Vehicle Test Stand with Movable Object for Collision Simulation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing vehicle testing systems are inadequate for simulating realistic (near-)collision scenarios, as they fail to accurately replicate the dynamic behavior of vehicles during high-speed encounters and often result in system damage and increased testing costs due to limitations in deceleration and sensor simulation capabilities.

Innovation Solution

A test system that includes a test stand, a sensor support, a movable object, a control unit, and a speed measurement unit, where the object's movement is controlled based on the virtual speed of the vehicle, allowing for realistic simulations of speed changes, steering, deceleration, and acceleration, and incorporating deceleration members to delay impact and prevent damage.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the undercarriage approaches the vehicle at high speed to simulate realistic collision scenarios, then the realism of the test is improved, but the undercarriage cannot decelerate quickly enough, making it impossible to study the vehicle safety system during the crucial last second before impact

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverealism of collision simulationVSAvoiddeceleration capability

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts the speed of the object based on the virtual speed of the vehicle being tested. The object control unit receives the virtual speed from the speed measurement unit and controls the object's movement accordingly, allowing the object to maintain realistic relative speed profiles throughout the test scenario, including during deceleration phases before impact.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

2Reliability

If the undercarriage collides with the vehicle to simulate impact, then the test scenario is completed, but both the vehicle being tested and the undercarriage are damaged, significantly increasing the cost of the test

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecompletion of collision testVSAvoiddamage to test equipment

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses a simplified object that copies only the essential collision characteristics needed for testing vehicle safety systems. The object is designed to withstand high decelerations and can be easily replaced if damaged, while the vehicle being tested remains intact. This allows multiple test runs without damaging expensive equipment.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The system prepares for potential impact by using an object specifically designed to absorb collision forces. The object control unit manages the object's trajectory and speed to control the impact parameters, and the object itself is constructed to withstand the expected decelerations, cushioning the blow and preventing damage to more valuable test equipment.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

3Device complexity

If the test system uses a stationary sensor and movable sled to simulate occupant movement, then the sensor testing is simplified, but the system cannot take the actual dynamic behavior of the vehicle into account

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesensor testing setupVSAvoidaccuracy of vehicle dynamic simulation

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system makes the sensor movable relative to the vehicle being tested, rather than keeping it stationary. The object control unit controls the sensor's position and movement based on the virtual speed of the vehicle, allowing the sensor to accurately track and measure objects from a dynamically changing perspective that mimics real vehicle behavior during acceleration, braking, and turning.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

4Adaptability or versatility

If the test system allows objects to manoeuvre relative to the vehicle, then the test scenarios become more varied, but the system does not take the effects of braking or acceleration of the vehicle on the relative speed and distance into account

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevariety of test scenariosVSAvoidaccuracy of relative speed and distance measurement

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements a feedback loop where the speed measurement unit continuously measures the virtual speed of the vehicle, and this information is fed to the object control unit. The object control unit uses this feedback to adjust the object's speed and position in real-time, ensuring that the relative speed and distance measurements accurately reflect the combined effects of vehicle braking, acceleration, and the object's own movements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS8225651B2System and method for testing a vehicle

Publication Date: 2012.07.24 NEDERLANDSE ORG VOOR TOEGEPAST NATUURWETENSCHAPPELIJK ONDERZOEK TNO

AI summary

A test system (1) is arranged for testing vehicle systems which comprise at least one sensor (20). The test system comprises a test stand (11) for accommodating a vehicle (2), an object (12) which is movable relative to the test stand, and a control unit (13) for controlling the movement of the object. The test stand (11) is provided with a speed measurement unit (14) for detecting the virtual speed (v) of the vehicle, while the control unit (13) is arranged for controlling the movement of the object in dependence on said virtual speed. The object (12) preferably is a dummy vehicle which may be pulled along a track (16).