Refine Your Search

Search Results

Viewing 1 to 4 of 4
Journal Article

Statistical Considerations for Evaluating Biofidelity, Repeatability, and Reproducibility of ATDs

2013-04-08
2013-01-1249
Reliable testing of a mechanical system requires the procedures used for the evaluation to be repeatable and reproducible. However, it is never possible to exactly repeat or reproduce the tests that are used for evaluation. To overcome this limitation, a statistical evaluation procedure can generally be used. However, most of the statistical procedures use scalar values as input without the ability to handle vectors or time-histories. To overcome these limitations, two numerical/statistical methods for determining if the impact time-history response of a mechanical system is repeatable or reproducible are evaluated and elaborated upon. Such a system could be a vehicle, a biological human surrogate, an Anthropometric Test Device (ATD or dummy), etc. The responses could be sets of time-histories of accelerations, forces, moments, etc., of a component or of the system. The example system evaluated is the BioRID II rear impact dummy.
Journal Article

Idealized Vehicle Crash Test Pulses for Advanced Batteries

2013-04-08
2013-01-0764
This paper reports a study undertaken by the Crash Safety Working Group (CSWG) of the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) to determine generic acceleration pulses for testing and evaluating advanced batteries subjected to inertial loading for application in electric passenger vehicles. These pulses were based on characterizing vehicle acceleration time histories from standard laboratory vehicle crash tests. Crash tested passenger vehicles in the United States vehicle fleet of the model years 2005-2009 were used in this study. Crash test data, in terms of acceleration time histories, were collected from various crash modes conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) during their New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) evaluations, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
Technical Paper

Crash Test Pulses for Advanced Batteries

2012-04-16
2012-01-0548
This paper reports a 2010 study undertaken to determine generic acceleration pulses for testing and evaluating advanced batteries for application in electric passenger vehicles. These were based on characterizing vehicle acceleration time histories from standard laboratory vehicle crash tests. Crash tested passenger vehicles in the United States vehicle fleet of the model years 2005-2009 were used. The crash test data were gathered from the following test modes and sources: 1 Frontal rigid flat barrier test at 35 mph (NHTSA NCAP) 2 Frontal 40% offset deformable barrier test at 40 mph (IIHS) 3 Side moving deformable barrier test at 38 mph (NHTSA side NCAP) 4 Side oblique pole test at 20 mph (US FMVSS 214/NHTSA side NCAP) 5 Rear 70% offset moving deformable barrier impact at 50 mph (US FMVSS 301). The accelerometers used were from locations in the vehicle where deformation is minor or non-existent, so that the acceleration represents the “rigid-body” motion of the vehicle.
Technical Paper

The Consequences of Average Curve Generation: Implications for Biomechanics Data

2010-11-03
2010-22-0001
One method of understanding the general mechanical response of a complex system such as a vehicle, a human surrogate, a bridge, a boat, a plane, etc., is to subject it to an input, such as an impact, and obtain the response time-histories. The responses can be accelerations, velocities, strains, etc. In general, when experiments of this type are run the responses are contaminated by sample-to-sample variation, test-to-test variability, random noise, instrumentation noise, and noise from unknown sources. One common method of addressing the noise in the system to obtain the underlying response is to run multiple tests on different samples that represent the same system and add them together obtaining an average. This functionally reduces the random noise. However, if the fundamental response of each sample is not the same, then it is not altogether clear what the average represents. It may not capture the underlying physics.
X