WO2023154442A1 - Procédé statistique pour modèle de simulation de collision de sous-structure - Google Patents

Procédé statistique pour modèle de simulation de collision de sous-structure Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2023154442A1
WO2023154442A1 PCT/US2023/012781 US2023012781W WO2023154442A1 WO 2023154442 A1 WO2023154442 A1 WO 2023154442A1 US 2023012781 W US2023012781 W US 2023012781W WO 2023154442 A1 WO2023154442 A1 WO 2023154442A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
crash
model
vehicle structure
substructure
simulating
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US2023/012781
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Zongyue Liu
Original Assignee
Magna International Inc.
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Magna International Inc. filed Critical Magna International Inc.
Publication of WO2023154442A1 publication Critical patent/WO2023154442A1/fr

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01M—TESTING STATIC OR DYNAMIC BALANCE OF MACHINES OR STRUCTURES; TESTING OF STRUCTURES OR APPARATUS, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G01M17/00—Testing of vehicles
    • G01M17/007—Wheeled or endless-tracked vehicles
    • G01M17/0078—Shock-testing of vehicles
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F17/00—Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions
    • G06F17/10—Complex mathematical operations
    • G06F17/18—Complex mathematical operations for evaluating statistical data, e.g. average values, frequency distributions, probability functions, regression analysis
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
    • G06F30/10—Geometric CAD
    • G06F30/15—Vehicle, aircraft or watercraft design
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
    • G06F30/20—Design optimisation, verification or simulation
    • G06F30/23—Design optimisation, verification or simulation using finite element methods [FEM] or finite difference methods [FDM]

Definitions

  • the present disclosure relates generally to finite element analysis of a vehicle model. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to using a portion of a full vehicle model for a crash analysis.
  • Crashworthiness simulation is critical to verify vehicle safety, and it is directly involved in the development process in evaluating crashworthiness performance of a vehicle.
  • the subsystem designs like A pillar, B pillar, doors, and cradles, may be required to be verified for crashworthiness on a full vehicle crash setting, while subsystem design iterations are not on a full vehicle environment.
  • the present disclosure provides a method for crash simulation of a vehicle structure.
  • the method includes: simulating a crash using a full model of the vehicle structure; identifying, based on the simulated crash of the full model, a critical crash area of the vehicle structure; generating, using the critical crash area, a substructure model of the vehicle structure smaller than the full model of the vehicle structure; and simulating the crash using the substructure model of the vehicle structure.
  • FIG. 1 shows a top-down view of a LS-DYNA setup for an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) lateral impact test;
  • IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
  • FIGS. 2A-2B show graphs of Internal Energy Density (IED) distribution on the vehicle model and zoomed view by auto bins method
  • FIG. 3 A shows a graph of IED distribution on the vehicle model by log
  • FIG. 3B shows a graph of IED distribution by an auto bins method
  • FIG. 4 shows a schematic block diagram of a controller
  • FIG. 5 shows an Elements output from 70% confidence interval from high-density- value distribution (distribution 2);
  • FIG. 6 shows DBSCAN clustering results for elements in the IED distribution on the vehicle model
  • FIGS. 7A-7B show overlap clustering result on the high internal energy elements
  • FIG 8A shows a full vehicle model
  • FIG. 8B shows a substructure model based on a 90% confidence interval
  • FIG. 8C shows a substructure model based on a 80% confidence interval
  • FIG. 8D shows a substructure model based on a 70% confidence interval
  • FIG. 9 shows a 2011 Nissan Accord test result from the IIHS lateral impact
  • FIG 10A shows a full vehicle model after the IIHS lateral impact
  • FIG. 10B shows a substructure model after the IIHS lateral impact, based on a 90% confidence interval
  • FIG. 10C shows a substructure model after the IIHS lateral impact, based on a 80% confidence interval
  • FIG. 10D shows a substructure model after the IIHS lateral impact, based on a 70% confidence interval
  • FIG. 11 shows a graph with overlapping plots of contact forces for the full vehicle and substructure models
  • FIG. 12 shows a graph with overlapping plots of side intrusions for the full vehicle and substructure models.
  • FIG. 13 shows a flow chart illustrating steps in a method for crash simulation of a vehicle structure.
  • the present disclosure provides a method to identify the critical crash zone based on energy distribution and machine learning clustering is proposed to build a confident substructure model.
  • the results from substructure models are compared and evaluated with the full vehicle crash result, and the accuracy is proven.
  • the full vehicle simulation method is the most straightforward one: All the design changes, no matter how small they are, would be performed on the full vehicle crash simulation. While a full vehicle simulation method requires the largest simulation time.
  • the substructure method takes more steps but less simulation time with specified reliability: It is beneficial for the tier-one supplier who performs multiple subsystem design updates and optimizations, and these changes are required to be verified in the full vehicle environment.
  • the identified substructure model by Step 1 from Table 1 would be reused in all the following design updates.
  • the substructure model establishment steps are listed as follows, and details would be elaborated.
  • the full crash vehicle model used in the present disclosure is a 2011 Nissan Accord, which is used as a standard lightweight vehicle (LWV 1.2).
  • LWV 1.2 standard lightweight vehicle
  • the finite element vehicle model is taken as it is.
  • Physical test result used for comparison comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) open source data.
  • the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) lateral moving deformable barrier (MDB) comes from LS-DYNA database, as shown in FIG. 1.
  • a subject vehicle 20 is impacted by a MDB 22 that simulates a collision from another vehicle on a side of the subject vehicle 20 and at a reference distance d r that of 753 millimeters behind a front axle 21 of the subject vehicle 20.
  • the actual location of the impact may be different from the reference distance d r .
  • the impact may be 759 mm behind the front axle 21 of the subject vehicle 20.
  • LS-DYNA provides INTERFACE keywords to connect the substructure and original model. *INTERFACE_COMPONENT_OPTION1_ ⁇ OPTION2 ⁇ and
  • *INTERFACE_LINKING_NODE_OPTION are combined to create an interface for use in subsequent linking calculations.
  • *1NTERFACE keyword provides the definition for surfaces, nodal lines, and nodal points where displacement and velocity time histories are saved at some specified frequency. The calculation is defined as follows: where Uconstrained is the nodes set constrained to follow the displacement of the interface uunked is the set of nodes followed by the constrained nodes set, ci is the displacement of the NID node in the linking file, ci is the displacement of node LNID, Q ⁇ is the rotation into the local coordinates of the linking file, Qi is the rotation into the local coordinate system, // / is the scale factors FX, FY, and FZ. They act on the nodal displacements in the global coordinate system of the constrained calculation.
  • the same substructure model could be reused in the following subsystem design evaluation process to save modelling effort and simulation cost.
  • the CAE engineer is granted more local detailed modelling capability on the subsystem level, including, but not limited to mesh refinement, material study, feature change, and optimization with a much lower computational cost compared with a full vehicle simulation. Identify the Critical Crash Area Based on Energy Absorption
  • the plot bins number for FIG. 3 A is initially and arbitrarily assigned as eight (8), and it shows a skew normal distribution. To get the sufficient plot bin number, auto bin method is used to capture the distribution details.
  • FIG. 3B shows a blended combination of two distributions 24, 26 including a low-density-value distribution 24 and a high-density-value distribution 26.
  • the high-density-value distribution 26 is the critical crash area around the impact region where the MDB 22 hit the subject vehicle 20.
  • the Gaussian mixture method is used to decouple the two distributions. Using sklearn. mixture Python package, set the number of mixture components to be 2 and covariance type to be “FULL” each component using its own general covariance matrix.
  • the high-density -value distribution 26 may be assumed to be a normal distribution. Based on normal distribution mean and standard deviation value from the high-density-value distribution 26, elements from 70%, 80%, and 90% confidence levels are output for one side normal distribution.
  • FIG. 4 shows a schematic block diagram of a controller 50.
  • the controller 50 includes a processor 52 coupled to a storage memory 54.
  • the storage memory 54 stores instructions, such as program code for execution by the processor 52, in an instruction storage 56.
  • the storage memory 54 also includes data storage 58 for holding data to be used by the processor 52.
  • the data storage 58 may record, for example, the covariance matrices and/or the outcome of functions calculated by the processor 52.
  • FIG. 5 shows a shaded crash area region 28 indicating elements from distribution by 70% one side confidence interval around the front and rear doors with A, B, and C pillars included. This is the location where the MDB 22 hits the subject vehicle 20 from the side. The output could not be used directly as there are also noise elements far away from the door area. These elements need to be filtered out from the major crash area at the side of the subject vehicle 20.
  • DBSCAN Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise
  • the model is an average 10 mm mesh size model with a minimal 4 mm and maximum 20 mm element size, then set s (maximum distance between two samples for one to be considered as in the neighborhood of the other) as 0.2. From FIG. 6, the DBSCAN algorithm successfully clusters the crash area in the dark colored group, labeled “CRASH AREA”.
  • the DBSCAN clustering result shown as the shaded crash area region 28 on FIG. 6, is input to the element with a specific confidence interval from FIG. 5.
  • the blue area from FIG. 5 is input to the element with a specific confidence interval from FIG. 5.
  • FIG. 7 shows the critical crash zone after filtering out the noise.
  • the door panel for the impact area is selected.
  • the floor extrusions for the impact load path are selected including A, B, and C pillars. These are important components in the side impact.
  • FIG. 8A shows a fill vehicle model 30 representing an entirety of the subject vehicle 20.
  • FIG. 8B shows a first substructure model 32 representing a substructure of the subject vehicle 20 corresponding to a confidence interval of 90%.
  • FIG. 8C shows a second substructure model 34 representing a substructure of the subject vehicle 20 corresponding to a confidence interval of 80%.
  • FIG. 8D third a fourth substructure model 36 representing a substructure of the subject vehicle 20 corresponding to a confidence interval of 70%.
  • the simulation result from the substructure model is compared to a full vehicle finite element model and physical test result with respect to after-crash deformation, contact force, and intrusion curves.
  • FIGS. 9 and 10A-10D show similar deformation after side impact; see FIGS. 9 and 10A-10D.
  • FIG. 10A shows the full vehicle model 30 after the side impact.
  • FIG. 10B shows the first substructure model 32 after the side impact.
  • FIG. 10C shows the second substructure model 34 after the side impact.
  • FIG. 10D shows the third substructure model 36 after the side impact.
  • FIG. 11 includes a first plot 50 for the full the full vehicle model 30, a second plot 52 for the first substructure model 32, a third plot 54 for the second substructure model 34, and a fourth plot 56 for the third substructure model 36. As shown, curves from the full vehicle model 30 and the various different substructure models 32, 34, 36 are overlapped with high correlation, over 0.99 by the Pearson correlation.
  • the first maj or structure deformation happens between 0.00 second and 0.025 second.
  • the force increases almost linearly to 200 kN, then the MDB and vehicle separate after the force peak, and then the contact force drops to zero between 0.1 second and 0.125 second.
  • FIG. 12 includes a first plot 60 for the full the full vehicle model 30, a second plot 62 for the first substructure model 32, a third plot 64 for the second substructure model 34, and a fourth plot 66 for the third substructure model 36.
  • FIG. 12 shows, by the intrusion curves, the various different substructure models 32, 34, 36 each having a same similarity toward the test result, compared with the full vehicle model 30.
  • the simulation is performed on an Intel-MPI 2018 Xeon64 on LS-DYNA MPP s R11.0.0.
  • the 2D number after IED distribution refers to FIG. 5.
  • the 2D element number in simulation refers to FIGS. 8A-8D, the element number increases with the confidence interval increases, from 900,000 for 70% confidence interval to 943,000 for 90% confidence interval.
  • the number of elements in simulation is much larger than the number identified is due to lacking the precise preprocessing tool to substructure the full vehicle model exactly following the clustering result boundary.
  • the simulation time is reduced by around 60% compared with the full vehicle simulation, from 3 hours 27 minutes to one and half hour.
  • the Pearson correlation coefficient of the contact force between the MDB and vehicle it is close to 1.0.
  • the similarity between full vehicle and substructure vehicle intrusion number it shows a similar range around
  • a method 100 of crash simulation of a vehicle structure is shown in the flow chart of FIG. 13. Some or all parts of the method 100 can be performed by the controller 50, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. As can be appreciated in light of the disclosure, the order of operation within the method is not limited to the sequential execution as illustrated in FIG. 13, but may be performed in one or more varying orders as applicable and in accordance with the present disclosure.
  • the method 100 includes simulating a crash using a full model of the vehicle structure, at step 102.
  • the processor 52 may load and execute program instructions from the instruction storage 56 to perform step 102.
  • a finite element analysis simulation program such as LS-DYNA may be used to simulate the crash at step 102.
  • simulating the crash using the finite element analysis simulation program may include using an explicit solver.
  • step 102 may include using an Automatic Net-generation for Structural Analysis (ANSA) preprocessor, such as an ANSA preprocessor for FEA simulation program from BETA CAE Systems, to generate the substructure model of the vehicle structure.
  • ANSA Automatic Net-generation for Structural Analysis
  • the method 100 also includes identifying, based on the simulated crash of the full model, a critical crash area of the vehicle structure at step 104.
  • the processor 52 may load and execute program instructions from the instruction storage 56 to perform step 104.
  • step 102 further includes determining an energy absorption distribution
  • step 104 includes identifying the critical crash area of the vehicle structure based on the energy absorption distribution.
  • the method 100 also includes generating, using the critical crash area, a substructure model of the vehicle structure smaller than the full model of the vehicle structure at step 106.
  • the processor 52 may load and execute program instructions from the instruction storage 56 to perform step 106.
  • step 102 further includes determining a clustering of the crash area using a data clustering algorithm, and step 106 includes using the clustering of the crash area to generate the substructure model.
  • the data clustering algorithm may include a Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) algorithm.
  • generating the substructure model of the vehicle structure at step 106 includes computing a number of elements in the substructure model to cause the substructure model to have a predetermined confidence interval.
  • the predetermined confidence interval may be at least 70%.
  • the predetermined confidence interval may be at least 80%.
  • the predetermined confidence interval may be at least 90%.
  • the method 100 also includes simulating a crash using the substructure model of the vehicle structure at step 108.
  • the processor 52 may load and execute program instructions from the instruction storage 56 to perform step 108.
  • the method 100 also includes generating a revised substructure model of the vehicle structure based on a result of the simulation using the substructure model at step 110.
  • the processor 52 may load and execute program instructions from the instruction storage 56 to perform step 110.
  • the method 100 also includes simulating the crash using the revised substructure model of the vehicle structure at step 112.
  • the simulation at step 112 may be performed similarly or identically to step 102, except using the revised substructure model.
  • the processor 52 may load and execute program instructions from the instruction storage 56 to perform step 112.
  • the substructure model shows the same level of accuracy compared with the full vehicle model when visually inspecting the after-impact deformation, comparing contact force between the MDB 22 and the subject vehicle 20, comparing intrusion curves from the door side.
  • the substructure model costs around 40% of the full vehicle simulation time. In the design change verification application for crash-related events, it could be performed on the 70% confidence interval substructure model. It provides the CAE engineer with less simulation cost and more chances of design iteration. With a more precise substructure tool, the substructure model could further refine the size.
  • the system, methods and/or processes described above, and steps thereof, may be realized in hardware, software or any combination of hardware and software suitable for a particular application.
  • the hardware may include a general purpose computer and/or dedicated computing device or specific computing device or particular aspect or component of a specific computing device.
  • the processes may be realized in one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, embedded microcontrollers, programmable digital signal processors or other programmable device, along with internal and/or external memory.
  • the processes may also, or alternatively, be embodied in an application specific integrated circuit, a programmable gate array, programmable array logic, or any other device or combination of devices that may be configured to process electronic signals. It will further be appreciated that one or more of the processes may be realized as a computer executable code capable of being executed on a machine readable medium.
  • the computer executable code may be created using a structured programming language such as C, an object oriented programming language such as C++, or any other high- level or low-level programming language (including assembly languages, hardware description languages, and database programming languages and technologies) that may be stored, compiled or interpreted to run on one of the above devices as well as heterogeneous combinations of processors processor architectures, or combinations of different hardware and software, or any other machine capable of executing program instructions.
  • a structured programming language such as C
  • an object oriented programming language such as C++
  • any other high- level or low-level programming language including assembly languages, hardware description languages, and database programming languages and technologies
  • each method described above and combinations thereof may be embodied in computer executable code that, when executing on one or more computing devices performs the steps thereof.
  • the methods may be embodied in systems that perform the steps thereof, and may be distributed across devices in a number of ways, or all of the functionality may be integrated into a dedicated, standalone device or other hardware.
  • the means for performing the steps associated with the processes described above may include any of the hardware and/or software described above. All such permutations and combinations are intended to fall within the scope of the present disclosure.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Geometry (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
  • Mathematical Analysis (AREA)
  • Mathematical Optimization (AREA)
  • Computational Mathematics (AREA)
  • Pure & Applied Mathematics (AREA)
  • Mathematical Physics (AREA)
  • Evolutionary Computation (AREA)
  • Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Algebra (AREA)
  • Databases & Information Systems (AREA)
  • Software Systems (AREA)
  • Bioinformatics & Computational Biology (AREA)
  • Bioinformatics & Cheminformatics (AREA)
  • Probability & Statistics with Applications (AREA)
  • Evolutionary Biology (AREA)
  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Automation & Control Theory (AREA)
  • Aviation & Aerospace Engineering (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

Un procédé de simulation de collision d'une structure de véhicule consiste : à simuler une collision à l'aide d'un modèle complet de la structure de véhicule ; à identifier, sur la base de l'accident simulé du modèle complet, une zone de collision critique de la structure de véhicule ; à générer, à l'aide de la zone de collision critique, un modèle de sous-structure de la structure de véhicule plus petit que le modèle complet de la structure de véhicule ; et à simuler la collision à l'aide du modèle de sous-structure de la structure de véhicule. Le procédé comprend également la génération d'un modèle de sous-structure révisé de la structure de véhicule sur la base d'un résultat de la simulation à l'aide du modèle de sous-structure ; et la simulation de l'accident à l'aide du modèle de sous-structure révisé de la structure de véhicule. Dans certains modes de réalisation, la simulation de la collision à l'aide du modèle complet de la structure de véhicule comprend la détermination d'une distribution d'absorption d'énergie ; et l'identification de la zone de collision critique de la structure de véhicule est basée sur la distribution d'absorption d'énergie.
PCT/US2023/012781 2022-02-11 2023-02-10 Procédé statistique pour modèle de simulation de collision de sous-structure WO2023154442A1 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US202263309114P 2022-02-11 2022-02-11
US63/309,114 2022-02-11

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2023154442A1 true WO2023154442A1 (fr) 2023-08-17

Family

ID=87564940

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2023/012781 WO2023154442A1 (fr) 2022-02-11 2023-02-10 Procédé statistique pour modèle de simulation de collision de sous-structure

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2023154442A1 (fr)

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20110191068A1 (en) * 2010-02-01 2011-08-04 Livermore Software Technology Corporation Multiscale substructures in finite element analysis
US20150088474A1 (en) * 2013-09-25 2015-03-26 Ford Global Technologies, Llc Virtual simulation
US20200394278A1 (en) * 2019-06-14 2020-12-17 Abraham Varon-Weinryb Hybrid Finite Element and Artificial Neural Network Method and System for Safety Optimization of Vehicles
US20200410063A1 (en) * 2019-06-28 2020-12-31 Zoox, Inc. Synthetic scenario simulator based on events
US20210375032A1 (en) * 2017-01-09 2021-12-02 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Photo deformation techniques for vehicle repair analysis

Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20110191068A1 (en) * 2010-02-01 2011-08-04 Livermore Software Technology Corporation Multiscale substructures in finite element analysis
US20150088474A1 (en) * 2013-09-25 2015-03-26 Ford Global Technologies, Llc Virtual simulation
US20210375032A1 (en) * 2017-01-09 2021-12-02 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Photo deformation techniques for vehicle repair analysis
US20200394278A1 (en) * 2019-06-14 2020-12-17 Abraham Varon-Weinryb Hybrid Finite Element and Artificial Neural Network Method and System for Safety Optimization of Vehicles
US20200410063A1 (en) * 2019-06-28 2020-12-31 Zoox, Inc. Synthetic scenario simulator based on events

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Liao et al. Multiobjective optimization for crash safety design of vehicles using stepwise regression model
Du et al. A new data-driven design methodology for mechanical systems with high dimensional design variables
US20200394278A1 (en) Hybrid Finite Element and Artificial Neural Network Method and System for Safety Optimization of Vehicles
Farkas et al. Optimisation study of a vehicle bumper subsystem with fuzzy parameters
CN112632689B (zh) 汽车正面碰撞后前门开门力相关的仿真方法
CN112507458B (zh) 一种基于切比雪夫方法的汽车碰撞安全可靠性设计方法
Du et al. A radial-basis function mesh morphing and Bayesian optimization framework for vehicle crashworthiness design
WO2023154442A1 (fr) Procédé statistique pour modèle de simulation de collision de sous-structure
Liu A Statistical Method to Substructure Crash Simulation Model
Farkas et al. Optimization Study of a Parametric Vehicle Bumper Subsystem Under Multiple Load Cases
Rais-Rohani et al. Reliability-based optimization of lightweight automotive structures for crashworthiness
Veltri FEM techniques for high stress detection in accelerated fatigue simulation
Liu et al. A research on the body-in-white (BIW) weight reduction at the conceptual design phase
US6850921B1 (en) Method for cascading vehicle system targets to component level design objectives
Hsieh et al. A framework of integrated reliability demonstration in system development
US20220245308A1 (en) Method and system for carrying out a simulation
Riha et al. Stochastic approach for vehicle crash models
Yalamanchili et al. Multiple Metamodeling Approaches for Improved Design Space Mapping
Van der Auweraer et al. New approaches enabling NVH analysis to lead design in body development
Cadete et al. Optimization in vehicle crashworthiness design using surrogate models
US20220171896A1 (en) Method for design of vehicle body component
Jans et al. Reducing body development time by integrating NVH and durability analysis from the start
Markusic et al. Simplified Side Impact FE Model-SSM
van Mierlo et al. Component-level impact performance assessment under spatially uncertain boundary conditions
Wimmer et al. A Physics-Based Fast-Running Surrogate Model for Crash Pulse Prediction

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 23753462

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1