Search Results

Formula SAE® is one of several student design competitions organized by SAE International. In the Formula SAE events undergraduate and graduate students are required to conceive, design, fabricate and compete with a small, formula-style, race car. Formula SAE safety rules dictate a 7 m/s (or approximately 15.65 mph) frontal crash test for nose-mounted impact attenuators. These rules are outlined in section B3.21 of the Formula SAE rule book. Development and testing methods of these energy-absorbing devices have varied widely among teams. This paper uses real-world crash sled results to research methods for predicting the performance of aluminum honeycomb impact attenuators that will comply with the Formula SAE standards. However, the resulting models used to predict attenuator performance may also have a variety of useful applications outside of Formula SAE. In this paper, various energy absorbers were mounted to a free rolling trolley sitting on top of a crash sled.

The objective of this study was to determine risk of injury to the driver during a frontal impact in a Formula SAE vehicle. Formula SAE is a collegiate student design competition where every year universities worldwide build and compete with open-wheel formula-style race cars. Formula SAE 2006 rules stipulate the use of an impact attenuator to absorb energy in the event of a frontal impact. These rules mandated an average deceleration not to exceed 20-g from a speed of 7.0 m/s (23 ft/s), but do not specify a specific time or pulse shape of the deceleration. The pulse shapes tested in this study included an early high-g, constant-g, and late high-g pulse. The tests were performed using the deceleration sled at the Kettering University Crash Safety Center. Using industry standard practices, this study examined the driver's risk of injury with regard to neck and femur loads, head and chest accelerations, as well as kinematic analysis using high speed video.

Use of the top tether attachment in three commonly available anchor points provides added restraint of child restraint systems (CRS). Three tether attachment positions were used; floor, behind the head rest (parcel deck) and at the ceiling. The three anchor points are comparable in efficacy while no tether allows increased travel of the anthropomorphic test device (ATD) head. Two series of six tests were conducted at a max speed of 20 mph and peak deceleration of 16 G's using a deceleration sled test apparatus. The first series of tests was conducted at a 90 degree impact angle. On average there is 9% less head travel when using the tether attachment compared to not using the tether attachment, all other conditions begin equal. The second series of tests was conducted at a 73 degree impact angle, there is 15% less head travel when using the tether attachment compared to not using the tether attachment, all other conditions begin equal.

This study was conducted to explore the effect of various combinations of seatbelt-related safety components (namely, retractor pretensioners and load limiting retractors) on the adult rear passenger involved in a frontal collision. The study was conducted on a 50th Male and a 5th Female Hybrid III ATD in the rear seat of a mid-sized sedan. Each ATD was seated in an outboard position with 3-point continuous lap-shoulder belts. On these belts were combinations of pretensioners and load limiters. Since the main objective of this test series was to cross-compare the seatbelt configurations, front seats were not included in the buck in order to avoid uncontrollable variables that would have affected the comparison study if the possibility of contact with the front seat were allowed. Nevertheless, there was a short barrier devised to act as a foot-stop for both ATDs.

A near-side, rear seat side impact component test, was conducted and validated utilizing a SIDIIs anthropomorphic test device (ATD). The test fixture consisted of the rear seat structure, side door, interior trim, and side airbag curtain module. Test parameters were determined from full scale tests including impact speed, angle of impact, and depth of door intrusion. A comparative assessment was conducted between the full scale test and the deceleration sled test including ATD contact with the vehicle interior, contact duration, sequential timing of ATD contact, and dummy injury measures. Validation was achieved so that the deceleration sled test procedure could be utilized for further evaluations.