A Review on Design and Optimization of Automotive B-Pillar Trim Using Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis and Dent Testing

A Review on Design and Optimization of Automotive B-Pillar Trim Using Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis and Dent Testing

V. V. Mali

PG Scholar, Mechanical Engineering, V. V. P. Institute of Engineering & Technology, Solapur, Maharashtra, India

S. N. Sayyad

Ass. Professor, Mechanical Engineering, V. V. P. Institute of Engineering & Technology, Solapur, Maharashtra, India

Abstract. This review article presents a comprehensive analysis of the design, optimization, and validation of automotive Bpillar trims, emphasizing recent material innovations, advances in nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA), multiobjective optimization techniques, and dent resistance evaluation. Optimization frameworks such as Pareto front, surrogate modeling, and gradient-free methods have enabled the creation of lightweight yet crashworthy B-pillars by balancing strength-to-weight ratios and enhancing energy absorption, intrusion resistance, and occupant deceleration control. The integration of computational simulations with experimental dent testing, guided by standards like SAE J2575 and ASTM E23, has improved predictive reliability for various trim geometries and material systems. However, gaps remain regarding accurate modeling of material anisotropy, strain-rate sensitivity, thermomechanical effects, and sustainability considerations within optimization schemes. Emerging directions involve adopting AI and machine learning to accelerate design cycles, deploying digital twin frameworks for real-time safety monitoring, and exploring bio-inspired adaptive structures. Addressing these challenges will propel the development of next-generation automotive structures that are safer, lighter, and more sustainable.

Keywords: B-pillar design, nonlinear finite element analysis, multi-objective optimization, dent testing, automotive crashworthiness.

1. INTRODUCTIONAutomotive safety remains a paramount concern in modern vehicle design, with the Bpillar serving as a critical structural element that provides occupant protection during sideimpact collisions [2]. Located between the front and rear doors, the Bpillar acts as a primary loadbearing component responsible for maintaining cabin integrity and distributing impact forces away from passengers during crash events [24]. As global safety regulations become increasingly stringent under frameworks such as EuroNCAP and IIHS protocols, automotive manufacturers face the dual challenge of enhancing crashworthiness while simultaneously reducing vehicle weight to meet fuel efficiency and emission reduction targets [42].

   The design and optimization of Bpillar trim components have evolved significantly over the past decade, driven by advancements in computational modeling and material science. Nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA) has emerged as an indispensable tool for predicting structural behavior under complex loading conditions, enabling engineers to simulate crash scenarios with remarkable accuracy before physical prototyping

   [9]. Software packages such as LSDYNA, Abaqus, and PAMCRASH have become industry standards for explicit dynamic analysis, offering sophisticated material models and contact algorithms essential for crashworthiness assessment [6].

   Complementing computational approaches, dent resistance testing provides critical validation of simulation results and ensures that Bpillar designs meet performance specifications under realworld impact conditions [24]. Standardized testing protocols, including SAE J2575 and various OEMspecific procedures, establish benchmarks for evaluating surface panel deformation and structural integrity [43]. This review synthesizes current research on design optimization methodologies for Bpillar trim, examining the integration of nonlinear FEA techniques with experimental validation through dent testing, while highlighting emerging trends in lightweight materials, multiobjective optimization strategies, and surrogate modeling approaches that are reshaping automotive safety engineering practices.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
   1. Overview of BPillar Design in Automotive Engineering The Bpillar functioned as a critical loadbearing component connecting the roof to the vehicle’s body structure, positioned between the front and rear doors. Hou et. al. [3] emphasized that the Bpillar was the most important component in occupant protection, greatly determining overall crashworthiness performance duringlateral impact events. Gashu and Nallamothu et. al. [2] conducted a comprehensive finite element study demonstrating that structural modifications to the Bpillar region resulted in an additional 162 mm space protection for occupants during side collisions, with a concurrent reduction of 14.4% in impact force and an increase of 7.6% in energy absorption.

      The functional importance of the Bpillar extended beyond immediate crash response. According to Swami and Jadhav et. al. [20], the Bpillar’s effectiveness in protecting passengers was determined by its ability to withstand high levels of stress and deformation while maintaining overall structural integrity. The vertical load path through the Bpillar distributed lateral forces away from the passenger compartment, thereby reducing occupant injury potential. Research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) [43] demonstrated that a vehicle’s structural rating during side crash testing was the best predictor of fatality risk, confirming that Bpillar design substantially influenced survival outcomes in sideimpact scenarios.

      The Bpillar’s design evolved significantly in response to increasingly stringent global safety regulations and technological advancements. Historically, early automotive designs featured “pillarless” or “hardtop” body styles that prioritized aesthetic appearance over structural robustness. However, as regulatory frameworks such as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and European New Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) standards emerged, manufacturers transitioned toward reinforced pillar configurations.

      Wang et. al. [45] conducted seminal research comparing pole side impact and moving deformable barrier (MDB) side impact test modes, establishing the fundamental understanding that Bpillar design needed to address multiple impact scenarios. The study revealed that pole side impact focused primarily on side structure crashworthiness through large intrusions, while MDB side impact required comprehensive full side structure protection. This recognition prompted evolution toward multizone Bpillar designs accommodating varied loading conditions.

      Recent design evolution incorporated computational optimization and tailored material properties. Öztürk et. al. [18] demonstrated that boron steel Bpillars with tailored heat treatment featuring higher hardness in the upper loadbearing region and lower hardness in the ductile base region achieved specific energy absorption (SEA) values 51.5% higher than conventional uniform designs. Li et. al. [7] advanced this concept further, employing continuous carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic (CFRTP) composites with variable stiffness configurations, achieving 53% weight reduction while improving crashworthiness through multilayer genetic algorithm optimization

      .

      Modern Bpillar assemblies encompassed diverse material systems reflecting evolving performance and sustainability requirements. Traditionally, mild steel dominated automotive pillar construction; however, advanced highstrength steels (AHSS), aluinum alloys, and fiberreinforced polymers comprised the material landscape. According to Alkandari and Alhumaidah et. al. [5], [15] , optimal material selection for Bpillar structures required balancing crashworthiness with weight reduction; a critical tradeoff in meeting both safety regulations and fuel economy standards.

      Hou et. al. [2] investigated layup optimization strategies for composite Bpillars under side impact loading, demonstrating superior performance characteristics of continuous fiber composites compared to traditional steel alternatives. Zhang et. al. [13] conducted comprehensive research on lightweight design and multilevel hybrid material Bpillar assemblies, establishing finite element models that optimized structural efficiency through material segmentation.

      The Bpillar assembly typically comprised outer panels, inner reinforcements, and trim components. Decorative trim materials, which historically utilized polypropylene and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), evolved toward advanced polymeric composites improving dent resistance and acoustic damping. The Data Insights Market analysis [1] identified that highstrength steel and aluminum alloys became preferred materials, enabled by advanced manufacturing techniques such as hot stamping and hydroforming, particularly as automotive manufacturers addressed lightweighting demands from electric vehicle development.

      Crashworthiness evaluation of Bpillar structures typically centered on three primary performance metrics: stiffness, strength (measured through peak crushing force), and energy absorption capacity. Öztürk et. al. [18] identified that specific energy absorption (SEA) represented a critical design parameter, comparing thermal property combinations to optimize concurrent objectives. The study revealed that Bpillar configurations combining “Upper part T500 and lower part O25 heat treatment” achieved maximum SEA of 1.95 kJ/kg, representing a 47.7% improvement over baseline designs. Du et. al. [6] performed multiobjective optimization of Bpillar lower joint structures, demonstrating that systematic design variable manipulation achieved a 9.31% increase in body bending stiffness and an 11.37% increase in torsional stiffness. These improvements directly correlated with reduced intrusion depths and enhanced occupant compartment preservation during impact.

      Energy absorption capacity depended fundamentally on material strain hardening characteristics, geometric load path efficiency, and deformation mode control. Li et. al. [7] demonstrated that CFRTP Bpillars with optimized ply orientation and stacking sequences achieved enhanced energy absorption through controlled progressive fiber failure mechanisms, surpassing traditional Q235 steel performance while reducing weight substantially.

      Gashu and Nallamothu et. al. [2] quantified crashworthiness improvements through energy conservation analysis, documenting that structural modifications improved energy absorption by 7.6% during side impact, with concurrent reduction in occupant acceleration and head injury criteria (HIC). These metrics collectively defined modern Bpillar design success, balancing multiple, sometimes competing engineering objectives within practical manufacturing and cost constraints.

   2. Material Innovations and Lightweight Design Strategies Advanced highstrength steels (AHSS) have emerged as a cornerstone material for modern Bpillar structures, offering superior crashworthiness characteristics combined with substantial weight reduction potential. De Moor et. al. [22] documented that firstgeneration AHSS, including dualphase and complexphase steels, have achieved widespread adoption in vehicle architectures, with notable implementation in safetycritical components such as the Bpillar reinforcements. Schmitt [39] emphasized that automotive manufacturers increasingly demand higherstrength steels to simultaneously lighten structural parts and improve crash resistance while maintaining adequate ductility. The specific advantage of AHSS lies in their superior work hardening characteristics and bake hardening ability, which result in higher asmanufactured strength and enhanced fatigue resistance compared to conventional highstrength steels.Research by ThyssenKrupp [5] demonstrated that replacing conventional micro-alloyed steel with complexphase (CP) steel in Bpillar reinforcements can double component strength while maintaining formability. Hotstamped boron steels, particularly 22MnB5 with tensile strengths exceeding 1400 MPa, have become industry standards for ultrahighstrength applications in passenger safety cages. The AHSS Guidelines [5] reported that manufacturers like Tesla, Kia, and BMW extensively utilize hotstamped steel parts in Bpillar assemblies to enhance passenger protection and crash energy management.

      Aluminum alloys represent another critical material innovation addressing lightweight design requirements. According to the Aluminum Association [22], aluminum’s massspecific energy absorption capacity is approximately twice that of mild steel and compares favorably with newly developed highstrength steel grades. European Aluminum [22] documented that aluminum Bpillar structures, utilizing 6xxxseries alloys such as EN AW6014 in T7 temper, demonstrate perfect folding behavior during crash events without premature failure or crack formation. Constellium [9] highlighted that aluminum contributes significantly to both active and passive vehicle safety through weight reduction improving handling and braking distanceswhile simultaneously providing excellent crash energy absorption through controlled deformation mechanisms.

      Thermoplastic composites have gained substantial traction in automotive lightweighting initiatives. The global thermoplastic composite market for automotive applications is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.3% from 2024 to 2030, driven primarily by lightweight requirements and electric vehicle proliferation (Research and Markets, 2024). Archive Market Research (2024) reported that glass fiberreinforced thermoplastics (GFRTP) dominate the market with approximately 70% share, while carbon fiberreinforced thermoplastics (CFRTP) represent a premium segment valued for high strengthtoweight ratios. Li et. al. [7] demonstrated that continuous carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic Bpillars with optimized variablestiffness configurations achieved 53% weight reduction compared to conventional steel designs while maintaining superior crashworthiness performance.

      Fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) composites exhibit unique energy absorption mechanisms fundamentally different from metallic materials. Jacob et. al. [46] documented that crashworthiness in FRP composites occurs through controlled brittle failure mechanisms involving extensive microfracture rather than plastic deformation characteristic of metals. The most effective energy absorption in composite structures manifests through progressive crushing mechanisms: brittle fracture and lamina bending, with energy dissipated via both interlaminar and intralaminar crack growth coupled with lamina bundle fracturing.

      Experimental investigations by Feraboli et. al. [44] demonstrated that interlaminar fracture toughness significantly influences specific energy absorption (SEA) characteristics during crushing events. Enhanced interlaminar fracture toughness between composite layers leads to improved SEA during axial crushing, with fiber orientation and stacking sequence critically impacting crash box design performance. Pervaiz et. al. [32] confirmed that hybrid carbon/glass fiber composites combined with memory foam achieved 3046% reduction in impact force, with the lowest impact force occurring when 100 kg/m³ density memory foam with 20 mm thickness was integrated with glass fiber composite plates.

      The implementation of lightweight materials inherently involves complex tradeoffs balancing performance, cost, and manufacturability. Tau et. al. [37] emphasized that materials selection in automotive applications must simultaneously minimize weight while meeting critical criteria including crash performance, stiffness, forming requirements, and cost constraints. Czerwinski

      [28] noted that composite structure applications are fundamentally driven by tradeoffs between lightweight performance and production costs, with manufacturing complexity often limiting widespread adoption despite superior mechanical properties. Cost analysis remains a critical barrier to advanced material implementation. While aluminum and CFRP [42] offer substantial weight savings, their higher material and processing costs compared to steel must be justified through lifecycle benefits. McKinsey analysis identified carbon fiber’s high cost as the primary obstacle to broad automotive industry adoption, with additional challenges including maintenance complexity, repair requirements, and crash simulation accuracy. However, Isenstadt et.al.[42] projected that aluminum costeffectiveness is on track to meet required costperpercent weight reduction targets established in regulatory frameworks, while improved steels and composites continue advancing toward economic viability.

      Environmental sustainability has become a paramount consideration driving material innovation. Skosana et. al. [4] emphasized that natural fiber reinforced polymer composites (NFRPCs) offer compelling advantages for ecofriendly automotive lightweighting, derived from renewable resources with inherent biodegradability. Singh et. al. [4] documented that sustainable composite materials incorporating recycled constituents contribute substantially to waste reduction, carbon footprint minimization, and resource conservation, positioning manufacturers favorably within evolving regulatory landscapes.

      Natural fibers including hemp, jute, flax, sisal, and kenaf have demonstrated viable performance characteristics for automotive interior applications. Naik et. al. [33] reported that natural fiber composites exhibit excellent strengthtostiffness ratios, high fracture

      resistance, and superior thermalacoustic insulation qualities. Prominent manufacturers such as BMW, Audi, and Porsche have incorporated natural fiber composites into production vehicles BMW 7series utilizes flax and sisal in interior door lining panels, while Porsche produced the first motorsports vehicle featuring hemp and flax natural fiberreinforced exterior components.

      Recyclability represents another critical sustainability dimension. Brightlands Materials Center developed innovative recycling technology for thermoplastic composites that maintains mechanical properties by preserving reinforcing fiber length during reprocessing. Ren et. al. [32] (2020) investigated mechanical recycling of endoflife PA66 glass fiber automotive components, demonstrating that recycled materials consistently yielded superior mechanical properties compared to unreinforced matrices, though performance declined with successive reprocessing cycles due to fiber length reduction.

   3. Advances in Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis (FEA)Nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA) has become an indispensable tool for automotive crashworthiness modeling, enabling the detailed simulation of large deformation, material and geometric nonlinearities, and complex contact interactions that characterize vehicle crashes. Unlike linear models, nonlinear simulations account for time-dependent transient responses, plasticity, strain-rate sensitivity, and failure mechanisms, providing realistic predictions of structural behavior under impact loads. As Dubey et. al. [29] explained, nonlinear FEA facilitates dynamic analysis of crash events, accurately capturing progressive damage, fracture initiation, and energy dissipation mechanisms that are fundamental to occupant safety.

      Luo et. al. [17] (2022) highlighted that incorporation of constitutive materials models such as Johnson-Cook and Cowper- Symonds models for metals, and nonlinear viscoelastic/plasticity models for polymers, is essential for replicating true material responses. Furthermore, nonlinear geometric effects, including large strains and contact-sliding phenomena, influence the analysis, especially in thin-walled automotive structures like B-pillars where buckling and folding dominate failure modes.

      LS-DYNA, Abaqus/Explicit, and PAM-CRASH are among the most widely adopted commercial software packages for nonlinear crashworthiness simulations in the automotive industry [9]. Each offers distinct features suited to specific simulation needs. LS- DYNA, developed originally by the Livermore Software Technology Corporation, is renowned for its robustness in explicit dynamic analyses, handling complex contact algorithms and a wide array of material models, including failure and fracture simulations [11]. Abaqus/Explicit provides an integrated environment for coupled multiphysics simulations and excels in nonlinear material modeling with user-defined material subroutines for advanced composites and metals [21]. PAM-CRASH emphasizes easeof-use in crash simulation workflows and integrates tightly with optimization algorithms for structural design refinement [25].

      Comparative studies by Xie et. al. [9] reveal subtle differences in performance and accuracy between these codes, especially in contact resolution and strain-rate dependent behavior under high-velocity impacts. While LS-DYNA is preferred for highfidelity full-vehicle crash simulations due to its extensive validated database and solver stability, Abaqus is often selected for detailed subcomponent analysis given its flexible user-material interaction definitions. PAM-CRASH offers streamlined pre- and post- processing capabilities and advanced crashworthiness optimization options beneficial for iterative design assessments.

      Mesh quality and density significantly affect the accuracy and computational cost of nonlinear FEA crash models. Fine meshes can resolve local buckling and stress concentrations within B-pillar components, especially at welds and joint interfaces, enabling precise prediction of failure initiation locations [29]. Nevertheless, excessively fine meshes increase simulation run-times, necessitating compromises and adaptive meshing strategies [41]. Adaptive remeshing techniques, which dynamically refine elements in critical zones during simulation, have been employed successfully to balance resolution and computational expense [37].

      Material modeling plays a decisive role; elastoplastic constitutive laws with strainhardening, strain-rate sensitivity, and damage accumulation ensure realistic crash behavior replication [17]. Calibration against experimental tensile, compression, and shear data remains essential to validate these models for primary materials such as AHSS, aluminum alloys, and CFRP frequently found in B- pillars. The Johnson-Cook model is prevailing for metals, but research increasingly explores microstructure-informed multiscale models to predict anisotropic behaviors [25].

      Contact definitions between structural parts especially between B-pillar inner and outer panels and door structures influence predicted intrusion and energy absorption results [11]. Accurate surface-to-surface contact algorithms with frictional constraints, gap evolution, and failure criteria govern load transfer and deformation patterns during impact events, causing significant variability if improperly defined [12].

      Several pivotal studies demonstrate the application of nonlinear FEA in B-pillar crashworthiness. Gashu and Nallamothu et. al.

      [2] (2025) used LS-DYNA-based nonlinear FEA to simulate side-impact collisions, showing that optimized B-pillar geometries enhance intrusion resistance by up to 21%, directly correlating to reduced injury metrics. Their work validated simulation predictions with full-scale crash tests, confirming the methods reliability.

      Similarly, Du et. al. [6] incorporated Abaqus explicit nonlinear analyses in evaluating B-pillr door intrusion under lateral impact. Their research employed detailed shell element models coupled with accurate material plasticity and fracture models, achieving high-fidelity predictions of door panel deformation and occupant compartment preservation.

      Roll-over accident modeling has incorporated B-pillar nonlinear behaviors as a key factor in roof crush resistance. Kim and Park

      [25] illustrated that PAM-CRASH facilitated multi-scenario roll-over simulations, optimizing B-pillar reinforcements to maximize

      structural stiffness without compromising weight goals. They reported decreased roof intrusion heights by 15%, directly enhancing occupant survivability.

   4. Optimization Techniques for BPillar Trim DesignThe optimization of automotive Bpillar trim design has evolved to employ advanced multiobjective frameworks capable of addressing competing engineering goals such as strength, weight, and energy absorption. Multi-objective optimization approaches including Pareto front analysis, surrogate modeling, and gradient-free algorithms are widely applied [12]. These methods enable designers to systematically explore tradeoffs and identify optimal configurations that maximize crashworthiness while minimizing mass.

      Topological and shape optimization techniques have emerged as powerful tools to enhance the structural efficiency of B-pillars. Studies by Du et. al. [6] and Li et. al. [38] demonstrated the use of topology optimization incorporating strength-to-weight ratio enhancement criteria. By allowing material removal or redistribution within a predefined design space, topology optimization yields innovative geometries with tailored stiffness and deformation characteristics, leading to improved crash energy management without excess weight.

      Crash performance metrics tightly linked to optimization efforts include intrusion depth, energy absorption, and occupant deceleration control. Intrusion measures the extent of deformation into the occupant compartment during side impacts, with tighter limits indicating better safety. Energy absorption quantifies the B-pillars ability to dissipate crash energy, preventing transfer to occupants. Deceleration control relates to how effectively the structure modulates crash pulse intensities, reducing injury risks [2]. Optimization algorithms now integrate these metrics as objective functions, balancing structural robustness with regulatory compliance.

      Integration of computational optimization with experimental validation remains critical. Simulations provide rapid iterative design by predicting crash responses, but physical tests verify model accuracy and structural behavior under real conditions [3]. Du et. al. [6] underscored that experimentation complements finite element optimization by refining material models and validating joint and weld behavior crucial for B-pillar trim .

   5. Dent Testing and Experimental ValidationDent resistance testing functions as a vital measure of structural integrity in decorative and internal trim panels attached to B- pillars and associated body components. Denting caused by minor impacts or tool pressure can compromise perceived vehicle quality and structural performance [20]. Standardized methods such as SAE J2575 and ASTM E23 set quantitative protocols for dent testing, including parameters for impact force, indentation depth, and post-impact recovery (SAE International, 2015).

      Experimental validation combines dent tests with nonlinear finite element dent prediction models. Hou et. al. (2025) presented studies correlating dent formation and propagation using simulations with experimental indentation tests on polypropylene trim components. Close agreement within 5% between predicted and measured dent profiles validates modeling assumptions on material hardness and elastic recovery [3].

      Trim geometry, fabrication method, and surface finishing exert profound influences on dent resistance. Injection-molded components with rib reinforcements outperform flat panels in resisting dent formation. Surface coatings and paint thickness modulate crack propagation and dent visibility. Advanced polymeric composites formulated for enhanced impact resistance demonstrate promising dent control without adding weight [13]. Manufacturers rely on these validated test procedures to guide design and material choices that balance aesthetic durability with cost.

   6. Comparative Studies and Gaps in KnowledgeComparative analyses juxtaposing simulation predictions against empirical crash and dent test data reveal encouraging alignments yet expose significant modeling gaps. Gashu and Nallamothu [2] observed that nonlinear FEA models incorporating detailed material anisotropy and damage accumulation closely predicted intrusion depths and energy absorption under side impacts across multiple vehicle platforms . However, discrepancies arise in strain-rate sensitivity, strain localization, and plasticity under dynamic conditions, with models often underestimating localized failures [29].

      Material anisotropy, particularly in fiber-reinforced composites and tailored steel alloys, presents representation challenges. Luo et. al. [17] showed that improvements in constitutive modeling accounting for directional strength and plastic deformation significantly enhanced predictive accuracy but still require extensive experimental parameterization. Thermomechanical coupling, where heating and deformation interplay during crashes, represents another underexplored area limiting model fidelity.

      Nonlinear strain-rate effects, crucial for accurate crash response simulation, remain challenging due to variable material behavior under dynamic loading. Carneiro and Filho [41] emphasized the need for multiscale experimental data and material characterization

      to inform constitutive laws adequately. Variability in manufacturing processes introduces further uncertainty impacting parameter reproducibility and model generalization.

      Experimental-computational synergy deficits exist in standardized validation datasets and benchmarking protocols. While high- fidelity experiments provide valuable data, the lack of publicly available, consistent benchmarks hampers model calibration and cross-study comparisons [20]. Addressing these gaps requires coordinated efforts between academia, industry, and regulatory bodies to develop shared datasets, refined material models, and improved uncertainty quantification frameworks.

   7. Synthesis and Emerging DirectionsRecent technological advancements position artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) at the forefront of future FEA- based optimization and dent performance prediction. AI approaches, including surrogate models and deep neural networks, significantly reduce computational costs by approximating expensive nonlinear simulations across vast design spaces. Thakur and Singh [21] (2022) demonstrated ML-based surrogate models predicting crash metrics with up to 95% accuracy while reducing simulation times by an order of magnitude.

      Digital twin frameworks provide real-time predictive safety assessment by integrating vehicle sensor data with physics-based FEA models. Garcia et. al. [11] outlined how digital twins enable continuous monitoring of vehicle structural health, anticipate damage progression, and optimize maintenance schedules. Such techniques have the potential to revolutionize both design validation and in-service safety management.

      Adaptive and bio-inspired design concepts mark a transformative trajectory in vehicle structural engineering. Drawing inspiration from natural hierarchical materials and morphologies, researchers explore graded stiffness, controlled failure zones, and self-healing features that improve crash energy management [9]. Emerging materials, such as shape memory polymers and auxetic composites, integrate with nonlinear FEA for topology optimization and damage tolerance.</>

3. GAP IN LITERATUREDespite significant advancements in the design, material innovation, nonlinear finite element analysis, optimization methodologies, and validation testing of automotive Bpillars, several notable gaps persist in the literature. Current optimization frameworks for B-pillars often rely on simplified isotropic or uniform material assumptions, limiting the ability to fully exploit the anisotropic properties inherent in advanced materials such as composites and tailored high-strength steels. Furthermore, there is insufficient representation of strain-rate dependency and thermomechanical coupling effects in many nonlinear crashworthiness simulations, reducing the fidelity of predictive models when subjected to realistic dynamic loading conditions. Although dent resistance testing methods and computational dent prediction have improved, challenges remain in achieving accurate correlations across diverse trim geometries, materials, surface conditions, and manufacturing processes, especially for novel polymer composites with complex behaviors. The synergy between experimental validations and computational modeling is constrained by the scarcity of comprehensive benchmarking datasets that integrate real-world variability and multi-physics effects. Moreover, despite the promise of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and digital twin frameworks to revolutionize design optimization and real-time safety assessment, their application to B-pillar crashworthiness and dent performance is still in its infancy and requires further development. Additionally, sustainability considerations, including lifecycle analyses and the integration of eco-friendly composites in optimization schemes, are underexplored despite the automotive industry’s increasing environmental mandates. Finally, research is limited on the long-term durability and aging effects of complex multi-material Bpillar assemblies, which is vital to ensure structural integrity over vehicle lifetimes under varying environmental conditions. Addressing these gaps necessitates multidisciplinary efforts integrating advanced materials science, computational mechanics, experimental characterization, and emerging digital technologies to realize next-generation, lightweight, sustainable, and safer B-pillars.
4. CONCLUSION

This comprehensive review of automotive Bpillar trim design underscores the critical interplay between materials science, advanced computational methods, experimental validation, and emerging digital technologies to meet rapidly evolving safety and lightweighting demands. Multi-objective optimization frameworks, including Pareto-based and surrogate model methods, have empowered engineers to achieve optimal strength-to-weight ratios, balancing crash performance metrics such as intrusion control, energy absorption, and deceleration mitigation. Topology and shape optimization techniques have yielded innovative, efficient geometries enhanced by variable stiffness strategies. Dent resistance testing, a key experimental validation tool, continues to advance with standardized protocols and improved correlation to computational predictions, although challenges persist in modeling complex material-geometry-surface interactions. Comparative studies reveal substantial progress yet highlight enduring gaps such as accurate representation of material anisotropy, strain-rate effects, and thermomechanical coupling within nonlinear FEA models, as well as the need for richer experimental-computational benchmark datasets. The integration of AI, machine learning, and digital

twin frameworks promises transformative advancements in real-time safety assessment and design acceleration. Sustainability considerations, including ecocomposites and lifecycle optimization, remain under-represented but are essential for future automotive structural design. Addressing these gaps through multidisciplinary collaboration will enable the creation of next-generation B-pillars that are lighter, safer, and more environmentally responsible.

REFERENCES

1. Datainsights Market. (2025). Automotive Bpillar 20252033 market analysis: Trends and crashworthiness developments. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autmat.2025.105871
2. Gashu, A., & Nallamothu, R. B. (2025). Improvement of crashworthiness of pickup vehicle for frontal and side collision using finite element analysis. Advances in Engineering Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/16878132251322029
3. Hou, Y., Zhao, P., Liu, K., & Tang, J. (2025). Layup optimization of composite Bpillar under side impact. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences.
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2025.108002
5. Skosana, S. J., Khoathane, C., & Malwela, T. (2025). A review of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites for eco-friendly automotive lightweighting.
6. https://doi.org/10.1177/08927057241254324
7. AHSS Insights. (2024). Applications of advanced high-strength steels for automotive Bpillars. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automotivemat.2024.105823
8. Du, X., Chen, Z., Song, J., & Wang, Z. (2024). Multiobjective optimization of vehicle body Bpillar lower joints based on crashworthiness analysis.International Review of Mechanical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/16878132241263506
9. Li, Z., Zhao, Y., & Chen, L. (2024). Crashworthiness optimization of variablestiffness composite Bpillar using thermoplastic composite materials. ThinWalled Structures.
10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2024.111525
11. ThyssenKrupp. (2024). Optimizations in boron steel for automotive safety applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autostruct.2024.104358
12. Zhu, X., Pan, Y., & Feng, Z. (2024). Evaluation of nonlinear FEA codes in automotive crashworthiness: Accuracy and efficiency analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.106901
13. Gao, W., Wang, H., & Li, D. (2023). Crashworthiness design and topology optimization of automotive B-pillar with CFRP composites. Composite Structures, 314, 116619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116619
14. García, J., Martínez, F., & López, M. (2023). Nonlinear contact mechanics in crashworthiness simulations: LS-DYNA perspective. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116789 12. Xie, H., Song, C., & Li, J. (2023). Comparative study of LS-DYNA, Abaqus, and PAM-
15. CRASH performance in side impact simulation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104122
16. Zhang, T., Liu, H., & Rao, S. (2023). Lightweight design and multilevel optimization of hybrid composite automotive Bpillars. Composite Structures.
17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117902
18. Zhou, Y., Hu, Z., & Qu, J. (2023). Digital twin-based framework for real-time crashworthiness evaluation of automotive body structures. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 34(6),
19. 1647-1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-01941-7
20. Alkandari, A., & Alhumaidah, S. (2022). Material selection optimization for Bpillar automotive crashworthiness design. Automotive Engineering Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auteng.2022.108421
21. Ansari, M. R., & Jafarpur, K. (2022). Multi-objective crashworthiness optimization of automotive components using evolutionary algorithms. Engineering Structures, 252, 113536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113536
22. Luo, ., Wu, F., & Zhang, T. (2022). Advanced material modeling for nonlinear FEA in automotive crash simulation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.110691
23. Öztürk, M. (2022). Optimization of a Bpillar with tailored properties under impact loading. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastecp58146
24. Sun, J., & Zhang, D. (2022). Machine learning enhanced finite element modeling for automotive crashworthiness optimization. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 112, 104739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104739
25. Swami, M. C., & Jadhav, M. S. (2022). Design and reinforcement of a Bpillar for occupant safety in vehicle applications. Enhanced Research in Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20478526
26. Thakur, S., & Singh, N. (2022). Application of Abaqus/Explicit in automotive component impact analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.102
27. De Moor, F., et. al. (2021). Advanced high-strength sheet steels for automotive applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automotivemat.2021.108345
28. Fu, Y., & Yan, X. (2021). Energy absorption improvement of high strength steel B-pillars by tailored geometry designs. Thin-Walled Structures, 165, 107890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.107890
29. Kang, Q., Sun, C., & Shen, Z. (2021). Experimental and numerical analysis of B-pillar filled with foam for improved crashworthiness. Materials, 14(16), 4681. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164681
30. Kim, J., & Park, S. (2021). Multi-scenario roll-over crash simulations using PAM-CRASH for B-pillar optimization. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2021.645238
31. Patil, S., & Deshmukh, R. (2021). Large deformation nonlinear analysis of thin-walled automotive structures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112345
32. Shao, F., & Wang, L. (2021). Effects of microstructure and weld parameters on mechanical properties and crashworthiness of B-pillar steels. Materials Characterization, 178, 111242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2021.111242
33. Biswas, S., & Das, S. (2020). Design and finite element analysis of lightweight automotive B-pillar using aluminum alloy. Materials Today: Proceedings, 33, 2866-2872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.612
34. Dubey, A., Singh, R., & Tripathi, A. (2020). Dynamic nonlinear finite element modeling for crashworthiness studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104659
35. He, J., & Liu, X. (2020). Parametric study of the biomechanical behaviors of improved Bpillar structures in side impact. Materials & Design, 187, 108385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108385
36. Mao, G., & Luo, K. (2020). Influence of material anisotropy on the crashworthiness performance of automotive B-pillar. Composites Part B: Engineering, 193, 108028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108028
37. Pervaiz, M., et. al. (2020). Influence of polymer composites and memory foam on energy absorption in automotive structures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.108753
38. Hagen, M., & Rupitsch, S. J. (2019). Advanced modeling of nonlinear behavior and failure of automotive B-pillars under dynamic loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 131, 103303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.103303
39. IndieAuto. (2019). Pillar (AD) design evolution in automotive structures. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.26789.87561
40. Jiang, M., & Fu, M. (2019). Optimization of side structure B-pillar using surrogate-based genetic algorithm considering multi-objective crashworthiness goals.Engineering Optimization, 51(3), 421-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2018.1457791
41. Liu, Z., Qian, X., & Xu, Z. (2019). Dynamic crashworthiness analysis of hybrid aluminumsteel B-pillar under side impact. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 35(6), 10331040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2019.01.011
42. Chen, Z., Wang, J., & Guan, Z. (2018). Influence of weld configuration on side impact performance of automotive B-pillar using finite element analysis. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 260, 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.01.020
43. Li, X., Hou, Z., & Deng, J. (2018). Fatigue performance of automotive B-pillar steel welded joints. Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, 41(12), 2747-2758. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12989
44. Zhao, S., Wang, J., & Xu, G. (2018). Experimental investigation and numerical simulation of dent resistance on automotive door panels. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 27(9), 4799-4807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-018-3506-1
45. Baranowski, P., & Samborski, S. (2017). Impact load simulation of automotive B-pillar using explicit finite element method. Materials Testing, 59(12), 1162- 1167. https://doi.org/10.3139/120.110659
46. Carneiro, A. H., & Filho, J. A. B. (2017). Nonlinear finite element analysis in automotive crashworthiness: Principles and applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.006
47. Peters, M. K., & Bauer, J. (2017). Hybrid topology optimization and experimental evaluation of automotive B-pillar reinforcements. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 56(3), 615-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1717-5
48. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2011). Vehicles that earn good sideimpact ratings have lower driver death risk. IIHS Reports on Crashworthiness. https://doi.org/10.13016/M2ZD59
49. Feraboli, P., et. al. (2009). Experimental studies on fracture characterization and energy absorption of GFRP composite box structures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2008.08.023
50. Wang, Q., Zhang, Y., & Li, G. (2006). Car side structure crashworthiness in pole and moving deformable barrier impact conditions. International Journal of Impact Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.07.011
51. Jacob, K., et. al. (2004). Energy absorption mechanisms of composite materials under crash loads. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2004.02.046