Search Results

For prescribed test conditions, a procedure is given for estimating the response characteristics of an arbitrary chosen standard subject based on the measured responses of subjects with different physical characteristics. Simple model analysis is used to develop the relationships between the subjects' responses and their physical characteristics. This analysis assures dimensional correctness among the critical parameters. The technique is applied to force-time data obtained by the Association Peugeot-Renault for lateral thoracic impacts of cadaver specimens. An averaged, normalized response curve is given for each of two impact conditions. A response corridor is prescribed for each average curve. These corridors can be used to assess the efficacy of various proposed thoracic side impact test devices exposed to similar impact conditions.

The purpose of this study was to investigate approaches evaluating the performance of safety systems in crash tests and by analytical simulations. The study was motivated by the need to consider the adequacy of injury criteria and tolerance levels in FMVSS 208 measuring safety performance of restraint systems and supplements. The study also focused on additional biomechanical criteria and performance measures which may augment FMVSS 208 criteria and alternative ways to evaluate dummy responses rather than by comparison to a tolerance level. Additional analysis was conducted of dummy responses from barrier crash and sled tests to gain further information on the performance of restraint systems. The analysis resulted in a new computer program which determined several motion and velocity criteria from measurements made in crash tests.

Knee bolsters on the lower instrument panel have been designed to control occupant kinematics during sudden deceleration. However, a wide variability in car occupant anthropometry and choice of seating posture indicates that lower-extremity contacts with the impingement bolster could predominantly load the flexed leg through the knee (acting through the femur) or through the tibia (acting through the knee joint). Potential injuries associated with these types of primary loading may vary significantly and an understanding of potential trauma mechanisms is important for proper occupant restraint.

An objective, biomechanically based assessment is made of the risks of life-threatening brain injury of frontal crash test results. Published 15 ms HIC values for driver and right front passenger dummies of frontal barrier crash tests conducted by Transport Canada and NHTSA are analyzed using the brain injury risk curve of Prasad and Mertz. Ninety-four percent of the occupants involved in the 30 mph, frontal barrier compliance tests had risks of life-threatening brain injury less than 5 percent. Only 3 percent had risks greater than 16 percent which corresponds to 15 ms HIC > 1000. For belt restrained occupants without head contact with the interior, the risks of life-threatening brain injury were less than 2 percent. In contrast, for the more severe NCAP test condition, 27 percent of the drivers and 21 percent of the passengers had life-threatening brain injury risks greater than 16 percent.

Side impact tests were conducted on the EUROSID and SID to assess their biofidelity compared to the response requirements of the international Standards Organization. The body regions evaluated were the head, neck, thorax, shoulder, abdomen, and pelvis. Test conditions and data normalization procedures are outlined in the report. Data plots are given which compare the impact response of each dummy to the ISO requirements. The EUROSID gave humanlike responses for most tests involving padded surface impacts, but its responses were not humanlike for rigid surface impacts. Overall, the EUROSID responses were more humanlike than the responses of the SID.

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.

In 1995, new seat specifications were adopted by GM to provide high retention and improve occupant safety in rear crashes. With more than five years of phase-in of high retention (HR) seats, an analysis of FARS was undertaken to determine the initial field performance of HR seats in preventing fatalities. The 1991-2000 FARS was sorted for fatal rear-impacted vehicles. Using a VIN decoder, GM vehicles with HR front seats were sorted from those with baseline (pre-HR) seats. The fatal rear-impacted vehicle crashes were subdivided into several groups for analysis: 1) single-vehicle rear impacts, 2) two-vehicle rear crashes involving light striking vehicles, and 3) two-vehicle crashes involving heavy trucks and tractor-trailers, and multi-vehicle (3+) rear crashes.

For several decades, there has been a debate on the safety merits of yielding and rigidized (stiff) seats. In 1995, GM adopted requirements for high retention seats and introduced a new generation of yielding seatbacks. These seats have the same stiffness as the yielding seats of the 1980s and early 1990s, but have a strong frame structure and recliners to substantially limit seatback rotation in severe rear crashes. The yielding behavior is given by compliance of the seat suspension across the side structures and an open perimeter frame, which allows the occupant to penetrate into the seatback. The purpose of this study is to compare the energy transfer characteristics and occupant dynamics of yielding and stiff seats in 35 km/h and 16 km/h rear crashes. Based on benchmarking tests, the stiff seatback is defined as one having a 40 kN/m stiffness in rearward loading by a Hybrid dummy.

A planar mathematical model was developed to provide means of studying factors which can influence the function of lower torso restraint via a padded lower instrument panel or knee bolster. The following factors were judged to play the most significant role: 1) initial fore-and-aft position of the seated occupant relative to the knee restraint; 2) location of the knee-to-bolster contact; 3) angular orientation of the bolster face; 4) primary axis of the bolster resisting force, 5) variations in vehicle crash parameters (e.g., toepan rotation and displacement and seat deflection); and 6) deformation characteristics of the bolster. The model of a seated occupant included radiographic and empirical data on the anatomy of the links and joints in the lower extremity.

Purpose: This study presents cases of fracture-dislocation of the thoracic spine in extension during severe rear impacts. The mechanism of injury was investigated. Methods: Four crashes were investigated where a lap-shoulder-belted, front-seat occupant experienced fracture-dislocation of the thoracic spine and paraplegia in a severe rear impact. Police, investigator and medical records were reviewed, the vehicle was inspected and the seat detrimmed. Vehicle dynamics, occupant kinematics and injury mechanisms were determined in this case study. Results: Each case involved a lap-shoulder-belted occupant in a high retention seat with ≻1,700 Nm moment or ≻5.5 kN strength for rearward loading. The crashes were offset rear impacts with 40-56 km/h delta V involving under-ride or override by the impacting vehicle and yaw of the struck vehicle. In each case, the occupant's pelvis was restrained on the seat by the open perimeter frame of the seatback and lap belt.

Purpose: This study analyzes the effect of front seat performance on occupant injury in rear crashes where there is a 2nd row passenger seated behind the front occupant. Methods: The study was carried out for rear impact crashes in the 1991–2006 NASS-CDS. Only cases where there was a 2nd row occupant seated behind an occupied front seat were chosen. Serious injury (MAIS 3+F) was determined for the front and 2nd row occupants. The performance of the front seat was determined using eight NASS-CDS investigator categories, including no failure, seat failure of the adjuster, seatback or track-anchor and seat deformation by the occupant or intrusion. The rear crashes were subdivided into four severities (<15, 15–25, 25–45 and >45 mph). The risk for serious injury was determined for each category of seat performance. Next, individual cases were reviewed from the online NASS electronic files to better understand the determination of seat performance by the NASS-CDS investigators.

A new generation of seats has been designed to specifications for high retention (HR) in a Quasistatic Seat Test (QST). The QST involves occupant loading of the seat in a rearward direction and targets peak H-point moment to >1700 Nm giving an energy transfer capability of 2000 J. QST tests from 1998-2000 were compared to results from pre-HR seat designs of the late 1980s and early 1990s to determine performance improvements. Twenty-seven QST tests of HR seats were randomly selected from a larger series and were evaluated for strength and seat deformation under occupant loading. They represented 20 different seat types from four suppliers. Averages and standard deviations in QST results were computed. In addition, eight repeat tests were conducted with one seat to determine repeatability of the QST. These data were compared to an earlier repeatability study of the 1994 W pre-HR seat, which was evaluated at two facilities.

A relationship between the risk of significant thoracic injury (AIS ≥ 3) and Hybrid III dummy sternal deflection for shoulder belt loading is developed. This relationship is based on an analysis of the Association Peugeot-Renault accident data of 386 occupants who were restrained by three-point belt systems that used a shoulder belt with a force-limiting element. For 342 of these occupants, the magnitude of the shoulder belt force could be estimated with various degrees of certainty from the amount of force-limiting band ripping. Hyge sled tests were conducted with a Hybrid III dummy to reproduce the various degrees of band tearing. The resulting Hybrid III sternal deflections were correlated to the frequencies of AIS ≥ 3 thoracic injury observed for similar band tearing in the field accident data. This analysis indicates that for shoulder belt loading a Hybrid III sternal deflection of 50 mm corresponds to a 40 to 50% risk of an AIS ≥ 3 thoracic injury.

The primary purpose of this parameter study was to carefully document occupant dynamics in well-controlled sled tests for comparison with simulated responses from the MVMA-2D analytical model. The test involved a Part 572 dummy exposed to a frontal deceleration while on a bucket seat and restrained by a lap-shoulder belt system. The length of belt webbing was incrementally increased from a snug configuration by as much as 30 cm. The addition of webbing increased the forward excursion, velocity, and acceleration of the head, chest, and hip without affecting the peak tension in the belt segments of the restraint system. Belt tension was identified as a poor measure of the horizontal load on the chest due to significant reaction forces in the lateral and vertical direction at the belt anchorages.

Sled tests were conducted at farside oblique angles of 15°, 45°, and 75° with a Part 572 dummy restrained by a conventional driver lap/shoulder belt system or a preinflated driver inflatable restaint. Occupant dynamics were compared in similar tests where an inboard energy absorbing lateral restraint of the upper torso was or was not used. It can be concluded that the seat wing improves the control of the dummy's dynamics in oblique impacts by directing the occupant's motion more forward into the restraint system, thereby taking more advantage of the restraining potential of the shoulder belt or inflatable restraint in controlling the deceleration of the dummy and enhancing the benefit of the restraint system. However, additional factors associated with the use of a seat wing remain to be investigated including the effect of impact force on the occupant, interaction with out-of-position occupants and comfort/convenience.

In the early 1980's a series of tests was conducted simulating rear-end crashes. The tests demonstrated that a conventional automotive bucket seat adequately retains an unbelted dummy on the seat for rear-end impacts up to 6.4 m/s and 9.5 g severity. For this severity of impact the total rearward rotation of the seatback is less than 60° from the vertical and is associated with a normal acceleration of the dummy's chest into the seatback of up to 10 g. The tangential acceleration of the dummy, which may induce riding up the seat, was generally less than the normal component so that the occupant was prevented from sliding up the deflected seatback. The bucket seat provided adequate containment and control of occupant displacements for each of the initial seatback angles of 9°, 22°, and 35°.

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.

Various surrogates and responses are available for study of the impact performance of energy absorbing steering systems in the laboratory. The relative influence of the SAE J-944 body block, the Part 572 dummy, and the GM Hybrid III dummy and of the associated thoracic responses were investigated for steering assembly impact in a series of sled tests. Not only did response amplitudes differ among the surrogates but more importantly trends in impact performance associated with modifications of the steering assembly depended on the choice of surrogate and response. The Hybrid III dummy was judged the best of the tested surrogates for study of the steering system impact performance in the laboratory, based on its more humanlike construction, impact response and expanded measurement capacity.

The study was directed toward improving our understanding how postcrash column compression and steering wheel deformation relate to the driver interaction with an energy absorbing steering system during automotive collisions. Frontal sled tests conducted at 19–37 km/h investigated the Part 572 antropomorphic dummy interaction with a ball-sleeve column steering assembly over a range of column angles and surrogate postures. Neither column compression nor steering wheel deformation correlated with the mechanical severity of the test surrogate interaction with the steering system. The steering wheel deformed before the column compressed and the degree of wheel deformation strongly depended on the surrogate load distribution, the steering wheel being an important energy absorbing element.

Active head restraints are being used to reduce the risk of whiplash in rear crashes. However, their evaluation in laboratory tests can vary depending on the injury criteria and test dummy. The objective of this study was to conduct barrier tests with BioRID and sled tests with Hybrid III to determine the most meaningful responses related to whiplash risks in real-world crashes. This study involved: (1) twenty-four rear barrier tests of the Saab 9000, 900, 9-3 and 9-5 with two fully instrumented BioRID dummies placed in the front or rear seats and exposed to 24 and 48.3 km/h barrier impacts, and (2) twenty rear sled tests at 5-38 km/h delta V in three series with conventional, modified and SAHR seats using the Hybrid III dummy. A new target superposition method was used to track head displacement and rotation with respect to T1. Insurance data on whiplash claims was compared to the dummy responses.