Proposal for Belt Anchorage Points

Transkript

1 Proposal for Belt Anchorage Points Heiko Johannsen Johannes Holtz Page 1

2 NPACS Belt Anchorage Points Positions acquired based on car measurements Front seats In most rear position Rear seats Upper Fwd Position seems to result from specific single cases and is considered as not being relevant for regulation Page 2

3 Upper Anchorage Position X from NPACS Measurements cumulative share [%] car X from CR point [mm] Page 3

4 FWD NPACS Upper Anchorage Position for Adults Page 4

5 FWD NPACS Upper Anchorage Position for Adults Page 5

6 FWD NPACS Upper Anchorage Position for CRS Page 6

7 Test Experience with NPACS Belt Anchorage Points Page 7

8 Test Experience with NPACS Belt Anchorage Points Page 8

9 Test Experience with NPACS Belt Anchorage Points Page 9

10 Test Experience with NPACS Belt Anchorage Points Page 10

11 Test Experience with NPACS Belt Anchorage Points Page 11

12 Problems with Anchorage Points Page 12

13 Problems with Anchorage Points - Q6 dummy without booster on new bench - shoulder belt slippage towards the neck t=0 t=34 t=58 ms ms Page 13

14 Solution approach 1 stiffening of neckshield Exchange of material parameters with same material -Doubling and quadrupling of Young s modulus -Doubling of density -Young s modulus of steel Result: Shoulder belt still moves as in starting simulation Page 14

15 Solution approach 1 stiffening of neckshield Additional element for stiffness -In the neck shield additional block, connected to lower load cell bottom -Three different angles (0, 18 and 36 ) -Defined as *RIGID_BODY Result: Shoulder belt still moves as in starting simulation Page 15

16 Solution approach 2 modification of sternum Angle of sternum reduced by 8 Result: Shoulder belt still moves as in starting simulation Page 16

17 Solution approach 3 modification of belt routing Height of shoulder belt attachment in 5 levels lowered -Height 1: top edge of back rest (114 mm) -Height 2: 100 mm lower than original height -Heights 3 5: each level 20 mm higher than previous -Only z-components are modified Height 2 Height 1 Page 17

18 Solution approach 3 modification of belt routing t=0 t=34 t=58 ms ms Result: Shoulderbelt doesn t move to neck in Height 1 and 2 Height 0 Height 1 Height 2 Page 18

19 Solution approach 3 modification of belt routing Modified shoulder belt attachment in combination with modified sternum t=0 t=34 t=58 ms ms Result: modification original sternum Modification of sternum doesn t affect the results Page 19

20 5th Percentile Dummy Page 20

21 Proposal NPACS anchorage points are in principle a good choice NPACS FWD upper anchorage point is very specific and should not be considered for regulation With P dummies a risk of belt slippage from the shoulder was recognised With Q dummies the shoulder belt tends to slip towards the neck For backless booster modification of upper anchorage lower or more outside is recommended For high back booster and later integral CRS upper anchor may be modified as proposed by Dorel Page 21

22 5th Percentile Dummy with lower upper Anchorage Point Page 22

23 INCOMPATIBILITY UNIVERSAL ISOFIX CRS IN UNIVERSAL ISOFIX CARS Page 23

24 Page 24

25 Page 25

26 Page 26

27 Page 27

28 Page 28

29 In addition several issues with the head rest possible Page 29

30 UNDERSTANDING PROBLEMS NEW REGULATION Page 30

31 Page 31