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.

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.

Occupant protection in the event of interior head impact is a major issue in the development process of interior component countermeasures. As phase-in schedules for head impact protection regulations fast approach, auto safety engineers are presented with major challenges in regard to developing suitable design alternatives. This paper presents a variety of testing options which are available to evaluate interior design options. These test alternatives vary from simple component-level drop tests to in-vehicle compliance testing. Each type of test serves a specific purpose in the development of interior components from a head impact protection perspective. The basic parameters for each type of test, including mass, form shape, velocity, and motion will be discussed. Test data from component-level testing is presented, as well as the advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.