Search Results

Injury Risk Curves are developed from cadaver data for sternal deflections produced by anterior, distributed chest loads for a 25, 45, 55, 65 and 75 year-old Small Female, Mid-Size Male and Large Male based on the variations of bone strengths with age. These curves show that the risk of AIS ≥ 3 thoracic injury increases with the age of the person. This observation is consistent with NASS data of frontal accidents which shows that older unbelted drivers have a higher risk of AIS ≥ 3 chest injury than younger drivers.

Injury risk curves for SID-IIs thorax and abdomen rib deflections proposed for future NCAP side impact evaluations were developed from tests conducted with the SID-IIs FRG. Since the floating rib guide is known to reduce the magnitude of the peak rib deflections, injury risk curves developed from SID-IIs FRG data are not appropriate for use with SID-IIs build level D. PMHS injury data from three series of sled tests and one series of whole-body drop tests are paired with thoracic rib deflections from equivalent tests with SID-IIs build level D. Where possible, the rib deflections of SID-IIs build level D were scaled to adjust for differences in impact velocity between the PMHS and SID-IIs tests. Injury risk curves developed by the Mertz-Weber modified median rank method are presented and compared to risk curves developed by other parametric and non-parametric methods.

In 1983, General Motors Corporation (GM) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow the use of the biofidelic Hybrid III midsize adult male dummy as an alternate test device for FMVSS 208 compliance testing of frontal impact, passive restraint systems. To support their petition, GM made public to the international automotive community the limit values that they imposed on the Hybrid III measurements, which were called Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs). During the past 20 years, these IARVs have been updated based on relevant biomechanical studies that have been published and scaled to provide IARVs for the Hybrid III and CRABI families of frontal impact dummies. Limit values have also been developed for the biofidelic side impact dummies, BioSID, ES-2 and SID-IIs.

The development of the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy was initiated in 1997 by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO/SC12/TC22/WG5) with the objective of developing a more biofidelic side impact dummy and supporting the adoption of a harmonized dummy into regulations. More than 45 organizations from all around the world have contributed to this effort including governmental agencies, research institutes, car manufacturers and dummy manufacturers. The first production version of the WorldSID 50th male dummy was released in March 2004 and demonstrated an improved biofidelity over existing side impact dummies. Full-scale vehicle tests covering a wide range of side impact test procedures were performed worldwide with the WorldSID dummy. However, the vehicle safety performance could not be assessed due to lack of injury risk curves for this dummy. The development of these curves was initiated in 2004 within the framework of ISO/SC12/TC22/WG6 (Injury criteria).

Occupant head impact simulations on automotive instrument panels (IP) are routinely performed as part of an integrated design process during the course of IP development. Based on the requirements (F/CMVSS, ECE), head impact zones on the IP are first established, which are then used to determine the various “hit” locations to be tested/analyzed. Once critical impact locations are identified, CAE simulations performed which is a repetitive process that involves computing impact angles, positioning the rigid head form with an assigned initial velocity and defining suitable contacts within the finite element model. A commercially available CAE process automation tool was used to automate these steps and generate a head impact simulation model. Once the input model is checked for errors by the automated process, it can be submitted to a solver without any user intervention for analysis and report generation.

The essential concepts for developing a moving deformable barrier that may serve as a vehicle surrogate in assessing vehicle compatibility are described in this paper. Although moving deformable barriers have been used for assessing other safety criteria, their purpose in those cases is to reproduce a limited set of responses in the struck vehicle. An MDB for vehicle compatibility however, needs to be able to reproduce the responses of both the vehicles. The present study describes the concept of developing such barriers by generating ‘response corridors’ for the significant variables by nonlinear finite element simulations and then selecting design parameters such that the MDB response is within this corridor. It is observed that the response of the equivalent MDB representing a light truck vehicle is reproducible when response corridors are utilized.

As a result of the severity of occupant injuries during a side impact collision, there has been an escalating demand for accurate component level side impact simulation. Three major components for accurate simulation are accurate door velocity, door to seat relative velocity, and door deformation. This paper shows data demonstrating accurate door velocity reproduction, presents test methods to passively and actively control relative seat to door velocity in a non destructive manner, and presents test methods to simulate real time door deformation in a destructive manner. All side impact waveforms include a negative acceleration, high positive accelerations, high jerk, and high frequency content that add to the complexity of this simulation. The simulated door velocity is produced by means of a MTS deceleration brake that only applies a braking force during the deceleration portion of the waveform to maximize acceleration capacity.

Interior compartment doors are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201, to stay closed during physical head impact testing, and when subjected to specific inertia loads. This paper defines interior compartment doors, and shows examples of several different latches designed to keep these doors closed. It also explores the details of the requirements that interior compartment doors and their latches must meet, including differing requirements from automobile manufacturers. It then shows the conventional static method a supplier uses to analyze a latch and door system. And, since static calculations can't always capture the complexities of a dynamic event, this paper also presents a case study of one particular latch and door system showing a way to simulate the forces experienced by a latch. The dynamic simulation is done using Finite Element Analysis and instrumentation of actual hardware in physical tests.

The concept of height of force has been suggested by some researchers as one possible parameter defining the structural interaction probability between vehicles of different sizes. This proposed parameter was defined as the vertical centroid of forces exerted on a flat barrier surface when a vehicle crashes into the barrier. It is therefore measured as a function of elapsed time since crash. In this paper, the height of force is obtained from theoretical calculations and also measured in crash tests at 56 km/h against barriers instrumented with an array of load cells. It is observed that the measured values of height of force have significant errors which are dependent on factors other than the crash conditions and the properties of the vehicle's structure and geometry. These factors need to be taken into account in future discussions of using the height of force or the average height of force as an indicator of vehicle compatibility.

In 1983, General Motors Corporation (GM) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow the use of the biofidelic Hybrid III midsize adult male dummy as an alternate test device for FMVSS 208 compliance testing of frontal impact, passive restraint systems. To support their petition, GM made public to the international automotive community the limit values that they imposed on the Hybrid III measurements, which were called Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs). During the past 20 years, these IARVs have been updated based on relevant biomechanical studies that have been published and scaled to provide IARVs for the Hybrid III and CRABI families of frontal impact dummies. Limit values have also been developed for the biofidelic side impact dummies, BioSID, EuroSID2 and SID-IIs.

This paper examines the effect that test barriers currently used for frontal and side impact tests have had on collision compatibility between different-sized vehicles. The peak force levels generated by the vehicles’ front structures are one of the significant factors in determining vehicle compatibility. It is shown from principles of mechanics that the use of fixed barriers as a test device may lead to higher force levels for front ends of larger vehicles and thus increase the incompatibility between large and small vehicles. Review of data from various sources supports this conclusion that the peak force levels of vehicles’ front ends have increased in proportion to their test mass. Available crash data is also examined for a relationship between NCAP ratings of vehicles and the likelihood of serious and fatal injuries to occupants of those vehicles. These data do not show any relationship between the frontal NCAP ratings of vehicles and their rate of serious or fatal injuries.

In today's global economy, the automotive design engineer's responsibilities are made more complex by the differences between regulatory requirements of the various global markets. This paper compares instrument panel head impact requirements of FMVSS 201 with its European counterparts, ECE 21, and EEC/74/60, Interior Fittings. It describes the similarities and differences between these regulations and explains the unique requirements for each market. It then compares processes for development and validation testing in both markets. It also covers related topics like self-certification, witness testing, radii, projections, and interior compartment doors. The cockpit design engineer will gain an understanding of the factors involved in ensuring that their design fully meets the requirements of the subject regulations.

Different countermeasure designs for reducing the HIC (d) and to comply with FMVSS201U have been evaluated in many component-level studies by suppliers and OEMs. This study presents guidelines to support future countermeasure and interior designs. FMVSS201U has changed the way OEMs design interiors of the vehicles today. Most recently, much more work is being done to find ways to design interiors of the vehicles that comply with FMVSS201U while keeping the interiors aesthetically pleasing, attaining driver comfort and meeting driver visibility requirements. Introduction of side-rail airbags has further affected countermeasure design and packaging. This study focuses on several countermeasure designs in the side-rail region as used in a mid-sized vehicle implemented to meet FMVSS201U requirements and their efficiency with respect to Head Injury Criterion (HIC) reduction given a fixed packaging space.

The close-fitting cockpit of the modern Indy car single seat race car has the potential to provide a high level of head and neck impact protection in rear and side impacts. Crash investigation has shown that a wide variety of materials have been used as the padding for these cockpits and, as a result, produced varying outcomes in crashes. Additionally, these pads have not always been positioned for optimal performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the head impact performance of a variety of energy-absorbing padding materials under impact conditions typical of Indy car rear impacts and to identify superior materials and methods of improving their performance as race car head pads. An extensive series of tests with the helmeted Hybrid III test dummy head and neck on an impact mini-sled was conducted to explore head padding concepts.

Forward collision warning (FCW) systems are intended to provide drivers with crash alerts to help them avoid or mitigate rear-end crashes. To facilitate successful deployment of FCW systems, the Ford-GM Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) developed preliminary minimum functional requirements for FCW systems implemented on light vehicles (passenger cars, light trucks, and vans). This paper summarizes one aspect of the CAMP results: minimum requirements and recommendations for when to present rear-end crash alerts to the driver. These requirements are valid over a set of kinematic conditions that are described, and assume successful tracking and identification of a legitimate crash threat. The results are based on extensive closed-course human factors testing that studied drivers' last-second braking preferences and capabilities. The paper reviews the human factors testing, modeling of results, and the computation of FCW crash alert timing requirements and recommendations.

Crash-test-data on local longitudinal and shear stiffness of the vehicle front is needed to estimate impact severity from car deformation in offset or pole impacts, and to predict vehicle acceleration and compartment intrusion in car-to-car crashes. Repeated full frontal crash-tests were carried out with a load-cell barrier to determine the local longitudinal stiffness with increasing crush. Repeated off-set tests were run to determine shear stiffness. Two single high-speed tests (full frontal and offset) were carried out and compared to the repeated tests to determine the rate sensitivity of the front structure. Four repetitions at 33.4 km/h provided equivalent energy absorption to a single 66.7 km/h test, when rebound was considered. Power-train inertial effects were estimated from highspeed tests with and without power-train. Speed effects averaged 2% per [m/s] for crush up to power-train impact, and post-crash measurements were a reasonable estimate of front-structure stiffness.

This paper discusses a study conducted by GM to better understand the factors that influence injury potential in vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts. A number of other studies have been done which focus primarily on frontal vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility. GM focused on side impact compatibility in this study due to the risk of harm generally associated with this type of crash. Real world field performance was studied through an extensive six-state field analysis of recent model year (‘94+) vehicles. Of particular interest in this study was an efficacy analysis of the MVSS 214 dynamic side impact standard, which was phased-in starting with some 1994 model year passenger cars. Physical side impact crash testing of a 1997 passenger car was used to investigate the relationship of impacting mass, speed, geometric profile and stiffness on side impact intrusion and occupant injury.

Eight lateral dolly rollover tests were conducted on 1983 Chevrolet Malibusata nominal speed of 51.5 km/h (32 mi/h). Four of the vehicles had rollcages, and four had standard production roofs. Unrestrained outboard front GM Hybrid ill dummies with head and neck transducers were used. Numerous cameras documented the vehicle and dummy movements. Detailed vehicle kinematics data allowed quantitative analysis of the conditions for head and neck loads. For both roof structures, the dummies moved upward and outward from their seats due to rotation and acceleration of the vehicle. High head/neck loads were measured when the head contacted a part of the car experiencing a large change in velocity, often that part of the car which struck the ground. The results of this work indicate that roof strength is not an important factor in the mechanics of head/neck injuries in rollover collisions for unrestrained occupants.