Search Results

In the current Japanese and European side impact regulation, occupant protection is evaluated based on anthropomorphic test device (hereafter referred to as the more commonly used term “dummy”) measurements recorded in a stationary car impacted by a moving deformable barrier (MDB). In order to validate and improve the side impact test procedures of the regulation and the associated new car assessment program, it is necessary to compare the side impact test procedure with car-to-car side impact tests conducted in various conditions. In this research, a series of car-to-car side impact tests using a small sedan as the target vehicle was conducted as follows: (1) A striking car impacted against the stationary car at 50 km/h at an impact angle of 90 degrees. (2) A 1BOX vehicle impacted the stationary car at 50 km/h at an impact angle of 90 degrees. (3) Both cars were moving, and the striking car impacted the struck car at an impact angle of 90 degrees.

Evaluation of car front aggressiveness in car-pedestrian accidents is typically done using sub-system tests. Three such tests have been proposed by EEVC/WG17: 1) the legform to bumper test, 2) the upper legform to bonnet leading edge test, and 3) the headform to bonnet top test. These tests were developed to evaluate performance of the car structure at car to pedestrian impact speed of 11.1 m/s (40 km/h), and each of them has its own impactor, impact conditions and injury criteria. However, it has not been determined yet to what extent the EEVC sub-system tests represent real-world pedestrian accidents. Therefore, there are two objectives of this study. First, to clarify the differences between the injury-related responses of full-scale pedestrian dummy and results of sub-system tests obtained under impact conditions simulating car-to-pedestrian accidents. Second, to propose modifications of current sub-system test methods. In the present study, the Polar (Honda R&D) dummy was used.