Search Results

The implementation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201U-Upper Interior Head Impact Protection[1] will require significant changes to vehicle interiors. The response from the safety industry to this regulation has resulted in a number of new and innovative design solutions. These countermeasures include integrated trim components, foam, and other types of deformable structures. The challenge to the safety industry is to design the components to provide higher levels of head impact protection without sacrificing other important considerations such as vision, appearance, durability, and cost. This paper will present background information on FMVSS 201U testing, discuss various countermeasure concepts currently being implemented, and suggest design alternatives relative to specific regions in a given vehicle.

Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revised the Final Rule for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS 208) - Occupant Crash Protection [1]. This rule, which will first take effect during the 2004 model year, specifies a number of new compliance test requirements that advanced frontal protection airbags will have to meet. The goal of the new standard is to reduce the risk of serious airbag induced injuries, particularly for small women and young children, and provide improved frontal crash protection for all occupants. In response to this new rule, vehicles in the future will have electronic sensors located in the seat and other advanced sensor systems. These sensors will be designed to measure critical data, such as occupant weight and size, which will be used to control the airbag. The reliability of the sensors through the entire life of a vehicle is critical to its overall safety characteristics.

A comprehensive strategy for applying quasi-static and dynamic tests in the development of automobile side impact protection systems is presented. The approach is geared towards providing an understanding of how vehicle components relate to occupant protection as measured by the FMVSS 214 dynamic side impact test. These test methods are viewed as being complimentary, rather than competitive, tools to be employed in the overall strategy. The approach begins with obtaining detailed data from an FMVSS 214 dynamic test. Additional instrumentation is required so that the results of the test can be used to form the basis for setting conditions for subsequent quasi-static and dynamic tests. The Composite Test Procedure (CTP) is an integral part of the process. As described here, the CTP can be conducted under three different methods; three step procedure, continuous computer control, and continuous manual control.

The primary objective of this study was to compare the safety performance of two different plastic glazing materials to that of tempered glass in a moveable window application. A headform impact test method was used to determine if the use of plastic glazing materials offers the potential to reduce the risk of head injuries and fatalities inside impact collisions. These tests were conducted to simulate the dummy head velocity as it penetrates the side glazing area during Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214 full-scale, side impact, crash testing. The two plastic glazing materials tested were an abrasion resistant (AR) coated copolymer of methyl methacrylate and N-methyl glutarimide (i.e., acrylic-imide or PMMI), and a polycarbonate (PC). Each of these window materials was evaluated in the driver's door of a Pontiac 6000 vehicle.

Over the last several years, designers have been working toward developing airbag suppression systems in order to satisfy the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 - Occupant Crash Protection requirements currently being phased-in [1, 2]. By September 1, 2005, all vehicles are required to be in compliance with the new requirements. The new rule requires that vehicles must have an airbag suppression system that turns the airbag off in cases where a child or child seat is detected in the front passenger occupant position. Typically incorporated in the seating structure or cushion area, these suppression systems are activated each time the seat is occupied. More so than any other component, this feature makes safety, durability, and reliability testing of these systems critical to their functionality. This paper will discuss how airbag suppression systems have affected the standard testing procedures of vehicle components including seats and airbags.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade the dynamic portion of FMVSS 214 - Side Impact Protection [1]. This notice adds an oblique pole test to the existing moving deformable barrier test and covers a wider range of occupant sizes in a broader range of seat positions. These upgrades will present several challenges to vehicle manufacturers and suppliers. This paper will provide an overview of the NPRM, review test data used in support of the NPRM, describe component-level tests used to develop ideal side impact properties, and overview the vehicle changes that will be needed to meet these requirements.

This paper will investigate the differences in results produced between FMVSS 214-D compliance testing and the recently implemented New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) High Speed Lateral Impact (HSLI) testing. NCAP HSLI testing is similar to the Frontal Impact NCAP program in that the tests are conducted with a higher impact velocity and the results are presented primarily for consumer information purpose. Readers of this paper will gain a broader understanding of side impact testing in general, as well as form estimates for expected differences for each test. Issues such as vehicle size, deformation, and occupant responses will be investigated and the results collected from tests on the same vehicle will be compared. The results of this study provide a general “rule of thumb” guideline for estimating HSLI test results from FMVSS 214-D test results. This general guideline provides safety engineers with a reasonable estimate of expected results for the HSLI evaluation.

Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule [1] for a new safety standard related to child safety seats and their anchorage systems in vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 225 - “Child Restraint Systems; Child Restraint Anchorage Systems” requires that motor vehicle manufacturers provide a new method for installing child restraints using anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts. The new standard was developed because it is recognized that the full effectiveness of child restraint systems is not being realized due to design features affecting the compatibility of child restraints with vehicle seating and seat belt systems. By requiring an easy-to-use anchorage system that is independent of the vehicle seat belts, the NHTSA believes that the final rule makes possible more effective child restraint installation and will thereby increase child restraint effectiveness and child safety.