ROBUST PROJECT Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS

ROBUST PROJECT Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS Evaluation of small car - RM_R1 - prepared by Politecnico di Milano Volume 1 of 1 January 2006 Doc. No.: ROBUST-5-002/TR-2004-0039 - Rev. 0 286-2-1-no-en

Main Report Report title: Client: Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS Project no.: 14276 Doc. no.: ROBUST-5-002/TR-2004-0039 Reporter(s): Fredrik Sangö Abstract: On behalf of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (Vegdirektoratet), Force Technology Norway has evaluated the small car computer model prepared by Politecnico di Milano. Two simulations, of small car (900 kg) hitting a Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier and Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80 with an initial speed of 100 km/h and an angle of 20 degrees, according to EN-1317 has been performed. The project was initiated in order to evaluate and document the model prepared by Politecnico di Milano. The results from the simulations are compared to results obtained in full-scale tests and simulations with the small car computer model prepared by Force Technology. In addition different post-processing software are used to evaluate the results. The work included performance of simulations and evaluation of simulation results. Keywords: Restricted Internal Free distribution Ref. allowed Rev. no. Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by Reason for revision 0 2005-01-31 K. Johannessen R. Gladsö K. Johannessen Issued for record A 2004-04-19 Fredrik Sangö Rune Gladsö K. Johannessen Issued for Comment 286-2-1-no-en FORCE Technology Norway AS Sandvika +47 64 00 35 00 Trondheim +47 64 00 35 00 Stavanger + 47 64 00 35 00

ROBUST project Page i CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION...1 2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION...2 2.1 Summary...2 2.2 Conclusion...3 3 SAFETY BARRIER MODELS DESRIPTION...4 3.1 Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier...4 3.2 Norwegian VRS Type 1b-80...6 4 MODEL DESCRIPTION - COMPUTER MODEL GM_R1...8 4.1 Description...8 4.2 Modifications...11 5 MODEL EVALUATION - COMPUTER MODEL GM_R1...12 5.1 General...12 5.2 Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier...13 5.2.1 Simulation and results...13 5.2.2 FE analysis versus full scale experiments...13 5.2.3 Conclusions...14 5.3 Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80...15 5.3.1 Simulation and results...15 5.3.2 FE analysis versus full scale experiments...15 5.3.3 Conclusions...16 6 POST-PROCESSING SOFTWARE...17 7 REFERENCES...18 Appendix A TB11 simulation of Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier Appendix B TB11 simulation of Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80-1-no-en Proprietary information

ROBUST project Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION On behalf of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (Vegdirektoratet), Force Technology Norway has evaluated the small car computer model prepared by Politecnico di Milano. Two simulations, of small car (900 kg) hitting a Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier and Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80 with an initial speed of 100 km/h and an angle of 20 degrees, according to EN-1317 has been performed. The project was initiated in order to evaluate and document the model prepared by Politecnico di Milano. The results from the simulations are compared to results obtained in full-scale tests and simulations with the small car computer model prepared by Force Technology. In addition different post-processing software are used to evaluate the results. Two different vehicle models have been used in the project: Geo Metro original (GM_O) Force original developed model as documented in Ref. Ref. 3 Geo Metro revision 1 (GM_R1) Model prepared by POMI and evaluated by Force in this report.

ROBUST project Page 2 2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 2.1 Summary The small car computer model prepared by by Politecnico di Milano has been evaluated and document. Two TB11 simulations are performed to document the capability of the model. The investigated safety barriers are: Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80 A summary of the results from the simulations is given in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2. In addition different post-processing software has been evaluated. The results from this study are presented in chapter 6. Table 2.1 Simulation versus full-scale test - Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier. ASI Full-scale test Computer simulation Ration 1.86 1.73 1.08 THIV Full-scale test [km/h] Computer simulation [km/h] Ration 32.9 33.9 0.97 PHD Full-scale test Computer simulation Ration 14.1 7.1 0.50 Table 2.2 Simulation versus full-scale test - Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80. ASI Full-scale test Computer simulation Ration 1.30 1.31 1.00 THIV Full-scale test [km/h] Computer simulation [km/h] Ration - 31.9 - PHD Full-scale test Computer simulation Ration - 7.3 -

ROBUST project Page 3 2.2 Conclusion TB11 test (Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier): The results from the simulation and the full-scale test show good agreement. The ASI and PHD value is under predicted in the simulation compared to the full-scale test. TB11 test (Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80): The results from the simulation and the fullscale test show good agreement. The ASI is very accurate predicted in the simulation compared to the full-scale test. The conclusions from the study about different post-processing software are that only the inhouse software gives acceptable results.

ROBUST project Page 4 3 SAFETY BARRIER MODELS DESRIPTION 3.1 Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier The vehicle restraint system consists of one section concrete that is supported in the end using rigid concrete sections equal to the one used in the full-scale tests, ref Table 3.1. The roadway is included in the FE-model, but is not visible in the plots. The barrier is modelled using solid elements for the concrete. Plot of the FE model is shown in Table 3.2. The material data used in the simulation is presented in Table 3.3. Table 3.1 Vehicle restraint system Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier

ROBUST project Page 5 Table 3.2 Model description vehicle restraint system Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier Computer model, Model description Nodes Shell elements Solid elements Spot welds Materials 8 281-6 480-1 Table 3.3 Material characteristic Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier Part E-Module [MPa] Density [kg/m3] Yield Stress [MPa] Ultimate Stress [MPa] Ultimate Strain [-] Comments Concrete 40 000 2 700 - - - Elastic

ROBUST project Page 6 3.2 Norwegian VRS Type 1b-80 The vehicle restraint modelled consist of 12 posts at 2.0 meters distance, giving 11x2.0=22.0 meters of guardrail. The guardrail is fixed in both ends in the FE model. The foundation (concrete) is fixed at bottom location, i.e. infinite stiff soil assumed. The guardrail is modelled using shell element for the steel sections. The roadway is included in the FE-model, but is not visible in the plots. For additional dimensions reference is also made to Table 3.4. Plot of the FE model is given in Table 3.5. The material data used for the simulations are presented in Table 3.6. Table 3.4Vehicle restraint system. Vehicle restraint system, Type 1b 80 - Modified concrete foundation and deformation element Side view, Small VRS Front view H5 S H4 H L H3 W1 W2 Roadway H2 H1 Dimension Length, L [m] Posts [-] Span, S [mm] 22 12 2000 Height, H [mm] Height, H 1 [mm] Height, H 2 [mm] Height, H 3 [mm] Height, H 4 [mm] Height, H 5 [mm] 1200 30 120 400 340 260 Width, W 1 [mm] Width, W 2 [mm] Width, W 3 [mm] 260 120 -

ROBUST project Page 7 Table 3.5 Model description vehicle restraint system for roads Vehicle restraint system Computer model, VRS for roads Model description Nodes Shell elements Spot welds Materials 16752 15448 108 18 Table 3.6 Material characteristic. Vehicle restraint system Part E-Module [MPa] Density [kg/m3] Yield Stress [MPa] Ultimate Stress [MPa] Ultimate Strain [-] Comments W-Profile-front 1 210000 7850 285.0 400.0 0.15 Non-linear W-profile-back 210000 7850 355.0 510.0 0.15 Non-linear U-profile (top) 210000 7850 235.0 360.0 0.15 Non-linear Box-profile 210000 7850 235.0 360.0 0.15 Non-linear Post 210000 7850 355.0 510.0 0.15 Non-linear Concrete N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Rigid 1 Thickness in the profile is 3.1 mm according to manufacture (Vik Verk A.S.).

ROBUST project Page 8 4 MODEL DESCRIPTION - COMPUTER MODEL GM_R1 4.1 Description The project was initiated in order to evaluate the small car computer model (GM_R1) prepared by Politecnico di Milano. The model is a modified version of the small car computer model (GM_O) prepared by Force Technology and documented in Ref. 3. Politecnico di Milano has performed the following modifications: Spinning wheels are included Material failure is implemented for all non-linear material The front wheels are connected together using one new nodal rigid body, i.e. steering. The weight of the vehicle is 860 kg (The weight of GM_O vehicle model is 900kg. Force using null-shells around the engine and radiator to stabilize the simulation. This increase the weight about 40 kg) Increased amount of spotwelds in front door using five new nodal rigid bodies. Increased connection area between vehicle and accelerometer (increased accelerometer weight). Modification of the wheel suspension definition The bumper is 10 times stiffer Changed material properties for window glass Non-linear material definition for the tires Velocity definition Roadway friction of 0.8 in all direction. The computer model is compared to the vehicle specifications as given in Ref. 1. The vehicle specifications and the comparison are presented in Table 4.1. The vehicle satisfies all the specifications described in Ref. 1. Some additional dimensions of vehicle are also presented in Table 4.1. A summary of the computer model is presented in Table 4.2.

ROBUST project Page 9 Table 4.1 Vehicle specification small car Small car 900 kg Side view L Front view W WB FL FH H T Vehicle weight Model weight [kg] Weight [kg] 1 Min. weight [kg] 1 Max. weight [kg] 1 Acce 860 900 860 940 Yes Vehicle dimension Wheel track, T [mm] Wheel track [mm] 1 Min. wheel track [mm] 1 Max. wheel track [mm] 1 Acce 1370 2 1350 1148 1552 Yes Wheel radius [mm] Wheel radius [mm] 1 Min. wheel radius [mm] 1 Max. wheel radius [mm] 1 Acce 310 - - - NA! Wheel base, WB [mm] Wheel radius [mm] 1 Min. wheel radius [mm] 1 Max. wheel radius [mm] 1 Acce 2370 - - - NA! Vehicle width, W [mm] Vehicle width [mm] 1 Min. vehicle width [mm] 1 Max. vehicle width [mm] 1 Acce 1590 - - - NA! Vehicle height, H [mm] Vehicle height [mm] 1 Min. vehicle height [mm] 1 Max. vehicle height [mm] 1 Acce 1430 NA! Vehicle length, L [mm] Vehicle length [mm] 1 Min. vehicle length [mm] 1 Max. vehicle length [mm] 1 Acce 3750 - - - NA! Vehicle front length, FL [mm] Vehicle front length [mm] 1 Min. vehicle front length [mm] 1 Max. vehicle front length [mm] 1 Acce 800 - - - NA! Vehicle front height, FH [mm] Vehicle length [mm] 1 Min. vehicle length [mm] 1 Max. vehicle length [mm] 1 Acce 540 - - - NA! Centre of gravity location Longitudinal distance (CGX) [mm] Longitudinal distance (CGX) [mm] 1 Min longitudinal distance (CGX) [mm] 1 Max. longitudinal distance (CGX) [mm] 1 Acce 890 3 900 810 990 Yes Lateral distance (CGY) [mm] Lateral distance (CGY) [mm] 1 Min lateral distance (CGY) [mm] 1 Max. lateral distance (CGY) [mm] 1 Acce 0 0-70 70 Yes Height above ground (CGZ) [mm] Height above ground (CGZ) [mm] 1 Min height above ground (CGZ) [mm] 1 Max. height above ground (CGZ) [mm] 1 Acce 510 490 441 539 Yes 1 According to Standard 2 1400 in GM_O model 3 840 in GM_O model

ROBUST project Page 10 Table 4.2 Model description small car Small car 900 kg Computer model Model description Nodes Shell elements Beam elements Solid elements Spring and damper elements 19216 14702 1 12 820 8 Mass elements Nodal rigid body Spot welds Materials Joints 62 390 2 787 204 3 22 1 17045 in GM_O model including null shell. 2 384 in GM_O model. 3 206 in GM_O model (2 parts with null shell).

ROBUST project Page 11 4.2 Modifications In order to evaluate the vehicle model a simulation with only the vehicle has been performed. The results from this simulation indicated that: the front spinning wheels not rotated correct, and the vehicle velocity decreased directly when the simulation is started. Two modifications have been performed to avoid these problems: 1. Parts 165 and 166 have been deleted from the contact. This modification leads to that the front wheels rotated correct. 2. Initial velocity has been added to some nodes with point mass as in GM_O computer model. This modification gives the vehicle correct initial velocity with out reduction when the simulation is started. The GM_R1 model with the modification presented above has been used further in this project.

ROBUST project Page 12 5 MODEL EVALUATION - COMPUTER MODEL GM_R1 5.1 General Two TB11 simulations are performed in order to evaluate the small car computer model (GM_R1) prepared by Politecnico di Milano. The safety barriers used in the evaluation are: Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier, i.e. identical to the barrier used in the Round Robin project Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80 The friction definition between vehicle and safety barrier is according to Force Technology, i.e. friction coefficient 0.3 for the Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier and no friction for the Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80. The results from the simulations are briefly described in this chapter and detailed documented in Appendix A and B. The results are post-processing using in house software. In chapter 7, a comparison of different post-processing software is presented.

ROBUST project Page 13 5.2 Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier 5.2.1 Simulation and results A TB11 simulation has been performed in order to evaluate the small car computer model (GM_R1). The vehicle hit a Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier with an initial speed of 100 km/h and an angle of 20 degrees. The results from the simulation is summarised in Table 5.1 and detailed description in Appendix A. Table 5.1 Results Model ASI THIV PHD Exit Angle Exit speed Ref. [-] [km/h] [g] [Degrees] [km/h] GM_R1 1.73 33.9 7.1 4.2 73.1 Appendix A 5.2.2 FE analysis versus full scale experiments A comparison between the results from the computer simulation and the full-scale test is presented in this chapter. The damage of the vehicle is presented in Table 5.2. The calculated damage of the vehicle is approximately the same as the damage in the full-scale test. Table 5.2 FE-simulation versus full-scale test. Full-scale test: Computer simulation: GM_R1 Not available ASI Full-scale test Computer simulation Ration 1.86 1.73 1.08 THIV Full-scale test [km/h] Computer simulation [km/h] Ration 32.9 33.9 0.97 PHD Full-scale test Computer simulation Ration 14.1 7.1 0.50

ROBUST project Page 14 5.2.3 Conclusions The results from the simulation and the full-scale test show good agreement. The ASI and PHD value is under predicted in the simulation compared to the full-scale test.

ROBUST project Page 15 5.3 Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80 5.3.1 Simulation and results A TB11 simulation has been performed in order to evaluate the small car computer model (GM_R1). The vehicle hit a Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80 with an initial speed of 100 km/h and an angle of 20 degrees. The results from the simulation is summarised in Table 5.3 and detailed description in Appendix B. Table 5.3 Results Model ASI THIV PHD Exit Angle Exit speed Ref. [-] [km/h] [g] [Degrees] [km/h] GM_R1 1.31 31.9 7.3 7.3 75.3 Appendix B 5.3.2 FE analysis versus full scale experiments A comparison between the results from the computer simulation and the full-scale test is presented in this chapter. The damage of the vehicle is presented in Table 5.2. The calculated damage of the vehicle is approximately the same as the damage in the full-scale test. Table 5.4 FE-simulation versus full-scale test. Full-scale test: Computer simulation: GM_R1 Not available ASI Full-scale test Computer simulation Ration 1.30 1.31 1.00 THIV Full-scale test [km/h] Computer simulation [km/h] Ration - 31.9 - PHD Full-scale test Computer simulation Ration - 7.3 -

ROBUST project Page 16 5.3.3 Conclusions The results from the simulation and the full-scale test show good agreement. The ASI is very accurate predicted in the simulation compared to the full-scale test.

ROBUST project Page 17 6 POST-PROCESSING SOFTWARE As part of the project, the key parameters from the simulations have been calculated with use of different software programs. The following program is used: In-house software Modified in-house software TRAP (sampling rate 1e-5) with pre-filtering using CFC 60 filter In addition the results are compared to results obtaining using GM_O computer model. The results from TB11 simulations of Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier and Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80 are presented in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2, respectively. Table 6.1 Results - Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier Vehicle model Software ASI THIV PHD Ref. [-] [km/h] [g] Full-scale test 1.86 32.9 14.1 GM_O In-house 1.87 34.1 6.6 TR-2002-0067 GM_O TRAP 2.10 37.7 35.4 - GM_R1 In-house 1.73 33.9 7.1 Appendix A GM_R1 TRAP 1.93 35.3 12.6 - Table 6.2 Results - Norwegian standard VRS, Type 1b-80 Vehicle model Software ASI THIV PHD Ref. [-] [km/h] [g] Full-scale test 1.30 GM_O In-house 1.35 37.5 7.0 OD-2001-0048 GM_O TRAP 1.58 33.9 36.4 - GM_R1 In-house 1.31 31.9 7.3 Appendix B GM_R1 TRAP 1.68 31.5 17.3 -

ROBUST project Page 18 7 REFERENCES Ref. 1 Road restraint systems Part 1: Terminology and general criteria for test methods. European Committee for Standardization, April 1998. Ref. 2 Road restraint systems Part 2: Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers. European Committee for Standardization, April 1998. Ref. 3 OD-2000-0024: Crash Analysis of Road Restraint System Validated finite element models, Main Report. Offshore Design AS, January 2001 (rev. 0).

ROBUST project Page 19 APPENDIX A. VERTICAL CONCRETE SAFETY BARRIER a) Simulation company Name: Force Technology Address: Tallmätargatan 7, S-721 34 Västerås, Sweden Telephone: +46 (0)21 490 3026 Facsimile number +46 (0)21 490 3001 b) Client Name: Norwegian Public Roads Administration Address: Box 216, 732 24 Arboga Telephone number: 0589 150 50 Facsimile number: 0589 174 46 c) Test item Name of test items: Drawings: Chapter 3.1 e) Test procedure Guard-rail: Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier Vehicle: GM_R1 (Small car) 1) Test type TB11 Impact speed: Impact angle: Inertial vehicle test mass: 100 km/h 20 deg. 900 kg 2) Modelling A detailed description of the computer model is given in chapter 3.1. 3) Vehicle Reference is made to Ref. 3, Crash Analysis of Road Restrained System - Validated finite element models Main report, prepared by Force Technology on behalf of Swedish National Road Adm. f) Analysis results 1) Test items Maximum global dynamic deflection: NA Working width: NA Maximum global permanent deflection: NA Length of contact: ca 3 meters Impact point: In the middle of barrier. Major parts fractured or detached: No Description of damage to test items: NA Ground anchorage s meets design levels: NA Plot of test items: Table 7.1- Table 7.5

ROBUST project Page 20 2) Vehicle Impact speed: 100 km/h % difference from target speed: 0 % Impact angle: 20 deg. % difference from target angle: 0 % Within tolerance limits: Yes Exit speed: 73.1 km/h Exit angle: 4.2 deg. Rebound distance: NA Vehicle breaches barrier: No Vehicle passes over the barrier: No Vehicle within CEN box : Yes Vehicle rolls over after impact: No Damage to test vehicle: Moderate damage / Table 7.5 General description of vehicle trajectory: Initially the right-hand side of the vehicle crashes into the system at an angle of 20 degrees and a velocity of 100 km/h, in the middle of the barrier. In the course of this, the front left-hand side and the body deform, and the vehicle begins to change direction. Vehicle damage TAD: NA Vehicle damage VDI: NA Vehicle cockpit def. index VCDI: NA Major parts of vehicle detached: No Plots of the vehicle: Table 7.5 3) Assessment of the impact severity Acceleration severity index, ASI: 1.73 / Table 7.6 Post-impact head deceleration, PHD: 7.1 g / Table 7.8 Flail space: 0.3 m in y-dir Time of flight: 0.07 sec / Table 7.7 THIV: 33.9 km/h / Table 7.7 Acceleration graphs: Table 7.6 g) General statement - The key parameters: ASI and THIV are not within the maximum values given by the CEN standard.

ROBUST project Page 21 Table 7.1 Vehicle - Front view. Time 0.00 Time 0.05 Time 0.10 Time 0.15 Time 0.20 Time 0.25

ROBUST project Page 22 Table 7.2 Vehicle Side view. Time 0.00 Time 0.05 Time 0.10 Time 0.15 Time 0.20 Time 0.25

ROBUST project Page 23 Table 7.3 Vehicle - Top view Time 0.00 Time 0.05 Time 0.10 Time 0.15 Time 0.20 Time 0.25

ROBUST project Page 24 Table 7.4 Vehicle View. Time 0.00 Time 0.05 Time 0.10 Time 0.15 Time 0.20 Time 0.25

ROBUST project Page 25 Table 7.5 Vehicle damage. Top view Bottom view Side view Side view View View

ROBUST project Page 26 Table 7.6 Acceleration severity index (ASI). Results from Analysis Acceleration in X-direction Max X-acceleration = 11.21g 15 X-Acceleration Max Y-acceleration = 13.09g Max Z-acceleration = 6.51g ASI = max[asi(t)] = 1.73 Acceleration [g] 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25-5 -10-15 Time [sec] Acceleration in Y-direction 15 Y-Acceleration 10 Acceleration [g] 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25-5 -10-15 Time [sec] Acceleration severity index (ASI) Acceleration in Z-direction ASI [-] ASI - GEOMETRO - ANGLE 20, SPEED 100KM/H 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Time [sec] Acceleration [g] Z-Acceleration 15 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25-5 -10-15 Time [sec]

ROBUST project Page 27 Table 7.7 Theoretical head impact velocity (THIV) Results from Analysis Theoretical head impact velocity (THIV) THIV Time of flight = 33.9 km/h = 0.07 sec THIV [km/h] THIV - GEOMETRO - ANGLE 20, SPEED 100KM/H 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Time [sec] Relative head position in x-direction versus time X-Position Relative head position in y-direction versus time Y-Position Head position [mm] 200 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3-200 -400-600 -800-1000 -1200 Time [sec] Head position [mm] 500 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3-500 -1000-1500 -2000-2500 Time [sec]

ROBUST project Page 28 Table 7.8 Post-impact head deceleration (PHD) Results from Analysis Post-impact head deceleration versus time PHD = 7.1 g PHD - GEOMETRO - ANGLE 20, SPEED 100KM/H PHD [g] 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Time [sec]

ROBUST project Page 29 APPENDIX B. NORWEGIAN VRS TYPE 1B-80 a) Simulation company Name: Force Technology Address: Tallmätargatan 7, S-721 34 Västerås, Sweden Telephone: +46 (0)21 490 3026 Facsimile number +46 (0)21 490 3001 b) Client Name: Norwegian Public Roads Administration Address: Box 216, 732 24 Arboga Telephone number: 0589 150 50 Facsimile number: 0589 174 46 c) Test item Name of test items: Guard-rail: Norwegian VRS Type 1B-80 Vehicle: GM_R1 (Small car) Drawings: Chapter 3.1 e) Test procedure 1) Test type TB11 Impact speed: Impact angle: Inertial vehicle test mass: 100 km/h 20 deg. 900 kg 2) Modelling A detailed description of the computer model is given in chapter 3.2. 3) Vehicle Reference is made to Ref. 3, Crash Analysis of Road Restrained System - Validated finite element models Main report, prepared by Force Technology on behalf of Swedish National Road Adm. f) Analysis results 1) Test items Maximum global dynamic deflection: 0.02 m (post) Working width: ca 0.36 m / W1 Maximum global permanent deflection: ca 0 m / Error! Reference source not found. Length of contact: ca 4 meters Impact point: ca. 70 cm after post 5. Major parts fractured or detached: No Description of damage to test items: No Ground anchorage s meets design levels: Na Plot of test items: Table 7.9-Table 7.14

ROBUST project Page 30 2) Vehicle Impact speed: 100 km/h % difference from target speed: 0 % Impact angle: 20 deg. % difference from target angle: 0 % Within tolerance limits: Yes Exit speed: 75.3 km/h Exit angle: 7.3 deg. Rebound distance: NA Vehicle breaches barrier: No Vehicle passes over the barrier: No Vehicle within CEN box : Yes Vehicle rolls over after impact: No Damage to test vehicle: Moderate damage / Table 7.5 General description of vehicle trajectory: Initially the left-hand side of the vehicle crashes into the system at an angle of 20 degrees and a velocity of 100 km/h, ca. 70 cm after post 5. In the course of this, the front left-hand side and the body deform, and the vehicle begins to change direction. Vehicle damage TAD: NA Vehicle damage VDI: NA Vehicle cockpit def. index VCDI: NA Major parts of vehicle detached: No Plots of the vehicle: Table 7.13 3) Assessment of the impact severity Acceleration severity index, ASI: 1.31 / Table 7.15 Post-impact head deceleration, PHD: 7.3 g / Table 7.17 Flail space: 0.3 m in y-dir Time of flight: 0.08 sec / Table 7.16 THIV: 31.9 km/h / Table 7.16 Acceleration graphs: Table 7.15 g) General statement - The key parameters: ASI, PHD and THIV are within the maximum values given by the CEN standard.

ROBUST project Page 31 Table 7.9 Vehicle - Front view. Time 0.00 Time 0.05 Time 0.10 Time 0.15 Time 0.20 Time 0.25

ROBUST project Page 32 Table 7.10 Vehicle Side view. Time 0.00 Time 0.05 Time 0.10 Time 0.15 Time 0.20 Time 0.25

ROBUST project Page 33 Table 7.11 Vehicle - Top view Time 0.00 Time 0.05 Time 0.10 Time 0.15 Time 0.20 Time 0.25

ROBUST project Page 34 Table 7.12 Vehicle View. Time 0.00 Time 0.05 Time 0.10 Time 0.15 Time 0.20 Time 0.25

ROBUST project Page 35 Table 7.13 Vehicle damage. Top view Bottom view Side view Side view View View

ROBUST project Page 36 Table 7.14 VRS damage. Top view Front view Side view Side view View View

ROBUST project Page 37 Table 7.15 Acceleration severity index (ASI). Results from Analysis Acceleration in X-direction Max X-acceleration = 8.83g 15 X-Acceleration Max Y-acceleration = 9.67g Max Z-acceleration = 3.89g ASI = max[asi(t)] = 1.31 Acceleration [g] 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25-5 -10-15 Time [sec] Acceleration in Y-direction 10 Y-Acceleration 5 Acceleration [g] 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25-5 -10-15 Time [sec] Acceleration severity index (ASI) ASI [-] ASI - GEOMETRO - ANGLE 20, SPEED 100KM/H 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Time [sec] Acceleration in Z-direction Acceleration [g] Z-Acceleration 15 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25-5 -10-15 Time [sec]

ROBUST project Page 38 Table 7.16 Theoretical head impact velocity (THIV) Results from Analysis Theoretical head impact velocity (THIV) THIV Time of flight = 31.9 km/h = 0.08 sec THIV [km/h] THIV - GEOMETRO - ANGLE 20, SPEED 100KM/H 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Time [sec] Relative head position in x-direction versus time Relative head position in y-direction versus time Head position [mm] X-Position 200 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3-200 -400-600 -800 Head position [mm] Y-Position 500 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3-500 -1000-1500 -2000-1000 Time [sec] -2500 Time [sec]

ROBUST project Page 39 Table 7.17 Post-impact head deceleration (PHD) Results from Analysis Post-impact head deceleration versus time PHD = 7.3 g PHD - GEOMETRO - ANGLE 20, SPEED 100KM/H PHD [g] 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Time [sec]