Deflection of Deployable Bonnets in DB Systems

Similar documents
Proposal for a Modification of the Bumper Test Area for Lower and Upper Legform to Bumper Tests

Technical Bulletin Headform to Bonnet Leading Edge Tests Version 1.0 June 2014 TB 019

Robustness of SN04 prototype test results

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) PEDESTRIAN TESTING PROTOCOL

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL VULNERABLE ROAD USER PROTECTION

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION

POLICY POSITION ON THE PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION REGULATION

ANCAP Test Protocol. Pedestrian Protection v8.4

Technical Bulletin. Proposed Pedestrian Grid Procedure - Data Collection. Version 1.0. November 2010 TB 010 TB010-1

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) PEDESTRIAN TESTING PROTOCOL

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION

Methodology of Technical Feasibility Evaluation

SLED TEST PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING KNEE IMPACT AREAS

Side impact protection in non-integral CRS First feedback on 440 mm. 52 nd Meeting of the UN Informal Group on Child Restraint Systems

BEYOND SAFETY LEGISLATION: CONTRIBUTION OF CONSUMER INFORMATION

Proposal of amendments to gtr 9 (Pedestrian safety)

Flex-GTR: Comparison of Test Results from Prototype and Series Production Legforms. - BASt / ACEA joint project, November

HEAVY VEHICLES TEST AND ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

Audi TT 68% 81% 64% 82% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Pedestrian.

SAFETY ENHANCED INNOVATIONS FOR OLDER ROAD USERS. EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME HORIZON 2020 GA No

Full Width Test ECE-R 94 Evaluation of test data Proposal for injury criteria Way forward

Audi TT SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Year Of Publication Driver Passenger Rear FRONTAL CRASH PROTECTION

A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users

BMW X1 90% 87% 77% 74% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Small Off-Road. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Pedestrian.

Jaguar E-Pace 87% 86% 77% 72% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Potential Use of Crash Test Data for Crashworthiness Research

Rear Impact Protection A Canadian View

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC)

Porsche Cayenne 80% 95% 73% 62% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Australian Pole Side Impact Research 2010

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (EuroNCAP) PEDESTRIAN TESTING PROTOCOL

Informal document No. GRSP (45th GRSP, May 2009 agenda item 4(b))

Sound detection of electric vehicles by blind or visually impaired persons

FIMCAR. Frontal Impact Assessment Approach FIMCAR. frontal impact and compatibility assessment research

Mercedes-Benz E-Class

Statement before Massachusetts Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board. Institute Research on Cosmetic Crash Parts. Stephen L. Oesch.

VW Arteon 85% 96% 85% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Kia Stinger 81% 93% 78% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Jaguar I-Pace 81% 91% 73% 81% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

BMW X3 84% 93% 70% 58% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Audi Q5 86% 93% 73% 58% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Survey on Safety of New Mobility Vehicles

Renault Scenic 82% 90% 67% 59% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

SAFETY ENHANCED INNOVATIONS FOR OLDER ROAD USERS. EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME HORIZON 2020 GA No

Hyundai i20 73% 85% 79% 64% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Audi A4 90% 87% 75% 75% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Safety Assist.

APPLICATION OF STAR RATINGS

Overview of LSTC s LS-DYNA Anthropomorphic Models

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

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Audi A6 85% 93% 81% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Mercedes-Benz GLC 95% 89% 82% 71% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Small Off-Road. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant.

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents

Hyundai Tucson 85% 86% 71% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small Off-Road. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Volvo XC90 97% 87% 100% 72% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Off-Road 4x4. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Jaguar XE 82% 92% 81% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

THUMS User Community

Stakeholder Meeting: FMVSS Considerations for Automated Driving Systems

Safer Vehicle Design. TRIPP IIT Delhi

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Mercedes-Benz A-Class

Mercedes-Benz C-Class Cabriolet

Ford Mustang (reassessment)

Jaguar XE 82% 92% 81% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Jaguar XF 84% 92% 80% 83% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Executive. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Subaru Levorg 83% 92% 75% 68% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Insert the title of your presentation here. Presented by Name Here Job Title - Date

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

Pedestrian Safety. Bumper Test Area

UN-Regulation No. 80 Comparative study between static and dynamic test procedure

Method Development for Evaluating Wheelchair Seating System (WCSS) Crashworthiness using FMVSS-207 Testing

GRRF The target of a Brake Assist System... reduce the pedal force emergency situation

VW Touran 89% 88% 71% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small MPV. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Fiat 500X 85% 86% 74% 64% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small MPV. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Virtual human body model for fast safety assessment

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (single), Passenger (single)

ACTIVE SAFETY 3.0. Prof. Kompaß, VP Fahrzeugsicherheit, 14. April 2016

Appendix 3. DRAFT Policy on Vehicle Activated Signs

CER/EIM Position Paper Ballast Pick-up due to Aerodynamic Effects. October Version 1.0

ANCAP Notes on the Assessment Protocol. ancap.com.au. July 2016 (v5.5)

Jeong <1> Development of a Driver-side Airbag Considering Autonomous Emergency Braking

Audi Q7 94% 88% 76% 70% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Large Off-Road. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Safety Assist.

A Numerical Investigation of a Novel Hood Design for Pedestrian Protection

MINI Countryman 80% 90% 64% 51% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

ANCAP Application of Star Ratings Protocol. v1.5

VOLKSWAGEN. Volkswagen Safety Features

Mazda MX-5 84% 80% 64% 93% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Seat Ibiza 77% 95% 76% 60% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

INFLUENCE OF CROSS FORCES AND BENDING MOMENTS ON REFERENCE TORQUE SENSORS FOR TORQUE WRENCH CALIBRATION

Seat Ateca 84% 93% 71% 60% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Skoda Kodiaq 77% 92% 71% 54% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Status of the review of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations

Hyundai i30 84% 88% 64% 68% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Toyota Prius 82% 92% 77% 85% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT

Full Width Test Overview, Aims and Conclusions

Toyota Hilux 82% 93% 83% 63% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. With Safety Pack. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Research on Chest Injury Criteria

Transcription:

Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway Research Institute) Deflection of Deployable Bonnets in DB Systems 1 st Meeting of Task Force Deployable Bonnet Systems (TF-DBS) Paris, February 7 th & 8 th, 2017 Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen Dirk-Uwe Gehring, Peter Leßmann BGS Boehme & Gehring GmbH Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway Research Institute)

Background Since several years, testing and assessment of vehicles with deployable bonnet systems has been implemented within consumer information programmes such as Euro NCAP The Euro NCAP protocol allows for the increasing number of car models with deployable (active) bonnets being tested more appropriately However, for impact locations being tested with the bonnet in deployed state, various requirements like - the appropriate detection of pedestrians - protection potential at higher and lower speeds - a correct timing of the bonnet deployment - a maximum bonnet deflection due to pedestrian body loading have to be met. 2

Bonnet deflection Influence of upper body on head impact (example: passive bonnet) Bonnet deflection in head impact area caused by upper body Pre-deflected bonnet causing higher HIC values Time history curves and HIC values *Source: Nuss F., Hamacher M., Zander O. (2011) Intrusion in head impact area prior to actual head impact Head impact against pre-deformed and undeformed bonnet 3

Required bonnet clearance Deployable bonnets need to provide additional deformation space for the pedestrian at head contact position and in the moment of head contact. Definition of required clearance for bonnet deformation from best practice: Tests on test rig with 3,5 kg CH impactor Distance between inner bonnet surface and structure: approx. 50 and 65 mm Test #1: 50 mm clearance 50 mm Bottoming out HPC 1210 Test #2: increased clearance 65 mm 65 mm Bottoming out Lower HPC 1144 4

Proposed new requirement A clearance of 65 mm between bonnet surface and underlying structure is not sufficient. Regardless of the deformation space provided by the active / deployable bonnet, in any case a vertically measured clearance of at least 80 mm at head contact position at the moment of head contact is necessary to ensure avoidance of bottoming out. This will be 104 mm for CH and 88 mm for AH in impact direction. sin α = a/c (Annotation: in the windscreen area, Euro NCAP requires a clearance of at least 100 mm in impact direction for defaulting impact points (HPC < 650) In order to assess the bonnet deflection due to upper body contact at the point and time of head contact, HBM simulations with the appropriate statures are suggested. HBM simulations should be provided by the OEM. The vertically measured clearance between bonnet and underlying structure is suggested not to go below 80 mm at the point and time of head impact in all simulated cases. 5

Proposal for GTR9 Source: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol (modified) Given that deployable bonnets may have reduced support from their peripheral structures compared to passive systems, it is required that head protection is not compromised by bonnet collapse. At the point and time of head impact it is therefore essential that the bonnet deflection in the deployed state does not compromise the clearance between deployed bonnet and under bonnet hard point which is necessary to ensure the needed level of head protection. Therefore, the sum out of vertically measured deployment height and the vertically measured clearance of the undeployed bonnet, both at head impact point, minus the vertically measured deflection of the deployed bonnet must be greater than 80 mm: (h2 + h3) - z2 > 80 mm, see Figure x. This can be established using numerical simulations at 40km/h with the appropriate sized pedestrians (6YO child, 5 th female, 50 th male) that load the least supported parts of the bonnet top for that particular size of vehicle at vehicle centerline and between WAD 1000 and the bonnet rear reference line. (For example, on a small vehicle with a short bonnet it may be that the 50th percentile male contacts the vehicle rearward of the bonnet top. Therefore, a smaller pedestrian stature will be required.) In case of a total clearance less than 80 mm, it has to be proven that the bonnet underneath the head does not reach the underlying structure when impacting the pre-loaded bonnet. If this evidence is not given, the headform tests are to be performed in undeployed state of the bonnet. Figure x Example Deployment height h2 = 120 mm Deflection of active / deployed bonnet z2 = 75 mm Clearance of passive / undeployed bonnet h3 = 50 mm Requirement: (h2 + h3) z2 = > 80 (120 mm + 50 mm) - 75 mm > 80 ok 6

Conclusions Pop up bonnets need to withstand injury risks occuring during real life impact situations. Rigid under bonnet parts within reach are of a high injury risk for VRU and are to be avoided. The bonnet deflection due to upper body loading is expected to have a significant influence on the bonnet clearance at location and time of head impact. Since a value of 30 mm clearance is assumed to be needed to fulfill performance criteria at speeds below the deployment threshold, a fixed value should be also feasible at higher impact speeds. 7