Search Results

While over 30% of US occupant fatalities occur in rollover crashes, no dummy has been developed for such a condition. Currently, an efficient, cost-effective methodology is being implemented to develop a biofidelic rollover dummy. Instead of designing a rollover dummy from scratch, this methodology identifies a baseline dummy and modifies it to improve its response in a rollover crash. Using computational models of the baseline dummy, including both multibody (MB) and finite element (FE) models, the dummy’s structure is continually modified until its response is aligned (using BioRank/CORA metric) with biofidelity targets. A previous study (Part I) identified the THOR dummy as a suitable baseline dummy by comparing the kinematic responses of six existing dummies with PMHS response corridors through laboratory rollover testing.

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs), since their introduction onto the market in the late-1990s, have been related to over 300 fatalities with the majority occurring in vehicle rollover. In recent years several organizations made attempts to improve ROV safety. This paper is intended to evaluate ejection mitigation measures considered by the ROV manufacturers. Evaluated countermeasures include two types of occupant restraints (three and four point) and two structural barriers (torso bar, door with net). The Rollover protection structure (ROPS) provided by the manufacturer was attached to a Dynamic Rollover Test System (DRoTS), and a full factorial series of roll/drop/catch tests was performed. The ROV buck was equipped with two Hybrid III dummies, a 5th percentile female and a 95th percentile male. Additionally, occupant and vehicle kinematics were recorded using optoelectronic stereophotogrammetric camera system.

Multiple laboratory dynamic test methods have been developed to evaluate vehicle crashworthiness in rollover crashes. However, dynamic test methods remove some of the characteristics of actual crashes in order to control testing variables. These simplifications to the test make it difficult to compare laboratory tests to crashes. One dynamic method for evaluating vehicle rollover crashworthiness is the Dynamic Rollover Test System (DRoTS), which simulates translational motion with a moving road surface and constrains the vehicle roll axis to a fixed plane within the laboratory. In this study, five DRoTS vehicle tests were performed and compared to a pair of unconstrained steering-induced rollover tests. The kinematic state of the unconstrained vehicles at the initiation of vehicle-to-ground contact was determined using instrumentation and touchdown parameters were matched in the DRoTS tests.

Rollover crashes are a serious public health problem in United States, with one third of traffic fatalities occurring in crashes where rollover occurred. While it has been shown that occupant kinematics affect the injury risk in rollover crashes, no anthropomorphic test device (ATD) has yet demonstrated kinematic biofidelity in rollover crashes. Therefore, the primary goal of this study was to assess the kinematic response biofidelity of six ATDs (Hybrid III, Hybrid III Pedestrian, Hybrid III with Pedestrian Pelvis, WorldSID, Polar II and THOR) by comparing them to post mortem human surrogate (PMHS) kinematic response targets published concurrently; and the secondary goal was to evaluate and compare the kinematic response differences among these ATDs.

In far-side impacts, head contact with interior components is a key injury mechanism. Restraint characteristics have a pronounced influence on head motion and injury risk. This study performed a parametric examination of restraint, positioning, and collision factors affecting shoulder belt retention and occupant kinematics in far-side lateral and oblique sled tests with post mortem human subjects (PMHS). Seven PMHS were subjected to repeated tests varying the D-ring position, arm position, pelvis restraint, pre-tensioning, and impact severity. Each PMHS was subjected to four low-severity tests (6.6 g sled acceleration pulse) in which the restraint or position parameters were varied and then a single higher-severity test (14 g) with a chosen restraint configuration (total of 36 tests). Three PMHS were tested in a purely lateral (90° from frontal) impact direction; 4 were tested in an oblique impact (60° from frontal). All subjects were restrained by a 3-point seatbelt.

The objective of the current study was to provide a comprehensive characterization of human biomechanical response to whole-body, lateral impact. Three approximately 50th-percentile adult male PMHS were subjected to right-side pure lateral impacts at 4.3 ± 0.1 m/s using a rigid wall mounted to a rail-mounted sled. Each subject was positioned on a rigid seat and held stationary by a system of tethers until immediately prior to being impacted by the moving wall with 100 mm pelvic offset. Displacement data were obtained using an optoelectronic stereophotogrammetric system that was used to track the 3D motions of the impacting wall sled; seat sled, and reflective targets secured to the head, spine, extremities, ribcage, and shoulder complex of each subject. Kinematic data were also recorded using 3-axis accelerometer cubes secured to the head, pelvis, and spine at the levels of T1, T6, T11, and L3. Chest deformation in the transverse plane was recorded using a single chestband.