Search Results

The effects of vehicle “stiffness” and mass on the occupant response during a crash may be determined by evaluation of accident data. However, “stiffness” and mass may be correlated, making it difficult to separate their effects. In addition, a single-valued “stiffness”, although well defined for linear case, is not well defined for non-linear systems, such as in vehicle crash, making the separation task even more difficult. One approach to addressing the lack of a clear definition of stiffness is to use multiple definitions. Each stiffness definition can then be correlated with mass to look for trends. In this study, such an approach was taken, and the different stiffness definitions were given and their values were obtained from rigid barrier crash test data. No clear relationship between mass and stiffness appears to exist. All the stiffness measures reviewed show, at best, only a weak correlation with mass. A stiffness analysis among different vehicle types was also carried out.

A data processing algorithm is presented for determining the spatial orientation and position of a rigid body in impact tests based on an instrumentation scheme consisting of a triaxial angular rate sensor and a trialaxial linear accelerometer. The algorithm adopts the unit quaternion as the main parameterized representation of the spatial orientation, and calculates its time history by solving an ordinary differential equation with the angular rate sensor reading as the input. Two supplemental representations, the Euler angles and the direction cosine matrix, are also used in this work, which provide an intuitive description of the orientation, and convenience in transforming the linear accelerometer output in the instrumentation frame to the global frame. The algorithm has been implemented as a computer program, and a set of example impact tests are included to demonstrate its application.

A new approach for improving estimates of the kinematic response of ATDs (anthropomorphic test devices) to vehicle crash events has been developed. This approach employs the Kalman Filter; a state model based estimation approach that has been widely applied to system dynamics problems ranging from navigation to missile guidance. The Kalman Filter approach combines measurements of crash event phenomena (acceleration and displacement), kinematic models of ATD behavior and statistics of sensor noise to create precise estimates of ATD motion during a crash. This paper presents an implementation of a state model and Kalman Filter for a sensor data collected from the chest of an ATD during an out-of-position airbag deployment test. Favorable comparisons are made between the Kalman Filter model approach and traditional methods involving numerical integration and differentiation.

A test series using unembalmed cadavers was conducted to investigate thoracic response differences in lateral impacts between high energy (rib fractures produced) and low energy (no rib fractures produced) testing and also the response to low energy impacts for different impact directions (frontal, 45°, and lateral). Five of the test subjects were instrumented with a nine-accelerometer package and an eighteen-accelerometer array to measure thoracic response. Seven of the test subjects were instrumented with a triaxial accelerometer on the head and a six-accelerometer array to measure thoracic response. Impact events were performed with either the UMTRI pendulum impact device or the UMTRI pneumatic impact device. The subject was struck with a free-traveling mass (25 or 56 kg) which was fitted with either a 15 cm round or 20 cm square rigid metal surface.

One method of understanding the general mechanical response of a complex system such as a vehicle, a human surrogate, a bridge, a boat, a plane, etc., is to subject it to an input, such as an impact, and obtain the response time-histories. The responses can be accelerations, velocities, strains, etc. In general, when experiments of this type are run the responses are contaminated by sample-to-sample variation, test-to-test variability, random noise, instrumentation noise, and noise from unknown sources. One common method of addressing the noise in the system to obtain the underlying response is to run multiple tests on different samples that represent the same system and add them together obtaining an average. This functionally reduces the random noise. However, if the fundamental response of each sample is not the same, then it is not altogether clear what the average represents. It may not capture the underlying physics.

Reliable testing of a mechanical system requires the procedures used for the evaluation to be repeatable and reproducible. However, it is never possible to exactly repeat or reproduce the tests that are used for evaluation. To overcome this limitation, a statistical evaluation procedure can generally be used. However, most of the statistical procedures use scalar values as input without the ability to handle vectors or time-histories. To overcome these limitations, two numerical/statistical methods for determining if the impact time-history response of a mechanical system is repeatable or reproducible are evaluated and elaborated upon. Such a system could be a vehicle, a biological human surrogate, an Anthropometric Test Device (ATD or dummy), etc. The responses could be sets of time-histories of accelerations, forces, moments, etc., of a component or of the system. The example system evaluated is the BioRID II rear impact dummy.

Head-to-knee interaction of the right front passenger dummy can occur in some 30-35 MPH crash barrier tests. The biofidelity and significance of these interactions as related to predicting human response was addressed in this study. In a series of laboratory experiments an instrumented headform was dropped on the dummy knee to simulate the barrier interactions. These test results were then related to the human by dropping the same headform on the cadaver leg. The instrumented headform was dropped from three heights to impact the Part 572 dummy knee at three velocities. Two impact sites and two impact angles were used. These test parameters bracketed the barrier conditions. Measurements from headform accelerometers permitted calculation of HIC value for comparison to barrier values. Comparable experiments were subsequently performed with three unembalmed cadaver subjects using the same headform and test procedures.

A comparison of the NHTSA advanced dummy and the Hybrid III is presented in this paper based on their performance in repeated sled tests under 3 different restraint systems. The restraint systems considered are: the airbag alone, the 3-point belt alone, and a combined use of the airbag and the 3-point belt. Various time-histories pertaining to accelerations, angular velocities, deflections and forces have been compared between the two dummies in order to study their repeatability. The Hybrid III appears to be more repeatable than the NHTSA advanced dummy in its response in one case, that of restraint with the 3-point belt alone. The response of the NHTSA advanced dummy in other two restraint modes, the airbag alone and the combination of 3-point belt and airbag, appears to be no less repeatable than that of Hybrid III in this series of tests.

This paper reports a study undertaken by the Crash Safety Working Group (CSWG) of the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) to determine generic acceleration pulses for testing and evaluating advanced batteries subjected to inertial loading for application in electric passenger vehicles. These pulses were based on characterizing vehicle acceleration time histories from standard laboratory vehicle crash tests. Crash tested passenger vehicles in the United States vehicle fleet of the model years 2005-2009 were used in this study. Crash test data, in terms of acceleration time histories, were collected from various crash modes conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) during their New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) evaluations, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

The response of the head to impact in the posterior-to-anterior direction was investigated with live anesthetized and post-mortem primates.* The purpose of the project was to relate animal test results to previous head impact tests conducted with cadavers (reported at the 21st Stapp Car Crash Conference (1),** and to study the differences between the living and post-mortem state in terms of mechanical response. The three-dimensional motion of the head, during and after impact, was derived from experimental measurements and expressed as kinematic quantities in various reference frames. Comparison of kinematic quantities between subjects is normally done by referring the results to a standard anatomical reference frame, or to a predefined laboratory reference frame. This paper uses an additional method for describing the kinematics of head motion through the use of Frenet-Serret frame fields.

The response of the spine acceleration to rib and pelvis acceleration input of the side impact dummy (SID) is modeled using system identification methods. The basis for the modeling is a simplified representation of the SID by a 3-mass, 2-spring system. Based on this spring-mass representation, two types of response models are established. The first is a "gray-box" type with rib/pelvis-spine relationship modeled by Auto Regression with eXogeneous (or eXtra) input (ARX) type system models. The structure of these models is partially based on the spring-mass simplified representation, hence the notion "gray- box." The parameters of these models are identified through linear regression from test data. The second type of models is noted "physical model" here, since it is strictly a state- space form of the equation of motion of the simple spring-mass representation.

A comparison of the NHTSA advanced dummy and the Hybrid III is presented in this paper based on their performance in twenty four frontal impact sled tests. Various time histories pertaining to accelerations, angular velocities, deflections and forces have been compared between the two dummies in light of their design differences. This has lead to some understanding about the differences and similarities between the NHTSA advanced dummy and the Hybrid III. In general, the chest as well as the head motion in the NHTSA advanced dummy are greater. The lumbar moments in the NHTSA advanced dummy are lower than that in the Hybrid III. The upper and lower spine segments in the NHTSA advanced dummy, generally rotate more than the spine of the Hybrid III.

A simple spring-mass model of the impact response of the side impact dummy (SID) is established. The spring and mass constants of the model are established through system identification methodology based on data from impact tests. The tests are performed in laboratory with hydraulically driven impactors impacting the chest and pelvis of the SID. The input data to the model consist of measured contact force or impactor velocity time histories, and the output data are accelerations on the rib, spine, and pelvis of the SID. The established model appears to predict the test results with reasonable accuracy. The main purpose of this study, however, is to use this simple model to carry out parametric studies of the response of the dummy with changing impact parameters, the result of which would be useful in understanding vehicle crash tests using the SID.