fimcar summary of results 20121212 - grsp web site · frontal impact and compatibility assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FIMCAR
Frontal Impact
Assessment Approach
Prof. Dr. Heiko Johannsen, Dr. Mervyn Edwards, Ignacio Lazaro, Dr. Thorsten Adolph, Ton Versmissen, Dr. Robert Thomson
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FIMCAR
• EC funded project ended September 2012
• Partners:
– Car manufacturers: Daimler, FIAT, Opel, PSA,
Renault, Volkswagen, Volvo
– OEM associated: CRF
– Research institutes test houses: BASt, Chalmers,
IDIADA, TNO, TRL, TTAI, TUB, UTAC
– Suppliers: HUMANETICS, IAT
• 2/3 majority required for decision making
2Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FIMCAR definition of compatibility
• Compatibility consists of self and partner
protection.
• Improved compatibility will decrease the injury
risks for occupants in single and multiple vehicle
accidents.
• Compatible vehicles will deform in a stable
manner allowing the deformation zones to be
exploited even when different vehicle sizes and
masses are involved
3Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Heiko Johannsen 4
Accident analysisSummary of findings
• Structural interaction still an issue– over/underriding
– horizontal homogeneity (small overlap / fork effect)
• Compartment strength still an issue– seems to be independent from vehicle size
– especially in crashes with HGV and objects
• High proportion of fatal and severely injured in large overlap accidents (even at relatively low speed)
• Large number of injuries are related to restraint loading without intrusion
• Higher injury risks for occupants in lighter carDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
5
FIMCAR prioritiesStructural interaction
Common Interaction Zone
Lower Area for
Load Spreading
AB
C
A = 180 mmB = 406 mmC = 508 mm
• Structural alignment– Common interaction zone defined based on US bumper
zone
• Vertical load spreading– Load spreading in common interaction zone
– Load spreading below interaction zone
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
6
FIMCAR prioritiesStructural interaction
• Structural alignment– Common interaction zone defined based on US bumper
zone
• Vertical load spreading– Load spreading in common interaction zone
– Load spreading below interaction zone
• Horizontal load spreading– Load spreading between
longmembers
– Load spreading outsidelongmembers
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
7
FIMCAR prioritiesTest severity and self protection
• Test severity– current compartment strength requirements
maintained
– appropriate severity level for occupant protection (RS)
– (address mass dependent injury risk)
• Pulse requirements– field relevant pulse
– different pulses
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FIMCAR Final Decision
• Full-width deformable barrier test
– 50 km/h
– LCW based metrics for alignment of crash structures
• Current ODB (ECE R94)
– Additional a-pillar displacement limits
• 50 mm max
• Discussion in IG FI suggests, that FIMCAR definition is not appropriate, however, the basic idea of limiting intrusion seems to be acceptable
8Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDB
9Heiko Johannsen
• Accident analyses have shown the relevance of
collisions with high overlap and high acceleration
• More representative loading of the front structures
with the FWDB w.r.t. car-to-car tests and accidents
– FWRB guarantees stable, ideal deformation of forward
structures not observed in real accidents
– FWDB tests produce more
realistic deformation patterns
compared to car-car tests
– > more challenging for structural
designDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
December 12th 2012
Justification FWDBmore representative deformation pattern
10Heiko Johannsen
FWDB FWRB
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBmore representative deformation pattern
11Heiko Johannsen
FWDB car-to-car 50% overlap
December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
December 12th 2012
Justification FWDBmore representative deformation pattern
12Heiko Johannsen
FWDB FWRB
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDB
13Heiko Johannsen
• Higher dummy loadings with the FWDB
• Acceleration pulse more comparable with car
accident pulses
– especially in the initial phase
– > more representative w.r.t. restraint system triggering
– issues detected in FWDB tests
– issues detected in EDR data
– issues detected in accident reconstructions
• Maximum acceleration can be higher
than in FWRBDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
December 12th 2012
Justification FWDBmore representative pulse (in comparison to CASPER project accident
reconstruction pulses of ECE R94 compliant cars)
14Heiko Johannsen
EVAluation PC Version 2.5.9.2
time [s]0.0000.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100
ac
ce
lera
tio
n [
g]
20
15
10
500
-5-1
0-1
5-2
0-2
5-3
0-3
5-4
0-4
5-5
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
2
22
2
22
2
2
2
2 2
22
2
2
2
22 2 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
4
4 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 4
4
4
4
4 4
4
4 4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
55 5 5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
66 6
6
6
6
66
6
6
66
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
December 12th 2012
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (accident reconstruction)
15Heiko Johannsen
Centered pole impact
Occupant starts to move
Airbag start to deployAirbag is loading the occupant
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (accident reconstruction)
16Heiko Johannsen
Pulse comparison to FWDB Pulse comparison to FWRB
December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
December 12th 2012
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (40 km/h FWDB test)
17Heiko Johannsen
Occupant starts to move
PAB starts to deploy
FSP contacts deploying airbag
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
December 12th 2012
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (airbag delay in 40 km/h FWDB test)
18Heiko Johannsen
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
December 12th 2012
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (airbag delay in 40 km/h FWDB test)
19Heiko Johannsen
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
December 12th 2012
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (airbag delay in 40 km/h FWDB test)
20Heiko Johannsen
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
HIC NIJ chest a3ms chest deflection femur FZ
de
via
tio
n f
rom
FM
VS
S 2
08
lim
it [
%]
FWRB 50 driver FWRB 50 passenger 5th FWDB 56 driver
FWDB 40 driver FWDB40 passenger 5th
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering
21Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
car 1 car 2 car 3 car 4
Air
ba
g t
rig
ge
r ti
me
[m
s]
FWRB FWDB
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering
22Heiko Johannsen
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14
che
st d
isp
lace
me
nt
[mm
]
time [s]
FWDB
FWRB
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14
che
st d
isp
lace
me
nt
[mm
]
time [s]
FWDB
FWRB
December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (airbag delay in car 2)
23Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
head a3ms HPC neck FZ neck MY chest
deflection
chest VC Femur FZ
de
via
tio
n f
rom
EC
E R
94
lim
it [
%]
FWRB driver FWRB passenger FWDB driver FWDB passenger
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (airbag delay in car 2)
24Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
HIC NIJ chest a3ms chest deflection femur FZ
de
via
tio
n f
rom
FM
VS
S 2
08
lim
it [
%]
FWRB driver FWRB passenger FWDB driver FWDB passenger
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (EDR data and FWRB data)
25Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Dalm
ota
sD
J, G
erm
an A
and C
om
eau
J-L
; C
rash P
uls
e
Analy
sis
usin
g E
vent
Data
Record
ers
; P
roceedin
gs o
f th
e 1
9th
C
anadia
n M
ultid
iscip
linary
Road S
afe
ty C
onfe
rence,
Saskato
on, S
askatc
hew
an, June 8
-10, 2009.
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (NASS EDR data with good representation of
FW test, only 12 o’clock impacts GM volume cars)
26Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
air
ba
g t
rig
ge
r ti
me
[m
s]
delta-v [km/h]
Pre
analy
sed d
ata
made a
vaila
ble
by D
ain
ius
Dalm
ota
s, D
. J.
Dalm
ota
sC
onsultin
g, In
c
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (belt forces dependent on test type)
27Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Pre
analy
sed d
ata
made a
vaila
ble
by D
ain
ius
Dalm
ota
s, D
. J.
Dalm
ota
sC
onsultin
g, In
c
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDBrestraint system triggering (chest deflection dependent on test type)
28Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Pre
analy
sed d
ata
made a
vaila
ble
by D
ain
ius
Dalm
ota
s, D
. J.
Dalm
ota
sC
onsultin
g, In
c
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16
Ch
est
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Driver Chest Deflection Time Histories as a Function of Test
2005 Ford Freestyle
T5263_FFRB_56_50M_DRI
T5541_FFDB*_56_5F_DRI
T5540_FFDB*_40_5F_DRI
* TRL Barrier Face
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification FWDB
29Heiko Johannsen
• Better assessment of structure alignment
capabilities possible
– Engine dump attenuated
• Detection of lower structures possible that were
proved to beneficial for
– Car-to-car frontal impact
– Car-to-car lateral impact
December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FWDB metrics
30Heiko Johannsen
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Height of Ground: 80 mm
Part 581 Zone;
16 to 20 inches (406 to 508 mm)
Height of
load cell:
125 mm
45
5
Subframe
Cross beam
Longitudinal
Concept:
• Assess structural alignment from measurement
of forces in rows 3 and 4
December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FWDB Metric
– Note: metric was developed based on FWDB 56 km/h
tests, metric needs to be adjusted to proposed impact
velocity of 50 km/h (especially LR)
31Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FWDB MetricSEAS detection
• FWRB would require stage 2 approach for
correct assessment of cars applying SEAS in
common interaction zone
– Likely additional test
• Test and simulation results available for
FIMCAR suggests
– SEAS structures that are beneficial in car-to-car
impacts can be detected
– ORB as proposed for FWRB SEAS detection also
credits SEAS that are expected not to be beneficial
32Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FWDB R&R
• R&R analysis includes
– 2 barrier test with same car in different TNO labs
– 4 barrier tests with same car (2 each at FIAT and
IDIADA)
• IDIADA tests with different dummy use than at FIAT
• Ride height seems to be different
– Several impactor tests
– 3 barrier test with same car (1 at FIAT and 2 at BASt)
• BASt LCW does not meet FIMCAR LCW requirements
33Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
FWDB R&R• R&R analysis conclusion
– R&R is acceptable
• I.e. in line with other crash tests, for cars with a stable front structure in this test mode.
• For further analysis of R&R the use of a car with a stable front structure and sum forces above 500 kN is recommended.
• Furthermore the LCW requirements as developed by FIMCAR should be met for the LCWs used.
– One of the three FIMCAR test (i.e., the one at BASt)
resulted in different metric outcome compared to the
other two. This was attributed to insufficient front
structure stability and issues of the LCW
34Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Disadvantages FWRB
35Heiko Johannsen
• FWRB results in a pulse that is not representative
in the initial stage
• FWRB may results in simple restraint system
trigger algorithms that may cause too late airbag
triggering in other crash configurations (e.g., car-
to-car, pole, lower speed …
• FWRB causes unrealistic low requirements for the
front structure energy absorption capabilities,
especially by low requirements concerning load
path stability against bending ...December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Disadvantages FWRB
36Heiko Johannsen
• Engine dump results wrong assessment of
location of energy absorbing structures
– Metrics need to assess before engine dump occurs
– Most advanced proposal results in assessment of crash
cans in some vehicles and not of the energy absorbing
structures
– SEAS detection is impossible
December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Advantages and disadvantages 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
− Load spreading not covered
37Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
Justification ODB Modification– Additional compartment strength requirement will likely
not affect recent cars
• They are Euro NCAP driven are designed for more challenging requirements
– Legal requirement required to ensure minimum safety
levels even if cars are not designed for good ratings
– FIMCAR to maintain compartment strength at least at
level of today requires compulsory target
38Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
39
Achievement of FIMCAR priorities
• Structural alignment– Addressed with FWDB metric
• Vertical load spreading– Addressed at basic level
– Requirements for row 3 and 4
– Limit reduction on Row 3 for load spreading down to row 2
– Minimum section size required for SEAS to be detectable
• Horizontal load spreading– Not addressed
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
40
Achievement of FIMCAR priorities
• Current compartment strength requirements maintained– Addressed by definition
• Appropriate severity level for occupant protection (RS)– Addressed (metrics are expected to be consistent
even at lower speeds, dummy performance?)
• Pulse requirements– Addressed
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
41
Benefit Analysis
• Assumptions
• Occupants suffering from high acceleration injuries would benefit from the introduction of FWB
• Occupants suffering from under/override accidents caused by structural misalignment would benefit from the introduction of FWB
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
42
Benefit Analysis
• Assumptions (continued)
• Occupants suffering force mismatch issues would benefit from additional introduction of PDB
• Occupants suffering from fork effect issues would benefit from additional introduction of PDB
• Occupants suffering from low overlap would benefit from additional introduction of PDB
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
43
Benefit Analysis
• Target Population GB
Heiko Johannsen
AllMAIS 2+
All KSI
314 100.0%
No issue
177 56%
No issue
(High severity)
16 5%
Structural
Interaction
82 26%
Frontal Force /
Compartment
Strength
12 4%
Compatibility
issue
94 30%
Deceleration
43 14%
No issue
85 27%
No issue (Large vehicle
underride)
76 24%
Override
17 5%
Fork effect
38 12%
Low overlap
27 9%
Full width Test
PDB Test
December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
44
Benefit Analysis
• Target Population D
Heiko Johannsen
KSI (MAIS 2+)
195 (100%)
No issues
90 (46%)
High severity
14
Others
37
No issue
39
Compatibility issue
24 (13%)
Frontal Force Mismatch
1
Structuralinteraction
23
Fork Effect
0
Low Overlap
14
Underride
9
Deceleration
80 (41%)
Full width Test
PDB Test
December 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
45
Benefit Analysis
• Estimation of break even costs per car scaled for Europe
• For introduction of FWB with compatibility metrics
• 104 – 294 Euro
• For introduction of FWB with compatibility metrics and PDB with compatibility metrics
• 158 – 415 Euro
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)
frontal impact and compatibility assessment research
FIMCAR
46
Summary
FIMCAR proposal for updated frontal impact protocol
• FWDB with 50 km/h (lower impact speed acceptable if in line with dummy capabilities)
• ODB
Expected improvements
• Alignment of structures
• Improved restraint system performance
Disadvantages of FWRB
• Undesirable single point optimisation in wrong direction
Heiko JohannsenDecember 12th 2012
Informal document GRSP-52-24 (52nd GRSP, 11-14 December 2012,
agenda item 7)