Assessment of Full Width Deformable Barrier test data and ... · ** Altair Engineering GmbH, Böblingen, Germany Key Words: ... occupants of a vehicle from the effects of a crash

NAFEMS European Conference 2010: “Simulation Process and Data Management (SDM)”

November 24 - 25, 2010 Frankfurt, Germany

Assessment of Full Width Deformable Barrier test data and CAE simulations for vehicle compatibility

Jerome Coulton* Matthias Ebeling**

* Hyundai Motor Europe Technical Center GmbH, Rüsselsheim, Germany

** Altair Engineering GmbH, Böblingen, Germany

Key Words: Aggressivity, Compatibility, CAE, Test, Full Width Deformable Barrier, Load Cell Wall

Abstract: SUVs and light trucks have a bad reputation as being incompatible with smaller vehicles. Indeed Vehicle Aggressivity or Vehicle Compatibility has been a thorny issue for many years and has been the subject of research both in Europe (VC-COMPAT) and the US (NHTSA). As well as protecting the occupants of a vehicle from the effects of a crash (self protection – e.g. NCAP), the protection of occupants in the colliding vehicles (partner protection) is on the Euro-NCAP road map and has been voluntarily committed to in the North American Market. For the development of new vehicles it is a necessity to be able to assess the vehicle with respect to the proposed test configuration(s) and metric value(s). Historically the most important factor for car crash compatibility was the vehicle mass ratio. At present there are currently five main candidate test procedures, which are expected to form the basis for future legislation and/or consumer testing to improve compatibility: four defined by EEVC WG15 and one defined by NHTSA. As well as evaluating the occupant injuries and compartmental deformation, the new compatibility metrics evaluate structural interaction and load distribution. For each of these five tests a set of metrics has been proposed, defined and await finalization following the correlation between the proposed metrics and the added partner protection in the field. This paper details the development of an automated method to assess and compare test and CAE data with respect to the most likely test configurations proposed, the FWDB test defined by European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee Working Group 15 and also the full width rigid barrier (with high resolution load cell wall) by NHTSA. The idea behind the development of the software was to create a single tool to enable the rapid visualization and evaluation of both test and CAE data. By providing a single environment for both CAE and test data it is possible to compare to two data sets and rapidly identify the causes of the metric values and the differences between data sets. The automated evaluation environment guides the user through the import of the crash data (CAE and/or test), the display of the synchronized data in multiple formats (e.g. matrix of 2-D time dependent curves representing the load cell wall or animated 3-D bar plot) up to the evaluation of the vehicle compatibility metrics. The output of the project was a fully interactive Hyperworks plug-in which allows the user to animate, interrogate, compare and evaluate both test and CAE data.



1 Introduction SUVs with bull bars have a bad reputation as being incompatible with smaller vehicles. Indeed Vehicle Aggressivity or Vehicle Compatibility has been a thorny issue for many years [1] and has been the subject of research both in Europe (VC-COMPAT) [2] and the USA (NHTSA) [3]. As well as protecting the occupants of a vehicle from the effects of a crash (self protection – e.g. NCAP), the protection of occupants in the colliding vehicles (partner protection) is on the Euro-NCAP road map (2014) [4] and has been voluntarily committed to for the North American Market by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in 2003 including Kia [5] for implementation in 2009. This paper details the development and functionality of a software plug-in for HyperWorks which allows the user to animate, interrogate and compare both test and CAE data.

2 Main Subject

2.1 The European motivation for vehicle compatibility

Europe wishes to reduce the number of transport related deaths and targets have been set for 2010 [6]. The current analysis of road traffic data is available at www.erso.eu and it was established that car occupants comprise 56% of total EU(15) road traffic deaths [7]. Car to car collisions are the most common crash type with frontal impacts followed by side impacts being most common in fatal and serious crashes. In-compatibility was identified as an issue and compatibility seen by vehicle safety experts as the next major step forward in improving car occupant safety [7]. The work of EEVC WG15 has estimated how many additional lives would be saved through improved vehicle front-to-front crash compatibility. For example in the UK for car frontal crash test victims, it was predicted that approximately half (45% to 61%) of the fatalities and 2/3 (66% - 85%) of the serious injuries would experience some reduction in injury risk as a result of improved compatibility. In Germany about half (33% - 67%) of current frontal crash victims would experience a reduction in injury risk [2].

2.2 Proposed test configurations

The key to achieving better vehicle compatibility is to define a test configuration and metrics which reflect the real-world situation which is in itself constantly changing. The resulting metrics need to address three major aspects of vehicle front ends: 1. Geometry; 2. Stiffness; 3. Energy absorbance. At present the one agreed element of vehicle compatibility design if the static layout of the primary energy absorbing structure (PEAS) and where required the secondary absorbing structure (SEAS). This agreement is a voluntarily committed to for the North American Market by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. There are currently six candidate test procedures, which are expected to form the basis for future legislation and/or consumer testing to improve compatibility. Metrics have not yet been defined for all test configurations, and further work is needed to evaluate the correlation between the proposed tests, their metrics and the added real world partner protection. This is of great importance as legislators are increasingly posing the question, “What is the cost benefit?” and this can not be answered without a demonstrable coupling between metrics and real world partner protection. Of the six tests, one test aims to evaluate the results of the barrier deformation: - Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) (60kph) The other five tests proposed to evaluate the results of the crash forces generated in a Load Cell Wall (LCW): - Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB) - Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB) - Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB 64 kph) - Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB 80 kph) - Load Cell Movable Deformable Barrier (LCMDB) Of these test configurations, three do not have metrics defined: ODB (64/80 kph) and LCMDB. Plus there is already standard software for evaluating the PDB test. (This can be downloaded from the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee Working Group 15 website wg15.eevc.org). The



software was therefore developed for the FWRB and FWDB for which there was no standard software available and also a need to be able to rapidly evaluate both test and CAE results.

2.3 Requirements for Software

Although occupant injury targets are defined for the test configurations, the software does not address these and only evaluates the partner protection (BiW performance) as defined by the forces and force distribution exerted on the partner “vehicle”. The prime requirements for the software were threefold: - Read in test or CAE data, where possible without user interaction; - Evaluate data and report metrics; - Enable the user to interrogate the results, compare data sets and identify the causes for the metric

values or differences between data sets. For the FWRB the most important metrics are the Average Height of Force (AHoF400) and Crush Work Energy (KW400) [8] in conjunction with the proposal to assess the balance of the forces in rows 3 and 4 to assess the ride over and under susceptibility [9]. The proposed metrics for the FWDB are defined in the final report of the VC-COMPAT project [10] and aim to assess the spatial distribution of the forces via the Vertical and Horizontal Structural Interaction (VSI and HSI) metrics. The software was developed as a pull down plug-in for HyperWorks using TCL/TK scripts. These scripts also had to be compatible with other pre-existing processes at HKMC and HMETC.

2.4 Work Schedule

During the software development a work schedule was established detailing the software development milestones. This is shown in Table 1.

Milestone Description 1 Read in single data set 2 Read in two data sets 3 Calculate and display time dependent metrics 4 Calculate and display displacement dependent metrics 5 Display two sets of data 6 Report for a single data set 7 Report for two data sets 8 3-D animation of a single data set 9 3-D animation of two data sets 10 Review of final software 11 Support

Table 1: Work Schedule

2.5 Processing of the data

The software is started from a pull down menu in HyperGraph/HyperView which then launches a window where the user locates the source data and results storage location. After the data has been located the software reviews the contents of the proposed data sets to identify all necessary parameters for evaluating the data. When the parameters can not be identified, the user is presented with potential candidates and prompted to either select the appropriate data or enter it manually. Once the data or data sets and key parameters have been identified, the software processes the data according to the pre-defined metric requirements [8, 9 and 10]. The processed data is then presented to the user in HyperView.

2.6 Reporting of the load cell wall forces

Relatively speaking, the simplest way to display the spatial discretization of the load cell wall forces is plot the forces versus time curves as a matrix as shown in Figure 1. In Figure 1, the first check that the user can undertake is to check that the majority of the load cell wall forces lie in the FMVSS 581 Bumper Zone (load cell rows 3 and 4).



Figure 1: 2-D plot of the load cell wall forces More helpful is a 3-D animation of the load cell forces either as a 3-D bar plot or contour plot combined with an animation of the vehicle. An example is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: 3-D Animation of vehicle and LCW Forces Through the combined animation of LCW forces and vehicle animation, the user is able to understand the development of the resultant metrics and identify the causes for them.

2.7 Evaluation and display of FWRB metrics

As it is well known that static and dynamic structural performances differ, it is therefore important to understand how the Average Height of Force (AHoF) was generated, how it differs from the Height of Force (HoF) and its variation along the time/displacement axis. Figure 3 shows an example of the AHoF and HoF with the FMVSS 581 bumper zone highlighted in green.



Figure 3: HoF and AHoF Further to the understanding of the geometric load center of the vehicle structure is the understanding of the energy absorbance of the vehicle structure. This can be assessed via the vehicle force/deflection characteristics and the Crush Work stiffness metric (KW400) as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: KW400 Metric

2.8 Evaluation and display of the FWDB metrics

The mathematics behind the generation of the Vertical Structural Interaction (VSI) and Horizontal Structural Interaction (HSI) [10] require careful analysis to identify what is happening during the vehicle crash to generate the resultant metrics. The metrics are based on calculating the negative deviation of the cell loads from target values (lack of support). Therefore it is important to understand the individual load cell and row target loads. Figure 5 shows the calculated load cell target cell loads (TCi). This calculation of the target cell loads (per row) is intended to promote uniform load distribution across the width of the vehicle. In Figure 5 the peak load is clearly seen in row 3 i.e. in the FMVSS



581 Bumper Zone. Rows 3 and 4 correspond to the initial evaluation zone 1 and rows 2 to 4 correspond to the secondary evaluation zone 2.

Target Cell Load, TCi

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Load (kN)

Ro

w

ISO Demo

DYNA Demo

Ca

p

Bumper Zone Load cells

Figure 5: Target Load Cell Loads The implementation of the VSI and HSI metrics is intended to be in two phases and is defined for two assessment zones. The first of these is the central support in rows 3 and 4 and the second will be the extension of the assessment zone vertically from rows 2 to 5 and laterally to include the outer area. The assessment zones and force distributions are shown in Figure 6. The first assessment area is rows 3 and 4 of the central 4 load cells (central support) and the secondary assessment area increases the assessment zone to include rows 2 and 5 and also the outer support. The Figure also shows the target cell load capping value (TCi).



Figure 6: Load cell wall force distribution and assessment zones. The understanding of what the target row and cell loads are is of critical importance as the metrics are based on the negative deviation of the load cell forces from these target values. Figure 7 shows the negative deviations for the HSI metric which are then summed and displayed in Table 2. In Figure 7 the user is able to identify the differences in negative deviations (vertically and horizontally) between two data series and thereby is able to identify which load cells are dominant in the resulting metric values.

Figure 7: HSI Assessment Area, Load Cell Negative Deviation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

A (

s1)

A (

s2)

B (

s1)

B (

s2)

C (

s1)

C (

s2)

D (

s1)

D (

s2)

E (

s1)

E (

s2) F

G (

s1)

G (

s2)

H (

s1)

H (

s2)

I (s1

)

I (s2

)

J (s

1)

J (s

2) K

L (

s1)

L (

s2)

M (

s1)

M (

s2)

N (

s1)

N (

s2)

O (

s1)

O (

s2)

P (

s1)

P (

s2)

Column

For

ce (

kN)

Row 5 (series 1)

Row 5 (series 2)

Row 4 (series 1)

Row 4 (series 2)

Row 3 (series 1)

Row 3 (series 2)

Row 2 (series 1)

Row 2 (series 2)



Table 2: VSI and HSI metric values and their components It is also possible to directly identify the change in negative deviations between two data sets (see Figure 8). However the user must be careful as the targets and therefore the negative deviations are different for each data set.

-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Column

Forc

e (k

N) Row 2

Row 3

Row 4

Row 5

Figure 8: HSI Assessment Area, Change in Load Cell Negative Deviation

2.9 Saving and export of results

Having analyzed and reviewed the data sets, the complete analyses can be saved as a batch/session file (.dat) for reuse or modification. The software will also automatically save the processed data in an Altair binary file database (.abf).and export the results in html format. As well as this the user can capture the plots file or record the animations as a movie or H3D format.



3 Summary A software tool to evaluate and compare two data sets has successfully been developed. These data sets can be either CAE or test data sets or mixed. The tool allows the rapid and consistent evaluation of data sets. Through the ability to animate the results in 3 dimensions and review the differences between data sets, the user is able to rapidly identify and understand the root causes for the resultant metric values or changes in their values when comparing data sets. As both test and simulation data sets can be read in and compared using a single software tool, the user is able to rapidly and efficiently establish the review correlation between test and simulation. Through the rapid and transparent analysis of both test and simulation data the user has a tool which can help him address three major aspects of vehicle front ends: 1. Geometry; 2. Stiffness; 3. Energy absorbance.

4 References [1] Public Citizen, Keeping the Safety in SAFETEA: Life-Saving Vehicle Safety Provisions Are Long-

Overdue and Feasible, March 2004, retrieved from www.citizen.org [2] European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee Working Group 15, Car Crash Compatibility and

Frontal Impact - Final Report to Steering Committee, May 2007, retrieved from wg15.eevc.org [3] NHTSA, A Report on Voluntary Industry Effort to Further Enhance Front to Front Vehicle Crash

Compatibility (DRAFT), 11-12-08. [4] Van Ratingen, Summary Presentation, APROSYS Final Event, 17/18 February 2009, retrieved

from www.aprosys.com [5] KIA joins in voluntary commitment to enhance vehicle safety, 4 December 2003, retrieved from

www.kiamedia.com [6] European Transport Safety Council, Assessing risk and setting targets in transport safety

programmes, 2003, Brussels, retrieved from www.etsc.eu [7] European Road Safety Observatory (2006), Vehicle Safety, 10 August 2007, retrieved from

www.erso.eu [8] P Mohan & D Smith, Finite element analysis of compatibility metrics in frontal collisions, June 2007,

20th ESV Conference, retrieved from www.nhtsa.dot.gov [9] H Yonezawa et al, Summary of Activities of the Compatibility Working Group in Japan, June 2009,

21st ESV Conference, retrieved from www.nhtsa.dot.gov [10] M Edwards et al., Improvement of Vehicle Crash Compatibility through the Development of Crash

Test Procedures, Final Report – VC-COMPAT Project GRD2/2001/50083, retrieved from vc-compat.rtdproject.net

Assessment of Full Width Deformable BarrierAssessment of Full Width Deformable Barriert t d t d CAE i l ti f hi lt t d t d CAE i l ti f hi ltest data and CAE simulations for vehicle test data and CAE simulations for vehicle

compatibilitycompatibility

Dr. Coulton, Jerome & Hyundai Motor Europe , y pTechnical Center GmbH

ContentsContents

• Introduction to Vehicle Compatibilityp y

• Software Development• Software Development

O t t• Output

• Software Key Points

• Conclusions

NAFEMS EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON SIMULATION PROCESS AND DATA MANAGEMENT 2010NAFEMS EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON SIMULATION PROCESS AND DATA MANAGEMENT 2010

Introduction to Vehicle Compatibility• The first vehicle compatibility agreement

has been voluntarily committed to for thehas been voluntarily committed to for the North American Market by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in 2003 for implementation in 2009.

• The European Union funded a study into p ycompatibility which completed in 2006. “Improvement of Vehicle Crash Compatibility through the Development of Crash Test Procedures (VC COMPAT)”Crash Test Procedures (VC-COMPAT)

Th t ti f t i th llidi• The protection of occupants in the colliding vehicles (partner protection) is on the Euro-NCAP road map (2014)


Linkage – Occupant and Partner ProtectionOccupant Partner

AP + LCW

SA

US

NC

A

B+ LCW

NH

TS56 Km/h

IIHS FW

CB

B

+ new barrier

+ LCW

56 Km/h

NC

AP 64

OD

B LCW

+ LCW C W

G 1

564 Km/h

JN N

AP 80

OD

B+ LCW+ high speed E

EV

C

80 Km/h

Eur

o N

CA

60 P

DB+ LCW

+ new barrier+ new

d60 Km/h


speed

Rigid Wall Standard Barrier Load cells New Barrier

Partner Protection Tests and MetricsTest configuration

+ LCW A

Metrics

B+ LCW

NH

TS56 Km/hBarrier force Fmax (Peak Total Load Cell Wall Force)

HoF400 (Height of Force )AHoF400 (Height of Force @ 400 mm displacement)KW400 (Crush work stiffness @ 400 mm displacement)F3 (Σpeak forces in row 3)F4 (Σpeak forces in row 4)

NHTSA

FWC

BB

+ new barrier

+ LCW

56 Km/h

F340 (Σpeak forces in row 3, < 40ms)F440, (Σpeak forces in row 4, < 40ms)

Barrier displacement

Barrier force Fmax (Peak Total Load Cell Wall Force)VSI (Area 1) (Vertical structural interaction)VSI (Area 2) (Vertical structural interaction)HSI (Area 1) (Horizontal structural interaction)

TRL V3.0 Mar 2007

ance

64 O

DB+ LCW

64 Km/h

HSI (Area 1 + outer support) (Horizontal structural interaction)HSI (Area 2) (Horizontal structural interaction)HSI (Area 2 + outer support) (Horizontal structural interaction)


Barrier force Fmax (Peak Total Load Cell Wall Force)RHcl (Overall (Cell) relative homogeneity criterion)RHr (Vertical (Row) relative homogeneity criterion)

TRL V1.6 Feb 2006

f Im

porta

80 O

DB+ LCW

+ high speed80 Km/h

RHc (Horizontal (Column) relative homogeneity criterion)RH0 (Total relative homogeneity criterion)


Barrier force Record and monitorBarrier displacement

Barrier force Fmax (Peak Total Load Cell Wall Force)B i di l t PPAD (P t t ti t f d f ti )

Not defined

PDB V2.3 Feb 2006 Ord

er o

f

60 P

DB+ LCW

+ new barrier+ new speed

60 Km/h

Barrier displacement PPAD (Partner protectionassessment of deformation)ADoD (Average depth of deformation)AHoD (Average height of Deformation)Dmax (Maximum depth of Deformation)Z(Dmax) (Height of maximum depth of Deformation)Volume (Volume of deformation)Energy (Energy of deformation)


speed

Evaluation Metrics for Partner Protection

• There are two different types of metrics that ld b d f t t ticould be used for partner protection:

– Barrier force– Barrier deformation

• As well as assessing partner protection, occupant protection evaluation is also proposed:proposed:– BiW deformation– Occupant injury

• At present there is no standard software for assessing barrier forces for partner protection.p

• This was the motivation for developing the “Hyundai Barrier Evaluation Tool”.


Hyundai Barrier Evaluation Tool Requirements

• The automated tool has the TEST

following requirements:– Integration within Hyundai CAE/test

environmentenvironment.– Read data from different sources

• Test (ISO/DIADEM) & CAE (DYNA)– Compare data– 2D curve plotting

L d ll ll t ti• Load cell wall segments vs. time– 3D curve plotting

• Animated 3D bar chart– Report


Process – 1 Way

PrePre--processingprocessing SolvingSolving PostPost--processingprocessing

Identify:Identify:•• FilesFiles

Generate:Generate:•• MetricsMetrics

Investigate:Investigate:•• Why?Why?

•• ParametersParameters

Test DataTest DataBarrierBarrier

•• ReportReportWhy?Why?

•• What If?What If?

aram

eter

sar

amet

ers TypeType

Metric Name Limits AHOF40 406-508mm AH F 406 08

ram

eter

sra

met

ers

CAE DataCAE Data

Vehi

cle

Pa

Vehi

cle

Pa

f

AHoF(400) 406-508mm Kw400 1300-1700N/mm

Bar

rier P

aB

arrie

r Pa

VV Microsoft owerPoint Presentatio

BB


Process - Roundabout

SolvingSolvingPrePre--processprocess •• MetricsMetrics•• ReportReport

•• CAECAE•• TestTest

DatabaseDatabase

RestartRestart PostPost--processprocess•• *.conf*.conf •• Why?Why?•• What If?What If?

SaveSaveSaveSave•• Altair Binary FileAltair Binary File•• hmasciihmascii•• htmhtm


•• htm htm

Input Data

• CAE/Test Data from both vehicle and barrier are required:– Vehicle

• Vehicle acceleration.• Identified by node number, ISO tag

“BPIL” or NHTSA tag “BPLR”

– Barrier• LCW forces.

Id tifi d b h l d• Identified by channel code or Rigidwall segment number.


User Interface• The GUI is launches from a pull down in HyperGraph/HyperView

Automatic identification of data channels andof data channels and parameters based on data format type

Restart/reload from configuration file


Full Width Rigid Barrier (US-NCAP)

• Following the processing of the data, the ft t t bl ith th

Metric Name Limits

AHOF40 406-508mm Ftotal Peak >350 kNF3 Peak >100kN

Time Dependent Metrics

software generates a table with the necessary metrics.

F3(40) >100kN F4 Peak >100kN F4(40) >100kN

Initial Velocity 17.61-18.15m/sDisplacement Dependent Metrics

15.278 - 15.834 m/s

• The corresponding 2-D charts to enable th i i t t ti l t d

AHoF(400) 406-508mm F3(400) >100kN F4(400) >100kN Kw400 1300-1700N/mm

their interpretation are also created:– Filtered and unfiltered load cell wall data– AVS Diagram– Total load cell wall forces– Row 3 and row 4 forces

Height of forces– Height of forces– Crush work Stiffness & energy


Full Width Deformable Barrier

• Following the processing of the data, the software generates a table with the necessary metrics.

• The corresponding 2-D charts to enable their interpretation are alsoenable their interpretation are also created:– Filtered and unfiltered load cell wallFiltered and unfiltered load cell wall

data– TRL Target row loads– TRL Target cell loads– Peak load cell forces (rows 2 to 5)

Negative deviations (rows 2 to 5)


– Negative deviations (rows 2 to 5)

Animation of Forces and Vehicle Simulation

• The forces can be animated allowing the user to visualize the load distributiondistribution.

• The load cell wall forces can be animated and manipulated in 3 dimensions just like a 3-D CAE model


Barrier Evaluation Software – Key Points• As the software has been created as a HyperWorks plug-in it will work

on multiple platformson multiple platforms.• The software has been tested under the following conditions:

– HyperWorks versions 9 &10– Windows XP (32 & 64 bit)– LINUX (Redhat)

• The use of a configuration file allows the user to reload all necessary• The use of a configuration file allows the user to reload all necessary data:– location of input files– location of output files– location of results– Evaluation parametersa ua o pa a e e s

• All current metrics for FWRD and FWDB are automatically evaluated and exported in a standardized format (.htm file).


Benefits• Single process environment

CAE T t bi ti– CAE or Test or combination• Standardized evaluation and reporting

– HyperView, MS Excell Table & Powerpoint• Time saving

– 2 minutes run time for CAE or Test data• Error minimizationError minimization

– Minimize user interaction via automated identification of parameters wherever possiblep p

• Restart/Reuse– Editable configuration file & Altair Binary File databaseAltair Binary File database


Editable configuration file & Altair Binary File databaseAltair Binary File database

Lessons Learnt• Plan for Hardware & Software

LINUX/Wi d (32/64bit) H k 9/10– LINUX/Windows (32/64bit), Hyperworks 9/10• Try to account for software development.

– CAE (version), Test (e.g. DIADEM version)• Expect non-uniform labeling conventions.

– Channel labeling: NHTSA vs. ISO• Minimize user interaction wherever possible:Minimize user interaction wherever possible:

– Error elimination;– Speed up processSpeed up process.

• Expect data to come from non-expected sources. Try to get many data sets for software development


– Try to get many data sets for software development

Conclusions• A new software tool for the evaluation of FWRB and FWDB data was

successfully developed (Hyundai Barrier Evaluation Tool).

• Both test and simulation data sets can be read in and compared using a single software toolsingle software tool.

• Through the ability to animate the results in 3 dimensions and review g ythe differences between data sets, the user is able to rapidly identify and understand the root causes for the resultant metric values or changes in their values when comparing data setschanges in their values when comparing data sets.

• The Hyundai Barrier Evaluation Tool can help address three major aspects of vehicle front ends for vehicle compatibility:– Geometry;– Stiffness;


Stiffness;– Energy absorbance.

Documents

Assessment of Full Width Deformable Barrier test data and ... · ** Altair Engineering GmbH, Böblingen, Germany Key Words: ... occupants of a vehicle from the effects of a crash