SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2004-01-0841

CAE-Based Side Curtain Airbag Design

Honglu Zhang, Deren Ma and Srini V. Raman
Delphi Corporation

Reprinted From: Air Bags and Belt Restraints

(SP-1876)

2004 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 8-11, 2004

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-4891
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISBN 0-7680-1319-4
Copyright © 2004 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

CAE-Based Side Curtain Airbag Design
Copyright © 2004 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Since its invention in early 1990s, the side curtain airbag
has become an important part of the occupant restraint
system for side impact and rollover protection. Computer
Aided Engineering (CAE) is often used to help side
curtain airbag design. Because of the unique
characteristics of side curtain airbag systems, the
simulation of side curtain airbag systems faces different
challenges in comparison to the simulation of driver and
passenger airbag systems.
The typical side curtain airbag CAE analysis includes, but
is not limited to, cushion volume evaluation, cushion
coverage review, cushion shrinkage and tension force
review, deployment timing review and seam shape and
location review. The commonly used uniform pressure
airbag models serve the purpose in most cases. But for
analysis such as cushion deployment timing evaluation,
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) integrated airbag
models have to be employed because the uniform
pressure airbag models are not able to simulate the
deployment time difference among various parts of the
airbag cushion. In this paper, most types of the above-
mentioned analysis are integrated into a typical side
curtain airbag design cycle. Both uniform pressure airbag
models and CFD integrated airbag models are used
complementarily to help the side curtain airbag design.
The CAE-based side curtain airbag design procedure
helps to reduce the material cost and time duration of the
airbag design process.
INTRODUCTION
Side impact represents one of the most important crash
modes in the field. In year 2001, 33.3% of fatalities and
28.6% of injuries of passenger car occupants were
caused by side impacts; 19.7% of fatalities and 25.7% of
injuries of light truck occupants were due to side impacts
[1]. Side curtain airbag systems have been applied as a
countermeasure in many vehicles. After deployment, the
airbag covers the side windows of the vehicle like a
curtain, as the name indicates, to avoid the direct contact
of the occupant’s head to the window glazing and outside
objects. It also helps retain the occupant from ejection in
a rollover accident.
2004-01-0841
Honglu Zhang, Deren Ma and Srini V. Raman
Delphi Corporation
Compared with driver and passenger airbag systems,
side curtain airbag systems have some unique
characteristics. First of all, unlike frontal crashes, side
crashes involve considerably less crush space between
the point of impact on the striking vehicle and the
occupant. This limited crush space increases the
requirements to the airbag deployment sensing systems
and inflator timing. Currently, side impact sensing
systems generally discriminate a crash condition within
6-13 milliseconds as compared to 15-25 milliseconds for
frontal impact sensing systems. Airbag inflation time for
side impact airbags is also less and ranges between 20
and 30 milliseconds for side airbags as compared to 45
milliseconds for frontal airbags [2]. Secondly, side curtain
airbags have to cover one or more side windows,
therefore they usually have a large coverage area.
Inflator gas has to travel a long way to fill all the airbag
chambers. The inflation process causes uneven
distribution of the inflator gas and different filling time for
the airbag chambers. To accelerate the inflation and
optimize the gas distribution, it is a common practice to
use a diffuser tube in the top portion of the airbag. The
diffuser tube design is critical to the performance of the
side curtain airbag systems.
Throughout the side curtain airbag design process,
numerous tests are needed, including the airbag static
deployment tests, free motion head form pole impact
tests with linear impactor and system-level sled or barrier
tests with real vehicle structure and dummy, etc.
Traditionally, hardware design engineers think out a
concept, build hardware prototypes and conduct the
tests, modify the design based on test results, then re-
test. The whole process is driven by tests. Hardware
tests are often expensive. Building prototypes can also
be time consuming. To help shorten the design cycle and
cut material costs, Computer Aided Engineering (CAE),
especially mathematics-based simulation is proved to be
a good alternative of the hardware tests [3,4,5]. In this
paper, a side curtain airbag design procedure based on
CAE rather than hardware tests is demonstrated.
The most commonly used airbag simulation model
assumes uniform pressure and temperature everywhere
inside the airbag. This is a close representative of the
airbag after it is fully inflated and the gas flow inside the
airbag stabilizes. For free motion head form impact simulation results. This concludes the component level
simulations, the head form usually impacts the side design and analysis.
curtain airbag after its full inflation. The uniform pressure
airbag models serve the simulation purpose adequately.
However, for the studies such as side curtain airbag
deployment timing and inflation kinematics, the uniform Cushion design draft
pressure model is not a sufficient tool. Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) integrated airbag model has to be
employed for this type of analysis. The drawbacks of the Build simulation model
CFD integrated airbag models are the numerical
instability and expensive computer CPU time. CFD
integrated airbag models often take at least 10 times
more CPU time than the uniform pressure airbag models • Cushion volume evaluation
do. In this study, both uniform pressure airbag models • Cushion coverage review
and CFD integrated airbag models were used • Shrinkage & tension force review
complimentarily to help the side curtain airbag design. • Deployment timing review (CFD analysis)
• Cushion seam shape & location review
CAE-BASED SIDE CURTAIN AIRBAG DESIGN (stress analysis and/or CFD analysis)
PROCEDURE
Y
Figure 1 shows a flow chart of CAE-based side curtain Is design good
airbag design procedure. The process starts from a
cushion design draft, then CAE is used extensively to N
analyze and improve cushion design. The analysis
includes, but is not limited to, cushion volume evaluation, Design change recommendations
cushion coverage review, cushion shrinkage and tension
force review, deployment timing review and seam shape
and location review. CFD integrated airbag models have
to be employed for cushion deployment timing analysis
because the uniform pressure airbag models are not Cushion static deployment
able to simulate the deployment time difference among test for design confirmation
various parts of the airbag cushion.

Worthy of mention, the airbag fabric stress distribution FMH impact test for model correlation
during the airbag deployment can be very different from
that after the airbag fully stabilizes. In many cases a
seam breaks before the airbag is fully inflated. Under FMH linear impact simulation
such conditions CFD integrated airbag models seem a
better analysis tool. However, due to the immaturity of
CFD integrated airbag models, the correlation of the Inflator selection recommendation and further
pressure distribution is often not satisfactory, therefore cushion design improvement by simulation
the quality of stress analysis from CFD integrated
models is not necessarily better than that from uniform
pressure models. Here an analyst’s engineering FMH impact test for design
judgment is crucial. confirmation

If a cushion design passes all these simulation

checkpoints, prototypes can be built and tested. The Sled test for system model correlation
tests are mainly used to confirm the simulation results.
The design evolves based on CAE simulations rather
than on numerous tests. System-level side impact simulation

After successful cushion static deployment, a Free

Motion Head form (FMH) linear impact is simulated. A System optimization by CAE
few hardware tests may be needed to correlate the
model unless strong confidence has been built from
similar models. A parameter study of the linear impact Figure 1 A Flow Chart of CAE-based Side Curtain Airbag
model with different inflators and different impact Design Procedure
locations is often conducted to help select inflators and
further improve cushion design. Upon the completion of
CAE analysis, some tests are necessary to confirm the
System-level simulation is frequently used to optimize
system performance. Due to the complexity of the
system-level model, usually some sled tests are required
to correlate the system-level model. Because a large
number of system-level hardware tests can be cost
prohibitive, the CAE-based system optimization shows its
advantages.
cushion shrinkage plays a dual role. It reduces the
coverage area of the side curtain on one side, helps to
tighten the straps and retain the occupant heads on the
other side. Proper shrinkage is important to side curtain
airbag design.

AN EXAMPLE OF CAE-BASED SIDE CURTAIN Inflator Small Large

AIRBAG DESIGN
Cushion volume 33L 41L
In this section, an example of CAE-based side curtain
Cushion thickness 90-100 mm 100-120 mm
airbag design process is demonstrated. Be advised that
the airbag shown here is a generic airbag for Maximum pressure 36Kpa 123Kpa
demonstration purpose only.
Tether front 1560N 2450N
The cushion design draft is presented in Figure 2. force back 1230N 2130N
horizontal 1.95% 3.26%
Shrinkage
vertical 16.2% 15.7%
d0 − d
shrinkage = × 100%
d0

d0: original bag dimension, i.e. original bag width for

horizontal shrinkage and original bag height for vertical
Figure 2 Initial Cushion Design shrinkage
d: corresponding bag dimension after inflation

Table 1 Preliminary Analysis Results

Before any physical airbag was sewn and tested,
preliminary CAE analysis was performed to provide
directional guidance for the airbag design. Inflators with
small and large numbers of moles of gas were tried to
explore the boundaries of the possible cushion
thickness, volume, airbag pressure, shrinkages and
tether forces. Table 1 shows a summary of the
preliminary simulation results. Also the possible
occupant head impact locations with respect to an
inflated airbag were simulated (Figure 3).
A stress analysis with the uniform pressure airbag model
was also performed to check the stress concentration of
the cushion design. As discussed in the previous section,
such a uniform airbag model can only simulate the stress
concentration after the airbag is fully deployed and the
gas flow inside the airbag stabilizes, such as in a shop
air test. Since the exact inflator mass flow rate and
temperature curves were not available at this stage of
the cushion design, only the stress concentration pattern,
not the absolute stress values, was the focus of the
analysis. Figure 4 shows the stress analysis result.

Figure 3 Possible Head Positions with Respect to

Inflated Airbag Cushion

From Figure 3, it seems the occupant head may impact Figure 4 Stress Concentration Pattern Analysis
at the seam area after the airbag’s inflation and
shrinkage. Therefore, some modifications to the cushion
seam locations and shapes were suggested. Here airbag
From Figure 4, the general stress distribution of this
airbag cushion seems good. No severe stress
concentration was observed. However, there was some
level of stress concentration at a few small areas.
Recommendations about how to avoid them were
provided to the design engineers.

To fully explore the potential of CAE-based side curtain

airbag design, a CFD model was also set up to simulate
the gas flow inside the cushion. At this stage, no diffuser
tube had been considered, so a tubeless airbag was
modeled. Figure 5 and 6 represent the pressure profiles
within the airbag cushion at different time of the cushion
deployment.
Figure 5 Pressure Profile at Early Stage of the Cushion
Deployment
Figure 7 Cushion Torn Areas
Another important result from the CFD simulation is the
deployment timing. The simulation showed that without a
diffuser tube to guide the inflator gas, the deployment
timing cannot satisfy the requirement of side impact
protection. Because of module weight restriction, it is not
preferable to use a long diffuser tube to distribute the
inflator gas in this case. The improvement of seam
pattern design, faster inflator mass flow rate and a short
diffuser tube with non-uniform diameters and other
structure details were recommended.
Based on the results of the extensive CAE analysis, a
new version of the cushion was designed and virtually
tested by simulation models. After a few iterations of
CAE analysis, the airbag cushion static deployment was
satisfactory. Figure 8 shows the coverage zone of the
new version bag, with all occupant sizes and seating
positions considered. The airbag seems to cover the
protection zone of most cases sufficiently.

Figure 6 Pressure Profile at Late Stage of the Cushion

Deployment

From Figures 5 and 6, it is obvious that there was

pressure concentration at different locations
corresponding to different stages of the cushion Figure 8 Coverage Zone of the New Version Airbag
deployment. Even though the stabilized stress Cushion
concentration was not severe, the airbag may burst out
during the deployment process due to transient stress
concentration as a result of uneven pressure distribution.
The physical test results confirmed the simulation Figure 9 depicts the stress concentration pattern of the
prediction. The airbag cushion seams (shown in Figure new version airbag. The stress concentration factor is
7) were broken at the area corresponding to one of the within a safe range.
high-pressure locations in Figure 5.
 1 3 4
2
5
Figure 9 Stress Concentration Analysis of the New
Version Airbag Cushion
Figure 11 Different Impact Locations for FMH Linear
Impact Simulations
The airbag deployment timing is also improved with the
new cushion design and a short diffuser tube. The
overall static deployment performance of the new version
airbag meets the design requirements. Then the Maximum Head Acceleration
hardware prototype was built and physical tests were
conducted to confirm the simulation results. Throughout
200
the process CAE is driving the design direction. Physical

Head Acceleration (g)

tests were used only to confirm the design at the end of
the CAE simulated iterations. 150

The next step is to simulate the FMH linear impact tests. 100
The main purpose of the FMH linear impacts tests is to
provide recommendations for inflator selection and
50
further cushion design improvement. It is required that
the airbag can provide enough protections for the 3
0 Infla to r
occupant’s head at all possible impact locations. Infla to r 2
Loc 1 Loc 2 1
Loc 3 Loc 4 Infla to r
The model setup of the FMH linear impact simulation is Loc 5
shown in Figure 10.

Figure 12 Maximum Head Accelerations at Different

Impact Locations with Various Inflators

Maximum Head Acceleration Contour

Inflator 3

Figure 10 FMH Linear Impact Model

Inflator 2

A parameter study with 3 different inflators, including

both hot gas inflators and cold gas inflators, and 5
Inflator 1
different impact locations corresponding to various Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4 Loc 5
occupant sizes and seating positions was performed.
The 5 impact locations were marked in Figure 11.
Figure 13 Maximum Head Acceleration Contour (2-D
The maximum head form accelerations of the various Projection)
cases are presented in Figure 12. Figure 13 is a two-
dimensional projection of the three-dimensional surface.

Besides the maximum head accelerations, the Head

Injury Criterion (HIC) [6] values were also evaluated.
(Figure 14 and 15)
 DISCUSSIONS
HIC

The CAE-based side curtain airbag design procedure

1500 discussed in this paper shows great potential to reduce
the material cost and time duration of the airbag design
process. Besides the cost savings, the CAE-based
1000 approach also provides the following benefits compared
with the traditional test based approach:
HIC

500 1. The test based approach is a trial and error

process per se. With CAE models, especially the
CFD simulations, deeper understanding and
3
0 Infla to r insights to the physics of the design problems,
2
Infla to r which are very hard to obtain through physical
Loc 1 Loc 2 1
Loc 3 Loc 4 Infla to r
tests, can be achieved. In other words, CAE
Loc 5
helps to understand “how the design works and
why it works”.
Figure 14 HIC Values at Different Impact Locations with
Various Inflators 2. The test based approach often ends up with a
working design. But it is not always the optimal
design. With a CAE-based approach, Design of
Experiments (DOE) and other numerical
optimization tools can be used to optimize a
HIC Contour design.
Inflator 3
3. The CAE experience learned from previous
designs can be easily transferred to new
products.
Inflator 2
However, the CAE-based approach also faces some
challenges. The reliability of the numerical simulation
results remains the biggest concern for actual product
Inflator 1 design. So far moderate to high confidence level can be
Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4 Loc 5 achieved for analysis such as cushion volume evaluation
and FMH linear impact simulation. But the confidence
level for the fluid dynamics related analysis such as
Figure 15 HIC Value Contour (2-D Projection) diffuser tube simulation is relatively low. More efforts are
required to improve both the CAE simulation tools and
the numerical models.

In this model, both maximum head accelerations and REFERENCES

HIC values show very similar patterns at different impact
locations with various inflators. From the figures, it is 1. Traffic Safety Facts 2001: A Complication of Motor
clear that impact locations 1 and 2 can provide the best Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis
protection for the head form, location 4 can also provide Reporting System and the General Estimates
sufficient protection in all the cases. Location 3 has System, National Highway Traffic Safety
relatively high head acceleration and HIC. Only inflator 1
Administration, National Center for Statistics and
and 3 work well in location 3. Location 5 is the worst
Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation,
impact location. High airbag pressure was required to
December 2002.
protect the head form at this impact location. With all
cases considered, inflators 1 and 3 were recommended 2. An Innovative Inflator Designed to Reduce Inflation
based on the simulation results. Suggestions about Time for Roof Rail Airbags, Gregory J. Scaven,
th
cushion design improvement on impact location 5 were David Shilliday, Greg Mowry, Airbag 2002, 6
also proposed. Then a few more iterations of CAE International Symposium and Exhibition on
analysis were performed before a final satisfactory Sophisticated Car Occupant Safety Systems,
airbag design was achieved and confirmed by the December 2002.
physical tests. 3. Advanced Methods for Inflatable Curtain
Development – the Virtual Approach, Gerald
Due to the complexity of the system-level side impact Krabbel, Kurt Fograscher, Autoliv GMbH, Airbag
th
models, the procedure of system-level side impact 2002, 6 International Symposium and Exhibition on
simulation and optimization is omitted from this paper. Sophisticated Car Occupant Safety Systems,
December 2002.
4. Development of a Curtain Air Bag System for
Reduction of Head Injury During Side Impacts,
Deren Ma, Jeff Welch, Delphi internal report, 2000.
5. State-of-the-Art Side Airbag Modeling and Its
Application in Occupant Safety in Lateral Collisions,
S. Vaidyaraman, H. Khandelwal, C. Lee, J. Xu, A.
Nayef, SAE paper 980915.
6. U.S. Department of Transportation, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 CFR Parts
571, 572, and 589, [Docket No. 92-28; Notice 7],
[RIN No. 2127-AB85], Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Head Impact Protection, p443, 1995.
(http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/12162.ml
v.html)