The Experts below are selected from a list of 4725 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Paul D Rowlett - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • dock leveler with a translating lip and with a weather shield
    2009
    Co-Authors: Andreas Bettendorf, David J Hoffmann, Charles J Digmann, Matthew C Mcneill, Paul D Rowlett
    Abstract:

    A dock leveler with a vertically adjustable deck and horizontally translating lip (22) includes a weather shield that helps shelter a pit area underneath the lip and the deck (20). The dock leveler and shield system is particularly suited for serving trucks that include a rear liftgate. An upper edge of the weather shield seals against and moves with the lip of the dock leveler, and a lower edge of the shield can be attached to a lower dividing Panel. The lower dividing Panel (sometimes known as an ISO Panel) isolates the deck of the dock leveler from a liftgate-receiving receptacle within the pit area. The weather shield accommodates the lip's horizontal movement and the decks vertical movement. The shield is such that it further accommodates a vertically moving Door Panel that can close in front of both the deck and the lip.

  • weather shield for underneath a dock leveler with a translating lip
    2007
    Co-Authors: Andreas Bettendorf, David J Hoffmann, Charles J Digmann, Matthew C Mcneill, Paul D Rowlett
    Abstract:

    A dock leveler with a vertically adjustable deck and horizontally translating lip includes a weather shield that helps shelter a pit area underneath the lip and the deck. The dock leveler and shield system is particularly suited for serving trucks that include a rear liftgate. An upper edge of the weather shield seals against and moves with the lip of the dock leveler, and a lower edge of the shield can be attached to a lower dividing Panel. The lower dividing Panel (sometimes known as an ISO Panel) isolates the deck of the dock leveler from a liftgate-receiving receptacle within the pit area. The weather shield accommodates the lip's horizontal movement and the deck's vertical movement. The shield is such that it further accommodates a vertically moving Door Panel that can close in front of both the deck and the lip.

David J Hoffmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • bulb seals for Doors
    2012
    Co-Authors: David J Hoffmann
    Abstract:

    Example Doors having a seal attached to an edge member of a Door Panel are disclosed herein. An example seal includes a flexible sheet of material with its longitudinal edges turned inward toward a more central portion of the sheet such that the sheet is turned partially or somewhat inside-out to provide a bulging seal geometry that is favorable for sealing in multiple directions. The seal, for example, is suitable for sealing in a head-on direction engaging an abutting surface, such as a Doorjamb. The seal can also seal in sliding engagement with an adjacent surface parallel to the Door Panel. In some examples, the sheet defines a hollow chamber in which the longitudinal edges of the sheet reinforce or brace an exterior curved portion of the seal. In some examples, the sheet of material is a unitary seamless piece with an attached touch-and-hold fastener that makes the seal readily replaceable.

  • dock leveler with a translating lip and with a weather shield
    2009
    Co-Authors: Andreas Bettendorf, David J Hoffmann, Charles J Digmann, Matthew C Mcneill, Paul D Rowlett
    Abstract:

    A dock leveler with a vertically adjustable deck and horizontally translating lip (22) includes a weather shield that helps shelter a pit area underneath the lip and the deck (20). The dock leveler and shield system is particularly suited for serving trucks that include a rear liftgate. An upper edge of the weather shield seals against and moves with the lip of the dock leveler, and a lower edge of the shield can be attached to a lower dividing Panel. The lower dividing Panel (sometimes known as an ISO Panel) isolates the deck of the dock leveler from a liftgate-receiving receptacle within the pit area. The weather shield accommodates the lip's horizontal movement and the decks vertical movement. The shield is such that it further accommodates a vertically moving Door Panel that can close in front of both the deck and the lip.

  • weather shield for underneath a dock leveler with a translating lip
    2007
    Co-Authors: Andreas Bettendorf, David J Hoffmann, Charles J Digmann, Matthew C Mcneill, Paul D Rowlett
    Abstract:

    A dock leveler with a vertically adjustable deck and horizontally translating lip includes a weather shield that helps shelter a pit area underneath the lip and the deck. The dock leveler and shield system is particularly suited for serving trucks that include a rear liftgate. An upper edge of the weather shield seals against and moves with the lip of the dock leveler, and a lower edge of the shield can be attached to a lower dividing Panel. The lower dividing Panel (sometimes known as an ISO Panel) isolates the deck of the dock leveler from a liftgate-receiving receptacle within the pit area. The weather shield accommodates the lip's horizontal movement and the deck's vertical movement. The shield is such that it further accommodates a vertically moving Door Panel that can close in front of both the deck and the lip.

Arregui Dalmases Carlos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Structural optimisation in vehicle development for the current Euro NCAP side crash protocol: how to minimise the structural changes due to the current barrier stiffness and geometry 
    2016
    Co-Authors: Crespo Sergio, Perez Rapela Daniel, Roman-marin Juaquin, Martin-vázquez Francesc , Luzón Narro, Benito Javier, Arregui Dalmases Carlos
    Abstract:

    Euro NCAP continually examines and modifies its protocols to encourage the automotive industry to improve vehicles and the safety of occupants. The aim of this study is to identify the key differences between the past and current Euro NCAP protocols regarding side impact, in order to apply optimized countermeasures for fulfilling the new requirements in a previously designed vehicle. Outcomes from a possible Euro NCAP increase in crash speed from 50 km/h to 60 km/h were evaluated. The current protocol introduces the dummy WorldSID 50th percentile and changes in the barrier. The changes in the dummy lead to a reduction in the distance between the occupant and the Door Panel, and the current geometry of the barrier causes the car’s structure, in particular the sill, to be additionally loaded. An increase in mass of the current barrier causes an increase in energy absorption, thus presenting different deformation patterns. With the updated protocol, the most critical anatomical areas observed in this research were the pelvis and the shoulder. Countermeasures in this study were especially focused on decreasing the load on these anatomical structures. The evaluated countermeasures were: - Sill and B-pillar geometric adaptation to better perform against the AE-MDB - Reduced stiffness of the Door Panel at the occupant impact location - Optimized Door beam Finite Element Method (FEM) tools were used as the basis of this research, including validated and correlated models with experimental full car tests. Initially, the research started with FEM testing of the current vehicle according to both past and current Euro NCAP protocols. Pelvic biomechanical values reached the lower performance limits when testing the AE-MDB barrier at 50 km/h. This new test has an especial impact in midsized cars in terms of pelvis loading, leading the pubic and sacroiliac forces to increase in 38.6% and 25.8% respectively, in the vehicle studied. After the application of the structural countermeasures, the sacroiliac force decreased by 24.9% and the pubic force decreased by 32.5%. Changes in the Euro NCAP protocol and regulations are always a challenge for design departments. In this research the differences between Euro NCAP side protocols were analyzed and some potential countermeasures were highlighted.Postprint (published version

  • Structural optimisation in vehicle development for the current Euro NCAP side crash protocol: how to minimise the structural changes due to the current barrier stiffness and geometry 
    2016
    Co-Authors: Crespo Sergio, Perez Rapela Daniel, Roman-marin Juaquin, Martin-vázquez Francesc , Luzón Narro, Benito Javier, Arregui Dalmases Carlos
    Abstract:

    Euro NCAP continually examines and modifies its protocols to encourage the automotive industry to improve vehicles and the safety of occupants. The aim of this study is to identify the key differences between the past and current Euro NCAP protocols regarding side impact, in order to apply optimized countermeasures for fulfilling the new requirements in a previously designed vehicle. Outcomes from a possible Euro NCAP increase in crash speed from 50 km/h to 60 km/h were evaluated. The current protocol introduces the dummy WorldSID 50th percentile and changes in the barrier. The changes in the dummy lead to a reduction in the distance between the occupant and the Door Panel, and the current geometry of the barrier causes the car’s structure, in particular the sill, to be additionally loaded. An increase in mass of the current barrier causes an increase in energy absorption, thus presenting different deformation patterns. With the updated protocol, the most critical anatomical areas observed in this research were the pelvis and the shoulder. Countermeasures in this study were especially focused on decreasing the load on these anatomical structures. The evaluated countermeasures were: - Sill and B-pillar geometric adaptation to better perform against the AE-MDB - Reduced stiffness of the Door Panel at the occupant impact location - Optimized Door beam Finite Element Method (FEM) tools were used as the basis of this research, including validated and correlated models with experimental full car tests. Initially, the research started with FEM testing of the current vehicle according to both past and current Euro NCAP protocols. Pelvic biomechanical values reached the lower performance limits when testing the AE-MDB barrier at 50 km/h. This new test has an especial impact in midsized cars in terms of pelvis loading, leading the pubic and sacroiliac forces to increase in 38.6% and 25.8% respectively, in the vehicle studied. After the application of the structural countermeasures, the sacroiliac force decreased by 24.9% and the pubic force decreased by 32.5%. Changes in the Euro NCAP protocol and regulations are always a challenge for design departments. In this research the differences between Euro NCAP side protocols were analyzed and some potential countermeasures were highlighted

Andreas Bettendorf - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • dock leveler with a translating lip and with a weather shield
    2009
    Co-Authors: Andreas Bettendorf, David J Hoffmann, Charles J Digmann, Matthew C Mcneill, Paul D Rowlett
    Abstract:

    A dock leveler with a vertically adjustable deck and horizontally translating lip (22) includes a weather shield that helps shelter a pit area underneath the lip and the deck (20). The dock leveler and shield system is particularly suited for serving trucks that include a rear liftgate. An upper edge of the weather shield seals against and moves with the lip of the dock leveler, and a lower edge of the shield can be attached to a lower dividing Panel. The lower dividing Panel (sometimes known as an ISO Panel) isolates the deck of the dock leveler from a liftgate-receiving receptacle within the pit area. The weather shield accommodates the lip's horizontal movement and the decks vertical movement. The shield is such that it further accommodates a vertically moving Door Panel that can close in front of both the deck and the lip.

  • weather shield for underneath a dock leveler with a translating lip
    2007
    Co-Authors: Andreas Bettendorf, David J Hoffmann, Charles J Digmann, Matthew C Mcneill, Paul D Rowlett
    Abstract:

    A dock leveler with a vertically adjustable deck and horizontally translating lip includes a weather shield that helps shelter a pit area underneath the lip and the deck. The dock leveler and shield system is particularly suited for serving trucks that include a rear liftgate. An upper edge of the weather shield seals against and moves with the lip of the dock leveler, and a lower edge of the shield can be attached to a lower dividing Panel. The lower dividing Panel (sometimes known as an ISO Panel) isolates the deck of the dock leveler from a liftgate-receiving receptacle within the pit area. The weather shield accommodates the lip's horizontal movement and the deck's vertical movement. The shield is such that it further accommodates a vertically moving Door Panel that can close in front of both the deck and the lip.

Crespo Sergio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Structural optimisation in vehicle development for the current Euro NCAP side crash protocol: how to minimise the structural changes due to the current barrier stiffness and geometry 
    2016
    Co-Authors: Crespo Sergio, Perez Rapela Daniel, Roman-marin Juaquin, Martin-vázquez Francesc , Luzón Narro, Benito Javier, Arregui Dalmases Carlos
    Abstract:

    Euro NCAP continually examines and modifies its protocols to encourage the automotive industry to improve vehicles and the safety of occupants. The aim of this study is to identify the key differences between the past and current Euro NCAP protocols regarding side impact, in order to apply optimized countermeasures for fulfilling the new requirements in a previously designed vehicle. Outcomes from a possible Euro NCAP increase in crash speed from 50 km/h to 60 km/h were evaluated. The current protocol introduces the dummy WorldSID 50th percentile and changes in the barrier. The changes in the dummy lead to a reduction in the distance between the occupant and the Door Panel, and the current geometry of the barrier causes the car’s structure, in particular the sill, to be additionally loaded. An increase in mass of the current barrier causes an increase in energy absorption, thus presenting different deformation patterns. With the updated protocol, the most critical anatomical areas observed in this research were the pelvis and the shoulder. Countermeasures in this study were especially focused on decreasing the load on these anatomical structures. The evaluated countermeasures were: - Sill and B-pillar geometric adaptation to better perform against the AE-MDB - Reduced stiffness of the Door Panel at the occupant impact location - Optimized Door beam Finite Element Method (FEM) tools were used as the basis of this research, including validated and correlated models with experimental full car tests. Initially, the research started with FEM testing of the current vehicle according to both past and current Euro NCAP protocols. Pelvic biomechanical values reached the lower performance limits when testing the AE-MDB barrier at 50 km/h. This new test has an especial impact in midsized cars in terms of pelvis loading, leading the pubic and sacroiliac forces to increase in 38.6% and 25.8% respectively, in the vehicle studied. After the application of the structural countermeasures, the sacroiliac force decreased by 24.9% and the pubic force decreased by 32.5%. Changes in the Euro NCAP protocol and regulations are always a challenge for design departments. In this research the differences between Euro NCAP side protocols were analyzed and some potential countermeasures were highlighted.Postprint (published version

  • Structural optimisation in vehicle development for the current Euro NCAP side crash protocol: how to minimise the structural changes due to the current barrier stiffness and geometry 
    2016
    Co-Authors: Crespo Sergio, Perez Rapela Daniel, Roman-marin Juaquin, Martin-vázquez Francesc , Luzón Narro, Benito Javier, Arregui Dalmases Carlos
    Abstract:

    Euro NCAP continually examines and modifies its protocols to encourage the automotive industry to improve vehicles and the safety of occupants. The aim of this study is to identify the key differences between the past and current Euro NCAP protocols regarding side impact, in order to apply optimized countermeasures for fulfilling the new requirements in a previously designed vehicle. Outcomes from a possible Euro NCAP increase in crash speed from 50 km/h to 60 km/h were evaluated. The current protocol introduces the dummy WorldSID 50th percentile and changes in the barrier. The changes in the dummy lead to a reduction in the distance between the occupant and the Door Panel, and the current geometry of the barrier causes the car’s structure, in particular the sill, to be additionally loaded. An increase in mass of the current barrier causes an increase in energy absorption, thus presenting different deformation patterns. With the updated protocol, the most critical anatomical areas observed in this research were the pelvis and the shoulder. Countermeasures in this study were especially focused on decreasing the load on these anatomical structures. The evaluated countermeasures were: - Sill and B-pillar geometric adaptation to better perform against the AE-MDB - Reduced stiffness of the Door Panel at the occupant impact location - Optimized Door beam Finite Element Method (FEM) tools were used as the basis of this research, including validated and correlated models with experimental full car tests. Initially, the research started with FEM testing of the current vehicle according to both past and current Euro NCAP protocols. Pelvic biomechanical values reached the lower performance limits when testing the AE-MDB barrier at 50 km/h. This new test has an especial impact in midsized cars in terms of pelvis loading, leading the pubic and sacroiliac forces to increase in 38.6% and 25.8% respectively, in the vehicle studied. After the application of the structural countermeasures, the sacroiliac force decreased by 24.9% and the pubic force decreased by 32.5%. Changes in the Euro NCAP protocol and regulations are always a challenge for design departments. In this research the differences between Euro NCAP side protocols were analyzed and some potential countermeasures were highlighted