Search Results

Currently, one of the major challenges for automotive engineers is to provide additional protection to motor vehicle occupants involved in side-impact collisions. A considerable amount of research is being conducted into this problem by governments and motor vehicle manufacturers on a worldwide basis. Changes to the current safety standards relating to side impact protection have been proposed in both North America and Europe. The proposed standards involve the use of dummies in collisions between a moving barrier and a stationary test vehicle. A total of 22 side impact tests of production vehicles have been completed to date to assess the appropriateness of the test procedures developed in the U.S. and Europe in the context of the Canadian vehicle mix and associated side impact accident problem. Vehicle performance rankings provided by the two test procedures were found to vary greatly.

Drawing on recent Canadian field collision investigations and crash testing using the SIDIIs dummy, the field experience and crash performance of side-mounted airbag systems are reviewed. All of the inflatable technologies tested demonstrated the ability to greatly reduce head injury potential. Further improvements to the design of inflatable head protection devices are required to better ensure they contain and protect the head of occupants seated in locations forward of the mid seat track. New moving deformable barrier designs, such as the one recently developed by the IIHS, appear to offer significant advantages over designs currently used to regulate side impact protection. Improving the level of protection against chest injury to car occupants in SUV-to-car side impacts represents a significant challenge.

Occupants exposed to far-side crashes are those seated on the side of the vehicle opposite the struck side. This study uses the NASS/CDS 1988–98 to determine distributions of serious injuries among restrained occupants exposed to far-side crashes and the sources of the injuries. Vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests were conducted to study dummy kinematics. The NASS/CDS indicated that the head accounted for 45% of the MAIS 4+ injuries in far-side collisions and the chest/abdomen accounted for 39%. The opposite-side interior was the most frequent contact associated with driver AIS 3+ injuries (26.9%). The safety belt was second, accounting for 20.8%. Vehicle-to-vehicle side impact tests with a 60 degree crash vector indicated that different safety belt designs resulted in different amounts of head excursion for the far side Hybrid III dummy. For all three point belt systems tested, the shoulder belt was ineffective in preventing large amounts of head excursion.

A small overlap frontal crash test has been recently introduced by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in its frontal rating scheme. Another small overlap frontal crash test is under development by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Whereas the IIHS test is conducted against a fixed rigid barrier, the NHTSA test is conducted with a moving deformable barrier that overlaps 35% of the vehicle being tested and the angle between the longitudinal axis of the barrier and the longitudinal axis of the test vehicle is 15 degrees. The field relevance of the IIHS test has been the subject of a paper by Prasad et al. (2014). The current study is aimed at examining the field relevance of the NHTSA test.

Two manufacturers, Denton ATD and FTSS, currently produce the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. In response to concerns raised by industry that differences in the anthropometry of the molded breasts between the two manufacturers may influence chest responses, Transport Canada conducted a comparative testing program. Thorax biofidelity tests were conducted to compare force-deflection characteristics; full-frontal, rigid-barrier tests were conducted at 40, 48 and 56 km/h to compare chest responses, and out-of-position chest on module static airbag deployment tests were conducted to compare peak chest deflections of the Denton and FTSS dummy jackets and of a prototype jacket without breasts. Differences in force-deflection characteristics were observed during biofidelity pendulum impacts of the two dummies, with much of the differences attributed to the different chest jackets.

This technical paper presents the results of biomechanical testing conducted on the ES-2 dummy by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership and Transport Canada. The ES-2 is a production dummy, based on the EuroSID-1 dummy, that was modified to further improve testing capabilities as recommended by users of the EuroSID-1 dummy. Biomechanical response data were obtained by completing a series of drop, pendulum, and sled tests that are outlined in the International Organization of Standardization Technical Report 9790 that describes biofidelity requirements for the midsize adult male side impact dummy. A few of the biofidelity tests were conducted on both sides of the dummy to evaluate the symmetry of its responses. Full vehicle crash tests were conducted to verify if the changes in the EuroSID-1, resulting in the ES-2 design, did improve the dummy's testing capability. In addition to the biofidelity testing, the ES-2 dummy repeatability, reproducibility and durability are discussed.