Search Results

Seventeen full-scale crash tests were conducted to evaluate technologies to reduce the vulnerability of sidesaddle tanks on full size GM pickup trucks manufactured during the period 1973-1987. These vehicles were alleged by the U.S. Department of Transportation to be vulnerable in severe side impacts. The test program was intended to evaluate designs that would reduce vulnerability in all crash directions. The best test results were obtained by two strategies that relocated the tank to less vulnerable locations. The two locations were: (1) in the cargo bed (bed mounted tank) and (2) underneath the bed, ahead of the rear axle and between the frame rails (center-mounted tank). Tanks mounted in these locations were subjected to a series of crash tests that simulated severe front, side, rear and rollover crashes. The crash environment for these tests was more severe than required by FMVSS 301 “Fuel System Integrity”.

Different roof strength methods are applied on the 2003 Ford Explorer finite element (FE) model to achieve the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216 requirements. Two different modification approaches are utilized. Additionally, the best design of each approach is tested dynamically, in rollover and side impact simulations. In the first approach, several roll cage designs are integrated in all pillars, roof cross-members, and in the side roof rails. A roll cage design with a strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) of 3.58 and 3.40 for driver and passenger sides, respectively, with a weight penalty of 18.54 kg is selected for dynamic test assessments. The second approach investigates different localized reinforcements to achieve a more reasonable weight penalty. A localized reinforcement of the B-pillar alone with a tube meets the new FMVSS 216 requirements with a weight penalty of 4.52 kg and is selected for dynamic analyses.

In a side impact, the occupants on both the struck, or near side, of the vehicle and the occupants on the opposite, or far side, of the vehicle are at risk of injury. Since model year 1997, all passenger cars in the U.S. have been required to comply with FMVSS No. 214, a safety standard that mandates a minimum level of side crash protection for near side occupants. No such federal safety standard exists for far side occupants. The mechanism of far side injury is believed to be quite different than the injury mechanism for near side injury. Far side impact protection may require the development of different countermeasures than those which are effective for near side impact protection. This paper evaluates the risk of side crash injury for far side occupants as a basis for developing far side impact injury countermeasures. Based on the analysis of NASS/CDS 1993–2002, this study examines the injury outcome of over 4500 car, light truck, and van occupants subjected to far side impact.