1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Document Title | FlexPLI Version GTR Prototype SN-02 - Durability Assessment | ||||||||
Reference Number | GTR9-01-04 | ||||||||
Date |
2 Mar 2012
|
||||||||
Summary | Presentation concerning durability of the pedestrian lower legform tool under consideration for the GTR on pedestrian safety. | ||||||||
Source(s) | OICA | ||||||||
Rulemaking Area(s) | GTR No. 9 Pedestrian Safety (GTR) | ||||||||
Meeting(s) | |||||||||
Related Documents | |||||||||
GTR9-01-04/Corr.1 | FlexPLI Version GTR Prototype SN-02 - Durability Assessment (updated) | ||||||||
Downloads | |||||||||
UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
GTR9 | Session 1 | 1-2 Dec 2011 |
Dr. Ries presented doc. GTR9-1-04 on behalf of OICA reporting about the long-time durability of one of the prototypes (number SN-02) of the FlexPLI. The respective impactor was used for more than 300 tests in different configurations. It was highlighted that this impactor obviously is the last one in its original state including the bone core made of polyester. Dr. Ries concluded that the impactor is still working properly despite of its frequent usage but that some further guidance will be needed to further guarantee this after a longer period of time. After finalization of the presentation, Mr. Bilkhu asked again whether there are experiences with how much damage to the bone core (as shown in the presentation) is acceptable. Manufacturers would be concerned using an impactor that shows so clear damages. Dr. Konosu added that the certification procedure is done for these purposes. Mr. Knotz added that the certification test may be met but it is unclear what the damages mean for the performance of the impactor when it comes to high test results close to the injury criteria. Mr. Zander mentioned that the purpose of introducing the inverse certification test was that the performance of the assembled impactor is checked against realistic vehicle impact conditions. Mr. Been stressed that the impactor does not look too bad when considering that the impactor has been frequently used and that it was used to collect first experiences which may include overloading and poor handling. European OICA members replied that the agreed criteria were slightly exceeded in very few cases only.. In addition, they would prefer to go on with their round robin testing with this impactor as unmodified prototype status, as long as no major failure occurs. This could finally provide also indications on when impactors need to have comprehensive maintenance or even to be replaced. Mr. Kolb added that his company had similar experiences with their legform regarding the wear as described in the presentation. On request he clarified that the Bertrandt legform is already equipped with vinyl ester bones and that around 60 pendulum tests as well as 30 inverse tests (but just around 10 vehicle tests) had been conducted before the bone core was replaced. Mr. Kolb presented a diagram showing how the performance of the impactor was worsening (more scatter) during an extensive pendulum test series (document GTR9-1-11) which finally led to the decision to exchange the bone core. Dr. Konosu added that obviously the certification tests give a clear indication on whether issues with components are occurring; Mr. Been agreed to this. Dr. Ries clarified that the main issue seems to be that detailed guidelines are needed on how and when to conduct a disassembly. Mr. Been responded that there are guidelines for the certification tests procedures and following these should assure that no impactor malfunction should be overseen. However, Humanetics will think over whether more details should be provided for this. Mr. Hohmann requested to have checklists for these purposes that would ease the processes in test labs. Mr. Zander mentioned that BASt conducted a large number of certification tests with impactor SN-02 but, by now, the performance of the impactors seems not to be significantly influenced by impactor wear. Mr. Zander promised to present more details on the impactor performance of a certain (longer) period of time. Finally it was announced that BASt as well as Bertrandt will provide more detailed information regarding the long time performance at the 2nd meeting of the informal group. Mr. Been provided some further comments on the presentation of OICA:
Ms. Versailles (NHTSA, US) mentioned that their test labs also recognized some durability issues that were reported to GRSP in the May 2011 session (see GRSP informal document no GRSP-49-23; added as document GTR9-1-12). Ms. Versailles concluded that durability has improved with the Flex-GTR legform impactor compared to earlier versions of the impactor and therefore did not see any further issues related to durability. Mr. Been thanked NHTSA for this and stated that the results of the testing at NHTSA were used to further improve the legform durability. The chair concluded that currently a task force on review and update of certification corridors (TF-RUCC) is working on the issues with the certification as mentioned above and will come up with recommendations on the type of certification tests needed for the impactor. Based on the recommendations, the informal group has to decide if the pendulum and inverse certification tests are sufficient, or if certification tests at component level have to be implemented either in the regulatory text or the user manual. Dr. Konosu will report on the TF-RUCC activities under agenda item 9.5. |
||||||||