Search Results

This paper presents an analysis of the displacement measurement of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy chest in quasistatic and dynamic loading environments. In this dummy, the sternal chest deformation is typically characterized using a sliding chest potentiometer, originally designed to measure inward deflection in the central axis of the dummy chest. Loading environments that include other modes of deformation, such as lateral translations or rotations, can create a displacement vector that is not aligned with this sensitive axis. To demonstrate this, the dummy chest was loaded quasistatically and dynamically in a series of tests. A string potentiometer array, with the capability to monitor additional deflection modes, was used to supplement the measurement of the chest slider.

This paper presents a computational study of the effects of three parameters on the resulting thoracic injury criteria in side impacts. The parameters evaluated are a) door velocity-time (V-t) profile, b) door interior padding modulus, and c) initial door-to-occupant offset. Regardless of pad modulus, initial offset, or the criterion used to assess injury, higher peak door velocity is shown to correspond with more severe injury. Injury outcome is not, however, found to be sensitive to the door velocity at the time of first occupant contact. A larger initial offset generally is found to result in lower injury, even when the larger offset results in a higher door velocity at occupant contact, because the increased offset results in contact later in the door V-t profile - closer to the point at which the door velocity begins to decrease. Cases of contradictory injury criteria trends are identified, particularly in response to changes in the pad modulus.

Some rollover testing methodologies require specification of vehicle kinematic parameters including travel speed, vertical velocity, roll rate, and pitch angle, etc. at the initiation of vehicle to ground contact, which have been referred to as touchdown conditions. The complexity of the vehicle, as well as environmental and driving input characteristics make prediction of realistic touchdown conditions for rollover crashes, and moreover, identification of parameter sensitivities of these characteristics, is difficult and expensive without simulation tools. The goal of this study was to study the sensitivity of driver input on touchdown parameters and the risk of rollover in cases of steering-induced soil-tripped rollovers, which are the most prevalent type of rollover crashes. Knowing the range and variation of touchdown parameters and their sensitivities would help in picking realistic parameters for simulating controlled rollover tests.

Some rollover test methods, which impose a touchdown condition on a test vehicle, have been developed to study vehicle crashworthiness and occupant protection in rollover crashes. In ground-tripped rollover crashes, speed, steering maneuver, braking, vehicle inertial and geometric properties, topographical and road design characteristics, and soil type can all affect vehicle touchdown conditions. It is presumed that while there may be numerous possible combinations of kinematic metrics (velocity components and orientation) at touchdown, there are also numerous combinations of metrics that are not likely to occur in rollover crashes. To determine a realistic set of touchdown conditions to be used in a vehicle rollover crash test, a lateral deceleration sled-based non-destructive rollover initiation test system (RITS) with a fully programmable deceleration pulse is in development.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the biofidelity of the three computational surrogates (GHBMC model, WorldSID model, and the FTSS ES-2re model) under the side impact rigid wall sled test condition. The responses of the three computational surrogates were compared to those of post mortem human surrogate (PMHS) and objectively evaluated using the correlation and analysis (CORA) rating method. Among the three computational surrogates, the GHBMC model showed the best biofidelity based on the CORA rating score (GHBMC =0.65, WorldSID =0.57, FTSS ES-2re =0.58). In general, the response of the pelvis of all the models showed a good correlation with the PMHS response, while the response of the shoulder and the lower extremity did not. In terms of fracture prediction, the GHBMC model overestimated bone fracture.