cen /tc226/wg1/cme 15° meeting agenda

1 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

1

Cen /TC226/WG1/CME 15° meeting agenda.

• Chairmanship. (all)• TRB Report (Marco)• Validation activities:

– Latest development (Marco)– Statistical approach (Mariano Pernetti)

• New proposed items (Otto)• New bus model (Clement)• Steel tolerances influences.

(Joseph/Michael)• FP7

2 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

2

Chairmanship

• Current situation.• Proposal.• Nomination of the new chairman.• Nomination of the new secretary.

3 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

3

TRB report

• AFB20(2) Computational mechanics sub group.– 350 vehicle revision– New hardware already certified using only

simulations.– NCHRP 22_24 project– Summer meeting July 8-11 Rapid City

4 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

4

Validation. Last meeting result

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

tempo (s)

vel

oci

tà (

m/s

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45 0,5

tempo (s)

ve

loc

ità

(m

/s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9

tempo (s)

vel

oci

tà (

m/s

)

LIER

GEO-METRO

banda superiore

banda inferiore

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6

tempo (s)

velo

cità

(m

/s)

HUT

GEO-METRO

banda superiore

banda inferiore

5 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

5

Velocity comparison.

• Local reference frame velocity comparison.– Accelerometer reference frame is not frame indifferent.– Accelerations are measured on the local system that rotates

during the impact.– Their integrals are velocities (m/s) but without physical

significance.– We should use the relative mechanics to compare motions.

• Global reference frame velocity comparison.– Rotations of accelerations (unfiltered). – Evaluation of global reference frame velocities.– If needed recalculations of local reference frame

velocities.

6 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

6

Vehicle rotation

Vy GlobalVy Local

x

yx

y

X

Y

αx

y

α

X X

αx

y

X

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9

tempo (s)

vel

oci

tà (

m/s

)

LIER

GEO-METRO

banda superiore

banda inferiore

7 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

7

Round Robin application.

• Rigid barrier h=800 mm.• Tb11

– 900 kg– 20°

8 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

8

Round Robin 1.

-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Vy global Unfiltered

AutostradeHut Cidaut Lier TRL

-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.816

18

20

22

24

26

28Vx global Unfiltered


-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Vz global Unfiltered


Same new vehicles.

9 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

9

Round Robin 2

• Different vehicles

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6-2

0

2

4

6

8

10


-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.614

16

18

20

22

24

26


10 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

10

Robust 4.3

– RR1 repetition

-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2-2

0

2

4

6

8


-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.219

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5


11 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

11

All RR tests.

• Same rigid barrier.• Different vehicles.• 12 tests

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-2

0

2

4

6

8

10


-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.214

16

18

20

22

24

26


-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


12 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

12

Round Robin. Test and simulation

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-2

0

2

4

6

8

10


-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.214

16

18

20

22

24

26


-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


– Not bad even if this simulation would not be validated.

– Friction influence?

13 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

13

Round robin.

• ASI e THIV are before 0.06 seconds after impact.

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-2

0

2

4

6

8

10


-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.814

16

18

20

22

24

26


-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

0

2

4

6

8

10

Vy global Unfiltered

-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Vx global Unfiltered

14 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

14

Rigid barrier results

• Component analysis– Vy global: very good agreement between tests– Vx global: tests are different (Exit speed is

different between tests) – Vz global: less significative.

• Seems ok.

15 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

15

Deformable barriers.

• Task 4.1 Robust.• N2 deformable barrier.• Different vehicles.• Different grounds.• More rotation of the vehicles (compared to

RR)• Yaw rate problems during tests.

16 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

16

Yaw angle meaning

x

yx

y

X

Y

αx

y

α

X X

αx

y

X

Yaw angle

17 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

17

Yaw rate problems

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60Ay

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250Yaw rate

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Rotation

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40rotation

Same test

Different tests

Same signal but with different zero level for

yaw rate

Acceleration Yaw rate. Yaw angle.

18 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

18

Comparison.

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20

2

4

6

8

10

12


-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.55

10

15

20

25


-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5Vz global Unfiltered

19 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

19

Comparison 1

• Dynamic deflection (ground)– Curve 1 (bleu)=0.9m– Curve 3 (red)=0.7m– Difference 25%

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20

2

4

6

8

10

12


-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.512

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28


-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50

0.5

1

1.5

2


20 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

20

Tests + Simulations

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.512

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28


-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2


21 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

21

Current conclusion

• From RR fair good results.• From deformable barriers bad results (yaw

rate).• Problem:

– With these experimental results (deformable) validation window seems too wide.

– According to 1317 these are equivalent tests.

22 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

22

Validation.

• Use velocity approach in a global reference frame.• Define a corridor.• Define the time until the model is validated.• Different requirements in different direction

(vertical-lateral-longitudinal)• After this time the model is not wrong (also tests

are different) but is simply not corresponding to that test.

• After this time the accepting entity must know that the two phenomenon (test and simulation) are diferent also for the trajectory.

23 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

23

Future activities

• To solve the yaw rate measure problems exchange of information with some tests houses but not the tests house group.

24 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

24

Alternative statistical approach.Mariano Pernetti

25 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

25

New proposed item.Otto Kleppe

26 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

26

New bus model Clement Goubel

27 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

27

Steel tollerances influences Joseph Marra, Michael Gremling.

28 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

28

FP7SST.2007.4.1.6 Intelligent Road Restraint System (RRS)

The research objective is the integration of the roadside infrastructure restraints in the road safety system, as a component respectful of all road users' needs and with increased capacity for both primary and secondary safety. Integration of communication systems aimed at increasing tertiary safety efficiency can be considered in the novel barrier design.

Activities will address the following subjects: 1. Development of an innovative RRS, including anchorage and installation

systems, based on novel design and/or materials with enhanced performances for the safeguard of all road users, with particular attention to the protection of motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users;

2. Development of sensors and actuators that will increase the RRS's efficiency for primary, secondary and tertiary safety (advanced warning signalling, detection and communication of accidents and other safety related environmental situations);

3. Standardisation of RRS's design and optimal lay-out criteria, including related computer modelling.

Expected outcome is the design and development of an innovative road infrastructure restraint system based on new design and/or innovative materials as an integrated component of the road transport safety system.

Funding scheme: Collaborative Projects small or medium-scale focussed research

29 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007

CM

E 1

5

29

Closure

• AOB.

• Next meeting.– May 21st 2007– SIS (Swedish Standard Institute)– Stockolm Sweeden

cen /tc226/wg1/cme 15° meeting agenda

Documents