Search Results

Pedestrian safety and countermeasure design are a growing concern amongst the safety testing community, vehicle manufacturers, and government legislators. There are a number of work groups and recommended procedures under review. Universally, each of the proposed methodologies consists of a three part series to evaluate the following: lower leg to bumper, the upper leg to the bumper or bonnet leading edge, and the head to the bonnet or windscreen. The specific requirements relating to the injury criteria for each of these test phases have been the subject of much discussion and have underwent several revisions among a variety of worldwide publications. However, laboratory demonstrations will conclude that general test practices with attention to several critical steps can satisfy each of the proposed methods.

This paper provides a detailed review of the testing procedures utilized for FMVSS 216a - Roof Crush Resistance and by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This new FMVSS 216a standard, announced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on April 30, 2009, will result in significantly stronger roof structures. The standard specified four major changes: 1) The maximum applied force must equal three times the unloaded vehicle weight for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, 2) The standard is expanded to include vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds, 3) Head room maintenance is monitored through the use of a head form representing a 50th percentile male seated in the front occupant positions, and 4) The platen force, displacement, and head form contact requirements must be met on both sides of the vehicle's roof structure.

Over the recent years, tests have been developed which will result in higher levels of protection afforded to pedestrians involved in vehicle impacts. These requirements will result in improved vehicles, which are designed to be safer and less harmful to pedestrians. The requirements include a series of impact tests into the front end of a vehicle with a variety of instrumented forms including an adult headform, a child headform, as well as an upper legform and a complete legform. Although the requirements have not been finalized, it is expected that they are to become part of the European homologation test series soon. Automobile manufacturers that sell cars in Europe are beginning to incorporate the proposed regulations into new car designs.

The Eurosid-1 dummy was subjected to a series of lateral and oblique pendulum impacts to study the anomalous “flat-top” thorax deflection versus time-histories observed in full-scale vehicle tests. The standard Eurosid-1, as well as two different modified versions of the dummy, were impacted at 6 different angles from -15 to +20 degrees (0 degrees is pure lateral) in the horizontal plane. The flat-top deflections were observed in the tests with the standard Eurosid-1, while one of the modified versions reduced the flat-top considerably. Full scale vehicle tests with the standard and modified Eurosid-1 suggest similar reductions. A second series of tests was conducted on the modified Eurosid-1 to investigate the effect of door surface friction on the shoulder rotation and the chest deflection. The data suggested that increasing the friction on the door surface impeded shoulder rotation and ultimately reduced the chest deflection in the Eurosid-1.

A comprehensive strategy for applying quasi-static and dynamic tests in the development of automobile side impact protection systems is presented. The approach is geared towards providing an understanding of how vehicle components relate to occupant protection as measured by the FMVSS 214 dynamic side impact test. These test methods are viewed as being complimentary, rather than competitive, tools to be employed in the overall strategy. The approach begins with obtaining detailed data from an FMVSS 214 dynamic test. Additional instrumentation is required so that the results of the test can be used to form the basis for setting conditions for subsequent quasi-static and dynamic tests. The Composite Test Procedure (CTP) is an integral part of the process. As described here, the CTP can be conducted under three different methods; three step procedure, continuous computer control, and continuous manual control.