Full Width Test Overview, Aims and Conclusions

Full Width Test Overview, Aims and Conclusions Workshop at TU Berlin, Germany 14 th June 2012 Thorsten Adolph

Outline History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Aim and justification for the full width test Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB, TRL SEAS Analyses, VTI Test severity Certification of the Load Cell Wall, Humanetics Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 2

History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB SEAS Analyses Test Severity Certification of the Load Cell Wall Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 3

History Previous projects and working groups: EUCAR Compatibility 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? 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) Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 4

Test Procedures on Frontal Impact Regulation and Consumer tests Europe Offset Test ECE-R94 Euro NCAP Latin America Latin NCAP India AIS-098/F Note: AZT (RCAR) Bumper Test Offset and Full Width Test China GB 11551-2003 China NCAP South Korea KMVSS 102 K NCAP Australia ADR 69/00 A NCAP USA FMVSS 208 US NCAP; IIHS Japan TRIAS 47 J NCAP Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 5

History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB SEAS Analyses Test Severity Certification of the Load Cell Wall Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 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 FW test and metric FW test and metric FW test and metric FW test and metric Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 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 Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 8

Accident Analyses Under / overriding Peugeot / 206 CC against HGV Driver: MAIS 4 Under / overriding Ford Mondeo vs. Ford Mondeo Driver: MAIS 5 Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 9

Accident Analyses Object impacts Opel Astra against tree Driver: MAIS 4 Object impacts Nissan Micra against pole / fence Driver: MAIS 3 Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 10

Strategy and Priorities 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 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 Metric for structural alignment Full width test Offset test Combination of full width and offset tests Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 11

History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB SEAS Analyses Test Severity Certification of the Load Cell Wall Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 12

Priorities for the full width test What is the aim of the full width test? Provide a high deceleration pulse Structural alignment with part 581 zone Not discourage a load path in alignment with row 1 and 2 200 150 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 0 100 50 0 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 GL At 200 kn Minimum 40 % of the forces have to be in row 3 and 4 Why? -Acceleration induced injuries are dominant in vehicles w/o intrusion -Severe pulses in new vehicles -Structural alignment is the basis of compatibility -Under/override was seen in accident analyses -Help to establish a common interaction zone Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 13

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 Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 14

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 can be higher than in FWRB Load spreading in the barrier face Is not a problem if sum of forces in rows or columns are used Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 15

Justification Full width test Recommendation from WG 15: Combination of full width test and offset test Different pulses to test the restraint system capacity Pulses from accident analyses and car-to-car tests are comparable Large proportion of accidents with high overlap Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 16

Justification Comparison Citroen C3 FWDB versus Euro NCAP HIII 50% Male HIII 5% Female HIII 50% Male HIII 50% Male Femur Right: 21kN Head: 90 g HIC: 1090 Neck My-: 48 Nm Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 17

Justification FWDB FWRB Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 18

Full Width Crash Test Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 19

Simulation Requests Request 1: Variable crossbeam height versus longitudinals height Request 2: Investigation of towing eye issues Request 6: Investigation of cross over vehicles Request 7: Raising a car by smaller steps to check both metrics, TUB and CRF; verify results with car-to-car tests Request 8: Investigations with GLK type of design in a sideimpact to investigate second stage issues in FWRB and FWDB, TBU and Volvo Request 9: Further towing hook simulations with FWDB by CRF, TUB Check metrics with full scale models from Daimler (GLK, A- Class, Smart, M-Class) Check metrics with all GCM models from CRF Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 20

History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB SEAS Analyses Test Severity Certification of the Load Cell Wall Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 21

Common Interaction Zone Metric Development Objective: Promote a common interaction zone based on the US and Japan proposal 455 mm 330 mm 580 mm Part 581 Zone; 16 to 20 inches (406 to 508 mm) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Ground clearance: 80 mm Height of load cell: 125 mm - Structural alignment is the basis of compatibility - Under/override was seen in accident studies - Help to establish a common interaction zone Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 22

RCAR Bumper test RCAR Bumper Test Front / Rear 10 km/h Ground clearance H = 455 mm priority Part 581 zone (middle = 455 mm) RCAR Bumper Test is higher because this test is made for low speed rear end impacts Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 23

C3 Car-to-car crash tests Aligned Misaligned 76 mm 488 mm 451 mm Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 24

Aligned Vehicle 1 C3 Car-to-car crash tests C3 deformations Misaligned Lowered vehicle Vehicle 2 Raised vehicle Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 25

C3 Car-to-car crash tests C3 deformation measurements Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 26

Test 1: Original height Tests performed by JMLIT Test 2: Height matching Large car Mini-car Large car Mini-car 454 mm 324 mm 358 mm 354 mm Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 27

Test 1: Original height Front rails overridden Mini-car Deformation Test 2: Front rail height matching Front rails made contact Front rail (right) Engine top Engine bottom Transmission bottom Front structure Test 1 (Front rail overridden) Test 2 (Height match) Instrument panel Driver toe board Front Passenger toe board Passenger compartment 0 100 200 300 400 500 Deformation (mm) Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 28

Link to _WP3 Metric Development v1.pptx Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 29

Conclusions on FWRB Metrics Current metric Advantages of FWRB test / metric Effectively already de-facto worldwide standard test so hence would be easier to introduce from harmonisation point of view Measures vehicle forces directly, i.e. not filtered by deformable element No problems with stability of deformable face or possibility of load spreading by deformable face More test data available for development of metric Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 30

Conclusions on FWDB Metrics agreed on basics of FWDB metrics First step is common interaction zone concept which is fulfilled The current metric works for different sizes of cars and can detect the PEAS structure according to the US voluntary agreement Minimum threshold forces in rows 3 and 4 according to the current FWDB metrics Further improvements to address vertical load spreading (FWDB row 1 row 4 and/or PDB) needed Side impact Encourage multiple load paths vehicles Investigation of special vehicle designs that have not PEAS in alignment with row 3 or 4 may be required (not sufficient load in row 3 or row 4 but still safe) Stage 2 assessment Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 31

History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB SEAS Analyses Test Severity Certification of the Load Cell Wall Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 32

SEAS Analyses Over Ride Barrier Lower Load Path Vehicles with high PEAS (Offroad vehicles) have the second stage in the US voluntary agreement Vehicles with very forward located lower load paths Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 33

Link to Presentation: SEAS analyses, VTI Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 34

Conclusions SEAS / Over Ride Barrier A SEAS structure helps to prevent under / overriding and in side impacts Appropriate SEAS which helps in car-to-car accidents can be detected to date with the FWDB However, the ORB can detect SEAS which do not provide benefits to car-to-car accidents will further investigate the Second stage for high PEAS cars Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 35

History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB SEAS Analyses Test Severity Certification of the Load Cell Wall Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 36

Test Severity Outline on Test Severity Test speed in full width tests is between 48 km/h to 56 km/h What is the best test speed for FWRB and FWDB? Analyses of delta V in accidents Full width test should provide a high pulse but for a relevant accident scenario Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 37

Test Severity Accident Analyses Injury risk in frontal impacts with overlap more than 75% 10 km/h Calculation Delta V Accident analyses indicates higher benefit at 50 km/h Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 38

Test Severity Fiat 500 FWRB 50 km/h (red) Fiat 500 FWDB 56 km/h (blue) Comparison of Fiat 500 FWRB with 50 km/h and Fiat 500 FWDB with 56 km/h FWRB up to 56 g FWDB up to 66 g Initial peak at 10 ms is seen with FWRB 10 g Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 39

Test Severity FWDB simulations at 40, 50 and 56 km/h Simulations at different velocities are showing that between 50 and 56 km/h is not very big difference GCM2A 40 km/h GCM2A 50 km/h GCM2A 56 km/h This suggests that the 50 km/h FWDB can capture the peak pulses of a higher speed crash Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 40

Test Severity Conclusions for FWDB and FWRB Based on accident analyses a lower delta V than 56 km/h is recommended Selected tests vehicles are showing higher dummy values and higher vehicle acceleration in the FWDB test compared to FWRB Test speed for FWRB and FWDB: 50km/h Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 41

History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB SEAS Analyses Certification of the Load Cell Wall Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 42

Link to Presentation: Specification Workshop V2.pptx, Humanetics Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 43

Certification of the LCW Conclusions A load cell specification and calibration document has been prepared Investigations into full wall specification/calibration ongoing Wall flatness being specified based on measurements of three walls No dynamic trolley tests needed Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 44

History and current standards Accident Analysis and Priorities Overview of FWRB and FWDB Development of Metrics for FWRB and FWDB SEAS Analyses Certification of the Load Cell Wall Conclusions Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 45

FWDB FINAL APPROACH Test Procedure Evaluation Criteria on FWDB FW test and metric Priority 1 Items Common interaction zone defined as 406-508 mm Vertical Load spreading Horizontal load spreading Current compartment strength maintained Appropriate severity level Field Relevant pulse Repeatability / Reproducibility Appropriate pass/fail thresholds Check for step effects in metrics Good cars rated good Poor car rated poor Detection of vehicle architecture / loadpaths (-) - - Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 46

Conclusions Full Width Test has decided on Full Width Deformable Barrier + 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 performance based + 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 + Engine dump loading attenuated, thus assessment later in the impact + The metric has potential for further improvements + Test speed defined 50 km/h for FWDB Harmonization Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 47

Dissemination Deliverable 3.1 Report results and analysis Deliverable 3.2 Updated full width test protocol Reporting of test data, final analyses, full width test protocol Presentations / Papers ESV 2011 ICRASH 2012 Crashtech 2012 TRA 2012 Workshop 2011 und 2012 www.fimcar.eu Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 48

Thank you for your attention Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 49

Possible further slides Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 50

Test Severity Comparison with Pulses from Accident Reconstructions Within EC funded CASPER project and previous CHILD project accidents were reconstructed in crash test facilities selected to develop injury risk function for child dummies minimum child injury severity or minimum accident severity (i.e. delta-v > 40 km/h) acceleration [g] -60-55 -50-45 -40-35 -30-25 -20-15 -10-5 0 5 EVAluation PC Version 2.5.9.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 4 5 5 8 10 8 7 5 5 45 5 78 7 2 2 45 2 5 7 6 6 6 4 2 45 7 8 8 8 2 4 5 2 45 7 2 2 456 45 67 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 910 9 9 9 9 910 9 9 10 9 6 7 9 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 6 6 7 6 4 67 7 7 56 10 7 2 7 1045 6 9 6 7 4 2 8 1 4 89 1 7 10 104 2 5 9 1 8 7 9 8 4 6 5 6 4 1 2 2 6 4 8 9 4 9 10 1 1 7 8 4 7 7 2 5 5 6 2 5 9 6 10 8 10 1-65 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 time [ms] Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 51

Status of Actions for WP 3 Perform full width crash tests to check Volvo XC 60 / Renault Koleos / Daimler GLK to investigate the second stage in FWDB Toyota SUV has been tested by Japan Finalize R&R analysis (last three C3 tests after November) Car-to-car tests requests identified Renault Koleos against Renault Megane (standard height and raised) Volvo XC 60 and Volvo S 60 in a side-impact (standard height and raised) Renault Koleos against Renault Megane (standard height and w/o SEAS) Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 52

Status of Actions for WP 3 FWDB investigations for forces in row 1 and 2 to consider the RCAR bumper test (Detection of SEAS) FWRB investigations later in the impact FWRB Second stage Simulation request 8 Performance of the second stage in a side-impact, TUB / CRF / VCC Simulations from CRF Full analyses available Further investigation for horizontal load spreading Analyses by VTI and TUB Definition of test speed for FWDB Compare acceleration/severity of Fiat 500 FWDB 56 km/h versus Fiat 500 FWRB 50 km/h Investigations with BASt reference vehicle Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 53

Overview of Simulation Requests WP 3 Request 1: Variable crossbeam height versus longitudinals height Request 2: Investigation of towing eye issues Request 6: Investigation of cross over vehicles Request 7: Raising a car by smaller steps to check both metrics, TUB and CRF; verify results with car-to-car tests Request 8: Investigations with GLK type of design in a side-impact to investigate second stage issues in FWRB and FWDB, TBU and CRF will be fulfilled by Volvo Simulations Request 9: Further towing hook simulations with FWDB by CRF, TUB Several simulations (FWRB & FWDB) with full scale models from Daimler (GLK, A-Class, Smart) Simulation work from CRF with all GCM models Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 54

Test Procedures on Frontal Impact Regulation and Consumer tests Regulation and Consumer tests Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph Folie Nr. 55

FWDB Sim/crash test with Smart, Daimler Real Crash Test Data Up to 40ms: Peak LCW force = 368kN @ 31.6ms 0.2F T40 = 0.2 x 368 = 73.7kN Peak F3 = 105kN must be greater than the minimum of 100kN or 73.7kN Peak F4 = 79kN must be greater than the minimum of 100kN or 73.7kN Simulation data Total Force up to 40ms 350 kn @ 26 ms 0,2 @ Total Force F3 = 70 kn F4 = 70 kn Therefore the MCC Smart passes the criteria in test and simulation although it is close to the border (15% safety margin) Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 56

FWDB Simulations with M- Class, Daimler Date for Total LCW forces are needed For Smart, A-Class, E-Class, M-Class, SLK Total Force up to 40ms 752 kn @ 40 ms 0,2 @ Total Force F3 = 100 kn (150kN) F4 = 100 kn (150kN) M-Class passes the criteria Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 57

Comparison of FWDB Metric against geometrical measurements Simulation Requests Simulation with Generic Car Models (GCM) > 50% PEAS > 50% PEAS Option 1a Option 1b PEAS GCM 1 406 488mm PEAS GCM 2 440 545mm PEAS GCM 3 436 556mm GCM 1 GCM 2 GCM 3 Geometric Assessment Pass Pass Pass FWDB Metric Pass Pass Pass Row force F3 [kn] 114 124 137 Row force F4 [kn] 127 185 184 Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 58

FWDB Simulation with Renault Koleos Renault Koleos is close to fail Geometrical data is needed ca. 80 kn 85 kn @ 40 ms ca. 110 kn Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 59

FWDB Simulations with PCM (TUB) Request 7 step effects Raising a large family car by steps to check metrics Verify results by car-to-car simulationsrequest 7 Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 60

Conclusions Vertical load spreading TRL proposed to use the sum of row 1 and 2 and count values above 110 kn as a limit reduction for forces in row 3 will further investigate the lower limit reduction Workshop 2012 Thorsten Adolph 61