Proposal for R42-based geometric assessment
Germany (R.Damm) explains the target of the proposal, which is to test the front structure capability to absorb energy in horizontal and vertical directions, in a given range of height (400 to 500mm). That means not only geometrical alignment but also some energy absorption, not only in one point, but several ones.
The impactor is based on Regulation 42, but with some changes (Regulation 42 is a damageability standard and has a completely different purpose). The energy level is to be defined. A decision on the speed is still in discussion, values advanced from 10 to 25km/h.
Modifications in draft R94 provided by Germany:
Annex 3A, Annex 3B and Annex 11 + new definitions in section 2 + amendments in section 5.
§5.3 : specifications for front protection test :
5.3.1. Energy absorbed by the « bumper » height: tbd
5.3.2. max deformation< X mm, no rupture allowed
Annex 3B: test front protection device: either pendulum or moving barrier.
Annex 11: Striker: Or a medium sized mass = constant?
shifting the Striker and/or the vehicle height
Open questions:
- number of vehicles for the test (6 tests in total, 4 tests in front at different Y, and 2 in the corners, 2 for unladen mass, 2 at 400mm, and 2 at 500mm height: need for 4 cars). R. Damm proposes that the car manufacturer performs numerical simulations for all prescribed tests, and then the TA services test physically just one or 2 points (at TA choice), like in other regulations.
- mass: do we keep the same procedure as in R42 testing, or is it possible to find a common (constant) mass for the impactor?
- the values chosen for this test should not lead to more rigid structures, as it was already explained that increased car deceleration had a negative effect on the body (OICA, M.Delin).
- these constraints would have to be analysed in combination with pedestrian requirements (OICA, J.Abraham).
Impact assessment:
Pierre Castaing suggests that the impact assessment group could work on it.
Next step:
R.Damm will take the comments onboard. This part of the regulation will be included in the draft in order to have only one document. Reactions on this proposal are to be shared quickly in order to be ready in September.
=> All participants can provide comments before the summer holiday.
Presentation by Tanaka-san (FI-21-05).
NL (Hans Ammerlaan) notices that the Japanese proposal is focusing on secondary structure, on a certain force and on a certain height, using absolute values, whereas the German proposal considers the whole vehicle.
Pierre Castaing comments that the German proposal does not test SEAS (too far away: due to its shape, the pendulum would hit the crossbeam before the SEAS). It does not give criteria for secondary systems, also able to provide a good interaction in compatibility cases.
Pierre Castaing also wonders whether the use of a “pendulum for SEAS” with a different shape in the German proposal could be added.
One possibility of combining the two tests could be:
German proposal. If you pass, ok (PEAS in right area, with good energy absorption).
If you fail: Japanese proposal. If you pass, ok. (SEAS interacts in the right area and absorbs part of the energy).
The German proposal could exclude multi load path solutions. Germany (R.Damm) explains that the goal is not to promote one load path when proposing to have the protecting zone in one area. The German proposal is not prohibiting a second load path. Every car would have to fulfil the common interaction zone in the German proposal, while the Japanese proposal would only check the lower structure of the SEAS: only a minority of cars would be tested.
=> OICA is asked by the Chairman to bring data for the next meeting: given a level of energy to be absorbed (German proposal), what would be the effects on vehicles?