FIMCAR Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research

Transcription

1 FIMCAR Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research crash.tech 2012, München Dr. Thorsten Adolph, BASt, Germany Dr. Heiko Johannsen, TU Berlin, Germany Ignacio Lázaro, IDIADA, Spain Ton Versmissen, TNO, Netherlands Dr. Mervyn Edwards, TRL, UK Dr. Robert Thomson, VTI, Sweden

2 Partners OEMs Research Institutes Universities Testing Institutes 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 2

3 FIMCAR Project General Coordinator: TU Berlin (Heiko Johannsen) October 2009 September Beneficiaries Objective: Development of a proposal for frontal impact compatibility assessment approach Additional Cooperation: Toyota, MLIT, Hyundai, JAMA, ADAC, Kistler Euro NCAP / GRSP IWG FI / EEVC WG 15 In total: 42 crash tests with 49 vehicles 2 nd Call in the Framework Programme 7 Budget: 6 M / Funding: 3.8 M 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 3

4 Project Structure WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP6 Accident and Cost Benefit Analysis WP5 Numerical Simulation Offset Test Procedure Full Overlap Test Procedure MDB Test Procedure Synthesis of Assessment Methods WP 7 & 8 Management & Dissemination and Harmonisation 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 4

5 History Previous projects and working groups: VC-Compat APROSYS IHRA EEVC WG 15 Japanese Proposal for the LCW GRSP IWG on Frontal Impact... What did we have before the start of FIMCAR? ECE-R 94 Recommendation: Combination of an offset test and a full width test The US voluntary agreement which defines Primary and Secondary Energy Absorbing structures (PEAS and SEAS) 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 5

6 Accident Analyses Summary of findings Structural interaction still an issue Over / underriding Small overlap Fork effect Compartment strength still an issue Seems to be independent from vehicle size Especially in crashes with HGV and objects (e.g. trees) High proportion of fatal and severely injured in large overlap accidents Higher injury risk in car-to-car accidents with high mass ratio for occupants in lighter cars Likely caused by higher delta-v 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 6

7 Accident Analyses High acceleration Nissan Micra vs. Nissan Primera Driver: MAIS 3 Passenger: MAIS 4 High acceleration VW Passat vs. VW Passat Driver: MAIS 2 Passenger: MAIS 3 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 7

8 Accident Analyses Under / overriding Peugeot / 206 CC against HGV Driver: MAIS 4 Under / overriding Ford Mondeo vs. Ford Mondeo Driver: MAIS 5 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 8

9 Accident Analyses Object impacts Opel Astra against tree Driver: MAIS 4 Object impacts Nissan Micra against pole / fence Driver: MAIS 3 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 9

10 Accident Analyses Compartment strength Ford Focus against tree Driver: MAIS 2 Compartment strength / Frontal force matching Toyota Yaris vs. Vauxhall Astra Driver: MAIS 3 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 10

11 Five Test Candidates Full width tests Full width test with rigid barrier (FWRB) Full width test with deformable barrier (FWDB) Offset tests Offset deformable barrier (ODB) Progressive deformable barrier (PDB) Movable progressive deformable barrier (MPDB) 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 11

12 Test Candidate: ODB ODB (Offset Deformable Barrier) State of the art w.r.t. cabin integrity assessment Used in legislated and consumer tests in many countries Established strong passenger compartments No compatibility assessment metrics known Robust compatibility assessment unlikely to be possible Barrier face is bottomed out by nearly every car Tends to cause back loaded pulse 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 12

13 Test Candidate: PDB PDB (Progressive Deformable Barrier) Subjective compatibility assessment possible by analysis of barrier face deformation (load spreading) Up to now no robust objective compatibility metrics Cabin acceleration mainly higher compared to ODB tests Tends to reduce requirements for cabin integrity for heavy vehicles Attempts to harmonise test severity amongst different vehicle masses Only used in research applications to date 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 13

14 Test Candidate: MPDB MPDB (Movable Progressive Deformable Barrier) Movable barrier with PDB attached Current status: Trolley mass kg and velocity 50 km/h Subjective compatibility assessment possible by analysis of barrier face deformation especially load spreading (horizontally / vertically) Compatibility metric linked to PDB development Addresses momentum issues for smaller vehicles in car-to-car crashes 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 14

15 Test Candidate: FWRB FWRB (Full-width Rigid Barrier) Defacto standard world-wide High acceleration pulse (especially in the early phase) Load cell wall based metrics for compatibility assessment Assessment reliable but very early in the impact High PEAS cars (according to option 2 of US self commitment) would likely require an additional test (e.g. Over Ride Barrier) Primary Energy Absorbing Structure Secondary Energy Absorbing Structure 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 15

16 Test Candidate: FWDB FWDB (Full-width Deformable Barrier) Acceleration pulse comparable with car accident pulses Load cell wall based metrics for compatibility assessment Less sensitive to protruding parts than FWRB Engine dump attenuated Assessment over the most important part of the impact duration (until 40 ms) Maximum acceleration appears to be higher than in FWRB Test speed for FWDB will probably set at 50 km/h Load spreading in the barrier face Is not a problem if sum of forces in rows or columns are used 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 16

17 Draft metrics for FWDB Current metric requires 40% of total forces in row 3 and 4 Up to time = 40 ms F T40 = Max. total LCW force up to 40ms F4>Min(100 kn, 0,2*F T40 ) F3>Min(100 kn, 0,2*F T40 ) Pass Yes No Fail Height of load cell: 125 mm Part 581 Zone; 16 to 20 inches (406 to 508 mm) Height of Ground: 80 mm Cross beam Longitudinal Subframe 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 17

18 Simulation with Generic Car Models (GCM) Comparison of FWDB Metric against geometrical measurements > 50% PEAS > 50% PEAS Option 1a Option 1b PEAS GCM mm PEAS GCM mm PEAS GCM mm GCM 1 GCM 2 GCM 3 Geometric Assessment Pass Pass Pass FWDB Metric Pass Pass Pass Row force F3 [kn] Row force F4 [kn] th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 18

19 Strategy and Priorities FIMCAR established assessment requirements and priorities to evaluate five test candidates Structural Interaction Front End Force / Deformation Compartment integrity Restraint system Alignment Load Spreading Deformation force Energy Absorption Sufficient for self protection Enhanced for light vehicles Different pulses Restraint Capacity Priority Metric for structural alignment Full width test Offset test Combination of full width and offset tests 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 19

20 FINAL TEST APPROACH FIMCAR Test Procedure Evaluation Criteria Priority 1 Items Common interaction zone defined as mm Vertical Load spreading Horizontal load spreading Current compartment strength maintained Appropriate severity level Field Relevant pulse Repeatibility / Reproducibilty Appropriate pass/fail thresholds Check for step effects in metrics Good cars rated good Poor car rated poor Detection of vehicle architecture / loadpaths ODB and FWDB 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 20

21 FINAL TEST APPROACH Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) + ODB guarantees that current level of compartment strength will be maintained for all vehicles + Used in legislated and consumer tests in many countries + Provides a softer pulse compared to the full width test + Harmonization potential PDB without reliable compatibility metrics was not acceptable for a majority of FIMCAR members Majority of FIMCAR members still believe in PDB as the long term approach -> research is ongoing 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 21

22 FINAL TEST APPROACH Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB) + FWDB results in more realistic pulse + FWDB draft metrics look later into the impact, thus is detecting more relevant structures + Similar approach as the US voluntary agreement but not design restrictive + FWDB has potential to detect appropriate SEAS without additional test (research ongoing) + Keeps the spirit of simplicity + The metric helps to establish a common alignment zone (just 40% of forces should be in row 3 and 4) Harmonization Still potential towards more compatibility 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 22

23 Dissemination FIMCAR Workshop in Berlin at 14 th and 15 th June 2012 ICRASH 2012 in Milano from 18 th to 20 th July: Complete Session with all technical details FIMCAR GRSP IWG FIMCAR Euro NCAP 24th April 2012 Dr. Thorsten Adolph 23

24 Thank you for your attention!