Search Results

Far-side occupants are not addressed in current government regulations around the world even though they account for up to 40% of occupant HARM in side impact crashes. Consequently, there are very few crash tests with far-side dummies available to researchers. Sled tests are frequently used to replicate the dynamic conditions of a full-scale crash test in a controlled setting. However, in far-side crashes the complexity of the occupant kinematics is increased by the longer duration of the motion and by the increased rotation of the vehicle. The successful duplication of occupant motion in these crashes confirms that a sled test is an effective, cost-efficient means of testing and developing far-side occupant restraints or injury countermeasures.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Special Crash Investigations database contains twelve completed cases of child fatalities in rearward facing child seats caused by deploying air bags. Three of these are now available for examination. An additional two cases were investigated by the William Lehman Injury Research Center at the University of Miami School of Medicine. These five cases are examined to evaluate crash environment, injury mechanisms, and circumstances which caused the child to be in front of the passenger side air bag Four of the cases were crashes with impacts with the side of other cars with crash severities less than 15 mph. The predominate injury mechanism was brain and skull injury from a blow transmitted to the rear of the head through the child seat back. In one case, the force to the head was transmitted downward, directly from air bag contact.

Rollover crashes continue to be a serious and growing vehicle safety problem. Rollovers account for about 9% of passenger car crashes, and 26% of light truck crashes. Belt use in rollover crashes is about 51%, compared with 62% in planar crashes. Overall, 26.4% of the serious and fatal injuries to occupants exposed to crashes are in rollovers. Among this injured population 74.4% are unbelted. In light trucks, rollovers account for 47.4% of the serious or fatal injuries. Unbelted occupants suffer about 87% of the serious injuries and fatalities in light truck rollovers. The use of safety belts offers a dramatic reduction in injury rates for rollover crashes. For belted occupants of pickup trucks and utility vehicles in rollover crashes, the injury rates are about the same as for belted occupants of passenger cars in planar crashes. Improvementsts in safety belts offer large opportunities in safety.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the vehicle environment that a child occupant, between the ages of seven and thirteen years old, is exposed to in a real world crash. The focus of analysis is on those child occupants that are seated at the struck side in a lateral collision. This study was based on data extracted from the National Automotive Sampling System / Crashworthiness Data System (NASS/CDS) between years 1991-2006. Analysis was based upon the evaluation of the projected consequence of injury to the child occupants. The societal costs generated as a result of occupant injuries were quantified. The societal cost, or Harm, acts as a measure of consequence of occupant exposure to the vehicle environment, when involved in a collision. The Harm was determined as a function of ΔV, principal direction of force, vehicle extent of damage, the pattern of damage to the vehicle, and the magnitude of intrusion based on the occupant seating position.

Vehicle stiffness is one of the three major factors in vehicle to vehicle compatibility in a frontal crash; the other two factors are vehicle mass and frontal geometry. Vehicle to vehicle compatibility in turn is an increasingly important topic due to the rapid change in the size and characteristics of the automotive fleet, particularly the increase of the percentage of trucks and SUVs. Due to the non-linear nature of the mechanics of vehicle structure, frontal stiffness is not a properly defined metric. This research is aimed at developing a well defined method to quantify frontal stiffness for vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility. The method to be developed should predict crash outcome and controlling the defined metric should improve the crash outcome. The criterion that is used to judge the aggressivity of a vehicle in this method is the amount of deformation caused to the vulnerable vehicles when crashed with the subject vehicle.

Beginning in model year 1997, BMW introduced an innovative head protection system HPS called the Inflatable Tubular Structure (HPS). Tests indicate that the system dramatically reduces the severity of head impacts in side crashes. This investigation is an evaluation of casualty abatement benefits that are derived from applying injury measures based on the HPS test results to the population in US National Accident Sampling System (NASS/CDS). The results of component and vehicle crash tests are summarized. The procedures for estimating benefits are described along with the benefits in terms of injuries mitigated, maximum injuries to occupants mitigated, and fatalities prevented.

In the effort to understand and solve the frontal crash compatibility problem, one needs to use values of frontal stiffness. Various definitions of stiffness have been used in other studies based on measurements from NHTSA's 35mph frontal NCAP test. Those definitions varied from assuming a linear stiffness based on static crush to more refined ones that vary with time dependent crush. A major consideration in selecting a method is the amount of vehicle damage that occurs in an incompatible crash. To partially address this issue, a method was introduced based on the energy absorbed in a front to front crash at 25mph approach speed. Four alternative definitions of stiffness were studied.

Seventeen full-scale crash tests were conducted to evaluate technologies to reduce the vulnerability of sidesaddle tanks on full size GM pickup trucks manufactured during the period 1973-1987. These vehicles were alleged by the U.S. Department of Transportation to be vulnerable in severe side impacts. The test program was intended to evaluate designs that would reduce vulnerability in all crash directions. The best test results were obtained by two strategies that relocated the tank to less vulnerable locations. The two locations were: (1) in the cargo bed (bed mounted tank) and (2) underneath the bed, ahead of the rear axle and between the frame rails (center-mounted tank). Tanks mounted in these locations were subjected to a series of crash tests that simulated severe front, side, rear and rollover crashes. The crash environment for these tests was more severe than required by FMVSS 301 “Fuel System Integrity”.

Different roof strength methods are applied on the 2003 Ford Explorer finite element (FE) model to achieve the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216 requirements. Two different modification approaches are utilized. Additionally, the best design of each approach is tested dynamically, in rollover and side impact simulations. In the first approach, several roll cage designs are integrated in all pillars, roof cross-members, and in the side roof rails. A roll cage design with a strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) of 3.58 and 3.40 for driver and passenger sides, respectively, with a weight penalty of 18.54 kg is selected for dynamic test assessments. The second approach investigates different localized reinforcements to achieve a more reasonable weight penalty. A localized reinforcement of the B-pillar alone with a tube meets the new FMVSS 216 requirements with a weight penalty of 4.52 kg and is selected for dynamic analyses.

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.

In a side impact, the occupants on both the struck, or near side, of the vehicle and the occupants on the opposite, or far side, of the vehicle are at risk of injury. Since model year 1997, all passenger cars in the U.S. have been required to comply with FMVSS No. 214, a safety standard that mandates a minimum level of side crash protection for near side occupants. No such federal safety standard exists for far side occupants. The mechanism of far side injury is believed to be quite different than the injury mechanism for near side injury. Far side impact protection may require the development of different countermeasures than those which are effective for near side impact protection. This paper evaluates the risk of side crash injury for far side occupants as a basis for developing far side impact injury countermeasures. Based on the analysis of NASS/CDS 1993–2002, this study examines the injury outcome of over 4500 car, light truck, and van occupants subjected to far side impact.