Search Results

To date, anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) have not been designed with consideration for human motion in far-side impacts. Previous tests with a cadaver and a BioSID dummy at the Medical College of Wisconsin confirmed that the dummy does not suitably model the human motion. To further evaluate different ATDs in far-side crashes, MAthematical DYnamic MOdeling (MADYMO) was employed. The modeling showed that the motion of a Hybrid III, BioSID, EuroSid1, EuroSID2, or SID2s did not accurately reflect the motion of a human cadaver under the same impact configurations as the cadaver test. The MADYMO human facet model was found to closely reproduce the kinematics of the cadaver test. The effect of varying console designs on occupant kinematics is presented in this paper. The human facet model appears to be a good interim tool for the evaluation of countermeasures in far-side crashes.

In the effort to understand and solve the frontal crash compatibility problem, one needs to use values of frontal stiffness. Various definitions of stiffness have been used in other studies based on measurements from NHTSA's 35mph frontal NCAP test. Those definitions varied from assuming a linear stiffness based on static crush to more refined ones that vary with time dependent crush. A major consideration in selecting a method is the amount of vehicle damage that occurs in an incompatible crash. To partially address this issue, a method was introduced based on the energy absorbed in a front to front crash at 25mph approach speed. Four alternative definitions of stiffness were studied.