1. CME 15 1 1 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Validation. Last meeting result

2. CME 15 2 2 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Velocity comparison. Local reference frame velocity comparison. –Accelerometer reference frame is not frame indifferent. –Accelerations are measured on the local system that rotates during the impact. –Their integrals are velocities (m/s) but without physical significance. –We should use the relative mechanics to compare motions. Global reference frame velocity comparison. –Rotations of accelerations (unfiltered). –Evaluation of global reference frame velocities. –If needed recalculations of local reference frame velocities.

3. CME 15 3 3 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Vehicle rotation Vy Global Vy Local x y x y X Y α x y α X X α x y X

4. CME 15 4 4 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round Robin application. Rigid barrier h=800 mm. Tb11 –900 kg –20°

5. CME 15 5 5 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round Robin 1. Same new vehicles.

6. CME 15 6 6 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round Robin 2 Different vehicles

7. CME 15 7 7 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Robust 4.3 –RR1 repetition

8. CME 15 8 8 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 All RR tests. Same rigid barrier. Different vehicles. 12 tests

9. CME 15 9 9 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round Robin. Test and simulation –Not bad even if this simulation would not be validated. –Friction influence?

10. CME 15 10 10 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round robin. ASI e THIV are before 0.06 seconds after impact.

11. CME 15 11 11 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Rigid barrier results Component analysis –Vy global: very good agreement between tests –Vx global: tests are different (Exit speed is different between tests) –Vz global: less significative. Seems ok.

12. CME 15 12 12 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Deformable barriers. Task 4.1 Robust. N2 deformable barrier. Different vehicles. Different grounds. More rotation of the vehicles (compared to RR) Yaw rate problems during tests.

13. CME 15 13 13 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Yaw angle meaning x y x y X Y α x y α X X α x y X Yaw angle

14. CME 15 14 14 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Yaw rate problems Same test Different tests Same signal but with different zero level for yaw rate Acceleration Yaw rate. Yaw angle.

15. CME 15 15 15 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Comparison.

16. CME 15 16 16 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Comparison 1 Dynamic deflection (ground) –Curve 1 (bleu)=0.9m –Curve 3 (red)=0.7m –Difference 25%

17. CME 15 17 17 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Tests + Simulations

18. CME 15 18 18 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Current conclusion From RR fair good results. From deformable barriers bad results (yaw rate). Problem: –With these experimental results (deformable) validation window seems too wide. –According to 1317 these are equivalent tests.

19. CME 15 19 19 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Validation. Use velocity approach in a global reference frame. Define a corridor. Define the time until the model is validated. Different requirements in different direction (vertical-lateral-longitudinal) After this time the model is not wrong (also tests are different) but is simply not corresponding to that test. After this time the accepting entity must know that the two phenomenon (test and simulation) are diferent also for the trajectory.

20. CME 15 20 20 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Future activities To solve the yaw rate measure problems exchange of information with some tests houses but not the tests house group.