Search Results

Accelerator-type sled systems have been very useful to the automotive industry for many years. These systems have allowed engineers to effectively evaluate a safety component in a frontal crash environment without having to conduct a full-scale crash test. While accelerator-type sleds are an excellent tool for frontal crashworthiness development, the energy required to simulate a side impact or lateral pole impact test is just a small fraction of the total capacity of the system. In light of this, a project was undertaken to develop a system which incorporated many features of the current accelerator-type sled system, but was designed to simulate non-frontal crash test cases. This paper describes the development and test applications for the new sled system. The operating theory and general design is similar to current accelerator-type sled systems, although the new system has been scaled down significantly.

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.

Side impact crashworthiness development presents a unique challenge to auto safety engineers. One fundamental issue is how to evaluate side impact air bags with a component test that realistically simulates the kinematics of a full scale side impact crash test. This paper presents a test methodology that can be used to evaluate side impact air bags utilizing an accelerator-type sled typically used for frontal impact simulation. The approach uses a “two carriage” system, whereas the struck door and vehicle acceleration profiles are simulated. These acceleration responses are matched through a series of sled variables including thrust column setting, metering pin shape and an on-board pneumatic cylinder which controls the relative response between the two carriages.

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.