what are
the opportunities? J biomech 48(5):767778
25. Tarlochan F, Samer F, Hamouda AMS, Ramesh S, Khalid K
(2013) Design of thin wall structures for energy absorption
applications: Enhancement of crashworthiness due to axial and
oblique impact forces. Thin-Walled Struct 71:717
26. Jahan A, Edwards KL, Bahraminasab M (2016) Multi-criteria
decision analysis for supporting the selection of engineering
materials in product design, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford
27. Rezvani MJ, Jahan A (2015) Effect of initiator, design, and mate-
rial on crashworthiness performance of thin-walled cylindrical
tubes: a primary multi-criteria analysis in lightweight design.
Thin-Walled Struct 96:169182
28. Fang J, Gao Y, Sun G, Qiu N, Li Q (2015) On design of multi-
cell tubes under axial and oblique impact loads. Thin-Walled
Struct 95:115126
29. Hosseinipour S, Daneshi G (2004) Experimental studies on
thin-walled grooved tubes under axial compression. Exp Mech
44:101108
30. Ashby MF, Medalist RM (1983) The mechanical properties of
cellular solids. Metall Trans A 14:17551769
31. Rezvani M, Nouri MD, Rahmani H (2012) Experimental and
numerical investigation of grooves shape on the energy absorp-
tion of 6061T6 aluminium tubes under axial compression. Int J
Mater Struct Integr 6:151168
32. Avalle M, Belingardi G, Ibba A (2007) Mechanical models of
cellular solids: parameters identification from experimental tests.
Int J Impact Eng 34:327
33. Nori MD, Rezvani MJ (2012) Experimental investigation of
polymeric foam and grooves effects on characteristics of thin-
walled conical tube. Exp Tech 38(5):5463
34. Bi J, Fang H, Wang Q, Ren X (2010) Modeling and optimization
of foam-filled thin-walled columns for crashworthiness designs.
Finite Elem Anal Des 46:698709
35. Yuen SC, Nurick G (2008) The energy-absorbing characteristics
of tubular structures with geometric and material modifications:
an overview. Appl Mech Rev 61:020802
36. Rezvani M, Nouri MD (2013) Analytical model for energy
absorption and plastic collapse of thin-walled grooved frusta
tubes. Mech Adv Mater Struct 22(5):338348