DIFFERENT BUSSES -COMPARISON-

Similar documents
D1.3 FINAL REPORT (WORKPACKAGE SUMMARY REPORT)

ROBUST PROJECT Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS

ROBUST PROJECT Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS

Transport Canada. Child Occupant Protection Research. Considerations for Future Regulations. Suzanne Tylko Chief of Crashworthiness Research

REGULATION No. 94 (Frontal collision) Proposal for draft amendments. Proposal submitted by France

WP5 - Computational Mechanics B1 (ESP-N2) Barrier Steel N2 MAIN REPORT Volume 2 of 2

FRONTAL OFF SET COLLISION

Improvement Design of Vehicle s Front Rails for Dynamic Impact

WP5 - Computational Mechanics B5 - Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier MAIN REPORT Volume 1 of 1

Toyota s トヨタの安全への取り組み

Pre impact Braking Influence on the Standard Seat belted and Motorized Seat belted Occupants in Frontal Collisions based on Anthropometric Test Dummy

Vehicle Safety Research in TGGS

DESIGN FOR CRASHWORTHINESS

Certificate of constancy of performance

A dream? Dr. Jürgen Bredenbeck Tire Technology Expo, February 2012 Cologne

EVALUATION OF MOVING PROGRESSIVE DEFORMABLE BARRIER TEST METHOD BY COMPARING CAR TO CAR CRASH TEST

Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of Crash Safe Composite Lighting Columns, Contact-Impact Problem

Development of a Heavy Containment Level Bridge Rail for Istanbul

Lighter and Safer Cars by Design

Correlation of Occupant Evaluation Index on Vehicle-occupant-guardrail Impact System Guo-sheng ZHANG, Hong-li LIU and Zhi-sheng DONG

1962: HRCS Circular 482 one-page document, specified vehicle mass, impact speed, and approach angle for crash tests.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF IMPACT BETWEEN SHUNTING LOCOMOTIVE AND SELECTED ROAD VEHICLE

February 8, In Reply Refer To: HSSD/CC-104

Appendix D. Figure D-1. ENCLOSURE 1 (4 Pages) SafeGuard TM Gate System

SHORT PAPER PCB OBLIQUE COLLISIONS ENGINEERING EQUATIONS, INPUT DATA AND MARC 1 APPLICATIONS. Dennis F. Andrews, Franco Gamero, Rudy Limpert

STI Project: Barrier Systems, Inc. RTS-QMB Longitudinal Barrier. Page 38 of 40 QBOR1. Appendix F (Continued) Figure F-3

July 10, Refer to: HSA-10/CC-78A

Optimal Design Solutions for Two Side SORB using Bumper Design Space. SMDI Bumper Group - Detroit Engineered Products

Special edition paper

Vehicle Dynamic Simulation Using A Non-Linear Finite Element Simulation Program (LS-DYNA)

Development of Integrated Vehicle Dynamics Control System S-AWC

Crash Testing Growth Common Roadside Hardware Systems Draft FHWA and AASHTO Requirements for Implementing MASH 2015

The Backseat Passenger Protection Point of View in Car Design Requirements

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Heavy Vehicle Underrun Protection

Railway Bogies with Radial Elastic Wheelsets

TEST REPORT. Rendered to: HOMELAND VINYL PRODUCTS, INC. For: PVC Guardrail System Utilizing New Nylon/PVC Rail Mounting Bracket

TEMPORARY & PERMANENT CONCRETE VEHICLE RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

Application of DSS to Evaluate Performance of Work Equipment of Wheel Loader with Parallel Linkage

FIMCAR Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research

Development and Validation of a Finite Element Model of an Energy-absorbing Guardrail End Terminal

Frontal Crash Simulation of Vehicles Against Lighting Columns in Kuwait Using FEM

Cornering & Traction Test Rig MTS Flat-Trac IV CT plus

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION. X-Tension DS. is suitable for all road types: Motorways, country roads, city streets for speed categories up to 110 km/h.

SIMULATING A CAR CRASH WITH A CAR SIMULATOR FOR THE PEOPLE WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS

United States Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 Part 563

Press-Hardened and Roll-Formed Lightweight Bumpers in Steels with Enhanced Strength

Improvement of Crashworthiness of Bus Structure under Frontal Impact

Behavioral adaptation to electric vehicles An experimental study

Integrated. Safety Handbook. Automotive. Ulrich Seiffert and Mark Gonter. Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA INTERNATIONAL.

Test Facilities. (1) Vehicle Technologies

ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF TEXAS BRIDGE RAILS TO CONTAIN BUSES AND TRUCKS

Design Evaluation of Fuel Tank & Chassis Frame for Rear Impact of Toyota Yaris

Evaluation of Advance Compatibility Frontal Structures Using the Progressive Deformable Barrier

Crashworthiness of an Electric Prototype Vehicle Series

Pass-by noise, from the Real to the Simulated. The Analysis and Development for the ECE Certification MOTORCYCLES

RCAR Bumper Test. Issue 2.1. February 2018

SPCT Method. The SPCT Method - Testing of Dog Crates. Utskrivet dokument är ostyrt, dvs inte säkert gällande.

Convertible with unique safety features

6. Relevant safety standards in North America and Europe

Carbon Fiber Parts Performance In Crash SITUATIONS - CAN WE PREDICT IT?

Draft for comments only Not to be cited as East African Standard

Collaborative vehicle steering and braking control system research Jiuchao Li, Yu Cui, Guohua Zang

NEW INNOVATION. Shock Absorber Tester. Model: MAHA-Shock-Diagnostic MSD 3000

Evaluation of sealing performance of metal. CRIEPI (Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry)

White Paper. Compartmentalization and the Motorcoach

Simulation of Influence of Crosswind Gusts on a Four Wheeler using Matlab Simulink

Methodologies and Examples for Efficient Short and Long Duration Integrated Occupant-Vehicle Crash Simulation

Crashworthiness Evaluation of an Impact Energy Absorber in a Car Bumper for Frontal Crash Event - A FEA Approach

The University of Melbourne Engineering Mechanics

Evaluation and Design of ODOT s Type 5 Guardrail with Tubular Backup

Parameter Design and Tuning Tool for Electric Power Steering System

DRIVING STABILITY OF A VEHICLE WITH HIGH CENTRE OF GRAVITY DURING ROAD TESTS ON A CIRCULAR PATH AND SINGLE LANE-CHANGE

2 nd European HyperWorks Technology Conference Strasbourg September 30 th October 1 st, Welcome! 1/30

CHAPTER 4 MODELING OF PERMANENT MAGNET SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR BASED WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM

77 th GRPE, 6-8 June 2018 Agenda item 13, HD FE Harmonization. OICA HD-FE TF Y. Takenaka

Bus Handling Validation and Analysis Using ADAMS/Car

June 5, In Reply Refer To: HSSD/B-178. Mr. Kevin K. Groeneweg Mobile Barriers LLC Genesee Trail Road Golden, CO Dear Mr.

Published in: Transactions of Tianjin University. DOI: /s Link to publication in the UWA Research Repository

CNG Fuel System Integrity

Pneumatic & Cushion Tire/ Electric-powered Models

Study of the Performance of a Driver-vehicle System for Changing the Steering Characteristics of a Vehicle

Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of Vehicle Space Frame with Experimental Validation

Comparison of HVE simulations to NHTSA full-frontal barrier testing: an analysis of 3D and 2D stiffness coefficients in SIMON and EDSMAC4

The Emerging Risk of Fatal Motorcycle Crashes with Guardrails

JARI Research Activities for Traffic Safety

Cellasto Microcellular Polyurethane Elastomer

HELICOPTER TAIL ROTOR ANALYSIS: EXPERIENCE IN AGUSTA WITH ADAMS

Stationary Bike Generator System

Some selected methods and purpose of the low speed tests for estimation of the vehicle bumpers vulnerability to damage

POWER TRAIN 2-1 CONTENTS AYC SYSTEM... 9 CLUTCH... 2 MANUAL TRANSMISSION... 3 PROPELLER SHAFTS... 4 FRONT AXLE... 5 REAR AXLE... 6

Development of Super-low Friction Torque Technology for Tapered Roller Bearing

STUDY ON CAR-TO-CAR FRONTAL OFFSET IMPACT WITH VEHICLE COMPATIBILITY

Advances in Simulating Corrugated Beam Barriers under Vehicular Impact

Virginia Department of Transportation

EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNTERMEASURES IN RESPONSE TO FMVSS 201 UPPER INTERIOR HEAD IMPACT PROTECTION

IIHS Side Impact Evaluations. Sonja Arnold-Keifer 10/15/ th German LS-DYNA Forum

SPMM OUTLINE SPECIFICATION - SP20016 issue 2 WHAT IS THE SPMM 5000?

Reconstruction of Low-Speed Crashes using the Quasi-Static Force vs. Deformation Characteristics of the Bumpers Involved in the Crashes

Modeling tire vibrations in ABS-braking

Safety on the move. The Flair now includes airbags, ESP and seatbelt pretensioners as standard for your protection.

Transcription:

DIFFERENT BUSSES -COMPARISON-

Current Work It starts from a real road accident happen to a bus on Nitsund bridge in 1998 Main Tasks: understanding of Nitsund parapet limitation (first structure built in 1964 and uploaded in 1998) comparison of existing bus-models first simulation has been based on standard test according to EN 1317: If the results were unacceptable the impact angle was decreased by 5 degrees until good results were archived (lower limit was 10 degrees) If the results were still unacceptable the velocity was degreased by step of 10 km/h until good results were archived

Nitsund Old Parapet (1964) Nr 1 2 3 Test vehicle Bus (13 ton) Bus (13 ton) Test parapet IPE 140 Test type Velocity [km/h] Impact Angle [deg] Acceptable Results TB51 70 20 No IPE 140 NA 70 10 Yes Bus (13 ton) IPE 140 NA 50 20 Yes Handrail: diameter 60 mm Post: IPE 140 600 mm 450 mm Absorbed Energy: 74 KJ Guardrail: a double wave shape with reinforce elements (100 mm) directly bolted to the post Rigidly fixed to the ground

Nitsund New Parapet (1998) Nr Test vehicle 4 Bus (13 ton) 5 Handrail: tree pipes of diameter 60 mm (250, 900, 1050 mm from the ground) Post: HE 100 A Test parapet HE 100 A Test type 600 mm 450 mm Velocity [km/h] Impact Angle [deg] Acceptable Results TB51 70 20 Yes Bus (13 ton) HE 100 A NA 80 20 No Absorbed Energy: 287 KJ Guardrail: a double wave shape connected to an absorb element (W shape) bolt to the posts Rigidly fixed to the ground

IMPORTANCE OF SPINNING WHEELS AND STEERING SYSTEM

City bus * * Original-city-bus (green) presents neither spinning wheels nor steering system For city-bus (red) added: 6 spinning wheels (2 front, 4 rear) front steering wheels comprised of: one spring elements for stopper compression one shock absorber a stabilizer bar 13 ton City bus respect all the characteristic requested from EN-1317 Nr Test parapet Test type Velocity [km/h] Impact Angle [deg] 2 IPE 140 NA 70 10 4 HE100 A TB51 70 20

Test 2 Test parapets Velocity Impact angle Nitsund Old 70 km/h 10 deg city bus O-city bus L contact L contact θ θ City bus Original city bus Working Width 0.72 m 0.99 m Permanent Defl. 0.26 m 0.46 m Dynamic Defl. 0.37 m 0.54 m Exit Speed 63.8 km/h 44.5 km/h Exit Angle 6.9 deg 10.9 deg

Test 4 Test parapets Velocity Impact angle Nitsund New 70 km/h 20 deg city bus O-city bus L contact L contact θ θ City bus Original city bus Working Width 0.95 m m Permanent Defl. 0.32* m 0.98* m Dynamic Defl. 0.49 m 1.16 m Exit Speed 43.3 km/h 32.2 km/h Exit Angle 3.1 deg 13.9 deg

Remark A: Spin W. and steering S. The simulations performed permit to: Show the influence on the bus behavior of the added elements Obtained different recorded value and behavior for all tests performed For city bus with the spinning wheels and the steering system: decreasing in angle exit decreasing in velocity exit lighter impact in the rear bus part because of a smaller angular velocity around vertical axis Smaller barrier post impact deformation

CITY BUS Vs CONVENTIONAL BUS

Conventional Bus The design of this conventional bus started at NPRA in 2006 The conventional bus can be used from all cm-e experts that contributed at the study and the evolution of the model Now-a-day the model is not complete and suffer of a lack of some essential elements in the frontal structure To improve the performance, some beam elements have been introduced to increase the structure stiffness. This solution better reproduces the structure behavior during the impact

Bus Models City bus Conventional bus DETAILS Vehicle Length: L [m] City 11.88 L WB Conventional 12.69 W Standar H Vehicle Width: W [m] 2.43 2.57 Vehicle Height: H [m] Vehicle Weight [Kg] Xcg [m] Vehicle CG: Zcg [m] Wheel Base: WB [m] Wheel Radius: r [m] 2.79 12 930 3.60 0.70 6.00 0.5 3.11 12 780 3.45 1.17 6.50 0.49 13000 3.80 6.50 0.52 ±400 0.38 ±0.975 ±0.08

Test 2 Test parapets Velocity Impact angle Nitsund Old 70 km/h 10 deg city bus Conv. bus L contact L contact θ θ City bus Conventional bus Working Width 0.72 m 0.90 m Permanent Defl. 0.26 m 0.37 m Dynamic Defl. 0.37 m 0.46 m Exit Speed 63.8 km/h 61.3 km/h Exit Angle 6.9 deg 9.6 deg

Test 4 Test parapets Velocity Impact angle Nitsund New 70 km/h 20 deg city bus Conv. bus L contact L contact SIMULA TION OF EXISTIN G PARAPE TS θ θ City bus Conventional bus Working Width 0.95 m 0.78 m Permanent Defl. 0.32 m 0.45 m Dynamic Defl. 0.49 m 0.53 m Exit Speed 43.3 km/h 45.5 km/h Exit Angle 3.1 deg 5.3 deg

Remark B: Comparison city Vs Conventional bus Bus type Working Width [m] Permanent Defl. [m] Dynamic Defl- [m] City 0.72 0.26 0.37 Nitsund Old 70km 10 deg O-City 0.99 0.46 0.54 Conv 0.90 0.37 0.46 City 0.95 0.32 0.49 Nitsund New 70km 20 deg O-City 0.98 1.16 Conv 0.78 0.45 0.53 Exit Speed [km/h] 63.8 44.5 61.3 43.3 32.2 45.5 Exit Angle [deg] 6.9 10.9 9.6 3.1 13.9 5.3 The recorded values for conventional bus could be consistent compared with city bus whit spinning wheels and steering system

Future Development Continue to evaluate the influence of steering system and spinning wheels Analyzing city bus behavior against rigid wall Comparing simulated bus data whit real full-scale crash test Modify the conventional bus on the base of new drawing Chassis Sigma post frontal structure 55 mm using a the ESP (additional guardrail) restraint system: 100 mm Double wave guardrail 150 mm 200 mm 310 mm Ground level 1200 mm 1900 mm

DIFFERENT BUSSES -COMPARISON- THANK YOU...