Crash rk

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 49 | Comments: 0 | Views: 604
of 14
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Crash test

Quality control is a process that is used to ensure a certain level of quality in a product or service. It might include whatever actions a business deems necessary to provide for the control and verification of certain characteristics of a product or service. Most often, it involves thoroughly examining and testing the quality of products or the results of services. The basic goal of this process is to ensure that the products or services that are provided meet specific requirements and characteristics, such as being dependable, satisfactory, safe and fiscally sound. Companies that engage in quality control typically have a team of workers who focus on testing a certain number of products or observing services being done. The products or services that are examined usually are chosen at random. The goal of the quality control team is to identify products or services that do not meet a company's specified standards of quality An inspection is, most generally, an organized examination or formal evaluation exercise. In engineering activities inspection involves the measurements, tests, and gauges applied to certain characteristics in regard to an object or activity. The results are usually compared to specified requirements and standards for determining whether the item or activity is in line with these targets. Inspections are usually non-destructive. Testing: Quality control means by which the capability of a manufactured item to meet its specified requirements is determined and documented by subjecting the item to a set of operating conditions. The process of executing a system with the intent of finding defects. Testing is product oriented. In general, testing is finding out how well something works. Nondestructive testing or Non-destructive testing (NDT) is a wide group of analysis techniques used in science and industry to evaluate the properties of a material, component or system without causing damage. The terms Nondestructive examination (NDE), Nondestructive inspection (NDI), and Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) are also commonly used to describe this technology. Because NDT does not permanently alter the article being inspected, it is a highly-valuable technique that can save both money and time in product evaluation, troubleshooting, and research. Common NDT methods include ultrasonic, magnetic-particle, liquid penetrant, radiographic, remote visual inspection (RVI), eddy-current testing and low coherence interferometry destructive testing, tests are carried out to the specimen's failure, in order to understand a specimen's structural performance or material behaviour under different loads. These tests are generally much easier to carry out, yield more information, and are easier to interpret than nondestructive testing.

Destructive testing is most suitable, and economic, for objects which will be mass produced, as the cost of destroying a small number of specimens is negligible. It is usually not economical to do destructive testing where only one or very few items are to be produced (for example, in the case of a building). Some types of destructive testing:
   

Stress tests Crash tests Hardness tests Metallographic tests

A crash test is a form of destructive testing usually performed in order to ensure safe design standards in crashworthiness and crash compatibility for various modes of transportation or related systems and components.

Crashworthiness is the ability of a structure to protect its occupants during an impact. This is commonly tested when investigating the safety of aircraft and vehicles. Depending on the nature of the impact and the vehicle involved, different criteria are used to determine the crashworthiness of the structure. Crashworthiness may be assessed either prospectively, using computer models (e.g., LS-DYNA, MSCDytran, MADYMO) or experiments, or retrospectively by analyzing crash outcomes. Several criteria are used to assess crashworthiness prospectively, including the deformation patterns of the vehicle structure, the acceleration experienced by the vehicle during an impact, and the probability of injury predicted by human body models. Injury probability is defined using criteria, which are mechanical parameters (e.g., force, acceleration, or deformation) that correlate with injury risk. A common injury criterion is the Head impact criterion (HIC). Crashworthiness is assessed retrospectively by analyzing injury risk in real-world crashes, often using regression or other statistical techniques to control for the myriad of confounders that are present in crashes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crash incompatibility, crash compatibility, vehicle incompatibility, and vehicle compatibility are terms in the automobile crash testing industry. They refer to the tendency of some vehicles to inflict more damage on another vehicle (the "crash partner vehicle") in two-car crashes. Vehicle incompatibility is said to lead to more dangerous, fatal crashes, while compatibility can prevent injury in otherwise comparable crashes. The most obvious source of crash incompatibility is mass; a high-mass vehicle such as a large MPV or SUV will tend to cause much more serious damage in a crash with a lighter vehicle such as a typical sedan or compact car.[citation needed]Incompatibility may also result from the specific shape, stiffness, or other design aspects of the impacting vehicles. For example, some SUVs and pickup trucks ride higher than cars and lack crumple zones to absorb impact energy. Another source of incompatibility is that heavier vehicles are required to have stronger front ends because of today's test requirements like the NCAP test [2]. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has done studies of the "aggressiveness" of vehicle designs. The term "aggressiveness" is used to denote the average injury risk a vehicle imposes on occupants of other vehicles during collisions. A 2003 NHTSA study estimated that in vehicle to vehicle crashes, the design of minivans was 1.16 times as aggressive as cars, pickups were 1.39 times more aggressive, and SUVs were 1.71 times more aggressive than cars. When weight was included in the analysis, light trucks (including SUVs) were estimated to be 3.3 times more aggressive than cars in head-on crashes and perhaps more so in side impact crashes.[citation needed] These studies have been controversial as they affect public perception and policy decisions on CAFE standards and light truck safety test standards as they exist today. Besides, the numbers above are difficult to translate into any meaningful steps because the NHTSA does not define a car or a light truck very well (the PT Cruiser is classified as a light truck whereas a Lexus LS430, a much heavier vehicle, is classified as a car). So, it would not make sense[says who?] to say that eliminating all light trucks (which includes minivans, SUVs and pickups) would eliminate incompatibility because there would still be smaller vehicles crashing into larger vehicles. This is the case in Japan, which has few light trucks but crash incompatibility is considered to be a major issue.[citation needed] There has been extensive research and testing done by NHTSA, other governments, research organizations as well as automobile manufacturers to find solutions that improve safety in the small cars when colliding with larger vehicles. In the United States, a group of experts proposed major steps to improve compatibility[1] and these have been accepted as a voluntary regulation by American automotive manufacturers as well as by most other companies selling vehicles in the U.S. The Canadian government has also accepted these recommendations. The recommendations require all manufacturers

to put head protection airbags ("curtain" airbags) in their cars within a couple of years[when?] and also to design the front end of all light trucks to be less aggressive. Although much of the crash incompatibility debate in recent years has centered around SUVs, the concept has been around far longer. When subcompact cars were introduced in the 1970s, there was a fear that incompatibilities of mass and design could lead to more serious injuries for drivers of these smaller, lighter vehicles. Crash incompatibility remains an area of active study.

Overall, passenger vehicles are safer than they've ever been, but the crashworthiness of individual models varies greatly, even within a vehicle class. New roof-strength tests also reveal that one version of a model can fare better than another. Because of this, understanding how a model is expected to perform in a crash is important before buying your next car. The most important things to know about crash tests:
     

Not All Results Can Be Compared Crash Tests Differ by Agency Side-Impact Ratings Have Deficiencies Government Rollover Ratings Have Shortcomings Roof-Strength Tests Provide Key Rollover-Protection Data Some Models Are Not Rated Not All Results Can Be Compared

A Ford Mustang is put through an IIHS crash test. Model-to-model comparisons of frontal crash ratings are valid only within a vehicle class or between models of comparable weight (as long as they're within 250 pounds of each other). The test reflects how the vehicle would fare in a collision with another of the same model, not versus a larger or smaller vehicle (or a lower- or higher-riding vehicle). A heavier vehicle protects its occupants better than a lighter one if all other factors are equal, but they almost never are. So a large vehicle with a Poor rating is not necessarily safer than a small vehicle with a Good rating. Unfortunately, researchers have not yet devised a reliable method for reporting the effect of size differences on a vehicle's

score. Note: Side-impact crash tests are comparable across classes because the sled that rams the test vehicles is of a consistent size and weight. See Side-Impact Ratings Have Deficiencies. Likewise, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's rear-crash head-restraint ratings consistently test how well a stationary seat protects against whiplash by simulating a 20-mph rear crash. IIHS combines the results with an evaluation of the seat's geometry to arrive at a rating. The agency requires a Good rating in the rear test in order for a model to earn the group's Top Safety Pick designation. Manufacturers were able to change their seats in model-year updates, resulting in many 2009 Top Safety Picks. For 2010, in order to get a Top Safety Pick, a vehicle must get Good scores in the roofstrength test (See Roof-Strength Tests Provide Key Rollover-Protection Data). Because of that, there were fewer 2010 Top Safety Picks in each category. Back to top Crash Tests Differ by Agency There are two testing agencies and they perform different types of frontal tests. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crashes cars head-on into a solid immovable barrier. Neither the angle nor the obstacle corresponds with the majority of real collisions. IIHS conducts a frontal-offset crash into a deformable barrier that reacts like another vehicle. This gauges how well half of the vehicle's front end absorbs crash energy. Many experts say this test is more revealing and better represents the majority of real-world crashes. Additionally, NHTSA has acknowledged that its New Car Assessment Program hasn't evolved quickly enough to account for marketwide improvements in vehicle crashworthiness. Simply put, too many models are getting high scores from NHTSA, and the differences among them — which exist — aren't reflected in the ratings. NHTSA announced in 2008 that updates would first appear in 2010model-year crash tests, but postponed the changes for the 2011 model year. Back to top Side-Impact Ratings Have Deficiencies Side-impact crash-test results currently aren't as abundant. Though NHTSA has tested more models than IIHS for side-impact protection, these tests are inadequate for two reasons:




The sled employed to "T-bone" the stationary test vehicle has the height and mass of a car, not an SUV or a pickup truck. This tends to minimize its intrusion into the cabin — making it a best-case scenario. NHTSA's chance-of-injury data are based on trauma to the test dummies' torsos, not their heads. Experience has shown that occupants' heads are more susceptible to injury in a side impact, and head injuries are more often serious and potentially fatal, according to experts.

A Mercedes-Benz E-Class undergoes an IIHS side-impact crash test. NHTSA calls out a "safety concern" on some ratings on its website, but they don't affect the car's star rating. For example, the 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt two-door report stated: "Safety Concern: During the side-impact test, the head of the driver dummy struck the windowsill, causing a high head acceleration. Head impact events resulting in high accelerations have a higher likelihood of serious head trauma." Yet the car received a respectable double-four-star side-impact rating. When tested with optional side curtain airbags, the 2007 Cobalt two-door report raised no extra safety concerns, but the Cobalt got a three-star side-impact rating. (Retested for 2008 with side curtains, now standard, the Cobalt scored four stars for side impact, and no safety concern was listed.) NHTSA will begin to factor head injury into its bottom-line results, but not until the 2011 model year. The IIHS side-impact test measures head injury and employs a sled as high and heavy as a full-size SUV or pickup, creating a more dangerous scenario. Unfortunately, IIHS began this program only recently, so ratings go back only a few model years. Because the size of sled is consistent, comparisons of side-impact ratings are valid across vehicle classes. It's important to scrutinize crash-test reports — not just to determine if the car has side airbags, but to know if they are standard or optional on the car you're considering. In some cars, side bags have meant the difference between getting a top or a bottom score, and it's up to you to make sure the car you buy has them. Side-impact tests use properly positioned, belted test dummies, which doesn't tell us what would happen if an occupant were out of position — in which case the side airbag firing can itself be hazardous, especially for children. To address this, NHTSA reports now have an "SAB Out Of Position Testing" field that may read "Meets specifications." You should know that this result is being reported by the automaker after voluntary testing — it's not a test performed by NHTSA. People concerned about injuries from side airbags should avoid the seat- or door-mounted type, or buy a car that disables those airbags when the occupant is out of position. Honda and Acura have pioneered this feature. Curtain airbags are considered to be less dangerous. Back to top

Government Rollover Ratings Have Shortcomings Auto manufacturers and safety experts considered NHTSA's original Rollover Resistance Ratings, begun in the 2001 model year, inadequate at judging a model's rollover propensity because they were based on a mathematical calculation of the vehicle's center of gravity. Starting with the 2004 model year, NHTSA combined this calculation with a "fishhook" dynamic driving test in which the test vehicle swerves suddenly, then overcorrects. The combined results, NHTSA Rollover Ratings, give a percentage chance of rollover — a star rating based on this chance and whether or not the model tipped up on two wheels during the fishhook test. While many see this as a step in the right direction, some automakers still criticize NHTSA for extrapolating some conclusions. Back to top Roof-Strength Tests Provide Key Rollover-Protection Data Where NHTSA attempts to relate a model's propensity to roll over, roof-strength tests from IIHS reflect how the roof might protect occupants when a rollover occurs. Using its familiar scale — Good/Acceptable/Marginal/Poor — IIHS began to rate 2010 models based on how well they resist up to four times their weight in a crush test. Because weight varies among different versions of the same model, it's conceivable that twowheel- and four-wheel-drive versions of the same model could earn different scores. The extra weight of hybrid hardware has earned the hybrid version of Ford's Escape a Poor roof-strength rating even though the non-hybrid is rated Marginal. For more information on roof strength as it relates to safety, see the related Roof-Strength Ratings Offer Insight on Rollover Safety.Back to top Some Models Are Not Rated If the model you seek is missing crash-test results, they may be pending or the vehicle may not be tested. Both agencies concentrate on the highest-volume vehicles. Convertibles are rarely tested for this reason, though for the first time in 2007 IIHS tested 10 models, including several best-sellers like the Chrysler Sebring and Ford Mustang. Results for new or recently reengineered models are likely to appear months after the car goes on sale because both agencies purchase their test subjects from dealerships. NHTSA notes if a vehicle is TBT (to be tested) or if results are pending or under review. IIHS has begun to offer more detailed information about whether or not test results are pending. Back to top ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Types


Frontal-impact tests: which is what most people initially think of when asked about a crash test. These are usually impacts upon a solid concrete wall at a specified speed, but can also be vehicle-vehicle tests. SUVs have been singled out in these tests for a while, due to the high ride-height that they often have. Offset tests: in which only part of the front of the car impacts with a barrier (vehicle). These are important, as impact forces (approximately) remain the same as with a frontal impact test, but a smaller fraction of the car is required to absorb all of the force. These tests are often realized by cars turning into oncoming traffic. This type of testing is done by the U.S.A. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),Euro CAP and Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP). Side-impact tests: these forms of accidents have a very significant likelihood of fatality, as cars do not have a significant crumple zone to absorb the impact forces before an occupant is injured. Roll-over tests: which tests a car's ability (specifically the pillars holding the roof) to support itself in a dynamic impact. More recently dynamic rollover tests have been proposed as opposed to static crush testing (video). Roadside hardware crash tests: are used to ensure crash barriers and crash cushions will protect vehicle occupants from roadside hazards, and also to ensure that guard rails, sign posts, light poles and similar appurtenances do not pose an undue hazard to vehicle occupants. Old versus new: Often an old and big car against a small and new car, or two different generations of the same car model. These tests are performed to show the advancements in crashworthiness. Computer model: Because of the cost of full-scale crash tests, engineers often run many simulated crash tests using computer models to refine their vehicle or barrier designs before conducting live tests.













Test Method Section 222 - School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection Approved: December 19, 1983 Disclaimer The documents in HTML format that are provided on this Web site have been prepared for use as a ready reference and do not have legal force or effect. A Portable Document Format (PDF) version is provided for the purposes of interpretation and application. The PDF version may be viewed using version 3.0 or higher of the Adobe® Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded free of charge by visiting theAdobe® Web site. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Symbols 3. Special Test Equipment 4. Conditions 5. Test Procedures 5.1 Seat/Restraining Barrier Performance Forward 5.2 Seat Performance Test Rearward Figure 1 — Bispherical Headform Radii

1. Introduction Subsections 2 to 5 and Figure 1 of this section make up test methods referred to in section 222 of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of section 222 of Schedule D. (Original signed by) Gordon D. Campbell for the Minister of Transport Ottawa, Ontario 2. Symbols

"W" stands for the number of seating positions in a bench seat and shall be calculated as the bench width in millimetres (inches) divided by 381 mm (15 inches) and rounding the quotient to the nearest whole number or, if the quotient is equidistant from two whole numbers, to the higher thereof. 3. Special Test Equipment 3.1 The loading bar, used in 5.1 and 5.2, shall be a rigid cylinder with an outside diameter of 152 mm(6 inches) that has hemispherical ends with radii of 76 mm (3 inches) and with a surface roughness that does not exceed 1.6 mm (63 micro-inches) root mean square. 3.l.1 The length of the loading bar shall be 100 mm (4 inches) less than the width of the seat back in each test. 3.1.2 The stroking mechanism applies force through a pivot attachment at the centre point of the loading bar which allows the loading bar to rotate in a horizontal plane 30 degrees in either direction from the transverse position. 3.1.3 A vertical or lateral force of 17 793 N (4,000 pounds) applied externally through the pivot attachment point of the loading bar at any position reached during a test specified herein, shall not deflect that point more than 25.4 mm (1 inch). 3.2 The head form used for the measurement of acceleration shall be a rigid surface comprised of two hemispherical shapes, with total equivalent weight of 51 N (11.5 pounds). The first of the two hemispherical shapes shall have a diameter of 165 mm (6.5 inches). The second of the two hemispherical shapes shall have a diameter of 50.8 mm (2 inches) and shall be centred as shown in Figure 1 to protrude from the outer surface of the first hemispherical shape. The surface roughness of the hemispherical shapes shall not exceed 1.6 mm (63 micro-inches) root mean square. 3.2.1 The direction of travel of the head form shall be coincidental with the straight line connecting the centre points of the two spherical outer surfaces which constitute the head form shape. 3.2.2 The head form shall be instrumented with an acceleration sensing device whose output is recorded in a data channel that conforms to the requirements for a 1000 Hz channel class as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J2lla (December 1971). The head form shall not exhibit resonant frequency below three times the frequency of the channel class. The axis of the acceleration sensing device coincides with the straight line connecting the centre points of the two hemispherical outer surfaces which constitute the head form shape.

3.2.3 The head form shall be guided by a stroking device so that the direction of travel of the head form is not affected by impact with the surface being tested at the levels called for in the standard. 3.3 The knee form for measurement of force shall be a rigid 76 mm (3 inch) diameter cylinder with an equivalent weight of 44.5 N (10 pounds) that has one rigid hemispherical end with a 38 mm (1.5 inch) radius forming the contact surface of the knee form. The hemispherical surface roughness shall not exceed 1.6 mm (63 microinches) root mean square. 3.3.1 The direction of travel of the knee form shall be coincidental with the centreline of the rigid cylinder. 3.3.2 The knee form shall be instrumented with an acceleration sensing device whose output is recorded in a data channel that conforms to the requirements of a 600 Hz channel class as specified in the SAE Recommended Practice J2lla (December 1971). The knee form shall not exhibit resonant frequency below three times the frequency of the channel class. The axis of the acceleration sensing device shall be aligned to measure acceleration along the centreline of the cylindrical knee form. 3.3.3 The knee form shall be guided by a stroking device so that the direction of travel of the knee form is not affected by impact with the surface being tested at the levels called for herein. 4. Conditions 4.1 The following conditions apply to the procedures detailed in section 222 of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations in determining compliance with that section. 4.2 The bus shall be at rest on a level surface. 4.3 The tires shall be inflated to the pressure specified by the manufacturer for the gross vehicle weight rating. 4.4 The ambient temperature shall be any level between 0°C (32°F) and 32°C (90°F). 4.5 The seat back position, if adjustable, shall be adjusted to its most upright position. 4.6 The head form, knee form and contactable surfaces shall be clean and dry during impact testing. 4.7 The restraining barrier shall meet the barrier performance tests with the drivers' seat located in any of the positions to which it can be adjusted. 5. Test Procedures

5.1 Seat/Restraining Barrier Performance Forward 5.1.1 Position the loading bar specified in 3.1 so that it is laterally centred behind the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle and in any horizontal plane between 100 mm (4 inches) above, and 100 mm (4 inches) below the seating reference point of the school bus passenger seat behind the test specimen. 5.1.2 Apply a force of 3 114W N (700W pounds) horizontally in the forward direction through the loading bar at the pivot attachment point. The specified load shall be reached in not less than 5 nor more than 30 seconds. 5.1.3 No sooner than 1.0 second after attaining the required force, reduce that force to 1 557W N(350W pounds) and, while maintaining the pivot point position of the first loading bar at the position where the 1 557W Nm (350W pounds) is attained, position a second loading bar described in 3.1 so that it is laterally centered behind the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle and in the horizontal plane 406 mm (16 inches) above the seating reference point on the school bus passenger seat behind the test specimen, and move the bar forward against the seat back until a force of 44.5 N (10 pounds) has been applied. 5.1.4 Apply additional force horizontally in the forward direction through the upper bar until 452W Nm(4,000W inch-pounds) of energy has been absorbed in deflecting the seat back (or restraining barrier) or until the seat back (or restraining barrier) has been deflected a maximum of 356 mm (14 inches). The additional load shall be applied in not less than 5 seconds nor more than 30 seconds. Maintain the pivot attachment point in the maximum forward travel position for not less than 5 seconds nor more than 10 seconds and release the load in not less than 5 seconds nor more than 30 seconds. 5.2 Seat Performance Test Rearward 5.2.1 Position the loading bar described in 3.1 so that it is laterally centered forward of the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle and in the horizontal plane 343 mm(13.5 inches) above the seating reference point of the test specimen, and move the loading bar rearward against the seat back until a force of 222.4 N (50 pounds) has been applied. 5.2.2 Apply additional force horizontally rearward through the loading bar until 316.4W Nm (2,800W inch-pounds) of energy has been absorbed in deflecting the seat back or until the seat back has been deflected a maximum of 250 mm (10 inches). The additional load shall be applied in not less than 5 seconds nor more than 30 seconds. Maintain the pivot attachment point in the maximum rearward travel position for not less than 5 seconds nor more than 10 seconds and release the load in not less

Simulation software is based on the process of modeling a real phenomenon with a set of mathematical formulas. It is, essentially, a program that allows the user to observe an operation through simulation without actually performing that operation. Simulation software is used widely to design equipment so that the final product will be as close to design specs as possible without expensive in process modification. Simulation software with real-time response is often used in gaming, but it also has important industrial applications. When the penalty for improper operation is costly, such as airplane pilots, nuclear power plant operators, or chemical plant operators, a mock up of the actual control panel is connected to a real-time simulation of the physical response, giving valuable training experience without fear of a disastrous outcome. Advanced computer programs can simulate weather conditions, electronic circuits, chemical reactions, mechatronics, heat pumps, feedback control systems, atomic reactions, even biological processes. In theory, any phenomena that can be reduced to mathematical data and equations can be simulated on a computer. Simulation can be difficult because most natural phenomena are subject to an almost infinite number of influences. One of the tricks to developing useful simulations is to determine which are the most important factors that affect the goals of the simulation. In addition to imitating processes to see how they behave under different conditions, simulations are also used to test new theories. After creating a theory of causal relationships, the theorist can codify the relationships in the form of a computer program. If the program then behaves in the same way as the real process, there is a good chance that the proposed relationships are correct.

General simulation General simulation packages fall into two categories: discrete event and continuous simulation. Discrete event simulations are used to model statistical events such as customers arriving in queues at a bank. By properly correlating arrival probabilities with observed behavior, a model can determine optimal queue count to keep queue wait times at a specified level. Continuous simulators such as VisSim are used to model a wide variety of physical phenomena like ballistic trajectories, human respiration, electric motor response, radio frequency data communication, steam turbine power generation etc. Simulations are used in initial system design to optimize component selection and controller gains, as well as in Model Based Design systems to generate embedded control code. Real-time operation of continuous simulation is used for operator training and off-line controller tuning.QWERTY TYPES;

Altair Engineering is a product design and development, engineering software and cloud computing software company. Altair was founded by Jim Scapa, George Christ, and Mark Kistner in 1985. Over its history, it has had various locations near Detroit, Michigan, USA. It is currently headquartered in Troy, Michigan with regional offices throughout America, Europe and Asia. Altair Engineering is the creator of the HyperWorks suite of CAE software products.

Altair was established in 1985. In 1990, HyperMesh was released. In 1994, Altair receives IndustryWeek's "Technology of the Year" award for OptiStruct. [3] During the 2008 economy crisis, Altair started a program to offer free training on its product for unemployed persons in Michigan[4]. In September 2010, Altair purchased a 136,000-square-foot (12,600 m2) Annex Facility in Troy, to initially house Altair’s subsidiary ilumisys, Inc. Altair also acquired SimLab in October of 2012. [5] 2011 began with another acquisition, AcuSim, with their CFD Solver, AcuSolve. September 2011, Altair ProductDesign unveiled BUSolution, a hybrid hydraulic bus[7][8][9].
[6]

In

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close