1 / 35

Marco Anghileri Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale Politecnico di Milano Italy

Robust: “Road Upgrade of Standards” GRD1-2002-70021 Second year meeting. Copenhagen March 1 – 2 2005 WP3: “ Instrumentation and measurement”. Marco Anghileri Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale Politecnico di Milano Italy. Composite mounting block activity report.

cheryl-montgomery
Télécharger la présentation

Marco Anghileri Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale Politecnico di Milano Italy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Robust: “Road Upgrade of Standards” GRD1-2002-70021 Second year meeting. Copenhagen March 1 – 2 2005 WP3: “Instrumentation and measurement” Marco Anghileri Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale Politecnico di Milano Italy

  2. Composite mounting block activity report. • Composite mounting design and construction. • Test at TRL. • Tests at Polimi. • Discussion 2 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  3. Scope of this activity • Acceleration recorded on CG contains components introduced by the oscillation of the floor. • The structure of the accelerometers mounting block can modify these frequencies shifting them at lower regions where our severity indices work. • To investigate the influence on the acceleration time histories of mounting block mass, a carbon fiber mounting block has been designed constructed and used during a TB11 test and several deceleration tests. 3 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  4. Composite mounting block • Requirements: • Weight (about 400 g). • Shape (similar to Lier structure) • Strength (able to sustain several crash test). • 10 blocks produced. 4 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  5. TRL TB11 test • TRL performed a Round Robin II test installing the new structure. • The fixing to the floor structure was obtained with 4 bolts upper plate to fix accelerometers White Fiberglass plates 4 Bolts Aluminium or steel plate lower fiberglass plate to fix the structure to the car Car floor 5 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  6. TRL TB11 test • Test was performed at TRL on Nov 17 2004. • Ford Fiesta: • Weigth 900 kg. • Impact angle 20° • Speed 102 km/h. 6 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  7. TRL TB11 test results. • Structural behaviour: • The structure of the mounting did not show any damage during the test. • Frequency behaviour: • Not satisfactory. Presence of oscillation. • A first numerical acitivty has been conducted to investigate these problems 7 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  8. TRL TB11 results • Frequency analysis: • During the test two set of accelerometers have been mounted on the car. The first on the new mounting and the second on the floor of the car. 8 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  9. TRL TB11 results • The frequency content at lower frequency (below 20 hz) is lower for the new mounting than for the second set of accelerometers. • The frequency content at higher frequency is lower for the new mounting than for the second set of accelerometers. • The new mounting block shows a strong resonance peak at 50 hz (any contribution from AC supply has been excluded). 9 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  10. TRL TB11 results • Time analisys: • Time analysis shows that acceleration measured on the new mounting are always lower than the acceleration measured on the second set. Different accelerometers location should be taken into account. This is clearly shown in the following figures with unfiltered results: 10 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  11. TRL TB11 results. 11 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  12. Same behaviour if a 20 hz filtering is applied. Accelerations time history measured on the tunnel does not show the typical second peak related to the impact of the rear part of the vehicle while composite acceleration shows this second impact. A correction should be applied for the different location. TRL TB11 results 12 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  13. ASI Thiv Phd TRL TB11 results Tunnel 2.75 38.7 (t=.2531) 11.7 Composite 1.97 24.3 (t=.2883) 31.2 • Severity indices • The standard correction should be applied for the different location. 13 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  14. TRL TB11 conclusion. • The previous results show interesting aspects that should be further investigated. • Preliminary analysis showed a basic success but the mechanical noise affecting acceleration measurement must be investigated and eliminated. • A new activity was planned at Polimi to investigate this problem. 14 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  15. Composite mounting fixing. • To better understand the results of the test carried at TRL on November 17 2004 some basic experiments has been performed. • The composite mounting block has been installed on a Peugeot 106 tunnel to reproduce the resonance problems shown by TRL data. 15 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  16. Composite mounting fixing. • A first series of tests have been conducted using the installation procedures agreed by the consortium. The structure has been fixed on the tunnel of the vehicle using 4 bolts (8 mm diameter). • To measure the frequency behaviour a standard technique for modal analysis has been adopted impacting the structure with a small hammer and measuring the output with piezoelectric accelerometers with high sensitivity 16 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  17. Composite mounting fixing. 17 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  18. Composite mounting fixing. 18 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  19. Composite mounting fixing. • A triaxial accelerometer has been installed on the structure. • The output of these accelerometers, together with the spectrum response showed a behaviour similar to the one seen at TRL even if the main frequency is here at about 85 hz. • The difference between this frequency and the one measured at TRL (50 hz) is probably due to the different placement of the structure and the presence, at TRL, of the heavy structure used to release the cable that lowers all the natural frequency increasing the mass of the adjacent structure. 19 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  20. Composite mounting fixing. • This figures show these important results: • The behaviour shown during TRL tests has been reproduced even if the resonance frequency is at 85 hz • This is the only frequency present and if we are able to shift this frequency where severity indices don’t work all the possible concerns related with these oscillation are removed. 20 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  21. Composite mounting new fixing. • To overcome the above shown problem we simply added four more bolts and introduced spacers to fix the structure on a wider part of the floor. 21 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  22. Composite mounting new fixing. • The first natural frequency of the system is above 105 hz (y direction) ad 140 Hz (x direction) . These frequencies are far from the relevant for the severity indices evaluation. 22 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  23. Deceleration tests. • Having solved the problems related to the mechanical oscillation a new activity started installing the car on the deceleration sled at Polimi. • Purpose: • To apply known deceleration triangular pulses comparing measures obtained with the composite structure and an aluminium structure. • Same pulse to different mounting structures. • To have results avoiding any cotribution from barrier, ground condition or suspension system. 23 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  24. Deceleration tests. 70° • Aluminium mounting block structure: • Simple shape, same dimensions as composite structure. • Weigth: 4.7 kg • Two series of tests. • Car installed with two directions respect to the applied acceleration. Car Imposed acceleration 20° Sled 24 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  25. Deceleration tests. 25 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  26. Deceleration tests. 26 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  27. Deceleration tests • Performed 12 tests: • 3 tests 20° aluminium mounting • 3 tests 20° composite mounting • 3 tests 70° aluminium mounting • 3 tests 70° composite mounting • Acceleration pulses: • Peaks: 5 to 25 g (imposed ASI from .45 to 1.9) • Rise time: 0.1 to 0.15 s. • Data analisys not completed but interesting results. 27 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  28. Deceleration tests 28 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  29. Deceleration tests. Results • Imposed acceleration time histories properly reconstructed by local measures. 29 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  30. Deceleration tests. Results. • Frequency response: • Y direction much more sensible (70° impact). • Differences also at lower frequencies 30 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  31. Deceleration tests. Results. • Accelerations measured on composite mounting block have always: • lower oscillation amplitude • higher natural frequency 31 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  32. Severity indices. ASI • No differences during first part of the deceleration pulse due to the strong slope of the acceleration pulse. • After the peak differences between mounting blocks is relevant. • Better agreement between sled and mounting with composite solution. 32 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  33. Severity indices. ASI • Max difference measured between ASI measures is 0.1 33 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  34. Severity indices. ASI • Less differences with filtered ASI 34 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

  35. Composite mounting block. Conclusion • The activity showed the influence of the mass of the mounting block on the results. • Ferquency response can be modified with a light structure. • The composite solution could be not the proper solution but some specification on the frequecy response should be added to EN 1317. • Autostrade will test next week the N2 barrier with the composite block 35 /35 Second year. Copenhagen 1/3/2005

More Related