1、raising standards worldwideNO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAWBSI Standards PublicationRoad restraint systems Guidelines for computationalmechanics of crash testingagainst vehicle restraint system Part 4: Validation ProceduresPD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012National foreword
2、This Published Document is the UK implementation of CEN/TR 16303-4:2012.The UK participation in its preparation was entrusted by Technical CommitteeB/509, Road equipment, to Subcommittee B/509/1, Road restraint systems.A list of organizations represented on this committee can be obtained onrequest t
3、o its secretary.This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions of acontract. Users are responsible for its correct application. The British Standards Institution 2012Published by BSI Standards Limited 2012ISBN 978 0 580 75313 8ICS 13.200; 93.080.30Compliance with a British
4、 Standard cannot confer immunity fromlegal obligations.This Published Document was published under the authority of theStandards Policy and Strategy Committee on 29 February 2012.Amendments issued since publicationAmd. No. Date Text affectedPUBLISHED DOCUMENTPD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012TECHNICAL REPORT RA
5、PPORT TECHNIQUE TECHNISCHER BERICHT CEN/TR 16303-4 January 2012 ICS 13.200; 93.080.30 English Version Road restraint systems - Guidelines for computational mechanics of crash testing against vehicle restraint system - Part 4: Validation Procedures Dispositifs de retenue routiers - Recommandations po
6、ur la simulation numrique dessai de choc sur des dispositifs de retenue des vhicules - Partie 4: Procdures de validation Rckhaltesysteme an Straen - Richtlinien fr Computersimulationen von Anprallprfungen an Fahrzeug-Rckhaltesysteme - Teil 4: Validierungsverfahren This Technical Report was approved
7、by CEN on 7 November 2011. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 226. CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania
8、, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION COMIT EUROPEN DE NORMALISATION EUROPISCHES KOMITEE FR NORMUNG Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels 20
9、12 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved worldwide for CEN national Members. Ref. No. CEN/TR 16303-4:2012: EPD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012CEN/TR 16303-4:2012 (E) 2 Contents Foreword 3Introduction . 41 Scope 52 Normative references 53 General 54 Validation Process . 65 Standard
10、 report and Output parameters . 9Annex A Validation report 10Bibliography 16PD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012CEN/TR 16303-4:2012 (E) 3 Foreword This document (CEN/TR 16303-4:2012) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 226 “Road equipment”, the secretariat of which is held by AFNOR. Attention is drawn
11、 to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. CEN and/or CENELEC shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. This document consists of this document divided in five Parts under the general title: Guidelines for Co
12、mputational Mechanics of Crash Testing against Vehicle Restraint System: Part 1: Common reference information and reporting Part 2: Vehicle Modelling and Verification Part 3: Test Item Modelling and Verification Part 4:Validation Procedures Part 5: Analyst Qualification11In preparation PD CEN/TR 163
13、03-4:2012CEN/TR 16303-4:2012 (E) 4 Introduction In order to improve safety the design of roads may require the installation of vehicle restraint systems, which are intended to contain errant vehicles safely for the benefit of the occupants and other road users, on sections of road and at particular
14、locations defined by the National or Local Authorities. The EN 1317 standard identifies test methods and impact test acceptance criteria that need to be met to demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements for CE marking. This document allows in some cases the use of computational mechanics
15、 in order to obtain CE certification. That is why it becomes necessary to develop a methodology to verify and validate the result obtained with computational mechanics work and guarantee the reliability of the simulation itself. CEN/TR 16303-2 and CEN/TR 16303-3 give informative guideline to develop
16、 a complete and efficient numerical model of a vehicle and a test item in order to properly simulate a crash event. These parts address the user in the creation of a reliable and efficient model both for finite element (FE) methodology and multi-body (MB) approach. The purpose of this document, “Val
17、idation Procedures”, is to define the validation and verification process for the use as defined and regulated within EN 1317 and provides support in the application of simulation for studies of real life installations. This part includes procedures and acceptance criteria for the use of computation
18、al mechanics in approval process of products for roads safety design and a scheme that can be applied to any simulation in order to certify its reliability. PD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012CEN/TR 16303-4:2012 (E) 5 1 Scope The aim of this part is to provide a methodology for the validation of the simulation p
19、erformed to demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements for CE marking. The use of computational mechanics in the approval process for CE market of a test item is defined and regulated within EN 1317. 2 Normative references The following referenced documents are indispensable for the appl
20、ication of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies. EN 1317-1, Road restraint systems Part 1: Terminology and general criteria for test methods EN 1317-2, Road restra
21、int systems Part 2: Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers including vehicle parapets EN 1317-3, Road restraint systems Part 3: Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for crash cushions ENV 1317-4, Road restraint syste
22、ms Part 4: Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for terminals and transitions of safety barriers EN 1317-5, Road restraint systems Part 5: Product requirements and evaluation of conformity for vehicle restraint systems prEN 1317-8, Road restraint systems Part 8: Moto
23、rcycle road restraint systems which reduce the impact severity of motorcyclist collisions with safety barriers CEN/TR 16303-2, Road restraint systems Guidelines for computational mechanics of crash testing against vehicle restraint system Part 2: Vehicle Modelling and Verification CEN/TR 16303-3, Ro
24、ad restraint systems Guidelines for computational mechanics of crash testing against vehicle restraint system Part 3: Test Item Modelling and Verification 3 General Obtaining accurate and reliable models requires careful attention to detail and careful verification of material properties, energy man
25、agement, numerical stability and a number of other important computational characteristic. Without careful verification and validation the result of the simulations cannot be depended upon. This part of the guidelines puts its attention to the process necessary to guaranty the reliability of the per
26、formed simulation; this is a process that consists of modelling, validation of the model and verification of the result. Modelling consists of creating a suitable model of the test item and vehicle, described in CEN/TR 16303-2 and CEN/TR 16303-3. Verification consists of determining that a computati
27、onal model accurately represents the underlying mathematical model and its solution and that result are numerically stable, described in CEN/TR 16303-2 and CEN/TR 16303-3. Validation consists of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real word from the perspecti
28、ve of the intended uses of the model. PD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012CEN/TR 16303-4:2012 (E) 6 CME group has evaluated different approaches in order to obtain a validation methodology suitable for different modelling techniques, different test items and different applications. The methodology describe within
29、 this chapter consist of a direct comparison between data that can be recorded during the crash test. That gives the possibility to the user to analyse the crash event step by step identifying possible inconsistency and eventually write an explication for the mismatching. 4 Validation Process 4.1 Ge
30、neral Validation is based on the comparison between a physical test and a numerical simulation based on an equal original setup. The validation criteria are described in 4.2; in case of tests performed with cars (900 kg, 1300 kg or 1500 kg) additional criteria are described in 4.3. If the comparison
31、 between tests and simulation does not satisfy limits, the author can explain his motivations inside the final validation report, see Annex A. 4.2 Comparison table The simulation can be considered validated when the physical test matches the requirements of the Table 1. “Yes” is to be ticked if ther
32、e is agreement between the numerical simulation and the physical test; when a criteria is defined, “yes” means that the criteria is satisfied. Table 1 - Comparison table Critical behaviour type Comparison: Yes / No Containment Required Yes/no Rollover Required Yes/noExit box for barrier Required Yes
33、/no (1317-2-3-4 criteria) Wheel trajectory Required Yes/no (1317-2-3-4 criteria) Redirection zone for crash cushion and terminals Required Yes/no (1317 -3-4 criteria) Suspension failure Informative Yes/no Failure of longitudinal elements Required Yes/no Dynamic deflection for barrier Required Yes/no
34、 (Paragraph 4.1.1 criteria) Vehicle intrusion Required Yes/no (Paragraph 4.1.2 criteria) Lateral displacements for crash cushion and terminals Required Yes/no (Paragraph 4.1.3 criteria) Penetration of parts inside the vehicle. Required Yes/no comparison between final shapes of test article Informati
35、ve Yes/no (Paragraph 4.1.4 criteria) PD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012CEN/TR 16303-4:2012 (E) 7 This Table is part of the final validation report, see Annex A. 4.2.1 Dynamic deflection for barrier The dynamic deflection from the physical test, as defined within EN 1317, has to be compared whit the one calculat
36、ed from the numerical simulation. The difference between the two dynamic deflections has to be less than the value calculated with the equation below: Diff (0,05 m + 0,1*(Measure) When the dynamic deflection reaches its maximum, the difference in time (second) between the value recorded in the physi
37、cal test and the value calculated during the numerical simulation has to be less than 0,05 s. Time shift 0,05 s 4.2.2 Vehicle intrusion The Vehicle intrusion from the physical test, as defined within EN 1317, has to be compared whit the one calculated from the numerical simulation. The difference be
38、tween the two Vehicle intrusions has to be less than the value calculated with the equation below: Diff (0,05m + 0,1*(Measure) 4.2.3 Lateral displacements for crash cushion and terminals The Lateral displacement for crash cushion and terminals from the physical test, as defined within EN 1317, has t
39、o be compared whit the one calculated from the numerical simulation. The difference between the two lateral displacements has to be less than the value calculated with the equation below: Diff (0,05 m + 0,1*(Measure) 4.2.4 Comparison between final shapes of test article In order for the simulation t
40、o be validated, the test and the simulate VRS shall have the final shape after the crash impact. 4.2.5 Comparison between failure modes In order for the simulation to be validated, the tested and the simulate VRS shall have the same failure mode (CEN/TR 16303-4, 6.4), i.e. the same component shall f
41、ail in the same order. In practice, a tolerance is admitted for the last component to fail (e.g. posts/bolts at the end of a pocket) 4.3 Additional Comparison table 4.3.1 General When the numerical simulation and the physical test are performed with a car additional parameter can be compared to asse
42、ss the quality of the simulation. Therefore, the validation process requires additional criteria PD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012CEN/TR 16303-4:2012 (E) 8 that are described in Table 2. “Yes” is to be ticked if there is agreement between the numerical simulation and the physical test in accordance with the cr
43、iteria defined. Table 2 - additional comparison table Criteria Type Comparison: Yes / No ASI Required Yes/no (Paragraph 4.2.1 criteria) Thiv Required Yes/no (Paragraph 4.2.1 criteria) Time histories Required Yes/no (Paragraph 4.2.2 criteria) This table is part of the final validation report, see Ann
44、ex A. 4.3.2 Severity indices EN 1317 defines how to calculate the severity index values when a car (900 kg or 1500 kg) is used in a crash test for roadside hardware approval. That allows the comparison of these indexes within the validation process of a numerical simulation. The tolerance for ASI is
45、 defined in Table 3. Table 3 - ASI tolerance Tolerance Time max ASI ASI 0,1 0,05 s The tolerance for THIV is defined in Table 4. Table 4 - THIV tolerance Tolerance Time flight THIV 3 km/h 0,05 s 4.3.3 Time histories The velocity time history of the vehicle shows the impact step by step. Thus it is i
46、mportant to take it in consideration when physical test and numerical simulation are being compared. The comparison is based on longitudinal, transversal and vertical components (related to the test article) of the vehicles velocity in the plane motion and on the yaw rate. The numerical simulation i
47、s considered validated when the following requirements are matched: The numerical components of the vehicle velocity remain inside a window built around the physical velocity components until the farthest in time amongst the max ASI time and the time of flight is reached. When the validation is requ
48、ested for a modified product, the numerical velocity time history shall remain inside the window until the vehicles have loaded the modified components The variation limits for the window are: 4 % of the initial velocity and 01 s in time. PD CEN/TR 16303-4:2012CEN/TR 16303-4:2012 (E) 9 For tests whe
49、re the initial velocity has only frontal component (example: TC 1.1.100 TT 2.1.100) the comparison will be based only on global resultant velocity. The numerical yaw rate of the vehicle remains inside a window built around the physical yaw rate until the farthest in time amongst the max ASI time and the time of flight is reached. When the validation is requested for a modified product, the numerical velocity time history shall remain inside the window until the vehicles ha
