Search Results

Objective: A friction rollover test was conducted as part of a rollover sensing project. This study evaluates vehicle and occupant responses in the test. Methods: A flat dolly carried a Saab 9-3 sedan laterally, passenger-side leading to a release point at 42 km/h (26 mph) onto a high-friction surface. The vehicle was equipped with roll, pitch and yaw gyros near the center of gravity. Accelerometers were placed at the vehicle center tunnel, A-pillar near the roof, B-pillar near the sill, suspension sub-frame and wheels. Five off-board and two on-board cameras recorded kinematics. Hybrid III dummies were instrumented for head and chest acceleration and upper neck force and moment. Belt loads were measured. Results: The vehicle release caused the tires and then wheel rims to skid on the high-friction surface. The trip involved roll angular velocities >300 deg/s at 0.5 s and a far-side impact on the driver’s side roof at 0.94 s. The driver was inverted in the far-side, ground impact.

Objective: This study analyzes rear sled tests with a 95th% male and 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in various seating positions on ABTS (All Belt to Seat) seats in severe rear impact tests. Dummy interactions with the deforming seatback and upper body extension around the seat frame are considered. Methods: The 1st series involved an open sled fixture with a Sebring ABTS seat at 30 mph rear delta V. A 95th% Hybrid III dummy was placed in four different seating positions: 1) normal, 2) leaning inboard, 3) leaning forward and inboard, and 4) leaning forward and outboard. The 2nd series used a 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in a Grand Voyager body buck at 25 mph rear delta V. The dummy was leaned forward and inboard on a LeSabre ABTS or Voyager seat. The 3rd series used a 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in an Explorer body buck at 26 mph rear delta V. The dummy was leaned forward and inboard on a Sebring ABTS or Explorer seat.

A decade ago, James, et.al. published a detailed study of the available NASS data on severe rear impacts, with findings that “… stiffened or rigid seat backs will not substantially mitigate severe and fatal injuries in rear impacts.” No field accident study has since been advanced which refutes this finding. Advocates of rigidized seat backs often point to specific cases of severe rear impacts in which MAIS 4+ injuries are associated with seat back deformation, coupled with arguments supporting stiffer seatback designs. These arguments are generally based upon laboratory experiments with dummies in normal seating positions. Recent field accident data shows that generally, in collisions where the majority of societal harm is created, yielding seats continue to provide benefits, including those associated with whiplash associated disorders (WAD).

The BSAN crash pulse model has been shown to provide useful information for restraint sensing evaluation and for structural force-displacement studies in flat fixed rigid barrier (FFRB) crashes. This paper demonstrates a procedure by which the model may be extended for use with central and offset vehicle to vehicle (VTV) crashes through appropriate combinations of vehicle parameters.

In reconstruction of on-roadway vehicle accidents, tire-road surface friction coefficient, mu (μ), can be estimated using a variety of available data. Common ranges and values for μ are used in calculations forming the foundation for most accident reconstruction techniques. When the roadway surface is gouged or disrupted by vehicle components, accounting of dissipated energy can be successful where supporting force data exists. Roadway gouge forces can vary widely depending upon such factors as road surface construction, surface temperature, and the velocity and geometry of the gouging mechanism. Such dissipated energy can be significant in accounting of total reconstruction energy. This paper presents experiments aimed at quantifying gouge force by controlled pavement gouging tests.

The original Malibu II study, conducted by Bahling et al, found that neck compression loading in rollover crashes is caused by the occupant moving toward the ground and therefore, roof crush was not causally related to the loading. Some have disputed this finding claiming that the occupant does not “dive toward the roof,” but rather, the roof “moves in” toward the occupant, and that roof deformation is the primary cause of cervical spine injuries in rollover crashes. The original study included a detailed analysis of film and force transducer data for 10 Potentially Injurious Impacts (PII's). This paper presents an independent analysis of these 10 PII's and one additional PII. This analysis uses the film and transducer data to evaluate the timing of roof deformation and neck loading, the magnitude of roof deformation at the time of peak neck load, and the motion of the vehicle and occupants in the inertial reference system.

Understanding of events within the history of a crash, and estimation of the severity of occupant interior collisions depend upon an accurate assessment of crash duration. Since this time duration is not measured independently in most crash test reports, it must usually be inferred from interpretations of acceleration data or from displacement data in high-speed film analysis. The significant physical effects related to the crash pulse are often essential in reconstruction analyses wherein the estimation of occupant interior “second collision” or airbag sensing issues are at issue. A simple relation is presented and examined which allows approximation of the approach phase and separation phase kinematics, including restitution and pulse width. Building upon previous work, this relation allows straightforward interpretation of test data from related publicly available test reports.

Heavier, larger pickups and SUVs are bound to encounter lighter, smaller passenger vehicles in many future accidents. As the fleet has evolved to include more and more SUVs, their frontal structures are often indistinguishable from pickup fronts. Improvements in geometric compatibility features are crucial to further injury prevention progress in side impact. In corner crashes where modern bullet passenger car (PC) bumpers make appropriate geometrical overlap with target PC rocker panels, concentrated loads sometimes disrupt foam and plastic bumper corners, creating aggressive edges. In situations where sliding occurs along the structural interface, these sharp edges may slice through doors, panels and pillars. End treatments for such bumper beams should be designed to reduce this aggressive potential.

Based upon a review of the literature and new test data, the human and vehicle factors leading to head-to-roof contact in rollovers are quantified and illustrated. Vehicle design countermeasures and suggested areas of research are presented. Higher and stronger roofs and improved restraints must be analyzed as a system to evaluate the potential benefits in rollovers.

Field experience has consistently indicated that lap-only belts and lap-shoulder belts perform well and about equally in prevention of fatalities and serious injuries in the rear seating positions. Analyses based on overall usage and injury figures from the Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS), double-pair analysis of FARS data, and still older data bases have shown that, in the rear outboard seating positions, injury rates are about the same for lap-only and lap-shoulder belted crash occupants. Although sparse, recently available field data from the 1988-2001 National Analysis Sampling System / Crashworthiness Data System (NASS/CDS) files confirm the finding that, when used by rear seat occupants, lap-only belts perform about equally with lap-shoulder belts as countermeasures for serious and fatal injury in severe frontal crashes.

Understanding occupant kinematics is an important part of accident reconstruction, particularly with respect to injury causation. Injuries are generally sustained as the occupant interacts with the vehicle interior surfaces and is rapidly accelerated to the struck component's post-impact velocity. This paper describes some methods for assessing occupant kinematics in a collision, and discusses their limitations. A useful technique is presented which is based on free-body analysis and can be used to establish an occupant's path of motion relative to the vehicle, locate the point of occupant contact, and determine the occupant's velocity relative to that contact location.

The reconstruction of accidental impacts to the side structure of one or more accident vehicles often incorporates estimates of the energy absorbed by laterally struck vehicle(s). Such estimates generally involve considerably more issues than does the assessment of frontal or rear impact deformation energy. The sides of vehicles are, compared to the usual striking object, relatively broad, and they contain zones of varying stiffness supported by collapsible box structures. Side stiffnesses can vary widely, depending upon impact geometry. Most side impact crash tests that can readily be used to make estimates of side stiffness have been conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Occupant simulation models have been used to study trends or specific design changes in “typical” accident modes such as frontal, side, rear, and rollover. This paper explores the usage of the Articulated Total Body Program (ATB) as an accident reconstruction tool. The importance of model validation is discussed. Specific areas of concern such as the contact model, force-deflection data, occupant parameters, restraint system models, head/neck loadings, padding, and intrusion are discussed in the context of accident reconstruction.

Rollover accidents are responsible for a significant percentage of crash injuries. Increasing seat belt restraint use is the most effective way to reduce rollover injuries. Injuries to restrained occupants are also of interest. It has been suggested that head/neck injuries are caused by roof crush, and that modification to roof structures and seat belt systems would lead to a substantial reduction in severe rollover injuries. Field accident data and rollover testing are used to evaluate the relationship between roof crush, seat belt design, and severe rollover injuries.

Field accident data suggest that a significant number of occupants involved in rear impacts may be positioned at impact other than in the “Normal Seated Position” - the optimum restraint configuration that has been used almost exclusively in published seat testing. Pre-impact vehicle acceleration from braking, swerving, or a prior frontal impact could cause an occupant to be leaning forward at the instant of the collision, creating a situation where the vehicle “ride-up” potential would be limited. No rear impact tests involving yielding, production-type seats with forward-leaning dummies are found in the literature. Thirty rear-impact sled tests with a forward-leaning, “Out-of-Position” Hybrid III dummy are presented. Tests were performed with a calibrated seat set in either the rigidified or yielding configuration and with the dummy either unbelted or restrained by a production three-point belt system. Test speeds ranged from 5 to 20 mph.

Claims have been made that many production seatbelt buckles unlatch inertially during collisions. These claims are based on “parlor tricks” in which the back of the buckle is slapped, causing inertial release. Investigations of the potential for such inertial release in real-world collisions have consistently concluded that it is not a safety concern. Engineering analyses indicate that loadings experienced by buckles in real-world collisions are substantially different from the loadings which cause buckles to open in “parlor tricks.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recently opened a rulemaking docket seeking comments on the design of automobile seats and their performance in rear Impacts. There are two philosophies of seat design: one advocates rigid seats, the other advocates seats which yield in a controlled manner. A review of the legislative history of seat back design standards indicates that yielding seats have historically been considered a better approach for passenger cars. The design characteristics of current production automobile seats are evaluated and show no significant changes over the past three decades. Concerns about the performance of rigid seat backs in real world rear impacts are discussed, specifically increased injury exposure due to ramping, rebound and out-of-position occupants.

Recent detailed field accident data are examined with regard to injuries associated with rear impacts. The distribution of “Societal Harm” associated with various injury mechanisms is presented, and used to evaluate the performance of current seat back and restraint system designs. Deformation associated with seat back yield is shown to be beneficial in reducing overall Societal Harm in rear impacts. The Societal Harm associated with ejection and contact with the vehicle rear interior (the two injury mechanisms addressed by a rigid seat approach), is shown to be minimal. The field accident data also confirm that restraint usage in rear impacts has a substantial injury-reducing effect. Laboratory tests and computer simulations were run to investigate the mechanism by which seat belts protect occupants in rear impacts.

Impact tests were conducted on thirty-one unembalmed human cadaver heads. Impacts were delivered to the temporo-parietal region of fixed cadavers by two, different sized, flat-rigid impactors. Yield fracture force and stiffness data for this region of the head are presented. Impactor surfaces consisted of a 5 cm2 circular plate and a 52 cm2 rectangular plate. The average stiffness value observed using the circular impactor was 1800 N/mm, with an average bone-fracture-force level of 5000 N. Skull stiffness for the rectangular impactor was 4200 N/mm, and the average fracture-force level was 12,500 N.

Rear impacts in the crash test data base compiled by the NHTSA are analyzed and compared to the CRASH3 rear stiffness coefficients. The CRASH3 values do not represent the test data adequately. This is because the values were derived from limited data, and because some of the rear moving barrier test data were miscoded as fixed barrier tests. A review of the larger NHTSA data base does not support the CRASH3 assumption that vehicles of similar size (wheelbase) have similar rear stiffness characteristics. Therefore, it is important when reconstructing individual accidents to use crash test data specific to the vehicles involved. Repeated rear fixed barrier test data on four vehicles are analyzed to study the data trend at speeds below and above the NHTSA test data. Constant stiffness and constant force models are compared and a combination of the two is shown to fit available test data.