Search Results

To mitigate head impact injuries of vehicle occupants in impact accidents, the FMVSS 201 requires padding of vehicle interior so that under the free-moving-head-form impact, the head injury criterion (HIC) is below the limit. More recently, pedestrian head impact on the vehicle bonnet has been a subject being studied and regulated as requirements to the automobile manufacturers. Over the years, the square wave has been considered as the best waveform for head impacts, although it is impractical to achieve. This paper revisits the head impact topic and challenges the optimality of aiming at the square waveform. It studies several different simple waveforms, with the objective to achieve minimal HIC or minimal crush space required in head-form impacts. With that it is found that many other waveforms can be more efficient and more practical than the square wave, especially for the pedestrian impact.

For the purposes of analyzing and understanding the general effects of a set of different vehicle attributes on overall crash outcome a fleet model is used. It represents the impact response, in a one-dimensional sense, of two vehicle frontal crashes, across the frontal crash velocity spectrum. The parameters studied are vehicle mass, stiffness, intrusion, pulse shape and seatbelt usage. The vehicle impact response parameters are obtained from the NCAP tests. The fatality risk characterization, as a function of the seatbelt use and vehicle velocity, is obtained from the NASS database. The fatality risk is further mapped into average acceleration to allow for evaluation of the different vehicle impact response parameters. The results indicate that the effects of all the parameters are interconnected and none of them is independent. For example, the effect of vehicle mass on fatality risk depends on seatbelt use, vehicle stiffness, available crush, intrusion and pulse shape.

This paper contains a review of methods for deriving risk curves from biomechanical data obtained from impact experiments on human surrogates. It covers many of the problems and pitfalls of obtaining realistic human risk curves from impact experiments. The strength and weakness of both parametric and non-parametric methods are evaluated. The limitations of standard analysis of censored impact test data are presented. Methods are given for determining risk curves from both doubly censored data and data obtained from impacts to body regions in which there are more than one mechanism of injury. A detailed set of examples is presented in which different experimental data are analyzed using the Consistent Threshold method and the logistic approach. Finally risk curves for published data are presented for the femur, head, thorax, and neck.