Performance as Test Procedures of the PDB and ODB Tests for the Light and Heavy Cars

Performance as Test Procedures of the Performance as Test Procedures of the PDB and ODB Tests for the Light and PDB and ODB Tests for the Light and

Heavy Cars Heavy Cars

5th Meeting of the Informal Group on Frontal Impact 5th Meeting of the Informal Group on Frontal Impact

1

May 25, 2009May 25, 2009

JAPANJAPAN

Informal document No. GRSP-45-16(45th GRSP, 25-29 May 2009 agenda item 16(a))

ObjectiveObjective

2

• To examine effects on light and heavy cars when the test conditions prescribed in ECE R94 are replaced by PDB test.

Test MatrixTest Matrix

3

Test Test VehiclesVehicles Mini-Car AMini-Car A Mini-Car BMini-Car B MinivanMinivan Passenger CarPassenger Car

Test Test ConditionsConditions 60PDB60PDB 64ODB64ODB** 60PDB60PDB 64ODB64ODB**

56ODB56ODB

(ECE (ECE R94)R94)

50CTC50CTC 60PDB60PDB 64ODB64ODB** 64ODB64ODB** 50CTC50CTC

Test Test Weight (kg)Weight (kg) 11441144 11201120 21102110 13131313

Dummies Dummies (DR&PA)(DR&PA) H3 50% MaleH3 50% Male H3 50% MaleH3 50% Male H3 50% MaleH3 50% Male H3 50% MaleH3 50% Male

* Conducted in JNCAP

60PDB: PDB barrier - 60km/h - 50% overlap - 150mm ground clearance60PDB: PDB barrier - 60km/h - 50% overlap - 150mm ground clearance 64ODB: EEVC barrier - 64km/h - 40% overlap - 200mm ground clearance64ODB: EEVC barrier - 64km/h - 40% overlap - 200mm ground clearance 56ODB: EEVC barrier - 56km/h - 40% overlap - 200mm ground clearance56ODB: EEVC barrier - 56km/h - 40% overlap - 200mm ground clearance 50CTC: Mini-Car B vs Passenger Car - 50km/h - 50% overlap50CTC: Mini-Car B vs Passenger Car - 50km/h - 50% overlap

Test VehiclesTest Vehicles

4

Mini-Car A Mini-Car B

Front Rail and Bumper Cross BeamFront Rail and Bumper Cross Beam Front Rail and Lower Cross Beam Front Rail and Lower Cross Beam (w/o Bumper Cross Beam)(w/o Bumper Cross Beam)

Test VehiclesTest Vehicles

5

Passenger CarMinivan

Front Rail, Bumper Cross Beam, Front Rail, Bumper Cross Beam, and Sub-Frameand Sub-Frame

Front Rail and Bumper Cross BeamFront Rail and Bumper Cross Beam

Geometory ConditionsGeometory Conditions

6

Mini-Car B vs Passenger Car

83 mm overlap

110 mm

Mini-Car B's Front Rail Upper: 495 mm, Lower: 311 mmPassenger Car's Front Rail Upper: 523 mm, Lower: 412 mm

26 mm

Rail (CTR) to Rail (CTR): 110mmRail (Inside) to Rail (Inside): 26mm

Passenger carMini-Car 　 B

Passenger car

Mini-Car 　 B

Barrier DeformationBarrier Deformation

7

Mini-Car A

60PDB 64ODB (EEVC Barrier)

The front plate broke wide open. The lower part of the honeycomb bottomed out completely.

Vehicle DeformationVehicle Deformation

8

Mini-Car A60PDB 64ODB (EEVC Barrier)

The front rail was rarely deformed.The bumper cross beam was bent significantly.

The front rail was deformed.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

- 600- 400- 2000200400600

Y- Axis (mm)

X-Axi

s (m

m)

60km/ hPDB64km/ hODB

Front　rail　front- end

Front　rail

Bumper　cross　beam(Center)


9

Mini-Car A

In both 60PDB and 64ODB, the front rail front-end was deformed to the right of the vehicle. In 60PDB, due to the part of the front rail left undeformed, the deformation of the bumper

cross beam was larger around its center. In 64ODB, the front rail was deformed in the axial direction, and the deformation of the

bumper cross beam was larger at its right outer edge.

60PDB

Right Left

Rear

Front

64ODB (EEVC Barrier)


10

Mini-Car B

60PDB 64ODB (EEVC Barrier) 56ODB (EEVC Barrier)

The front plate broke wide open. The lower part of the honeycomb bottomed out completely.

The lower part of the honeycomb bottomed out.


11

Mini-Car B

60PDB 50CTC64ODB (EEVC Barrier)


The front rail was rarely deformed.

The lower cross beam was bent significantly.




0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200- 600- 400- 2000200400600

Y- Axis (mm)

X-Axi

s (m

m)

60km/ hPDB64km/ hODB56km/ hODB50km/ hCTC


Front　rail

Lower　cross　beam(Center)


12

Mini-Car B60PDB 64ODB

56ODB

64ODB and 50CTC showed similar deformation modes. While the deformation in 56ODB was smaller than 64ODB and 50CTC, its deformation mode was similar to theirs. Only 60PDB showed the deformation mode that differed from the other three tests: The front rail was not deformed in the axial direction, and its front-end was deformed to the outside of the vehicle.

50CTC

Right Left

Front

Rear


1313

Minivan60PDB 64ODB (EEVC Barrier)

The front plate broke wide open. Deformation reached the right edge of the barrier.

The honeycomb bottomed out completely.


14

Minivan60PDB 64ODB (EEVC Barrier)

The front rail was slightly deformed; only its end was deformed downward.

The sub-frame was bent significantly.



15

Minivan 60PDB


In both 60PDB and 64ODB, the front rail front-end was deformed to the right of the vehicle. In 60PDB, due to the part of the front rail left undeformed, the deformation of the bumper

cross beam was larger around its center. In 64ODB, the front rail was deformed in the axial direction, and the deformation of the

bumper cross beam was larger at its right outer edge.

Right Left

Rear

Front

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

- 600- 400- 2000200400600Y- Axis (mm)

X-Axi

s (m

m)

60km/ hPDB64km/ hODB


Front　rail

Bumper　cross　beam(Center)

DummyDummy Injury CriteriaInjury Criteria

16

Mini-Car ADriver Passenger

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

HIC36

Head Gs

Neck Ext.

Chest Def.

Right Femur

Left Femur

UR Tibia Index

LR Tibia Index

UL Tibia Index

LL Tibia Index

Rate for each criteria (%)

60PDB64ODB

431.7359.0

52.2 (G)65.5

30.5 (Nm)27.1

32.7 (mm)30.9

0.44 (kN)0.31

0.81 (kN)1.33

0.550.32

0.380.44

0.440.54

0.270.31

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

HIC36

Head Gs

Neck Ext.

Chest Def.

Right Femur

Left Femur

UR Tibia Index

LR Tibia Index

UL Tibia Index

LL Tibia Index


60PDB64ODB

579.9961.0

94.5 (G)109.7

28.5 (Nm)54.4

26.2 (mm)25.1

1.77 (kN)1.28

0.69 (kN)0.07

0.830.68

0.200.19

0.240.33

0.510.20

60PDB showed a slightly higher HIC, while 64ODB showed a slightly higher Head Gs.

No significant difference was observed between the two tests for Neck, Chest, and Legs.

The criteria were sufficiently met for all injury indices.

64ODB showed higher levels for Head and Neck.

No significant difference was observed between the two tests for Chest and Legs.

The Head Gs criterion was exceeded in both tests.


17

Mini-Car BDriver Passenger

The Head injury level became lower in the order of 60PDB, 64ODB, 56ODB, and 50CTC.

Neck injury level was almost same between 60PDB and 50CTC.

No significant difference was observed among 60PDB, 64ODB, and 50CTC for Chest and Legs.


60PDB showed the highest level for Head.Neck injury level was approximately same between 64ODB and 50CTC.No significant difference was observed among the four tests for Chest and Legs. The criteria were sufficiently met for all injury indices.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

HIC36

Head Gs

Neck Ext.

Chest Def.

Right Femur

Left Femur

UR Tibia Index

LR Tibia Index

UL Tibia Index

LL Tibia Index


60PDB64ODB56ODB50CTC

426.7376.4

57.3 (G)51.1

33.7 (mm)34.0

36.9 (Nm)29.9

1.68 (kN)1.03

0.82 (kN)0.54

0.720.50

0.440.70

0.690.40

0.430.41

315.9

46.6

18.1

35.2

0.10

0.54

0.44

0.37

0.34

0.58

284.3

47.7

36.7

36.5

0.59

2.17

0.61

0.41

0.54

0.43

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

HIC36

Head Gs

Neck Ext.

Chest Def.

Right Femur

Left Femur

UR Tibia Index

LR Tibia Index

UL Tibia Index

LL Tibia Index



375.1221.3

48.7 (G)39.3

30.7 (mm)33.5

25.1 (Nm)32.6

0.02 (kN)0.14

1.98 (kN)1.32

0.350.34

0.180.14

0.570.28

0.290.21

226.7

36.2

9.76

33.8

1.76

0.25

0.41

0.15

0.32

0.15

239.6

38.9

35.5

32.4

1.87

1.20

0.34

0.16

0.30

0.24


18

MinivanDriver Passenger

Overall, injury levels tended to be lower in 60PDB, though no significant difference was observed.


No significant difference was observed between the two tests for any injury index.


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

HIC36

Head Gs

Neck Ext.

Chest Def.

Right Femur

Left Femur

UR Tibia Index

LR Tibia Index

UL Tibia Index

LL Tibia Index


60PDB64ODB

227.6242.5

38.8 (G)42.7

9.5 (Nm)21.8

27.9 (mm)24.4

3.69 (kN)3.54

2.29 (kN)1.90

0.310.57

0.310.82

0.310.32

0.140.27

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

HIC36

Head Gs

Neck Ext.

Chest Def.

Right Femur

Left Femur

UR Tibia Index

LR Tibia Index

UL Tibia Index

LL Tibia Index


60PDB64ODB

240.4237.1

40.6 (G)38.6

8.6 (Nm)14.3

23.4 (mm)24.3

0.44 (kN)0.65

0.90 (kN)0.59

0.250.35

0.100.25

0.250.29

0.270.16

19

SummarySummary

• The bottom-out of the EEVC barrier was observed with the mini-car even under the 56ODB conditions (the current ECE R94).

• No bottom-out of the PDB was observed, even in the crash with Minivan (heavy car, 2,110 kg). However, the front rail of Mini-Cars and Minivan stuck into the PDB, deforming its front block significantly (causing its front plate to break wide open).

• In Mini-Car B, the mode of the vehicle deformation was similar between ODB and CTC, but only mode of the vehicle deformation in PDB was different.

• Significant differences were seen in the deformation of the front rail between PDB versus ODB and CTC. Deformation in 60PDB was extremely smaller than that in 56 & 64 ODB and 50CTC.

• Overall, the vehicle deformation of Mini-Cars tended to be larger in 64ODB and 50CTC than in 60PDB (the intrusion into the lower part of the cabin [brake pedal and toe board, etc.] tended to be large in 64ODB and 50CTC).

• Overall, the vehicle deformation of Minivan tended to be larger in 64ODB than in 60PDB.

20

SummarySummary

• Dummy injury criteria: In Mini-Cars, no significant difference was observed among 60PDB, 64ODB, and 50CTC for Chest and Legs (in Mini-Car B, the Head injury level tended to be higher in 60PDB than 64ODB, 56ODB, and 50CTC). The criteria were sufficiently met for all injury indices, except Head Gs of the passenger dummy in Mini-Car A.

• In Minivan, overall, injury levels for the driver dummy tended to be lower in 60PDB than 64ODB, though no significant difference was observed. As for the passenger dummy, no significant difference was observed between the two tests for any injury index. In both tests, the criteria were sufficiently met for all injury indices of both dummies.

• The EES in 60PDB was around the same level for Mini-Cars and Minivan.

• The EES in 64ODB was higher for Minivan than Mini-Cars. However, when the EEVC Barrier deformation energy was actually measured, the EES difference between Minivan and Mini-Cars was not as large as when it was calculated using the constant value of 45 kJ.

21

ConclusionConclusion

• The dummy injury levels indicate that the replacement with PDB cannot be expected to improve “self protection”.

No significant difference was observed between PDB and ODB in dummy injury levels in the both of Mini-cars and Minivan.

• In the Car to Car test in this study, comparing ODB and PDB, deformation mode of the front rail in CTC was closer to ODB than that in PDB. The difference in deformation of the front rail was remarkable.

• With Minivan (heavy car, 2,110 kg), while the bottom-out was observed in ODB, no bottom-out was observed in PDB. Overall, the vehicle deformation tended to be smaller in PDB.

22

Calculation Method for EEVC Barrier EnergyCalculation Method for EEVC Barrier Energy

450

650

330

75

75

90200

mounting flange

steel strip

EEVC Barrier Spec. (Side View)

Va

Unit (mm)

Vb

σb: 1.711 MPa

σa: 0.342 MPa

Energy (E) is calculated from deformation volume (V) and honeycomb stress ():

VE

bbaaTrue VVE

Equation for the true value of energy

aabVE Hypothesis

Equation for energy used in this study

Due to difficulties in measuring the deformation volume separately for the main body and the bumper in the area below the red dotted line, the energy absorbed by the entire barrier was calculated simply as follows (the result is estimated to be slightly smaller than the true value):

Q. How is the energy absorbed by EEVC Barrier calculated?

Vab

σa: 0.342 MPa

AppendixAppendix

23

Vehicle Severity (EES)Vehicle Severity (EES)

24

Energy Absorbed

102.0136.3

99.1132.5

90.5

183.3

286.457.945

56.545

45

111.7

45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

60km/ hPDB

64km/ hEEVCBarrier

60km/ hPDB

64km/ hEEVCBarrier

56km/ hEEVCBarrier

60km/ hPDB

64km/ hEEVCBarrier

(kJ)

E BarrierE Vehicle

Mini Car A Mini Car B Mini Van

EES(Equivalent Energy Speed)

48.1 47.9 47.5

55.6 55.459.3

45.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


EES(k

m/h

)

60km/ h PDB

64km/ hEEVC Barrier56km/ hEEVC Barrier

Suppose the deformation energy of EEVC Barrier is 45kJ (UTAC Proposal) :

The deformation energy of EEVC Barrier was actually measured.

64ODB showed the highest EES.The EES in 60PDB was around the same level for Mini-Cars (light cars) and Minivan (heavy car).The EES in 64ODB was higher for Minivan than Mini-Cars. However, when the EEVC Barrier deformation energy was actually measured, the EES difference between Minivan and Mini-Cars was not as large as when it was calculated using the constant value of 45 kJ.

Energy Absorbed

102.0138.4

99.1137.9

100.5

183.3

267.357.942.9

56.539.6

35.0

111.7

64.1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

60km/ hPDB

64km/ hEEVCBarrier

60km/ hPDB

64km/ hEEVCBarrier

56km/ hEEVCBarrier

60km/ hPDB

64km/ hEEVCBarrier

(kJ)

E BarrierE Vehicle


EES(Equivalent Energy Speed)

48.1 47.9 47.5

56.0 56.5 57.3

48.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


EES(k

m/h

)

60km/ h PDB

64km/ hEEVC Barrier56km/ hEEVC Barrier


25

Passenger Car

50CTC64ODB (EEVC Barrier)


26

Passenger Car

50CTC

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Engine top (right)

Engine top (left)

Engine bottom (oilpan)

Front rail front-end(right)

Lower cross beam(center)

Instrument panel(right)

Steering shaft end

Brake pedal

Driver toe board(center)

A-pillar belt line(right)

B-pillar belt line(right)

Longitudinal deformation (mm)

64ODB

50CTC

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A


DummyDummy InjuryInjury

27

Passenger Car

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

HIC36

Head Gs

Neck Ext.

Chest Def.

Right Femur

Left Femur

UR Tibia Index

LR Tibia Index

UL Tibia Index

LL Tibia Index


64ODB50CTC

286.5166.2

43.2 (G)35.8

19.6 (Nm)14.7

23.6 (mm)29.1

2.37 (kN)0.69

0.33 (kN)0.45

0.380.49

0.190.35

0.310.45

0.240.44

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

HIC36

Head Gs

Neck Ext.

Chest Def.

Right Femur

Left Femur

UR Tibia Index

LR Tibia Index

UL Tibia Index

LL Tibia Index


64ODB50CTC

157.3127.6

30.5 (G)29.2

10.8 (Nm)11.3

22.2 (mm)21.2

2.43 (kN)2.68

0.51 (kN)0.49

0.270.28

0.170.14

0.390.30

0.140.16

Driver Passenger

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Engine top (right)

Engine top (left)



Bumper cross beam(center)


Steering shaft end

Brake pedal





60PDB

64ODB

110

282


28

Mini-Car A

60PDB

64ODB (EEVCBarrier)

There were big differences in the deformation of the front rail. In 60PDB, the front rail was deformed very slightly.

The intrusion into the upper part of the cabin (instrument panel, A-pillar, etc.) tended to be large in 60PDB, while that into the lower part of the cabin (toe board, etc.) tended to be large in 64ODB.

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Engine top (right)

Engine top (left)



Lower cross beam(center)


Steering shaft end

Brake pedal






104338

223288


29

Mini-Car B

60PDB

64ODB (EEVCBarrier)

56ODB (EEVCBarrier)

Overall, vehicle deformation in 64ODB tended to be large. 60PDB showed the smallest deformation of the front rail.

50CTC


30

Minivan

60PDB

64ODB (EEVCBarrier)

Large difference in the deformation of the front rail: Smaller in 60PDB. Overall, vehicle deformation tended to be small in 60PDB.

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Engine top (right)

Engine top (left)



Bumper cross beam(center)


Steering shaft end

Brake pedal





60PDB

64ODB

216

393

Documents

Performance as Test Procedures of the PDB and ODB Tests for the Light and Heavy Cars