Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Concept selection of car bumper beam with developed hybrid

bio-composite material
M.M. Davoodi a,, S.M. Sapuan a, D. Ahmad b, A. Aidy a, A. Khalina b, Mehdi Jonoobi c
a

Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
c
Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Lule University of Technology, Sweden
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 10 March 2011
Accepted 7 June 2011
Available online 12 June 2011
Keywords:
A. Composite
E. Mechanical
H. Selection of components

a b s t r a c t
Application of natural bre composites is going to increase in different areas caused by environmental,
technical and economic advantages. However, their low mechanical properties have limited their particular application in automotive structural components. Hybridizations with other reinforcements or
matrices can improve mechanical properties of natural bre composite. Moreover, geometric optimizations have a signicant role in structural strength improvement. This study focused on selecting the best
geometrical bumper beam concept to fulll the safety parameters of the dened product design specication (PDS). The mechanical properties of developed hybrid composite material were considered in different bumper beam concepts with the same frontal curvature, thickness, and overall dimensions. The
low-speed impact test was simulated under the same conditions in Abaqus V16R9 software. Six weighted
criteria, which were deection, strain energy, mass, cost, easy manufacturing, and the rib possibility were
analyzed to form an evaluation matrix. Topsis method was employed to select the best concept. It is concluded that double hat prole (DHP) with dened material model can be used for bumper beam of a small
car. In addition, selected concept can be strengthened by adding reinforced ribs or increasing the thickness of the bumper beam to comply with the dened PDS.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Concept optimizations of the car bumper beam can improve
structural energy absorption to meet the PDS requirements. Bumper system is composed of three main elements fascia, energy absorber and bumper beam [1] (see Fig. 1). Bumper beam is the major
damping structure component in passenger cars. Besides, two energy absorbers damp both the low and high impact energy by elastic deection between two traverse-xing points and crushing
process respectively [2,3]. Due to safety requirements, in developing the bumper beam, the careful design, optimized structure, high
quality and consistent manufacturing must be considered [4]. In
addition, bumper beam selection can improve structural energy
absorption, material consumption and cost [5]. The previous studies did not completely full the impact strength requirement of the
bumper PDS even in case where polybutylene terephthalate (PBT)
was supplemented to the hybrid bio-composite material [6,7].
Therefore, in this recent study the optimized concept selection is
employed to improve the impact stability of structure [8].

Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 16 65 65 296; fax: +60 3 8656 7122.

E-mail addresses: makinejadm2@asme.org, davoodi@eng.upm.edu.my (M.M.
Davoodi).
0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.06.011

Conceptual design is the rst stage of product development to

satisfy customer requirements. Sapuan et al. [1] studied on conceptual design of the automotive bumper system and used the
weighted objective method to nd the best concept. Hosseinzadeh
et al. [9] conducted a research to substitute the high strength SMC
with common bumper beam material GMT to improve energy
absorption. Furthermore, Davoodi et al. [10] studied about composite elliptical energy absorber for pedestrian impact test with
systematic exploitation of proven ideas. Marzbanrad et al. [11]
studied about the material, thickness, shape and impact condition
of the bumper beam to improve the crashworthiness and lowvelocity impact. He offered to substitute SMC with GMT material
to absorb more structural impact. Also, European car manufacturers have done many investigations to expand the application possibilities of natural bres in automotive industry such as front door
linens, rear door linens, boot linens, parcel shelves, seat backs, sunroof sliders, headliners, door-trim panel and trunk liner [1214]. In
fact, the majority of their products are used in aesthetic and semi
structural components. Mussig [15] utilized hemp and PTP bres
in a body of bus as reinforcements, a vegetable-based thermoset
resin as matrix, and sheet molding compound (SMC) as fabricating
method for structural components. Although, the earlier researchers studied on energy absorption of wood for automotive structural

4858

M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

components [16], few studies have been conducted on application

of natural bre in structural automotive components.
This research focused on analyzing, evaluating and selecting the
optimum concept among eight different bumper beam concepts,
and particularly concentrated on safety purposes of a bumper
beam PDS. Based on the National Highway Trafc Safety Administration (NHTSA), car bumper low impact test was simulated by nite element software, Abaqus Ver16R9, to address the highest
energy absorption and maximum possible deection. The same
material properties and constant overall dimensions were considered for whole concepts. Finally, decision matrix came up with
eight alternatives against six criteria. Topsis method was appointed for selecting the best concept of the bumper beam through
eight systematic evaluation processes. It was concluded that Double Hat Prole (DHP) as a best concept. Moreover, this study demonstrated the feasibility of the nite element analysis in selecting
the best structural concepts to overcome the weak inherent properties of natural bre, and to get better mechanical performance
for automotive structural application.

Fig. 1. Bumper system components.

2. Basic design procedure

2.1. Conceptual design of bumper beam
The preliminary stage of product development start with conceptual design, which is derived from customer requirement voice
of the customer [17,18] to nd a solution to satisfy the functional
design problems [19]. Imprecise engineering calculation, design
and material selection, might increase up to 70% the total product
cost for redesigning [20]. Designer has to select the most suitable
idea from different possible solutions or combination of material
selection and component design to meet the desired PDS in each
design stage to decrease the rework expense [2125].Therefore,
many tools are developed to evaluate design concept selection
(DCS) and compromise different effective factors, i.e. customer
requirements, designer intentions and market desire.
Decision matrix-based methods, offer the qualitative comparison such as Pughs method [23] or quality function deployment
(QFD) [26]. Fuzzy ANP-based, evaluate a set of conceptual design
alternatives to satisfy both customer satisfaction and engineering
specications [27]. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a mathematically based technique for analyzing complex situations, which
were sophisticated in its simplicity [28]. Multi criteria decisionmaking (MCDM) is an effective method for single selection among
mixed criteria. Multi-attribute decision-making technique
(MADM) is a conicting preferences solution among criteria for
single decision makers. Topsis is well suited technique to dealing
with multi attribute or multi-criteria decision-making (MADM/
MCDM) problems in real world ideal solutions [29]. Its method is
based on chosen alternative has shortest distance from positive
ideal solution and farthest distance from negative ideal solution.
It helps to organize problems, compare, and rank alternatives to
carry out the analysis for better options [30]. This method has been
appointed to select the best concept in this research.

Fig. 2. Selected parameters for bumper beam PDS.

M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

2.2. Product design specication (PDS)

To perform the customer requirements and expectation to a detailed technical document called PDS [31]. It is quite difcult to nish the exact PDS in the early stage of product development, while
the knowledge of design requirements is imprecise and incomplete
[32]. PDS originates by disorganized brainstorming team with various prociency, i.e. manufacturing, designing, selling, assembling,
maintaining, and might be improved due to new product changes
and manufacturing limitations. Safety was the main goal among
different bumper PDS specication in this study.
Bumper beam PDS consisted of safety, performance, weight,
size, cost, environment issue, appearance (see Fig. 2). Whole PDS
parameters can be classied into three main subdivisions such as
material, manufacturing and design. Since energy absorption of
different concept is the core competency of this study, it is emphasized in the PDS safety parameters. Some of the mechanical and
physical properties values are received from experimental results
and others from existing PDS data.

4859

Safety: There are different bumper safety regulations for passengers car, issued by safety organization, insurance companies
or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) [33]. Insurance companies usually offer more severe conditions in order to decrease their
own costs. This study follows safety criteria of the European car
manufacturer.
(1) Low impact test: Longitudinal pendulum impact test by
4.0 km/h (2.5 mph), and corner pendulum impact test by
2.4 km/h (1.5 mph) with any bumper visual, functional,
and safety damages.
(2) High speed test: No bumper damage or yielding after 8 km/h
(5 mph) frontal impact into a at, rigid barrier.
(3) Pedestrian impact test: In this test, a leg-form impactor is
propelled toward a stationary vehicle at a velocity of 40 km/
h (25 mph) parallel to the vehicles longitudinal axis. The test
can be performed at any location across the face of the vehicle, between the 30 bumper corners. So the impact criteria
for 2010 should be a < 150 g and the shear d < 6 mm and
bending a < 15

Fig. 3. Bumper beam conceptual selection owchart.

4860

M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

[10]. In this study, bumper beam was placed after fascia and was
mounted to the main chassis through energy absorbers. Besides,
are different effective parameters to improve the energy absorbing
performance in a bumper beam as follows.

Fig. 4. Overall dimensions of different concepts.

Since material development and its manufacturing method are

discussed in the previous study, this research emphasizes on design
parameters in PDS. Size: Dimension of the bumper beam depends
on energy absorption value, which related to car size and weight.
Maintenance: Design for assembly (DFA) and design for manufacturing (DFM) should consider during product design. Performance:
The dened goal of the product should be attainable [23]. Installation: Design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA) help to minimize the bumper components in product or assembly to make easy
assembling with optimize xing point [34]. Material should be select according to the required properties or desired problem solution [35]. Materials of the bumper should be light, cost
competitive, accessible, producible, recyclable, and biodegradable.
2.3. Effective parameters in bumper beam energy absorption
Bumper beam acts as a plain simply supported beam. It usually
xes to the frontal chassis sides to absorb collision energy. There
are ve bumper system assembling methods for energy absorption

(1) Frontal curvature: Frontal curvature increases the room

between xing points and top extremity beam curvature. It
strengthens the beam stability, and extends the required
collision displacement. Besides, the aesthetic purposes, the
curve facilitates better load impact distribution through
the frontal beam and xing points during energy damping
process. When the impact load applied to the bumper, the
beam initial curvature intends to remove. So, some designer
mounted a bar to link between beams xing points in order
to strengthen the outward motion and energy absorption
tendency [36,37]. Bumper beam is an offset of front bumper
fascia to provide a consistent level of protection across the
vehicle [38].
(2) Stress concentration: Stress concentration decreases fatigue
life, durability, and energy absorption of the bumper beam
in instance loading. Numerical shape optimizations method
could be employed to decrease stress concentration [39],
which is not emphasized in this study. Manufacturing limitation cause to cut out some of the beam surface in order
to install the sensors, fog lamps, or make a hole to mount
the beam into the front-end, which makes some tiny crack
into the cutting area, increase the stress concentration and
decrease the performance. Sharp corners and less contact
area in xing points increase the stress concentration, which
should be modied in design stage [40].
(3) Fixing method: Bumper beam has the main role in caring the
weight of the bumper system. Proper xing method could
keep the bumper system more stable and reliable during
the energy absorption. Designer usually considers a C-channel prole in frontal chassis to hold the bumper beam or
absorbers in order to increase the xing contact area and
decrease the stress. Additional xing point keeps the bumper system more consistent, but extends the assembly time.
The lateral xing points considered slide shape to let the fascia move safely in the desired gap to prevent the bumper
side breaking.
(4) Strengthen rib: Strengthen rib increase distortion resistance,
rigidity and structural stiffness by less material in slender
walls [41] and provide the required impact severity [42].
Pattern, thickness, tip and end llet of the ribs should be
designed according to load direction, impact position, material and manufacturing process. Since the material thickness,
increase at the ribs contact area, it causes sink marks; however, this is not important for the bumper beam as nonaesthetic part. Strengthen ribs increase the impact energy

Table 1
Finite element preliminary output data.
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Properties

Material cost
Easy
manufacturing
Product weight
Strain energy
Add rib
possibility
Min deection

Weight

RCP

COP

CCP

DHP

DCC

DCP

SHP

SCP

Reverse C
prole

Closed oblique
prole

Curved C
prole

Double hat
prole

Double C
closed

Double C
prole

Simple hat
prole

Simple C
prole

0.15
0.1

24.40
2

29.00
1

18.60
4

25.50
3

29.40
2

25.60
4

21.90
3

22.50
5

0.2
0.3
0.1

2.44
2482.82
2

2.9
43419.92
1

1.86
38825.14
5

2.55
76106.53
5

2.94
63671.64
4

2.56
44910.27
5

2.19
47231.52
4

2.25
2137.62
5

0.15

16.92

29.86

21.34

18.34

25.72

21.15

22.92

16.73

M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

by 7% and decrease elongation by 19% [9,11,43]. The optimized reinforced ribs presented higher energy absorption
performance compared with the empty and foam-lled
beams [44].
Material properties: Material behavior, rigidity and ductility,
has a great inuence in energy absorption. High rigidity
increases the car protecting capability, but decreases damping capacity and causes impact load transmission to the
compartment. In low impact test, bending strength not let
the beam to go through the plastic region, so the material
should withstand the impact load and keep their dimensional stability to stay intact.
Cross-section: Optimizing cross-section of a bumper beam
magnies the strength, dimensional stability and damping
capability [36]. It has signicant effects in the energy damping rate and bending resistance compare with other parameters [45,46]. In this research, eight different cross-sections
were investigated to select the optimum concepts in energy
absorption and deection during the low impact test, along
with material weight, easy manufacturing, supplement rib
possibility and material cost.
Manufacturing method: Manufacturing method should be
nalized in design stage. The applied pressure performs better adhesion between bre and matrix and makes the product more stable, stiffer, but heavier. Parting line, draft angle,
bre direction, product warpage, cooling time, material
shrinkage, and post shrinkage are some effective parameters
in selecting manufacturing method. Besides, production rate
and material characteristic has a signicant effect in manufacturing method selection.
Thickness: Increasing the bumper beam thickness improves
the strength and energy absorption, but it greatly increases
the weight. However, additional thickness increases the
structural stability; it has some manufacturing limitation,
especially in thermoplastic products. The ratio of strength
and weight improve by assigning the optimized thickness
and providing more effective energy absorption [47].

developed 3D model were imported to Abaqus Ver16R9 for nite

element analysis (see Fig. 4).
3.2. Low-speed impact simulation, boundary condition and meshing
There are three low-speed impact regulations to check the
bumper performance. ECE Regulation No 42 [48], National Highway Trafc Safety Administration (NHTSA) - Code 49 Part 58
[49], and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Regulation (CMVSR)
[50]. Canadian safety regulation has the same limitation and safety
damage as NHTSA (pendulum test 4 km/h of bumper face and
2.5 km/h bumper corner), but the speed is double. In this simulation method, pendulum with the same car weight tilted in specied angle to make the linear speed 4 km/h at the contact
position. After the test, the lights must work, bonnet, boot, doors
operate in the normal manner, and all the essential features for
safe operation of the vehicle must still be serviceable.
The block impactor is modeled according to the standard. The
density of the pendulum is modied to satisfy cars weight impact
force, which is between 700 and 950 kg for small city car. The block
is pivoted about its top left corner and rotates with 1.6859 rad/s to
make 4 km/h linear speed at contact position. Whole bumper beam
concepts are located at the dened height according to the standard. Both traverse xing points were joined by spring- damper
mechanism to their positions in order to tolerate the damping load
until car weight. If the load exceeds upon the car weight the bumper together with car moves along the impact direction. Table 1
shows the cross-section area, volume, number of nodes and elements in each cross-section.
3.3. Topsis conceptual selection method
Six criterias are nominated for eight alternative concepts and
specialist appointed the weighted values are appointed for every
criterion. Topsis is an effective method for multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). Hwang and Yoon introduced the Topsis

In this study, energy absorption improvement is originated by

cross-section, material and manufacturing optimizations, which
have less effect in weight enhancement, then other parameters
such as strengthened ribs, and thickness, will be employed.
3. Materials and methods
In the previous studies, the hybrid composite material was
developed and thermoplastic toughening was employed to improve the impact property, but it still less than common bumper
beam material GMT. Therefore, geometrical improvement was
used to comply with the dened PDS. This study focused on concept selection among eight-bumper beam prole based on six different weighted criteria. The process of concept selection
illustrated as follows (see Fig. 3). First, whole concepts modeled
and imported to the nite element analysis software, then the
low impact test was accomplished, and along with the result of
other criteria, the selection matrix was performed, and Topsis
method was employed to select the best concept.

Fig. 5. Strain energy in different cross sections in Abaqus.

3.1. Geometrical 3D model development

The idea of the geometrical 3D model came up with benchmarking different brand of passengers car, patents, industrial design practice and car manufacturer products. Whole 3D concepts
were designed in Catia V5R17 software symmetrically as similar
as the real bumper beam with the same overall dimensions, i.e.
height, breadth, thickness, radius and material model. Next, entire

4861

Fig. 6. The displacement graph of whole concepts.

4862

M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

method based on the idea that the best alternative should have the
shortest distance from an ideal solution [51]. The algorithm considers ideal and non-ideal solution and help decision maker to
evaluate ranking and select the best one. Topsis has been well utilized in project selection [52], material selection [53] and other
areas. The procedure of Topsis expressed in following steps:

A1
D A2
..
.
Am

C1
x11
x21
..
.
xm1

C2
x12
x22
..
.
xm2




..
.


(4) Determine the separation measures, using the n-dimensional Euclidean distance. The separation of each alternative
from the ideal solution is given as:

di

(
n 
X

v ij  v j

)1=2

i 1; 2; . . . ; m

j1

Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal solution is

given as:

Cn
x1n
x2n
..
.
xmn

1
di

(
)1=2
n
X
v ij  v j 2
;

i 1; 2; . . . ; m

j1

(5) Determine the relative closeness to the ideal solution. The

relative closeness of the alternative Ai with respect to A+ is
dened as:

W w1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wn ;
where A1, A2, . . ., Am are potential alternatives that decision makers
need to select and C1, C2, . . ., Cn are criterion, which evaluate the
alternative performance are calculated, xij is the rating of alternative
Ai with respect to criterion Cj when wj is the weight of criterion Cj
[54]
(1) Determine the normalized decision matrix.

cli

di
; 0 6 cli 6 1;
di di

i 1; 2; . . . ; m

(6) Rank the preference order. For ranking alternatives using

this index and rank alternatives in decreasing order.
4. Results

xij
nij q
Pm 2 ;
j1 xij

i 1; . . . ; m;

j 1; . . . ;

(2) Calculate the weighted normalized decision matrix.

V ND :W nn



 V 1i ; . . . V 1j ; . . . V 1n 



..
..
.. 

.
.
. 

V ;... V ;... V 
m1
mn
mj

where wj is the weight of the ith attribute or criterion, and

Pn
j1 wj 1:
(3) Calculate the positive ideal and negative ideal solution:





A
max v ij ji 2 I min v ij ji 2 J ji 1; 2; . . . ; n
j
j





min v ij ji 2 I max v ij ji 2 J ji 1; 2; . . . ; m
A
j

where I is associated with a benet criterion, and J is associated with the cost criterion.

The safety parameters along with other PDS criteria are considered as parameters in selecting the bumper beam concepts. The
absorbed energy and deection are derived from simulated low
impact test, and other criteria were assessed by scoring by the expert to the converted qualied value to the quantify value and
other calculation. The output information made a decision matrix
for selecting the best result by Topsis method to comply with the
PDS requirement.
4.1. Impact energy
Low-speed impact test is tested for whole bumper concepts in
order to nd the strain energy (see Fig. 5). The graph shows that
the concept named double hat prole (DHP) has presented the
highest strain energy.
The longitudinal displacements (X direction) are demonstrated
in Fig. 6. It shows the concepts single C prole (SCP) and closed oblique prole (COP) have displayed minimum and maximum deection in low impact test respectively.

Table 2
Evaluation matrix for selecting the best prole concept.
No.

Concepts

Name

Material cost
0.15

Easy manufacturing
0.1

Product weight
0.2

RCP

24.40

2.44

COP

29.00

2.9

CCP

18.60

DHP

25.50

DCC

Strain energy
0.3

Rib possibility
0.1

Minimum deection
0.15

16.92

43419.9

29.86

1.86

38825.1

21.34

2.55

76106.5

18.34

29.40

2.94

63671.6

25.72

DCP

25.60

2.56

44910.3

21.15

SHP

21.90

2.19

47231.5

22.92

SCP

22.50

2.25

16.73

2482.82

2137.62

4863

M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

Table 3
Decision matrix for selecting the concepts of bumber beam.
Subjective weight

0.15

0.1

0.2

0.30.1

0.15

0.15

No.

Name

Material cost MC

Easy manufacturing EM

Product weight PW

Strain energy SE

Rib possibility RP

Maximum deection MD

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

RCP
COP
CCP
DHP
DCC
DCP
SHP
SCP

24.4
29.0
18.6
25.5
29.4
25.6
21.9
22.5

2
1
4
3
2
4
3
5

2.44
2.90
1.86
2.55
2.94
2.56
2.19
2.25

2462.82
43419.93
38825.14
76106.53
63671.64
44910.27
47231.52
21371.62

2
1
5
5
4
5
4
5

16.92
29.86
21.34
18.34
25.72
21.15
22.92
16.73

Table 4
Normalized matrix.
Material Cost MC

Manufacturing EM

Product weight SE

Strain energy

Rib possibility RP

Maximum deection MD

0.412682
0.264686
0.362876
0.418374
0.364299
0.311646
0.320185

0.109109
0.436436
0.327327
0.218218
0.436436
0.327327
0.545545

0.41268
0.26469
0.36288
0.41837
0.36435
0.31165
0.32018

0.328248
0.293512
0.575353
0.481347
0.339515
0.357063
0.016162

0.085436
0.427179
0.427179
0.341743
0.427179
0.341743
0.427179

0.47914
0.34243
0.29429
0.41271
0.33938
0.36778
0.26846

Table 5
Weighted normalized decision matrix.
Material cost
MC

Easy manufacturing
EM

Product weight
PW

Strain energy
SE

Rib possibility
RP

Maximum deection
MD

0.05208
0.06190
0.03970
0.05443
0.06275
0.05464
0.04675
0.04803

0.02182
0.01091
0.04364
0.03273
0.02182
0.04364
0.03273
0.05455

0.06944
0.08254
0.05294
0.07258
0.08367
0.07286
0.06233
0.06404

0.00563
0.09847
0.08805
0.17261
0.14440
0.10185
0.10712
0.00485

0.01709
0.00854
0.04272
0.04272
0.03417
0.04272
0.03417
0.04272

0.04073
0.07187
0.05136
0.04414
0.06191
0.05091
0.05517
0.04027

Table 6
The positive and negative ideal solution matrix.
Material cost

Easy manufacturing

Product weight

Strain energy

Rib possibility

Maximum deection

MC
0.039703
0.062756

EM
0.054554
0.010911

PW
0.05294
0.08367

SE
0.172606
0.004848

RP
0.042718
0.008544

MD
0.04027
0.07184

Table 7
Separation of each alternative from the ideal solution.
RCP

COP

CCP

DHP

DCC

DCP

SHP

SCP

0.173306
0.038462

0.104575
0.093637

0.085973
0.105163

0.033072
0.175352

0.062324
0.142658

0.076539
0.110778

0.072094
0.112176

0.168331
0.068367

Table 8
The relative closeness to the ideal solution.
RCP

COP

CCP

DHP

DCC

DCP

SHP

SCP

0.181614

0.472414

0.550201

0.841321

0.695954

0.591394

0.608758

0.288836

4864

M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

Table 2 shows eight different concepts along with six weighted

criteria. There are two qualitative criteria, easy manufacturing and
rib possibility, which have changed to the quantitative in range one
to ve. One in the lowest and ve in the highest possibility assigned to different concepts. Strain energy and minimum deection have been derived from FEA results. Material estimated cost
calculated based on the ingredient and material consumptions
cost. Material weight was calculated according to the density of
the material, which has been found in advance.
4.2. Selecting the best concept by Topsis method
There are three elimination phases to narrow down the possible
design concepts to the nal concept, named initial screening phase,
decision matrix phase and evaluation phase. Decision matrix based
on initial screening was made by eight concepts and six criterion.
Material cost, product weight and maximum deection have
negative value, which should consider as a negative value and
the following present the evaluation phase (see Table 3), where
A1, A2, . . ., Am (Rows) are possible alternatives among which decision makers have to choose and C1, C2, . . ., Cn (column) are criteria
with which alternative performance are measured, xij is the rating
of alternative Ai with respect to criterion Cj while wj is the weight
of criterion Cj. The matrix normalized between 01 to make it
dimensionless by formula (see Tables 48).
5. Discussion
According to the automotive safety standards, all passengers
cars have to overcome the frontal and rear low-speed impact test
without any serious damage [9,11,55]. The severity of the barrier
impact load should not deform the bumper far more beyond the
plastic region to fail the related parts function. Hosseinzadeh
et al. [9] compared impact property of the GMT and SMC bumper
beam by changing different parameters, i.e. material, shape,
strengthening ribs, and thickness. He found that the SMC can be replaced by GMT material, while the strengthen rib removed and
thickness decreased to 2.5 mm in order to increase 5% deection
to cover enough room after the impact as well as easy production

and cost reduction. Marzbanrad, et al. [11] presented 32 mm

deection for four mm thick un-ribbed GMT for big size car. In this
study, the deection of different concepts was between 17 to
30 mm. The product was un-ribbed with four mm thickness and
test was conducted for small car size condition (700 kg). Since different concepts have various contact areas with barrier, the energy
damping, and stress distribution is distinctly different. Single C
Prole and Reversed C Prole present the lowest strain energy
and stress because of high contact area, compare with other concepts (see Fig. 7).
Conceptual design selection is a systematic approach to evaluate
a set of concepts to satisfy the customer needs and engineering
specications. Edwards, [56] addressed design selection by interpretation and use of material test data. He told the designer has to
manipulate the experimental test data, while compared with standard for an optimal design solution with minimal risk. Hoyle,
et al. [57] utilized quality function deployment (QFD) and product
attribute function deployment (PAFD) process for selecting the
conceptual design of the car manifold. PAFD is a decision study to
remove the need for the user scores and rankings of performance,
priority, and attribute coupling in the QFD. Hambali, et al. [5] used
the improved analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method to select
the most appropriate bumper beam concept by expert choice software and consistency test. He found that the energy absorption as
rst criteria and weight, strength and material as second criteria
for selecting the bumper beam concept. Topsis has been well used
in different particular selection areas and in conceptual design
selection as well. It selected the Double Hat Prole with 0.841321
score as a best concept among eight different concepts. The selected
concept was conrmed by looking into the real bumper beam prole of some car manufacturer such as Peugeot.
6. Conclusions
Impact property of developed toughened hybrid bio-composite
material did not completely fulll the common bumper beam
material GMT. Therefore, in this study the geometric concept selection is investigated to enhance structural energy absorption and
deection besides other criteria in the car bumper beam development. Eight bumper beam concepts with the same material model
under low impact test standard conditions are simulated. It is concluded that proper concept selection has an important role in
structural strength, while material is considered as a constant factor. Moreover, it is resulted that bio-based composite material has
a potential to be used in automotive structural components by
structural optimization. The nominated concept (DHP) veried as
compared with some available car bumper beams prole. It presented that the epoxy toughened hybrid kenaf/glass bre composite can be employed in the small-sized car bumper beam.
Although, adding strengthened ribs can enhance its performance,
it may decrease the required room after impact. Moreover, author
believes that the real low impact test should be done to verify the
stability of developed hybrid bio-composite material under the
proposed concept.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Universiti Putra Malaysia for the
nancial support to carry out this research through Research
University Fellowship Scheme to the principal author.
References

Fig. 7. Displacement prole of double hat prole after impact.

[1] Sapuan S, Maleque M, Hameedullah M, Suddin M, Ismail N. A note on the

conceptual design of polymeric composite automotive bumper system. J Mater
Process Technol 2005;159(2):14551.

M.M. Davoodi et al. / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 48574865

[2] Stephen Robert Reid GZ. Impact behaviour of bre-reinforced composite
materials and structures. England: Woodhead Publishing; 2000.
[3] Cheon SS, Choi JH, Lee DG. Development of the composite bumper beam for
passenger cars. Compos Struct 1995;32(14):4919.
[4] Nishino T, Hirao K, Kotera M, Nakamae K, Inagaki H. Kenaf reinforced
biodegradable composite. Compos Sci Technol 2003;639:12816.
[5] Hambali A, Sapuan S, Ismail N, Nukman Y. Application of analytical hierarchy
process in the design concept selection of automotive composite bumper beam
during the conceptual design stage. Sci Res Essays 2009;44:198211.
[6] Davoodi MM, Sapuan SM, Aidy A, Ahmad D, Khalina A, Jonoobi M. Impact
property improvement of hybrid Kenaf/Glass epoxy composite by
polybutylene terephthalate (PBT). Kuala Lumber: University Putra Malaysia;
2011.
[7] Davoodi MM, Sapuan SM, Ahmad D, Ali A, Khalina A, Jonoobi M. Mechanical
properties of hybrid kenaf/glass reinforced epoxy composite for passenger car
bumper beam. Mater Des 2010;3110:492732.
[8] Li G, Zhou RG, Duan L, Chen WF. Multi objective and multilevel optimization
for steel frames. Eng Struct 1999;216:51929.
[9] Hosseinzadeh R, Shokrieh M, Lessard L. Parametric study of automotive
composite bumper beams subjected to low-velocity impacts. Compos Struct
2005;684:41927.
[10] Davoodi MM, Sapuan SM, Yunus R. Development of ber reinforced epoxy
composite energy absorber for automotive bumper system. J Polym Mater
2008;251:1521.
[11] Marzbanrad J, Alijanpour M, Kiasat M. Design and analysis of an automotive
bumper beam in low-speed frontal crashes. Thin-Walled Structures 2009;478
9:90211.
[12] Ellison G, McNaught R, Eddleston E. The use of natural bres in nonwoven
structures for applications as automotive component substrates. Ministry of
agriculture, sheries and food research and development report NF 2000:309.
[13] Bledzki AK, Faruk O, Sperber VE. Cars from bio-bres. Macromol Mater Eng
2006;291(5):44957.
[14] Bismarck A, Baltazar-Y-Jimenez A, Sarikakis K. Green composites as panacea?
socio-economic aspects of green materials. Environ Dev Sustain
2006;83:44563.
[15] Mussig J. Cotton bre-reinforced thermosets versus ramie composites. J Polym
Environ 2008:84.
[16] Harrigan J, Reid S, Tan P, Yella Reddy T. High rate crushing of wood along the
grain. Int J Mech Sci 2005;4745:52144.
[17] Xiao A, Park S, Freiheit T. A comparison of concept selection in concept scoring
and axiomatic design methods; 2007.
[18] Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J. Engineering design: a systematic
approach. Springer; 2007.
[19] Kroll E, Condoor S, Jansson D. Innovative conceptual design: theory and
application of parameter analysis. Cambridge Univ Pr; 2001.
[20] Huthwaite B. Manufacturing competitiveness and quality by design. In 4th
international conference product design for manufacture and assembly,
Stockholm, Sweden; 1989.
[21] Fung R, Chen Y, Tang J. A quality-engineering-based approach for conceptual
product design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2007;3211:106473.
[22] Hsu W. Woon IMY current research in the conceptual design of mechanical
products. Comput Aided Design 1998;30:37789.
[23] Pugh S. Total design: integrated methods for successful product
engineering. UK: Addison-Wesley Wokingham; 1995.
[24] Qiu S, Fok S, Chen C, Xu S. Conceptual design using evolution strategy. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2002;209:68391.
[25] Edwards K, Deng YM. Supporting design decision-making when applying
materials in combination. Mater Des 2007;284:128897.
[26] Keinonen T, Takala R. Product concept design: a review of the conceptual
design of products in industry. Springer; 2006.
[27] Hsiao S. Fuzzy logic based decision model for product design. Int J Ind Ergon
1998;212:10316.
[28] Saaty T. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource
allocation. New York: McGrawHill; 1980.

4865

[29] Hwang Cm, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and
applications: a state-of-the-art survey, vol. 13. New York: Springer-Verlag;
1981.
[30] Shih H, Shyur H, Lee E. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math
Comput Modell 2007;4578:80113.
[31] Dieter GE. Engineering design: a materials and processing approach 2000:118.
[32] Wang L, Shen W, Xie H, Neelamkavil J, Pardasani A. Collaborative conceptual
design-state of the art and future trends. Comput Aided Design
2002;3413:98196.
[33] Cars P. US Department of Transportation National Highway Trafc Safety
Administration; 1989.
[34] Edwards K. Towards more strategic product design for manufacture and
assembly: priorities for concurrent engineering. Mater Des 2002;237:6516.
[35] Deng YM, Edwards K. The role of materials identication and selection in
engineering design. Mater Des 2007;281:1319.
[36] Stewart R, Osterman A, Jalbert D. Vehicle and bumper beam combination.
Google Patents; 1992.
[37] Stewart R, Osterman A, Jalbert D, Nulty J. Vehicle bumper beam. Google
Patents; 1994.
[38] Sharpe N, Vendrig R, Houtzager K. Improved design for frontal protection;
2001.
[39] Pedersen P. Suggested benchmarks for shape optimization for minimum stress
concentration. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2008;354:27383.
[40] Pilkey W, Pilkey D, Peterson R. Petersons stress concentration factors. Wiley;
2008.
[41] Al-Ashaab A et al. Internet-based collaborative design for an injectionmoulding system. Concurr Eng 2003;114:289.
[42] Haque E, Bassett W, Lewis T. I-Section automotive bumper formed from minerallled glass mat thermoplastic (GMT) composite. Google Patents; 2001.
[43] Brydson JA. Plastics materials. Butterworth; 1999.
[44] Zhang Z, Liu S, Tang Z. Design optimization of cross-sectional conguration of
rib-reinforced thin-walled beam. Thin Wall Struct 2009;4789:86878.
[45] Jacob G, Fellers J, Simunovic S, Starbuck J. Energy absorption in polymer
composites for automotive crashworthiness. J Compos Mater 2002;367:813.
[46] Cheon S, LEE D, JEONG K. Composite side-door impact beams for passenger
cars. Compos Struct 1997;3814:22939.
[47] Baccouche R, Mahmood H, Madasamy C, Wagner D. Lightweight bumper for
automobiles. Google Patents; 2007.
[48] ECE. Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to
front and rear protective devices (Bumper, etc.); 1980. <http://live.unece.org/
leadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r042e.pdf> [cited 10.12.10].
[49] NHTSA. National Highway Trafc Safety Administration Laboratory Test
Procedure for Regulation Part 581 Bumper Standard Safety Assurance; 1990
<http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/
Associated%20Files/TP-581-01.pdf> [cited 20.11.10].
[50] CRC. Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations; 2009. <http://
www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/2008-06-25/html/sor-dors199-eng.html>
[cited 25.11.10].
[51] Hwang CL, Yoon KP. Multiple attribute decision making methods and
applications. New York: Springer; 1981.
[52] Mahmoodzadeh S, Shahrabi J, Pariazar M, Zaeri M. Project selection by using
fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique. Int J Hum Soc Sci 2007;13:13540.
[53] Shanian A, Savadogo O. TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for
material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J
Power Sources 2006;1592:1095104.
[54] Chen C. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2000;1141:19.
[55] Shin M, Yi S, Kwon O, Park G. Structural optimization of the automobile frontal
structure for pedestrian protection and the low-speed impact test. Proc Inst
Mech Eng, Part D: J Automob Eng 2008;22212:237387.
[56] Edwards K. Selecting materials for optimum use in engineering components.
Mater Des 2005;265:46973.
[57] Hoyle C, Chen W. Product attribute function deployment (PAFD) for decisionbased conceptual design. Eng Manag IEEE Trans 2009;562:27184.