1 / 18

Cen /TC226/WG1/CME 16° meeting agenda.

Cen /TC226/WG1/CME 16° meeting agenda. Welcome. Matters arising from 15th meeting in Stockholm 21st May 2007. Marco CME Membership Trevor, Marco LS Dyna latest developments – report from LSTC. Marco TNO project on the interaction of lighting columns & soil Peter de Coo

matty
Download Presentation

Cen /TC226/WG1/CME 16° meeting agenda.

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. Cen /TC226/WG1/CME 16° meeting agenda. • Welcome. • Matters arising from 15th meeting in Stockholm 21st May 2007. Marco • CME Membership Trevor, Marco • LS Dyna latest developments – report from LSTC. Marco • TNO project on the interaction of lighting columns & soil Peter de Coo • Simulation Validation • NCHRP project 22_24 update. Marco • TB11 simulation with vertical concrete barrier update Trevor • Validation Clement, Marco • Two small (10 minutes) presentations by NPRA Otto/Matteo • Existing parapets • Comparison between different buses • Test article model requirements. All 1 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  2. New member • Fracasso nominated Miss Claudia Cofano as observer. • Introduction 2 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  3. TRB report • COE meeting at LSTC on August 3-5 • New material model. 3 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  4. New material. • Elasto-plastic isotropic material with piecewise plasticity and strain rate sensititvity (similar to MAT_024). • Element elimination based on a new theory refining Jonson Cook model. 4 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  5. Material constituive law Stress: Using principal stresses: Ordinate so that: 5 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  6. And: 6 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  7. Define: 7 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  8. In plane stress. 8 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  9. εplastic failure 1/3 -1/3 0 -2/3 2/3 Compression tri axial Tension biaxial Tension mono axial Tension tri axial Compression mono axial Compression bi axial Pure shear 9 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  10. NCHRP 22_24 • Survey of validation techniques in different fields. • Survey of modelling techniques: • http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=KMKyPxAII8B3GWYwJ2R0Dg_3d_3d • First official meeting in January 10. After this date first documents will be delivered. 10 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  11. Validation based on velocity comparison. • Accelerometers comparison does not fit for objective validation method. • Global reference frame velocity comparison. • Rotations of accelerations (unfiltered). • Evaluation of global reference frame velocities. • Different requirements in different directions? 11 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  12. All RR tests. • Same rigid barrier. • Different vehicles. • 12 tests 12 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  13. Validation based on velocity comparison. • To take into account the different importance of components, validation based on resultant velocity. • After the point where the difference between simulated and measured resultant velocity is greater than: • Xx% of current velocity (suggestion:± 5% of initial current velocity)? • Xx% of initial velocity (suggestion:± 5% of initial velocity)? The model is no longer validated. 13 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  14. Comparison based on resultant velocity. 14 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  15. Validation. All requirements. • Severity indices: • ASI THIV • Barrier behavior. • Deformation (WW, DD). • Failures (number and location). • Vehicle: • Trajectories. • Failures ? (during RR different failures) • Resultant velocity. • Yaw rate 15 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  16. Validation. • To proceed we must define limits for the above criteria. • Than: • Severity indices: • ASI THIV • Barrier behavior. • Deformation (WW, DD). • Failures (number and location). • Vehicle: • Trajectories. • Failures ? (during RR different failures) • Resultant velocity. • Yaw rate. 16 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  17. Test article model requirements. • All components of the test article must be modeled. • Failure modes must be include in the model. • If failure modes are not explicitly described “sensors” must be used to verify that these elements are far from failure. • According to the energy to be transferred and to the design philosophy critical components must be identified. 17 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

  18. Test article model tests. • Failures in the test item shall be demonstrated. • Failure description can be reported using already existing experience. • The function of non-critical components: Suitable engineering analysis can be used to demonstrate model performance, particularly where the component is not a weak point in the structure • Influence of loading speed must be considered. • All failed and strongly deformed components shall be reproduced using simulation and validated by component test. 18 Bruxelles. 24/10/2007

More Related