1. CME 15 1 1 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Cen /TC226/WG1/CME 15° meeting agenda. Chairmanship. (all) TRB Report (Marco) Validation activities: –Latest development (Marco) –Statistical approach (Mariano Pernetti) New proposed items (Otto) New bus model (Clement) Steel tolerances influences. (Joseph/Michael) FP7

2. CME 15 2 2 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Chairmanship Current situation. Proposal. Nomination of the new chairman. Nomination of the new secretary.

3. CME 15 3 3 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 TRB report AFB20(2) Computational mechanics sub group. –350 vehicle revision –New hardware already certified using only simulations. –NCHRP 22_24 project –Summer meeting July 8-11 Rapid City

4. CME 15 4 4 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Validation. Last meeting result

5. CME 15 5 5 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.

6. CME 15 6 6 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

7. CME 15 7 7 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round Robin application. Rigid barrier h=800 mm. Tb11 –900 kg –20°

8. CME 15 8 8 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round Robin 1. Same new vehicles.

9. CME 15 9 9 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round Robin 2 Different vehicles

10. CME 15 10 10 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Robust 4.3 –RR1 repetition

11. CME 15 11 11 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 All RR tests. Same rigid barrier. Different vehicles. 12 tests

12. CME 15 12 12 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Round Robin. Test and simulation –Not bad even if this simulation would not be validated. –Friction influence?

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

14. CME 15 14 14 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.

15. CME 15 15 15 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.

16. CME 15 16 16 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

17. CME 15 17 17 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.

18. CME 15 18 18 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Comparison.

19. CME 15 19 19 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Comparison 1 Dynamic deflection (ground) –Curve 1 (bleu)=0.9m –Curve 3 (red)=0.7m –Difference 25%

20. CME 15 20 20 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Tests + Simulations

21. CME 15 21 21 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.

22. CME 15 22 22 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.

23. CME 15 23 23 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.

24. CME 15 24 24 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Alternative statistical approach. Mariano Pernetti

25. CME 15 25 25 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 New proposed item. Otto Kleppe

26. CME 15 26 26 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 New bus model Clement Goubel

27. CME 15 27 27 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Steel tollerances influences Joseph Marra, Michael Gremling.

28. CME 15 28 28 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 FP7 SST.2007.4.1.6 Intelligent Road Restraint System (RRS) The research objective is the integration of the roadside infrastructure restraints in the road safety system, as a component respectful of all road users' needs and with increased capacity for both primary and secondary safety. Integration of communication systems aimed at increasing tertiary safety efficiency can be considered in the novel barrier design. Activities will address the following subjects: 1. Development of an innovative RRS, including anchorage and installation systems, based on novel design and/or materials with enhanced performances for the safeguard of all road users, with particular attention to the protection of motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users; 2. Development of sensors and actuators that will increase the RRS's efficiency for primary, secondary and tertiary safety (advanced warning signalling, detection and communication of accidents and other safety related environmental situations); 3. Standardisation of RRS's design and optimal lay-out criteria, including related computer modelling. Expected outcome is the design and development of an innovative road infrastructure restraint system based on new design and/or innovative materials as an integrated component of the road transport safety system. Funding scheme: Collaborative Projects small or medium-scale focussed research

29. CME 15 29 29 Bruxelles. 13/03/2007 Closure AOB. Next meeting. –May 21st 2007 –SIS (Swedish Standard Institute) –Stockolm Sweeden