06.03.2013 Views

ESV.Twelfth.Int.Conf.Volume.ONE.PART.TWO

ESV.Twelfth.Int.Conf.Volume.ONE.PART.TWO

ESV.Twelfth.Int.Conf.Volume.ONE.PART.TWO

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

diagnosis and preventive maintenance. Both means will<br />

gain increasing importance in future as they help to reduce<br />

down times. And it is hardly exaggerated to say that trucks<br />

which suffer from the gap in the electronic data processing<br />

Improving Safety in Heavy Trucks<br />

Thage Berggren,<br />

President and Chief Executive Officer,<br />

Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation,<br />

United States<br />

Glad to be here to represent Volvo at this panel discussion<br />

about heavy truck safety.<br />

Hope you realize you're in a country where safety is a<br />

mania second only to worshiping the sun. It's not safe to be<br />

lukewarm about safety in this country.<br />

So, you're in the right place at the right time-safety has<br />

never been a hotter topic in the heavy trucking industry.<br />

Electronic$ is also a hot topic, and I'm going to discuss<br />

how electronic devices may be able to lower the accident<br />

rate and help truck drivers do their job better.<br />

The following electronic systems are available or are in<br />

the process of development.<br />

AGS- Automatic gear shifting<br />

HUD-Head-up display<br />

DPS- Driver positioning $y$tem<br />

Driver seat with memory<br />

Steering wheel with memory<br />

Extemal minors with memory<br />

ALI- Axle loading indication<br />

MTS-Mobile telephone system<br />

Yellow pages<br />

Positioning<br />

Route guidance<br />

Navigation<br />

Personal alert<br />

RDS- Radio data and information system<br />

GPS- Satellite positioning system<br />

ELF- Electronic line following<br />

OTS- On-board traffic signs<br />

TWS-Truck work station<br />

Function programs<br />

Transport programs<br />

Communication programs<br />

Navigation, maps, etc.<br />

Pleasure Programs<br />

Technology NOT available commercially or LACKING<br />

technology:<br />

222<br />

ECC- Enhanced cruise control<br />

Keeps safe distance under varying speeds<br />

and conditions<br />

within the information chain fleet-vehicle-customer will be<br />

equipped with electronic infrastructure in future, so as to<br />

enable an unintemrpted flow of information parallel to<br />

goods transport.<br />

ADS- Automatic Driving System<br />

Convoys<br />

Merging, passing, exiting<br />

Avoiding collisions<br />

That's a rather long and impressive list.<br />

But the REAL question is what technologies will be the<br />

most useful, the most effective, AND the most appealing to<br />

customers?<br />

And what electronic equipment makes sense on a heavy<br />

truck?<br />

After their cost, there are three things to consider about<br />

electronic safety devices-reliability, reliability, and reliability.<br />

I think we all leamed about the importance of reliability<br />

in safety-related equipment from the antilock brake fiasco<br />

ofnearly l0 years ago.<br />

My first topic is electronic equipment to monitor the<br />

driver.<br />

Available devices and technology include:<br />

MSG-Maximum speed governor<br />

ET- Electronictachograph<br />

TRS- Trip recording systems<br />

This technology has varying degrees of merit and<br />

usefulness.<br />

In the end, however, no electronic or mechanical warning<br />

device is as effective as the waming system already built<br />

into the human body.<br />

I have my doubts about any alarm bell being able to<br />

change driver reactionTbehavior.<br />

Shouldn't take too much decision-making responsibility<br />

away from driver.<br />

If we could find an electronic device that kept a driver<br />

alert, should it warn the driver? Or the dispatcher? Or should<br />

it stop the truck? This is not an easy decision.<br />

Another hot topic today is for electronic devices to provide<br />

better feedback to the driver on vehicle dynamic performance*braking,<br />

skidding, roll, etc.<br />

Technology available includes:<br />

ABS-Lock-free brakes, tractor-to-trailer<br />

compatible<br />

ASC- Anti-spin traction control<br />

FIS- Fault indication systems<br />

DIS- Driver information sy$tem, including<br />

computer


The increase in safety when applying electronics is<br />

caused by the fact that the driver is relieved of control<br />

functions which can be expressed by explicit algorithms. By<br />

way of example this is demonstrated in figure 2. In the<br />

middle it is indicated that in the conventional vehicle the<br />

driver himself acts as a controller who compares the target<br />

and actual data and continuously derives from them the<br />

adapted positioning commands. With the application of<br />

electronic control the driver's part is restricted to act as a<br />

pilot as indicated in the lower paft who prescribes the target<br />

data and leaves the execution as well as the reaction to<br />

disturbing factors to the electronic control. It is immediately<br />

evident that thus a capacity reserve is built up on the part of<br />

the driver, which is either available for superior guiding<br />

functions or helps to improve reaction and alertness in unforeseeable<br />

situations.<br />

One objection against the application of electronics in<br />

vehicles is the supposed unreliability. Two tendencies are to<br />

be seen which allow the conclusion that electronic control<br />

will equal the high degree of reliability which the other<br />

vehicle components have reached already. Within the field<br />

of electronics as such the development offers increasing<br />

possibilities to provide additional routines for recognizing<br />

and correcting failures already in the design phase. Besides,<br />

electronic systems are increasingly becoming integrated<br />

components of the vehicle whose requirements concerning<br />

housing or $urounding conditions can be considered in the<br />

design phase of the vehicle already.<br />

For a representative electronic system the anti-lock braking<br />

system, sound statistical data as to reliability are available.<br />

This system has been under observation for the longest<br />

period of time as it was introduced for commercial vehicles<br />

in '83. If one examines the causes of the individual failures,<br />

the wiring hamess and the connection plugs are found to be<br />

the major trouble sources (figure 3). This statistic also includes<br />

one-shot troubles which take place under irreproducible<br />

conditions. From this it is evident that increasing<br />

the reliability means primarily increasing the soundness<br />

of the electro-mechanical connections.<br />

Irt the beginning it was pointed out that the purpose of<br />

electronics is to act as a controller in the place ofthe driver.<br />

As a precondition for this it is necessary to get a better<br />

insight in the human control mechanism. Practically it is<br />

hard to prove as the test conditions cannot be reproduced<br />

with sufficient accuracy and above all observations beyond<br />

the dynamic limit or in critical driving situations can only be<br />

performed to a limited degree. In this situation the Mercedes-Benz<br />

Driving Simulator in Berlin constitutes an efficient<br />

development tool (figure 4). Based on hardware which<br />

reaches the boundaries of the technical possibilities available<br />

today all sensual impressions----optical acoustical or<br />

mechanical-are simulated as realistically as possible so<br />

a$ to te$t the reaction of the driver under the desired<br />

conditions.<br />

Of the many interesting studies regarding vehicle dynamics<br />

or driver behaviour under stress conditions, some studies<br />

of the appropriate failure mode are mentioned in connection<br />

with the development of 4-wheel steering or fully active<br />

suspension control. The purpose was to determine which<br />

loss ofcontrol under certain critical driving conditions can<br />

be compensated for by the driver and which intrinsic safe<br />

performance is needed.<br />

A study which seems to be rather curious at a first glance<br />

should also be mentioned, namely to gain a deeper understanding<br />

of the drivers of tank trucks. The simulation of a<br />

real accident during which a car had a partially offset headon<br />

collision with a tank truck was intended to prove whether<br />

the driver of the tank truck would have had a chance to<br />

evade the car by a sufficiently quick steering manoeuvre<br />

without endangering himself by leaving the road. The influence<br />

of the moving liquid and the resultant shifting of the<br />

center of gravity was of major importance since it was<br />

assumed that the fuel tank and its chambers were filled to<br />

only two-thirds.<br />

Figure 5 shows the real accident situation above, in the<br />

middle and in the lower part two $cenes in the driving<br />

simulator which illustrate how the accident happened as<br />

seen by the truck driver. Figure 6 shows the steering performance<br />

of 3 characteristic drivers during the collision. Additionally<br />

the truck speed and the maximum steering angle<br />

speed are indicated. Driver I was the only one out of 20 who<br />

managed to avoid both colliding with the car and leaving the<br />

road. Driver 2 as a representative of the average succeeded<br />

only in avoiding the collision, but he came off the road.<br />

Finally driver 3 shows the pattem of a driver who maintains<br />

the highest speed. Although he generated the highest steering<br />

angle speed he did not succeed in staying on the road.<br />

This example shows very clearly that certain studies cannot<br />

be made at all without the driving simulator. An evalua'<br />

tion of statistical data-a method which is often used to get a<br />

deeper understanding of specific behaviour pattems


SLC- Air suspension leveling conrrol<br />

ASS- Active suspension systems<br />

Another area of interest are the electronic and conventional<br />

devices that show potential for improved direct and<br />

indirect driver field of view.<br />

Probably the most important device is larger windshields.<br />

Increasing glass area, changing to curved windshields and<br />

making corner posts slimmer have improved driver visibility<br />

greatly.<br />

But increasing the greenhouse area means decreasing the<br />

amount of metal in the cab. This makes protecting the driver<br />

more difficult-and leads to the conclusion that a steel cab<br />

is the best way to make the driver more secure.<br />

Improved aerodynamics also increase visibility by producing<br />

sloping hoods and rounded fenders.<br />

Another conventional solution is electric mirrors-mirrors<br />

adjustable by a flick of a switch that produce a wider<br />

field of vision for the driver. Devices that keep these minors<br />

clean and defogged also are impofiant to safety.<br />

Head-up display technology also improves the driver's<br />

field of view. With readings projecred on rhe windshield, he<br />

can monitor instruments and still keep his eyes on the road.<br />

Also important is television monitors, which are especially<br />

good for eliminating blind spots.<br />

A final item to consider is if a too-comfortable cab affect<br />

a driver's alertness.<br />

Unfortunately, this is not yet a problem.<br />

We've come a long way in improving cab design and<br />

environment but there's a long way to go.<br />

Trucks must b€ designed to provide a certain level of<br />

creature comforts for drivers.<br />

This is what I call the man-machine concept.<br />

Cabs must be designed so they are comfortable, convenient<br />

and logical. They must be designed to eliminate any<br />

chances of driver error that might lead to accidents.<br />

Increased cab volumes in the U.S.-a direct result of the<br />

1982 Surface Transportation Act--ended restrictions on the<br />

overall length of tractor-trailer combinations.<br />

These roomier cabs made driving easier, more convenient.<br />

Cabs should be designed to require a certain level of<br />

effort, a certain level of participation from the driver.<br />

There must be enough for a driver to do to keep him alert<br />

but not too much to do to distract him from driving safely.<br />

Too much automation could induce boredom.<br />

Sound frequency research have made progress in finding<br />

the "right"<br />

frequencies to keep drivers alen and reducing<br />

noise-induced fatigue.<br />

For example, low-frequency sounds puts drivers to sleep,<br />

while high-frequency sounds cause fatigue. So the effective<br />

cab design must find a happy sound frequency medium.<br />

Vibrations can cause discomfort and fatigue.<br />

The body tolerates vertical vibration better than horizontal<br />

vibration. Suspensions and seat designs can reduce vertical<br />

vibrations and increase comfort.<br />

But further advances in braking and acceleration have to<br />

be refined to reduce horizontal vibration. But research has<br />

determined that you shouldn't isolate the driver from the<br />

feel of the road too much.<br />

While much is possible to reduce accidents and make the<br />

operation of trucks safer, I'd like to close by making a few<br />

important points.<br />

L Accident prevention is the key safety goal of truck<br />

manufacturers. Volvo Truck's Accident Investigation Team<br />

has been in operation for 25 years studying how engineering<br />

and manufacturing improvements can help avoid accidents.<br />

2. Safety has little impact of cost lF safety features are<br />

designed into the truck rather than being added on.<br />

3. There are a number of electronic devices that could<br />

help prevent truck accidents-IF used right. We must establish<br />

our priorities in adopting safety features and devices in<br />

trucks.<br />

While we can't put a price tag on human life, there is a<br />

price tag on commercial vehicles.<br />

4. It is the markerplace that will ultimately determine<br />

WHICH safery technology it will accept and WHEN it will<br />

accept them.<br />

In the meanwhile, we in manufacturing will continue to<br />

protect drivers with current safety devices:<br />

Three-point safety belt<br />

Cab safety cage principle<br />

Steering wheel redesign<br />

Pedal area redesign<br />

Better dash layout<br />

Reinforced firewalls<br />

Better-protected brake hoses<br />

We believe in gradual, realistic advances in engineering<br />

and govemment regulation that results in significant advances<br />

in improving equipment and reducing accidents.<br />

223


Safety Situation of Heavy Thuck Occupants in TFaffic Accidents<br />

Written Only Papers<br />

Dietmar Otte,<br />

Traffic Accident Research Unit,<br />

Medical University Hannover (FRG)<br />

Hermann Appel,<br />

Institut of Vehicle Engineering,<br />

Technical University Berlin (FRG)<br />

Abstract<br />

Two hundred sixteen accidents of trucks with the permissible<br />

gross-weight of ovet 7 tons were analyzed- These<br />

accidents were documented by a scientific research team,<br />

directly at the scene of the accident. The injury situation of<br />

the truck passengers and the injury risk from these trucks for<br />

other traffic participants is described. A high safety standard<br />

for truck passengers is apparent, but only in collision<br />

with accident parties of lower weight categories.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The injury risk for truck passengers increases in<br />

collisions with parties of higher weight categories. The<br />

correlation between AIS and mass factor is also analyeed-<br />

Feasible measures for the minimization of accident<br />

con$equences were demonstrated, especially for<br />

modification of the outside truck structures.<br />

Within the total picture of all traffic accidents, trucks are<br />

noted for tittle accident participation and also for less injury<br />

severity for truck passengers. Truck passengers represent<br />

only 2.3 percent of the number of all traffic victims (figure<br />

l). On an average only 0.17 percent of injured truck<br />

passengers can be assigned to each truck accident with<br />

personal and extensive material damage (figure 2)' In<br />

comparison with other traffic participants, no great injury<br />

risk is apparent for truck passengers. This evidently high<br />

safety standard of trucks seems to minimize the need for<br />

preventive measures like safety belts, safety steeringwheels<br />

and for modifications of energy-absorbing<br />

structures of the passenger compartment. The proportion of<br />

personal injuries resulting from accidents with trucks<br />

lllA ltrt n*, {8ttt9 huil dnd l.lllrtl Pflo|lt<br />

Floure 1. Dlstrlbutlon ol traftlc Fartlclpants of all Inlured<br />

peisona. $ource: D€Psrtment of Stgtlstlcs FRG.<br />

zu<br />

trrA rrr,<br />

.ash pdrtlslpd"tt tgffiffi*,4<br />

FIoure 2, Ouots of Inlured persons and accldentg each<br />

pa*rtlclpants.<br />

Source: Ddpartmint of Statisti€ FRG.<br />

Floure 3. Portion of accidents wlth psrsonal Inlury (100% = all<br />

ac*cldents of sach panlclpant).-Source: Departmenl ol<br />

Statlstlcs FHG.<br />

(figure 3) clearly shows the danger to which other traffic<br />

participants are exposed by trucks. Similar to car accidents<br />

with a proportion of 48.6 percent personal damage, truck<br />

accidents result in 42.8 percent of personal damage. This<br />

means that priority must be given for measures to ensure the<br />

passive safety of trucks.<br />

Objective<br />

ln order to determine the need for such measures and to<br />

evaluate the safety of todays trucks, an analysis of the<br />

accident event is necessary. A rough orientation of the<br />

accident situation, like the frequency of certain accident<br />

types and locations can be taken from statistical reports<br />

which are based on police records. These are collected at the<br />

Statistic Federal Office at Wiesbaden (West Germany) for<br />

the whole of the German Federal Republic (SIBA 1)' They<br />

provide an excellent general view of the federal and<br />

regional accident situation and help to recognize<br />

fundamental focal points. But an optimum of reduction of<br />

accident causes and accident consequences is only possible<br />

after cognition and evaluation of injury-causing facts, of<br />

typical kinematic movement procedures and a


comprehensive description of the individual injuries<br />

sustained. Such a detailed accident analysis of individual<br />

cases is available in Germany by the research project<br />

*'Investigations at the scene of the accident," for which a<br />

specially trained team documents accident characteristics.<br />

independent of police investigations.<br />

Working method and data recording<br />

In the greater vicinity of Hannover (West Germany), an<br />

interdisciplinary research team, consisting of doctors and<br />

engineers drives to the scene of an accident, immediately<br />

after the accident has taken place. They are informed of the<br />

accident by the central rescue headquarters. The accident<br />

site is approached in vehicles equipped with blue light and<br />

sirene. On arrival they immediately start collecting information<br />

about accident traces, vehicle deformations and impact<br />

points on persons. With a stereoscopic camera, true^toscale<br />

drawings are produced which make a reconstruction<br />

and an analysis of the accident and collision phases possible.<br />

Otte (2) and Dilling (3) give a detailed description of the<br />

procedure. Injuries are documented in detail (4), according<br />

to type, localization and severity degree AIS.<br />

From these investigations 216 accidents concerning<br />

trucks with the permissible gross weight of 7.5 metric tons<br />

were at our disposal for evaluation. Figure 4 shows the<br />

distribution of the collision parries, divided inro weight<br />

categories. The most frequently registered truck accidents<br />

are those with cars (40.3 percenr). Multiple collisions are<br />

with 14.4 frcrcenr of all collisions remarkably frequenr,<br />

especially for truck-trailers ( 19.8 percent) and tractor-trail-<br />

er units (13.6 percent).<br />

In this case more than two objects or<br />

traffic participants respectively are involved as collision<br />

partners in one accident.<br />

!ollltlon-<br />

pdrll|cr<br />

lolril<br />

t4-l<br />

vehlcle llpe<br />

lruck<br />

r,rl - rrl<br />

a{l<br />

Itucl<br />

> ltl<br />

frtt I<br />

lr!llar<br />

unll<br />

atr<br />

rml*<br />

lrctlrr<br />

unll<br />

tx,<br />

lolql lnl tl6 zl 6l t6<br />

ll<br />

!dt<br />

rueh<br />

pcde!lrlttn<br />

oblrcl<br />

muluplc<br />

to.l<br />

lr.t<br />

t6.t<br />

r.l<br />

t.t<br />

lr.l<br />

70,r tt.t tt.r tt,t<br />

lt.t 2',.6 lt.t tr.o<br />

f.f 7t,6 tr.r zo.E<br />

- 6.t t.0 r.t<br />

1., 9.1<br />

f .t tr,r l9.t lt,6<br />

Flgure4. Golllrlon-partners of trucks u 7,5t (10O96=ail vshtctcs<br />

sEch truck colloctlyc).<br />

Special features of the accident situation<br />

Truck accident$ yary according to the different types of<br />

trucks. Accidents with trucks of lower weight categories are<br />

more frequent inside towns, whereas accidents with heavy<br />

truck-trailer and semi-trailer units are more frequent outside<br />

town limits, especially on motorways. On federal highways<br />

accidents with truck-tractor trains were observed in 34.1<br />

percent and with truck trains to 47.7 percenr (figure 5),<br />

while approximately only l8 percent of the involved trucks<br />

on federal highways belonged to the weight cfltegory below<br />

13 tons. In comparison, the truck weight category between<br />

7.5 tons to 13.0 tons on highways represents with g.l percent<br />

only a very small proportion of accidents. In town<br />

districts, however, it represents fl proportion of 36. I percent<br />

of all accident vehicles.<br />

htghwcy country urbsn<br />

femltrqller<br />

unlt<br />

trcrller unlt<br />

truclr > l3t<br />

truclr 7.5t-l3t<br />

Flgure 5. Reglonal locallzatlon ol truck (ts 7,5 t)-accldcntacsnss<br />

(lfil% = cach area).<br />

lnrpdcl-drcd lmpscl-ares trucft<br />

rollklo,n-Fqilnil tro$t rldc tc€t olharr<br />

cgl 47.17" (r- ll<br />

Itfirl<br />

rldc<br />

ragl<br />

olh.rl<br />

lrucfr Z3.l%<br />

(!.{lt<br />

lroill<br />

rldr<br />

,aaz<br />

olhcri<br />

lwo-wheeler<br />

19,1"/,<br />

lrurl<br />

rlrlt<br />

latlt<br />

othrn<br />

(i:i.<br />

t7.o%<br />

?9.5%<br />

t.0t6<br />

2.t%<br />

to.9tt<br />

9.3%<br />

23,t%<br />

1.57.<br />

r3.9%<br />

l{.r%<br />

9.t7,<br />

!.+%<br />

lt.t%<br />

2.3t6<br />

la.o16 25.6%<br />

1.ru,<br />

L27,<br />

{t.7%<br />

l3,e%<br />

,,.87.<br />

t.3%<br />

I,tt6<br />

2.87.<br />

t.t7.<br />

l.l'6<br />

2.t%<br />

pedeslr.5,97 8I.87o 9.t% 9.lYo<br />

obfcct4.3,% t?.54/n 50.0% 12.5t6<br />

Flgure 6. lmpacl-areas on the truck ln rllailon to the lmpact<br />

arcac of lhe colllslon partnerr (1fit% = slt cotilelone dech<br />

partner).


The collision types of trucks are determined by the varying<br />

accident situations.<br />

The collision constellations of the truck are shown in<br />

figure 6. Trucks collide mainly frontal. This fact is verified<br />

by the graphical illustration of detailed impact points in<br />

figure 7.<br />

lront tolcl! n-94 (50,8%)<br />

lell eenlri rlghl<br />

?t.3<br />

ffiil<br />

Il.g r effil<br />

ilt:f,',rE$ rlffi<br />

Hm<br />

n.16 (35.6*)<br />

wldc-ldccd<br />

I8,2 sl.e<br />

tegEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEt<br />

tots$ n-27 ll+.97e,<br />

n-a (6.9t)<br />

ffi eottto ol eyeltsts/Pedestrtans<br />

Flgure 7. lmpact areas on the truck In detsll detcription.<br />

In frontal collisions, cars are most frequently hit laterally<br />

by trucks (29.5 percent). In comparison, many collisions of<br />

trucks against trucks occur with front and rear involvement<br />

(23.3 percent plus 25.6 percent). Two-wheel users frequently<br />

collide frontally with the side of trucks (41.7 percent).<br />

Pedestrians are hit frontally to a percentage of 81.{t.<br />

The side area of the truck shows the rear region, especially<br />

the rear axle region as a frequent impact point. The rear<br />

226<br />

region of the truck sides, especially the rear axle region, is a<br />

frequent impact point (see figure 7).<br />

Injury situation<br />

Injury severity<br />

The description of the injury severity is based on the<br />

MAIS (maximum AIS) which includes all severity degrees<br />

from 0 = uninjured to 6 = dead. It describes the maximum<br />

severity degree ofeach single injury. Ofthe 261 truck passengers<br />

documented in the case collective of accidents with<br />

personal damage mentioned here, 85.4 percent remained<br />

uninjured. In comparison, only 10.3 percent of uninjured<br />

were registered for the collision parties (figure 8). 38.5<br />

percent of the collision partners sustained slight injuries<br />

(MAIS l/2), but 23.1 percent received severe or most serious<br />

injuries (MAIS 5/6). With truck passengers injuries of<br />

severity degrees 5/6 were found in only 0.4 percent (n=l).<br />

This clearly demonstrates the injury risk for traffic participants<br />

in collision with trucks. External traffic participants<br />

like two-wheel users and pedestrians are especially exposed<br />

(figure 9). ln collision constellations with these traffic participants<br />

no truck passelgenr were injured, but no extemal<br />

traffic participants remained uninjured. Two-wheel users<br />

are especially at risk. 39.5 percent of them received most<br />

severe injuries (MAIS 5/6) and 42.1 percent of them were<br />

seriously injured (MAIS 3/4). Pedestrians also sustained in<br />

two-thirds of the cases serious injuries (MAIS exceeding 2).<br />

tnlury- lruclt<br />

MAIS<br />

dll occupqnli<br />

+tal<br />

0 ro 86.4%<br />

u2<br />

f,<br />

Eolllslon-pdrlner<br />

I<br />

occupdnl|/<br />

lrilo-rf,hril-rtdcrr/<br />

trrdlrlrlonl ,*- rro<br />

to.t*<br />

tt.rz 38.5%<br />

3t4 2.7% 24.2%<br />

5t6 0.4"/o ?,3,.le/c<br />

Flgure 8. Inlury-severlty-grades for occupsnts ol trucks (t 7, 5<br />

t) and theh colllelon-partners.<br />

MAIS<br />

lructr F cdr ruck Hlwo-wh€€lE<br />

trucl- rFt b.lld IrueI- lrtsl-<br />

Ddqlrldn<br />

loldl<br />

0<br />

n.l0a n-tl<br />

t5.{% ET<br />

n-{l<br />

E<br />

n.3l h.It<br />

@<br />

h.ll<br />

u7<br />

3t4<br />

1.9% ffi,n G<br />

[<br />

l".n'- f,..on<br />

",'*<br />

E<br />

laz,r%<br />

b E*.<br />

5t6 15,+% ffi''*<br />

1,..0*<br />

Figure 9. Injurity-severlty-grsd6s ot occupants of trucks (> 7,5<br />

t) and their colllslon-psrtner$.


Injured truck passengers were as a rule registered only in<br />

collisions with vehicles and objects (figure 9/10). No severe<br />

or most serious injuries (MAIS exceeding 2) could be observed<br />

for 104 truck occupants, in collisions with cars. Only<br />

L9 percent of the truck occupants sustained injuries, but<br />

only 15.4 percent of the belt-wearing car passengers remained<br />

uninjured and one third of them sustained serious<br />

injuries MAIS exceeding2 (32.7 percenr). Injuries to rruck<br />

passengers in single accidents of trucks were observed to 50<br />

percent, but exclusively of severity degrees l/2. In collisions<br />

between truck$, a significantly greater injury risk ex-<br />

ists for truck passengers, especially when the mass of the<br />

collision parties is quite similar. Figure l0 demonstrates the<br />

fact that in accidents of trucks with collision parties of lesser<br />

mass, for instance of the weight category less than 3.5 tons,<br />

passengers in trucks up to 7.5 tons remained to 84.2 percent<br />

uninjured. Here severity degrees MAIS 5/6 were not observed.<br />

In comparison passengers in trucks of weight category<br />

from 7.5 tons onward in collision with vehicles of the<br />

same weight category remained in only 52.6 percent uninjured,<br />

7.9 percent of them were seriously injured (MAIS<br />

3/4) and 2.6 percent were most seriously injured or killed<br />

(MArS 5/6).<br />

Influence of weight relation<br />

The statistic-mathematical proof about the connection<br />

between the danger to truck passengers by the mass relation<br />

of the collision parties is verified when applying the relation<br />

'Weight<br />

of truck from 7.5 tons onward to the weight of the<br />

collision partner' and the injury severity MAIS caused by<br />

the accident for this type (figure I l). This so-called mass<br />

factor was on the one hand determined for the passengers of<br />

the collision partner of the truck (figure I l-left graphic)<br />

and on the other hand for the passenger of the truck (figure<br />

I l-right graphic). With a mass relation of approximarely<br />

5, this means for the pa$sengers of the collision partner that<br />

they will probably remain uninjured in the accidenr. The<br />

injury probability in the arithmetic middle should be expected<br />

for a mass relation of approximately 3, but as shown<br />

in the run of the curve, a similar injury probability exists for<br />

all severity degrees.<br />

cCllrlil tsucl*lrucl rt,tl lruIFlrel


the pelvis/abdomen and thorax region for pedestrians' Ttvowheel<br />

users are very much at risk for fractures of the cervical<br />

vertebra (26.3 percent of two-wheel users). Noticeable<br />

are neck injuries, also with car passengers, who to 20'4<br />

percent sustained these injuries. In other traffic collisions'<br />

car passengers very rarely suffer neck injuries (Rether, 5).<br />

Passengers of trucks of the weight category less than 3'5<br />

tons also sustain substantial injuries to the whole body.<br />

Injury causes<br />

Passengers of trucks from 7.5 tons onward are mainly<br />

injured by parts of the vehicle front (figure l3), such as the<br />

windscreen (to 18.8 percent), the dashboard (36.8 percent),<br />

and the front foot-room ( I I .3 percent). Due to the fact that<br />

passengers of trucks weighing less than 7.5 tons are more<br />

often laterally impacted, the percentage of lateral interior<br />

structures as injury-causing parts is increasing (10.2 percent),<br />

while injuries caused by the dashboard and windscreen<br />

region are observed to a lesser degree. For lighter as<br />

well as for heavier trucks frequent injury causes are found<br />

outside the vehicle (for both collectives over l3 percent).<br />

Injuries sustained by truck passengers are mainly of a less<br />

serious kind. Approximately 85 percent are of severity degrees<br />

AIS I and 2. Severe injuries are quite rare in heavy<br />

trucks. In trucks weighing less than 7.5 tons injury severity<br />

degrees from AIS I upward are more frequent. This is<br />

especially the case in lateral collisions, by lateral interior<br />

parts as well as by parts outside the vehicle.<br />

ccura ol lnlury<br />

dsrhHH<br />

Itml lrg Fan<br />

lFlatld-lclarcl<br />

lnl.rld-ast<br />

thrflil lllllngr<br />

oulrld. vrhlqlr<br />

olhrr<br />

lolcl<br />

txl<br />

lr,l<br />

tfrt<br />

lruch r t.5l<br />

qll dEupsll<br />

lr.i<br />

6.J<br />

al<br />

t.t<br />

t(l<br />

e3<br />

ru urlrn >:<br />

10{I0<br />

9t.t t t<br />

tdo.0<br />

I00,0<br />

IOO.0<br />

t00,0<br />

tt9 1l.r<br />

t0.0 140<br />

tn ur le3<br />

Irftt < t,tl<br />

oll *EuFdrll<br />

lolql<br />

r- li!<br />

ttl<br />

rl.5<br />

tt.l<br />

,.2<br />

l0.t<br />

L6<br />

r,!<br />

It.1<br />

tt,6<br />

ru vrlrr >r<br />

F llcx +<br />

n,, 1l<br />

to.t rt l<br />

tt r u.i<br />

6d' 55.5<br />

too.!<br />

loo.o<br />

to.6 tt.a<br />

,l,t r|'l<br />

rll<br />

E-oGuFnlt<br />

9,0<br />

,1'<br />

4r<br />

tl.J<br />

t.0<br />

tl.t<br />

4.6<br />

tt6<br />

t$l-b.ilrd<br />

tu urlrn '<br />

te6 u,a<br />

,Lt n.9<br />

t .5 tl.a<br />

dr.! trc<br />

teo t[o<br />

tt.0 lt.o<br />

tt,t 04.,<br />

lo,t lr.t<br />

Floure 13. Cauees of lnlurlst for trafflc members In traffic accl'<br />

d6-nts wlth trucks z 7,5 I and Indlcatlon of the severltygrades.<br />

Car passengers are distinctly more severely injured, even<br />

with belt usage. 73.8 percent of the injuries are of severity<br />

degree AIS I and 2. Mainly regarded as injury causes are<br />

parts of the dashboard (to 26.7 percent), lateral compafiment<br />

parts (21.3 percent) and also by parts of the interior<br />

like steering wheel and safety belt (11.8 percent). Injuries<br />

caused by the belt are exclusively soft-part injuries, due to<br />

the close fitting belt strap holding the body. For belt-wearing<br />

car passengers 4.6 percent of all injuries are still inflicted<br />

by parts outside the vehicle. This may be due to extensive<br />

intrusions and deformations of the passenger<br />

compartment of cars colliding with trucks. Figure 14 shows<br />

228<br />

the injury situation of two-wheel users and pedestrians in<br />

collision with trucks from 7.5 tons upward and demonstrates<br />

that pedestrians as a rule sustain injuries by the truck<br />

side, which proves to be especially dangerous for this group<br />

of traffic participants, in view of protruding, often edEY<br />

structures. 29 percent (20.5 and 8.5 percent respectively) of<br />

two-wheel users sustain injuries by side structures of trucks.<br />

Injuries due to overrolling are also quite frequent, i'e.23.7<br />

percent of injuries inflicted on two-wheel users and even<br />

63.4 percent of injuries to pedestrians are induced by over*<br />

rolling. These injuries are often serious (for two-wheel<br />

users 38.2 percent exceeding AIS I, pedestrians 52.5 percent<br />

exceeding AIS l).<br />

:dus6 ol lfllury<br />

rollover<br />

toqd gurlEte<br />

lront €nd<br />

wlnd!dreen rcglon<br />

sldc<br />

regl<br />

rpcctllc lruch-pqrl5<br />

own lwo-wheeler<br />

own h6lmsl<br />

olhcts<br />

lolql<br />

n. lE6<br />

69,{<br />

ls.{<br />

t1o<br />

p6d6rlrldnr<br />

6,6<br />

ojo<br />

,.,<br />

lnlurT-sevcrlll<br />

AIS r/2lArs >2<br />

- 100% -<br />

47.5 52.5<br />

88,0 lu.0<br />

'o: il:'<br />

s3.3 6&7<br />

100.0<br />

100.o<br />

lnlurles<br />

loldl<br />

n- 618;<br />

23.7<br />

22,.O<br />

'j<br />

e0.5<br />

$.9<br />

?,f<br />

8.5<br />

i,l<br />

0,6<br />

nturY-swerllI<br />

us vtltts >t<br />

F<br />

61.6 3E,t<br />

8t.7 le.3<br />

66.0 34,O<br />

6t.t 3r.,<br />

6tr0 36,0<br />

i7.8 t2.2<br />

84,1 15,9<br />

87.6 l2.S<br />

100.0<br />

Fioure 14. Cauees of iniurles In trsfflc sccldent wlth trucks E 7'<br />

5 fand Indlcatlon of the- severlty-grades'<br />

Discussion and consequences<br />

216 trucks of a weight category from 7.5 tons upward<br />

were documented, reconstructed and analyzed by investigations<br />

at the scene of the accident. For the analysis impact<br />

points, vehicle deformations and mass proportions of the<br />

collision parties were examined and compared with the<br />

injury severity of truck passengers and collision pafiner.<br />

For passengers of trucks from 7.5 tons onward, a high<br />

standard of safety is evident. Only in collisions with vehicles<br />

of a heavier weight category the situation becomes<br />

dangerous for truck passengers. The significant influence of<br />

mass relations between collision parties on the injury probability<br />

and severity could be established within the framework<br />

of this study. All analyses did show that there is much<br />

more safety for truck pas$engers in heavy truck trains and<br />

truck-trailer units than in trucks of lighter weight categories.<br />

for instance the solo truck of less than 3.5 tons. This<br />

calls for meartures to achieve more safety for passengers,<br />

especially as far as the last mentioned truck group is concerned.<br />

As these vehicle groups are to a high percentage also<br />

involved in pedestrian collisions (see Otte, 6) and cause one<br />

third of accidents inside towns and closed areas, special<br />

measures are necessary for the safeguarding of extemal<br />

traffic participants. For the lighter trucks especially, modification<br />

concepts for the passenger comPartments like<br />

those installed in cars are necessary. The use of safety belts<br />

should also be obligatory for them.


A high injury risk is evident for car passengers, especially<br />

when the passenger compartment is part of the deformation<br />

area. Even for belt-wearing pas$engers a greater than average<br />

injury risk still remains. This may be due ro high vehicle<br />

front and also to the relatively small amount of energy<br />

absorption of the lateral car $tructures. Collisions between<br />

trucks and external traffic participants are regarded a$ e$pecially<br />

dangerous. While pedestrians are usually hit by the<br />

box-type shape of the truck and consequently sustain partly<br />

very serious injuries to the whole body, two-wheel users<br />

often receive very serious injuries by the side of trucks.<br />

There is a pronounced high risk for the momentous overroll<br />

injuries, mainly for pedestrians due to the high ground<br />

space. The, as a rule unprotected side of trucks makes an<br />

underdriving of the vehicle body for the two-wheeler possible.<br />

Edgy frame structures are an additional injury risk.<br />

The above analysis ofreal accidents emphasizes the need<br />

for modification measures for trucks. In view of the cognitions<br />

derived from our investigations, these should be as<br />

follows:<br />

For the protection of external traffic participants like<br />

pedestrians, cyclists and riders of motorized two wheelers:<br />

r I pulled down truck front to reduce the danger of<br />

underdriving and eliminate the danger of<br />

overrolling.<br />

r An energy-absorbing front area, for instance by<br />

special inserted impact regions on frequent impact<br />

points, for the reduction ofhead, thorax, and<br />

leg injuries for these traffic participants.<br />

r The bumper of trucks should have a thick rubber<br />

covering, if possible in foot-rest level of the twowheeler,<br />

in order to ensure more protection<br />

against tibia injuries at low impact speed.<br />

r Side and rear protection to eliminate underdriving<br />

of two-wheelers between the axles and truck<br />

body. Only such underdriving protections should<br />

be used that cover the side regions completely.<br />

Gaps and edgy conceptions (type of frame fixture)<br />

make an entangling with the two-wheelerpossible<br />

and the resulting injury severity could not b€ reduced,<br />

for instance in the case of a possible head<br />

impact with edgy frame structures.<br />

r The elimination of edgy vehicle parts which are<br />

especially injury causing with disposal and agricultural<br />

vehicles.<br />

For the protection ofother vehicles, especially cars:<br />

r Height adaption of energy-transmitting regions<br />

and implementation of energy-absorption regions<br />

on trucks, for the reduction of impact force by the<br />

truck also. This would lead to a compatible collision<br />

constellation.<br />

For the protection of truck pfls$engers<br />

themselves:<br />

r Establishing of a safety standard similar to that for<br />

cars. Basically, the same safety standard should<br />

be created for truck passengers as for cars; i.e.<br />

energy absorbing front structure, reinforcing of<br />

the passenger compartment, covering of the dashboard,<br />

fixing of safety steering wheels and first<br />

and foremost fixing and use of safety belts in<br />

automatic 3-point quality for all truck passengers.<br />

References<br />

(l) Statistisches Bundesamt Wiesbaden StraBenverkehrsunfiille<br />

1987. Fachserie 8. Verkehr Reihe 3.3<br />

Verlag Kohlhammer, Mainz (1988).<br />

(2) Otte, D. et al, Erhebungen am Unfallort, Unfall-und<br />

Sicherheitsforschung, Heft 37, Bundesanstalt fitr<br />

StraBenwesen, Bergisch Cladbach ( 1982).<br />

(3) Dilling, J.; Otte, D., Die Bedeutung drtlicher<br />

Unfallerhebungen, im Rahmen der Unfallfor$chung,<br />

Unfall.-und Sicherheitsforschung, StraBenverkehr, Heft 56,<br />

Bundesanstalt ftir StraBenwesen, 5948, 1986.<br />

(4) American Association forAutomotive Medicine, The<br />

Abbreviated Injury Scale-Revision 1985, Morton Grove,<br />

Illinois, USA (1985).<br />

(5) Rether, J.; Otte, D., Verletzungen der<br />

Halswirbelsiiule, beim Verkehrsunfall, Unfallheilkunde 87,<br />

52f530, 1984.<br />

(6) Otte, D., Collision Situations and Consequences of<br />

Injuries in Accidents of Heavy Trucks, Proc. OECD<br />

Sympos.<br />

"The Role of Heavy Freight Vehicles in Traffic<br />

Accidents", Mon$eal (Canada), 28.-30. April 1988.<br />

Improvements in the Fronto-Frontal Collision between Personal Vehicle (PV) and<br />

Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV)<br />

Written Only Paper<br />

Pierre Soret,<br />

Renault Vehicules Industriels<br />

Abstract<br />

Safety is a major objective in the program of the<br />

experimental HDV Virages specifically to obtain<br />

improvements in the case of the fronto-frontal collision<br />

between a PV and a HDV.<br />

The architecture and the structure of the tractor have been<br />

designed in this aim.<br />

To evaluate the obtained performances:<br />

r Choiced a typical PV in the market.<br />

r Studied and defined criteria of dammage for the<br />

structure and for the occupants of the car.<br />

r Realized crashes of thi$ PV instrumented as usual<br />

with 2 dummies installed in it: first, againsr a<br />

$topped serial HDV as reference, and second,<br />

229


against a simulated front part of the experimental<br />

vehicle Virages. Crashes have been realized in<br />

different cases of speed for the car.<br />

r Compared the results of the two types of crash<br />

tests and evaluated the gains obtained by the<br />

experimental vehicle Virages'<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The programme of the experimental HDV Virages<br />

includes the improvement of active and passive security.<br />

Among the subjects of this improvement the reduction of<br />

the gravity of the fronto-frontal collision between an HDV<br />

and a PV is an important one, because this type of collision<br />

is the most frequent and the most severe in the collisions<br />

between these vehicles. More, this type of collision creates<br />

the greater number of injuries and deaths among the road<br />

users when a HDV is concemed. So the programme Virages<br />

includes tests to evaluate the improvement made about this<br />

subject.<br />

Conditions of the Tests<br />

The study of the circumstances of such accidents<br />

demonstrates that the collisions may concern either the total<br />

width or a variable part of the cars. In all the cases it is<br />

always the driver's side of the car which is concerned' A two<br />

third of the width collision is the most representatiYe case.<br />

ln many cases the paths of the vehicles are $lightly<br />

parallel.<br />

The speeds of the vehicles at the moment of the collision<br />

are unknown because, at present, there are no means to have<br />

a seriou$ evaluation of these. Therefore we choose to take<br />

the speeds as the main parameter of evaluation.<br />

In the study no element proved that the repartition of the<br />

speeds between the vehicles has an influence on the results<br />

of the collision. So it was possible to choose to have the<br />

HDV in a steady state situation. This simplified<br />

considerably the running of the tests and permitted only the<br />

use of just a front part of vehicle Virages set on a wall.<br />

?t3<br />

widlh<br />

of bh he<br />

car<br />

t-l\<br />

-J<br />

Flgure 1. Tests condltlona<br />

230<br />

#<br />

-|-l<br />

l-l<br />

t-l<br />

#.+<br />


mean$ of two or three tests, the speed which conduct to the<br />

limits of the chosen criteria. This is the speed limit for this<br />

arTangement of vehicles. So, different speed limits can be<br />

defined for the arrangement of different HVD with the same<br />

car. These speed limits characterize the behaviour of these<br />

HDV concerning the reference chosen car.<br />

In conclusion, the behaviour of Virages was evaluated by<br />

comparison with a representative one of the current HDV<br />

tractor in France: the R 310. 19 T from Renault Vdhicules<br />

lndustriels.<br />

Taking in account, first, that the analysis ofaccidents did<br />

not prove a particular PV was concerned, Second, that there<br />

was no barrier available for the purpose of such tests, we<br />

decided to choose a R 9 Renault which is a reuresentative<br />

medium car in France.<br />

Results of the tests<br />

The tests were conducted at three different speeds in the<br />

case of the collision against the R 310. They quantify the<br />

variation of the criteria versus the speed variation. It is<br />

possible to conclude that the speed limit for this case is<br />

approximately 59 kmTh (36,6 nph). As a matter of fact, at<br />

this speed, the HIC and D I criteria for the driver reach the<br />

maximum permitted levels (see figures 3 and 4). The other<br />

criteria and those for the front passenger are acceptable<br />

(figures 5 and 6).<br />

s0 57 s9<br />

Flgure 3. D 1 Crlterlon vsluos aftEr teEta<br />

50 57<br />

Flgure 4. HIG Grltcrlon valucs<br />

59<br />

60<br />

50<br />

20<br />

50 57 59 66<br />

FIgure 5. Thorar ecc6leretlon crltorlon valuss<br />

57 s9<br />

Flgure 6. Femurr ttraln crllerlon valuea<br />

At 66 km/h (41 mph) no limit level is reached in the<br />

collision ofthe car against Virages for all the criteria, but the<br />

gap is small in the case of the HIC of the driver.<br />

An improvement of the speed limit from 59 to 66 km/h or<br />

more has been made with Virages.<br />

Conclusions<br />

The height of the rigid parts of the actual HDV is the<br />

reason of the severity of the collision with PV. The working<br />

parts of the car run under the bumper and the frame of the<br />

HDV. They are only pressed against the ground till they<br />

Flgure 7. Posltlon ol the rlgld parts ol a PV end an actual HDV<br />

23l


each the front axle or the tyres. The bumper of the HDV<br />

may penetrate in the in-door space of the car (figure 7).<br />

The improvements made in the vehicle Virages are<br />

(figure 8):<br />

232<br />

r bumper and rigid parts of the frame at the $ame<br />

height as the height ofthe working parts ofthe car<br />

r reduced front over hang of the HDV = the tyres<br />

limit the deformation of the bumper<br />

r reduction ofthe roughness ofthe bumper and the<br />

rigid parrs of the HDV.<br />

In conclusion, such changes in the way to construct the<br />

front of a HDV allow a significant improvement in the speed<br />

limit of a collision between a HDV and a PV.<br />

J<br />

l<br />

Figure 8. Poeltlon of the rigld partE ol a PV and of Vlragea


Technical Session 2A<br />

Frontal Crash Protection<br />

Chairmanr Kennerly Diggs, United States<br />

Analysis of Frontal Crash Safety Performance of Passenger Cars, Light Tfucks<br />

and Vans and an Outline of Future Research Requirements<br />

James R. Hackney, William T. Hollowell, and<br />

Daniel S. Cohen<br />

United States Department of Transportation,<br />

National Hi ghway Traffic Safety Administration<br />

Abstract<br />

Since 1979, almost three hundred vehicle crash tests have<br />

been conducted in the New Car Assessment Program<br />

(NCAP). Parameters from the crash tests of the vehicles are<br />

presented. Analysis of these parameter$ relative to the frontal<br />

crash safety are performed. The studies are conducted<br />

with fleet weighted populations and include both passenger<br />

cars and light trucks and vans. Comparisons of vehicle<br />

performance are made which suppon the feasibility of potentially<br />

improved safety levels within the vehicle.<br />

Based on the potential for improved safety and on recent<br />

projections of fatalities and injuries by the National Highway<br />

Traffic Safety Adminisrration, an outline of possible<br />

future frontal crashwonhiness research is presented.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

Since 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration (NHTSA) has conducted crash tests of 233<br />

different makes and models of passenger cars (PCs) and 4l<br />

light trucks and vans (LTVs) in the New Car Assessment<br />

Program (NCAP). Each of these vehicles was crashed into a<br />

rigid barrier at a test speed of 35 mph. This is five mph faster<br />

than the prescribed speed for compliance with Federal<br />

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The NCAP is an<br />

experimental consumer information program which<br />

develops data on frontal crashes. In this program, a given<br />

vehicle is tested once at the nominal test speed of 35 mph<br />

with restrained and instrumented 50th percentile part 572<br />

dummies in the driver and right front seat pa$senger<br />

locations. The crash test$ are designed to indicate, for<br />

vehicles within the same weight class, the relative levels of<br />

occupant protection and vehicle safety in this crash<br />

condition. The data from these tests provide NHTSA with<br />

the most extensive set of frontal crashworthiness<br />

information ever assembled on production vehicles.<br />

At the Tenth <strong>Int</strong>ernational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence on<br />

Experimental Safety Vehicles, a review of the data from the<br />

NCAP vehicles which had been tested was presented (l).*<br />

This report updates the data contained in that review with<br />

the results from an additional 102 vehicles which have been<br />

tested through model year (MY) 1988. In addition to<br />

*Numbers in parcntheses dcsignate refercnces at end of paper<br />

presenting similar tables and charts as in the 1985 paper, this<br />

update provides trends and analyses which are based on<br />

fleet weighted observations and provides comparisons of<br />

PC to LTV parameters. The fleet of tested vehicles<br />

estimated to be on the roads in 1988 consists of over 37<br />

million PCs and almost 9 million LTVs. Comparison of the<br />

performance of the tested 198 I PC fleet to the tested 1988<br />

PC fleet shows a significant improvement in potential safety<br />

performance for restrained occupants in high speed frontal<br />

crashes. Comparisons of specific late model (MY 1986 to<br />

1988) vehicles within each weight class indicate the<br />

potential for significant safety improvements for the future<br />

vehicle fleet.<br />

The analyses ofthese frontal crash data and projections of<br />

fatalities and injuries are the basis for an outline of future<br />

frontal crashwonhiness research activ ities. These activities<br />

will study the projected remaining safety problem after the<br />

full implementation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety<br />

Standard (FMVSS) 208. It is projected that even with the<br />

significant benefits of FMVSS 208 and mandatory use laws,<br />

more than 10,000 fatalities and 120,000 moderate to seyere<br />

injuries will still occur in frontal crashes each year in the<br />

United States. (Note: From the FMVSS 208 Final Rule<br />

notice in the Federal Register (2), mid-point estimates of<br />

benefits show a reduction of over 6.000 fatalities and over<br />

100,000 moderate to critical injuries per year when all<br />

pas$enger cars in the fleet meet FMVSS 208 requirements).<br />

TFends From the Anthropomorphic<br />

Dummy Responses<br />

In each of the NCAP tests, Part 572 anthropomorphic<br />

dummies are located in the driver and right front passenger<br />

seats of the vehicles. Standard in$trumentation includes:<br />

triaxial accelerometers in the head and chest. and load cells<br />

in the right and left femurs. The head injury criteria (HIC),<br />

three millisecond clip chest accelerations (Chest Gs) in gs,<br />

and femur loads are derived from the accelerometer and<br />

load cell outputs as specified in FMVSS 208.t Only the HIC<br />

and Chest Gs will be used in this section to examine the<br />

trends of the dummy responses.<br />

Some of the analyses in the following sections will<br />

separate the vehicles into two performance groups to allow<br />

easier comparisons and trend studies. Performance Group I<br />

consists of vehicles in which no dummy response exceeded<br />

a HIC of 1250 or a Chest C of 70. Performance Group 2<br />

consists of vehicles in which at least one dummy response<br />

exceeded these values.<br />

I In response to a petition, in I 986, the NHTSA revised rhe procedure for calculating<br />

HIC such that the maxirnum timt intcrval did not dxceed 36 milliseconds. Prior year<br />

HIC values in the NCAP tests have not been changed. Howevet, the effect of the<br />

change was examined and is insignificant relative to the analyses in this paper.


The analyses for the dummy responses and for many of<br />

the other parameters in the following sections of this paper<br />

are done forboth the unweighted and weighted NCAP data.<br />

The unweighted data are the data from actual vehicles<br />

which have been tested. The weighted data are these data<br />

which have been weighted by the estimated distribution of<br />

the tested vehicle in the fleet for a given year. This estimated<br />

distribution is derived from total vehicle registrations for<br />

1979 to 1986 models with vehicles identical to the test<br />

vehicles as retrieved from Polk's Annual National Vehicle<br />

Population Profiles. For 1987 and 1988 models the<br />

registrations are estimated from vehicle sales reported by<br />

Automotive News. To compute accumulated vehicle<br />

registrations through the model years survival rates shown<br />

in table I are used. These rates are derived from the Polk<br />

data.<br />

o I<br />

Table 1. Survlval ratss derived lrom Polk reglttration data.<br />

v€htcle A6E I 2 5 I<br />

Suwival Rste 0.998 0.984 o.972 o.958 0.932 0.895 0.84I 0.769<br />

Analysis of PC dummy responses<br />

Table 2 contains<br />

HIC and Chest Gs<br />

r 200<br />

L t000<br />

6<br />

o<br />

a<br />

t<br />

u<br />

I<br />

o<br />

,R<br />

the average and median values of the<br />

of the driver and passenger dummies<br />

Driver H lCs<br />

600<br />

t979 t9A0 t96t tg62 tt6J t9t. 19A5 1986 rgtt<br />

15<br />

{o<br />

JO<br />

t979 1980<br />

-**<br />

- greighted Avcrsgc<br />

t<br />

-<br />

l..l6wc;EhtEd Avcrog!<br />

-<br />

'Wcight.d Ucdiqn<br />

\<br />

- -- -<br />

I<br />

Llnw.ightcd u"wrightcd Medidn Mtu<br />

-*<br />

_*ts<br />

Lofcrl Modrl Ycor<br />

Driver Chest Gs<br />

l-':"'el:lT.:1":<br />

- wiighttd AvGrofli<br />

Unwiight.d Av6roga<br />

- - WAightad M.diff<br />

- - Unwalghtad Mtdlod<br />

r9a2 1983 r9E4 1985 1966 1967 t9t8<br />

Ldfi3l Modrl Y.or<br />

Flgure 1. Comparlson of dummy resPon$os for NCAP Psssonger cars'<br />

234<br />

through the ten MYs for PCs. This table also gives the<br />

cumulative number of tested vehicles and the representative<br />

tested fleet. Figure I depicts these data in graphical form.<br />

These data indicate a significant trend of lower responses<br />

from 1979 to 1988 for unweighted and weighted data.<br />

Table 2. Averagee snd medians of occuPant HlCs and chest<br />

Gs-paaaengsr cars,<br />

o<br />

I<br />

r ?oo<br />

$ rooo<br />

a<br />

D<br />

I<br />

t<br />

o<br />

xodrl<br />

Yr*tr<br />

1919<br />

1979.80<br />

1979.81<br />

1979- 8?<br />

1979 - 83<br />

1979 - E4<br />

1979.85<br />

1979.86<br />

L979-81<br />

7979.88<br />

tud.t<br />

YsarE<br />

800<br />

a<br />

I<br />

o<br />

$ 4 5<br />

a<br />

6<br />

ca<br />

f+o<br />

E<br />

I<br />

Drlvsf<br />

HIC<br />

L210 1056<br />

1279 1088<br />

12?1 IOTE<br />

1166 976<br />

Irzs 960<br />

rr01 939<br />

1118 941<br />

1095 91I<br />

1084 897<br />

1065 894<br />

Drtvcr<br />

HIC<br />

Frrr.n8tr<br />

HIC<br />

Unerlahtrd<br />

1,21t tt63<br />

r29! 1179<br />

L241 1171<br />

1168 1033<br />

1132 1031<br />

1093<br />

I0l0<br />

to76 962<br />

1054 945<br />

1016 884<br />

977 836<br />

T+l8,hted<br />

PrrranSat<br />

HIC<br />

Av. ll|d Av€ hd<br />

197 9 1045 955 1121 1033<br />

1979.80 1071 965 1124 994<br />

1979.8 I IO40 939 1097 994<br />

t979-82 1016 939 1081 991<br />

I979 - 83 9E5 910 1049 9I9<br />

1979. E4 964 87t 996 865<br />

r979.85 941 649 966 859<br />

1979.86 926 845 936 829<br />

t979-87 917 826 903 799<br />

1979-88 903 E02 867 718<br />

Drtvrt<br />

Chart C<br />

56 59<br />

57 s4<br />

56 54<br />

53 51<br />

53 50<br />

s2 50<br />

31 50<br />

51 50<br />

51 50<br />

51 50<br />

Drtvsr<br />

Chest G<br />

53 54<br />

5L 52<br />

54 52<br />

53 50<br />

s2 50<br />

51 48<br />

50 48<br />

49 4E<br />

49 48<br />

49 47<br />

- Wciqht.d Avfog.<br />

UnFiightcC Avtrqg.<br />

- - w.ightd M.dlcn<br />

- - Unsr'ghttd u.dion<br />

600<br />

I 979 tgao tg8l 1962 1983 r98+ rg85 1986 1987<br />

Lotarl llodd Yasr<br />

F.r.cn8Gr<br />

freat C Nsbcr<br />

4A 45<br />

50 46<br />

49 45<br />

46 41<br />

45 43<br />

45 43<br />

44 42<br />

44 42<br />

44 47<br />

30<br />

51<br />

54<br />

EE<br />

t02<br />

133<br />

180<br />

?06<br />

233<br />

Parrin8rr<br />

ch€lt c NCAF<br />

FlG6t<br />

4t 45<br />

48 45<br />

4t 45<br />

47 45<br />

4L 42<br />

43 40<br />

42 40<br />

42 40<br />

41 40<br />

Passenger H lGs<br />

Paesenger Ch€st Gs<br />

- Wrightld Avlrqgc<br />

Unwcightrd Avarogc<br />

- - Wclghtrd Ucdion<br />

-. UnwliqhtGd Midiqn<br />

e197900<br />

52375 39<br />

7A219EO<br />

10407385<br />

12441 425<br />

17065150<br />

21709065<br />

27O6O6r3<br />

3r924r96<br />

37044106<br />

1982 19SJ t98{ 1965 t966 t967 1968<br />

Ldtrrl llodrl Y.dr


B6<br />

I<br />

H l o<br />

A<br />

f<br />

eg { !<br />

I<br />

E<br />

I r o<br />

E<br />

t""<br />

E<br />

6so<br />

a<br />

E<br />

E,o<br />

E<br />

a<br />

Figure 2.<br />

llaet.<br />

It.s l9ll rlll lsl itu ttlt t9ta 19t7 tel<br />

ilodrl ysr cf Vrhlcl. Ft.rt<br />

Safety performance trBnds of NCAP pas$enger car<br />

Figure 2 shows the percent of the weighted vehicles in<br />

Performance Group 2. This plot indicates that the portion of<br />

the tested vehicle fleet with the higher dummy responses<br />

hasdecreased from 5 I percent in 1979 to 28 percent in 1988.<br />

It may also be noted that 43Vo of the PCs mer FMVSS 208<br />

requirements even at the higher test speed.<br />

Comparison of the l98l fleet to the 1988 fleet<br />

From a comparison of two fleet years, l98l and 1988, the<br />

distributions of the Performance Croups can be $tudied in<br />

figure 3. The data in this figure show a significant shifr to<br />

lower level responses has occurred from the l98l to 1988<br />

fleet. Similar trends for the weighted and unweighted data<br />

are apparent. The l98l weighted passenger car fleet contains<br />

eight million vehicles and the 1988 fleet contains over<br />

g<br />

ro<br />

[.o<br />

E<br />

$<br />

Ftrfcrmonct GrouF<br />

Flgure 3. Comparleon of lg81 vs 198E NGAP PG fleets.<br />

37 million vehicles. The l98l unweighted fleet contains 64<br />

vehicles and the 1988 unweighted fleet contains 233<br />

vehicles.<br />

The distributions of the weighted fleets by weight class<br />

(l) are shown in figure 4. The four weight classes aresmall<br />

(curb weight below 2,450 lb.), compact (curb weight<br />

2,451 to 2,950), intermediate (curb weight 2,951 to<br />

3,450 lb.), and large (curb weight above 3,451 lb.). The<br />

average weight of vehicles of the 8l fleet is 3278 lbs and the<br />

average weight of the 88 fleet is 3 189 lbs. (Noter The decision<br />

to compare the 198 I fleet to the 1988 fleet is based on<br />

the assumption that after three years of the NCAP that<br />

enough time had elapsed for the rnanufacturers to become<br />

responsive to the test data. Similar comparison can be made<br />

for any other fleet year).<br />

G lgal Pf, Fl!!t (Weiqhtsd)<br />

E:l rc88 FC Frcdi (wi,qhr!d)<br />

Flgure 4. Dlstrlbutlon ol 81 and 86 NCAP llaets (by vehlcle<br />

welght class).<br />

Weig hted Unweighted<br />

P.rlc.m€ncr Croup


PC dummy performance by weight class<br />

The real world safety risk is dependent on the weight of<br />

the vehicle (i.e. from the laws of physics, in a two vehicle<br />

frontal impact, the lighter vehicle will experience the larger<br />

velocity change). In the following paragraphs the NCAP<br />

vehicles are separated into the four weight classes as previously<br />

defined ( I ). The dummy responses and design parameters<br />

of each weight class will be examined.<br />

The following analyses are conducted only to compare<br />

the performance of different weight class vehicles in the<br />

single vehicle crash into a fixed rigid banier (which may<br />

also be viewed as a crash of two identical vehicles colliding<br />

head-on with each vehicle traveling at 35 mph). In this<br />

crash, each vehicle must dissipate its own kinetic energy.<br />

These analyses do not imply that performance in these tests<br />

are indicative of the risks across weight classes. It has been<br />

documented (4) that the occupants of smaller vehicles are at<br />

greater rink than those of larger vehicles due to the traffic<br />

mix.<br />

Table 3 contains the average and median values of the<br />

HIC and Chest Gs of the driver and passenger dummies for<br />

the four weight classes. This table also gives the number of<br />

tested vehicles and the size of the weighted fleet for each<br />

weight class. These data show minor differences across<br />

weight classes.<br />

Trble 3. Averagee and medlans of occupant HICs and chest<br />

Gs-pas8eng€r cars by welght claaa.<br />

Uc ltht<br />

CIar6<br />

sMll<br />

CqEpac t<br />

<strong>Int</strong>eEd<br />

IrrEc<br />

g. tght<br />

Clilr<br />

gMIl<br />

Coqrct<br />

<strong>Int</strong>.md<br />

InrE.<br />

To further examine differences in performance between<br />

weight classes, figure 5 wa$ generated which compares the<br />

weight classes in the Performance Group 2. The information<br />

in this figure indicates better performance of the heavier<br />

vehicles for the unweighted data. However, when the data<br />

are weighted by the vehicle registrations, these performance<br />

differences are reduced. This indicates that especially in the<br />

small weight class that the poorer performing vehicles have<br />

the lower sales volume. From closer examination of the<br />

individual vehicle data, it also found that many of the poorer<br />

performing small cars were tested in the early years of the<br />

NCAP and that attrition is gradually eliminating these from<br />

the fleet.<br />

Analysis of LTV dummy responses<br />

LTVs were not included in the NCAP tesring unril MY<br />

1983. Since then, 4l LTVs have been tesred. Due to the<br />

236<br />

Drlvar<br />

HIC<br />

PsEeFfitar<br />

HIC<br />

tlffitght.d<br />

Drlvar<br />

ChEt c<br />

AS H.d Avs l,tsd Av. Med Awe lt d<br />

1097 974<br />

1072 845<br />

1008 880<br />

1037 954<br />

Drlvef<br />

HIC<br />

1090 959<br />

936 77r<br />

885 778<br />

887 808<br />

Paaaangar<br />

HIO<br />

tleltht€d<br />

49 47<br />

5t 5l<br />

5t 50<br />

Drlwr<br />

Chrrt C<br />

Psda6nB.r<br />

Ch.rt C llwbef<br />

Terted<br />

L5 4!<br />

L2 4I<br />

41 42<br />

43 4r<br />

Avc Hsd Av€ lt d Ave Hed Avc Hed<br />

882<br />

918<br />

905<br />

9L7<br />

708<br />

810<br />

784<br />

882<br />

921 821<br />

802 653<br />

802 752<br />

1094 1084<br />

49 47<br />

47 46<br />

51 50<br />

49 45<br />

EO<br />

77<br />

41<br />

23<br />

Prsrenger<br />

chc8t G TICAP<br />

FI..t<br />

42 40<br />

39 38<br />

4t 40<br />

46 47<br />

r2254210<br />

tt322t7Q<br />

79439I1<br />

3523265<br />

Fi<br />

N<br />

[ -<br />

6 -<br />

E<br />

?<br />

q<br />

(J<br />

o<br />

Conpact lntsrhEdioic ( o/ge<br />

Flgure 5, PCs in perlormance group 2 (by welght claae).<br />

lable l. Averagea and medians of occupsnt HlCs and chest<br />

Gs-llght trucks and vang<br />

LI1t<br />

Tlr.<br />

l{F/r<br />

PUc<br />

VAilt<br />

Drlvcr<br />

HIC<br />

PaaBGngsr<br />

HIC<br />

Unwctghted<br />

Drlver<br />

Cheat G<br />

Ave Hed AvG H+d Ave H€d Av. Kcd<br />

1023 950<br />

1201 rr47<br />

1565 1432<br />

1148 1134<br />

1065 754<br />

1108 II23<br />

51 49<br />

55 57<br />

59 55<br />

Totrl 1282 rl00 r067 56 54 47<br />

LTV<br />

IYp6<br />

uE\tr<br />

PUg<br />

vrJf<br />

Drlvar<br />

HIC<br />

l{rlghted<br />

PatsenSet<br />

HIC<br />

Drlvsr<br />

oheet c<br />

PssasntGr<br />

Ch.rt C Nwber<br />

Teeted<br />

45 48<br />

47 41<br />

49 41<br />

Ave l{6d Avc Hed Avs HGd Avc l{ed<br />

869 850<br />

1t0I 7L47<br />

7362 984<br />

1309 1321<br />

979 699<br />

1100 7798<br />

50 48<br />

53 50<br />

sparsity of data, data for individual MYs may not be signifi*<br />

cant. However, the 4l tested LTVs represent over 9 million<br />

vehicles in the 1988 fleet and more than 30Vo of IJIY registrations<br />

since MY 1983. Therefore. it is concluded that the<br />

total tested fleet data can provide significant data for examining<br />

the dummy responses. Table 4 gives the averages and<br />

medians of the LTVs. In comparing these values to the 1988<br />

PC fleet values in table 2, it is noted that the dummy respon$es<br />

in the LTV fleet are approximately 207o higher for<br />

both HICs and l07o higher for Chest Gs.<br />

Figure 6 shows the di$tribution of the PC fleet and the<br />

LTV fleet in the two performance groups. For the LTVs,<br />

567o of the unweighted fleet and 457o of the weighted fleet<br />

are in Performance Croup 2. For the PCs, these values are<br />

387o and 25Vo.The comparison in this figure of the performance<br />

group distributions points out the large difference in<br />

the test performance between LTVs and PCs.<br />

The LTVs can be examined in three categories: light duty<br />

trucks, vans, and multi-purpose vehicles. Table 4 also provides<br />

the dummy response values in these categories. From<br />

observing the average values, it is noted that the vans had<br />

the dummies with the highest HIC and Chest G responses of<br />

the three categories.<br />

These data indicate that the frontal crash test performance<br />

is not as good for LTVs as for PCs. However, the manufacturers<br />

have shown the capability of producing reasonably<br />

good performers in all the LTV categories. In fact, I I of the<br />

43 LTVs meer rhe requiremenrs of FMVSS 208 ar the higher<br />

crash speed.<br />

l0<br />

I4<br />

FsrEenget<br />

Ch6rt C NOAP<br />

Fleet<br />

44 43<br />

45 45<br />

50 ttj<br />

r46139?<br />

4869077<br />

2431951<br />

Totsl 1135 985 1067 1071 52 50 46 45 8162420


Pdormonor Qrggp<br />

Flgure 6. Comparlson of LTV and PC flests.<br />

Vehicle Design Parameters<br />

As in the previous paper (l), parameters of safety belt<br />

performance, steering assembly effects, and structural<br />

performance have been tabulated. In the following<br />

examination of these data, any changes which have<br />

occurred in trends from the first paper will be noted and<br />

comparisons to the LTV fleet will be made.<br />

Belt performance pflrameters<br />

Presently 33 States and the District of Columbia have<br />

mandatory use laws. These laws along with the emphasis on<br />

belt use by the manufacturers and safety groups have raised<br />

the usage rate observed in a NHTSA 19 city survey from<br />

less than ZOVo in the early 1980s to more than 457o in 1988.<br />

In addition, the requirements of FMVSS 208 to provide<br />

passive protection in PCs have led to the introduction of<br />

automatic belt systems in a large number of PC makes and<br />

models since 1985. Front seat occupants of PCs equipped<br />

with these automatic belt systems have a belt usage rate of<br />

about 857o. Under these conditions, the optimum design of<br />

the safety belt system is more important than ever before.<br />

Two primary functions of the belt system$ are to prevent<br />

or minimize occupant contact with interior surfaces and to<br />

maintain the occupant in the vehicle during a crash event.<br />

Belt system parameters which can affect these functions in a<br />

crash event include the time to onset load on the occupant,<br />

the rate of loading, and the peak load. The onset time is the<br />

time at which the torso belt load reaches 20O lb. The rate is<br />

the increase in load for each millisecond from 200 lb. to<br />

nominally 1,000 lb. A typical illustration of these parameters<br />

is shown in figure 7. These parameters have been calcu-<br />

P.rfcrEcdca Grilp<br />

Iated for all the NCAP tests. The average onset time for PCs<br />

is 35 ms and for LTVs 30 ms. The average rate is 47 lbs/ms<br />

for PCs and 58 lbs/ms for LTVs.<br />

2000<br />

@<br />

1 750<br />

1 500<br />

o<br />

t<br />

tooo<br />

,l rro<br />

250<br />

o<br />

Ftsure 7. lttu'tratton "t b"ifiilH'0Tfr1","r".<br />

Steering assembly effects<br />

Even for the belt restrained occupant, head contact with<br />

interior vehicle components can lead to serious injuries. For<br />

the driver, the steering assembly is the most likely area of<br />

contact. In the NCAP 35 mph tests, very few of the dummies<br />

in the driver location were restrained sufficiently to avoid<br />

contact with some portion of the steering assembly. Sl%o (63<br />

of 205) of the driver dummies experienced head contacts<br />

into the steering assembly that placed the vehicle in Performance<br />

Group 2. For the small PC class,387a (30 of 79) were<br />

in Group 2, for the compacts 297o (19 of 65), for the intermediates,<br />

26Vo (l I of 42), and for the large PCs 167o (3 of<br />

l9). The LTVs show an even higher probability of severe<br />

head to steering assembly contacts with 46To (18 of 39<br />

vehicles) in Performance Croup 2.It is also noted that the<br />

237


average velocity change due to this contact is higher for the<br />

LTVs than for PCs (15.4 mph as compared to 13.3 mph).<br />

The severity of these steering assembly impacts is dependent<br />

on several vehicle performance parameters including:<br />

r The intrusion of the steering assembly into the<br />

companment<br />

r The area of the steering assembly which the head<br />

impacts and the force*deflection characteristics of<br />

the contact surface<br />

r The amount that the belt system reduces the ve-<br />

locity of the occupant before contact occurs<br />

r The effects of the structural performance that also<br />

can lead to differences in head contact velocities.<br />

In addition to these performances parameters, the driver<br />

location relative to vehicle interior components may contribute<br />

to possible head contacts. In figure 8, the distances<br />

from the driver to the vehicle interior are defined. These<br />

distances apply to the Part 572 dummy as seated according<br />

to the NCAP test procedure. Average values are given in<br />

table 5. Only minor differences are noted between the<br />

weight classes of the PCs. However, the head to header and<br />

Flgure 8. Drlver locstlon relstlvo to yehlcle lnterlor.<br />

Table 5. Average dlmenelonc for drlvgr locetlons.<br />

WetBht<br />

CIarr<br />

snsIl<br />

Conpact<br />

<strong>Int</strong>snediate<br />

IrrEe<br />

AII PCe<br />

AlI LTIIg<br />

238<br />

HGad to<br />

Headet<br />

14 .50<br />

14. 14<br />

14.66<br />

l4. ll<br />

18 .04<br />

Drlvgr bcetfon (lncher)<br />

Heed to<br />

lJlndrh t6 Id<br />

19 .42<br />

I9. 36<br />

19,s8<br />

20.44<br />

19.53<br />

Ch6st to Knee to<br />

Dash<br />

L4.94<br />

14. 50<br />

14. 20<br />

l1 cc<br />

14. 56<br />

13-55<br />

6.12<br />

5.70<br />

6.29<br />

6.80<br />

6 .09<br />

6 .46<br />

head to windshield distances are significantly greater for<br />

LTVs when compared to PC$.<br />

From examination of the tested vehicles which have airbag<br />

supplementary re$traint systems, no indications of serious<br />

head to steering assembly impacts were found. As noted<br />

in the FMVSS 208 Final Rule (2), ". . . the most effective<br />

system is an airbag plus a lap and shoulder belt . . . Airbags<br />

with lap belts also provide better protection at higher $peeds<br />

than safety belts do, and they will provide better protection<br />

against debilitating injuries (e.g. brain and facial injuries)<br />

than safety belts". With many of the PC manufacturers<br />

providing the driver airbag as $tandard equipment in the<br />

near future. the data from the NCAP indicate that a reduction<br />

in head and facial injuries in frontal impacts for these<br />

vehicles may be expected. However for LTVs, unless manufacturers<br />

take action to improve the level of safety performance,<br />

the data indicate that head to steering assembly<br />

impacts for belt restrained occupants may be a continuing<br />

problem.<br />

Structural performance parameters<br />

The third vehicle attribute which has been previously<br />

examined from the NCAP data and is updated here is the<br />

performance of the frontal structure. During a crash, the<br />

frontal structure needs to provide a reasonable occupant<br />

compartment deceleration signature (crash pulse) and a collapse<br />

mode that does not allow excessive intrusion into the<br />

occupant space.<br />

The crash pulses of the NCAP vehicles are measured by<br />

accelerometers located in the occupant compartments.<br />

From these crash pulses, approximate force-crush curves<br />

are generated using the acceleration time data and the vehicle<br />

test weight. The parameters of interest from these forcecrush<br />

curves include the peak dynamic force, crush at this<br />

peak force, an estimated linear "stiffness", and the peak<br />

dynamic crush. The ayerage$ of these parameters and the<br />

test weights for PCs and LTVs are given in table 6. For PCs,<br />

nominally, an increasing peak force and increasing crush<br />

occur with increasing test weight.<br />

ForLTVs, significant differences are noted in all parameters<br />

when compared to PCs with much higher peak force and<br />

stiffness and lower crush. This comparison points out two<br />

problems:<br />

L In single vehicle frontal crashes, LTVs present a more<br />

severe environment to the occupant and a more difficult<br />

design problem for the safety engineer.<br />

2. In multi-vehicle crashes were LTVs collide with PCs,<br />

PCs will dissipate more of the kinetic energy, crush more,<br />

and have more compartment intrqsion than the LTVs.<br />

Table 6. Average vsluee of structural pardmeters.<br />

T. tSht<br />

chrt<br />

Sratt<br />

Coqact<br />

<strong>Int</strong>sil<br />

IrrBG<br />

AI1<br />

AII<br />

PCs<br />

LnI<br />

TcNt Wettht<br />

(Ibr)<br />

2J71<br />

3128<br />

3631<br />

4327<br />

3145<br />

3899<br />

Drtv€r bcEElon ( lnchil)<br />

P6!k Forc!<br />

(lbs)<br />

82094<br />

94073<br />

rl92e7<br />

12309?<br />

97477<br />

144113<br />

"Btlffncr4i<br />

(Ib'/tn)<br />

3795<br />

3848<br />

4509<br />

4259<br />

399 7<br />

t2397<br />

Dtsp g Psal<br />

Forc. (ln)<br />

25.8<br />

27.3<br />

29 .3<br />

25.2<br />

kxtnw Dttp<br />

(rn)<br />

27,t<br />

30,3<br />

30. I<br />

33, 2<br />

29.5<br />

23 .8


Recent TFends and Reseflrch Directions<br />

Recent trends<br />

The above paragraphs have presented and discussed<br />

some of the occupant response trends and parameters of all<br />

tested vehicles. It may be of interest to examine these trends<br />

relative to a select group of the more recent vehicles which<br />

have very low dummy responses. In MYs 86, 87, and 88, 33<br />

PCs had dummy response$ in which the HICs were less 90O<br />

and the Chest Gs were less than 55. These 33 PCs are 45Va of<br />

the tested PCs since MY 85. Of the PCs tested prior to MY<br />

86, only 287o had dummy responses in these lower levels. In<br />

comparison to the FMVSS 208 requirement$, 557o of the<br />

PCs in these three MYs met all requirements as compared to<br />

36Vo in the previous seven years.<br />

The 33 late model PCs which fell in the lower response<br />

levels are distributed evenly among the small, compact, and<br />

intermediate weight classes. The restraint systems in these<br />

vehicles include standard three point belts, two and three<br />

point automatic belts, and driver airbags. The manufacturers<br />

of these vehicles include both domestic and foreign.<br />

The performance of these vehicles strongly indicate the<br />

capability and the increasing trend of the manufacturers to<br />

incorporate design parameters in their vehicles which produce<br />

low dummy responses in the 35 mph NCAP test.<br />

Research directions<br />

Presently, FMVSS 208 requires a minimum level of protection<br />

for PC occupants in frontal crashes up to 30 mph.<br />

The lives and injuries which will be saved by FMVSS 208<br />

are very significant. (Note: From the FMVSS 208 Final<br />

Rule notice in the Federal Register (2), mid-point estimate$<br />

of benefits show a reduction in all crash modes of over 6,000<br />

fatalities and over 100,m0 moderate to critical injuries per<br />

year when all passenger cars in the fleet meet FMVSS 208<br />

requirements). However, recent NHTSA projections of fatalities<br />

and injuries estimate that even after the fult application<br />

of the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 to<br />

both PCs and LTVs, frontal impacts will account forapproximately<br />

10,000 fatalities and 120,0fi) AIS 2-5 injuries. A<br />

problem of this magnitude demands that we pursue research<br />

to address it.<br />

Safety problem<br />

FMVSS 208 has brought with it an increasing array of<br />

different types of automatic restraint sysrems in today's<br />

production vehicles. It is necessary to track the real world<br />

collision experience of these vehicles to better define new<br />

safety program directions and to refine existing program<br />

areas.<br />

As we examine the field performance of restraint $ystems,<br />

we will identify the safety problem at three crash<br />

severity ranges-low, moderate, and high speed impacts.<br />

Low speed impacts are defined as those below l5 mph (the<br />

nominal threshold for air bag deployment), moderate-level<br />

impacts are defined as between l5 and 30 mph (the range in<br />

which FMVSS 208 systems are expected to be most effective),<br />

and high speed impacts are defined as greater than 30<br />

mph.<br />

Real world crash data analysis will be conducted to determine<br />

the magnitude of the safety problem and the type of<br />

crash, vehicles involved, and human factors associated with<br />

the specific safety problems. These analyses will attempt to<br />

reach the following goals:<br />

l Setting priorities in terms of which types of crash<br />

events, types of vehicles, or occupant characteristics<br />

account for the highest percentage of serious injuries<br />

and fatalities.<br />

2. Evaluation of effectiveness of different safety<br />

concepts including air bag and automatic belt restraint<br />

systems in the crash environment.<br />

3. Injury mechanism identification including the<br />

body regions injured and the source of the injuries for<br />

specific safety areas.<br />

4. Identification of laboratory te$t conditions based<br />

on the crashes that account for the most serious<br />

injuries.<br />

The Fatal Accidenr Reporting System (FARS), NASS,<br />

State files, foreign files, and the special investigations will<br />

be used to conduct these analyses.<br />

Crash testing and sled testing<br />

While the above data analyses will provide useful guidance,<br />

it will be several years before sufficient accident data<br />

are collected to make definitive statements of the effectiveness<br />

of the restraint $ystems and the remaining fronml safety<br />

problem. Testing offers the most immediate means of determining<br />

answer$. Tests can provide early identification as to<br />

the possible limits of performance for a variety of restraint<br />

systems.<br />

A laboratory testing program could be designed to provide<br />

information in the following areas:<br />

I. Establishing baseline conditions for different<br />

types of automatic restraint systems under different<br />

crash conditions including different impact speeds,<br />

off-set conditions, and angle impacts.<br />

2. Determining upper bounds of the effectiveness of<br />

different types of automatic restraint systcm$ for different<br />

crash conditions.<br />

3. Evaluating the effect ofdifferent vehicle and occupant<br />

factors such as seating position, seating posture,<br />

seat adjustment, etc. on the performance of automatic<br />

restraint systems.<br />

Biomechanics research<br />

Projects in biomechanics will be directed toward improving<br />

and expanding injury criteria and human $urrogate capabilities.<br />

Present test devices could be modified to allow<br />

additional measurements for as$essing different injury<br />

modes and for extending injury measurement capabilities to<br />

other body regions.<br />

239


Component testing of restraint slstems and<br />

frontal interior surfaces<br />

As shown in the NCAP tests and as determined from data<br />

studies, occupant contact with the frontal interior surfaces is<br />

still possible even in vehicles equipped with automatic restraint<br />

systems. Testing in this area could establish the properties<br />

of restraint systems and frontal interior surfaces.<br />

The purpose of this data collection effort is to establish a<br />

baseline related to the material properties of these comPonents<br />

to aid in the identification of possible countermeasure$<br />

and to provide input data for occupant simulation<br />

models.<br />

Vehicle structures models and occupant<br />

simulation models<br />

Vehicle structures models and occupant simulation models<br />

will be upgraded to allow parameter studies to be conducted<br />

to assist in the identification of the problems, in the<br />

development of test procedures, and in the development of<br />

potential countermeasures.<br />

Summary<br />

After ten years of testing in NCAP, significant trends<br />

toward improved dummy responses can be noted for the PC<br />

fleet. Average HIC and Chest G values have decreased by<br />

l0 to20To and PCs which are in Performance Group 2 (i.e.<br />

HIC greater than 1250 and/or Chest G greater than 70) in the<br />

weighted fleet have dropped from 5l7o to less than25Vo.<br />

437o of the tested PCs meet FMVSS 208 requirements in the<br />

NCAP test conditions.<br />

When comparing unweighted dummy respon$es across<br />

four PC weight classes, some degradation in safety<br />

performance can be noted from the large PC to the small PC-<br />

However, the weighted fleet indicates that the poorer<br />

performing small PCs are also the lower sales volume PCs.<br />

Within the weighted fleet, the level of safety performance of<br />

the small PCs may not be significantly less than the larger<br />

vehicles for the given test conditions.<br />

In examining the LTV dummy responses and comparing<br />

them to the PC performance, HICs and Chest Cs for the<br />

LTVs are approximately l0 to 207o higher than for the PCs.<br />

457o of the weighted LTV fleet are in Performance Group 2<br />

as compared toL|Vo of the weighted PC fleet. Even though<br />

LTVs have higher dummy responses than PCs, the<br />

manufacturers have demonstrated the capability to provide<br />

improved performance since 28Vo of the tested LTVs meet<br />

FMVSS 208 requirements in the NCAP test conditions.<br />

Vehicle design parameters associated with safety belts,<br />

$teering assemblies, and frontal structure are examined and<br />

comparisons between PC and LTV characteristics are made.<br />

For PCs, the average onset time for the occuPant to begin<br />

loading the belt is 35 ms and the average rate of loading is 47<br />

lbs/ms. For LTVg, these values are 30 ms and 58 lbs/ ms.<br />

The steering assembly effects indicate that on the aYerage<br />

more severe head contacts occur in LTVs than in PCs. The<br />

average velocity change of the head due to steering<br />

240<br />

assembly impact is 15.4 mph for LTVs and 13.3 for PCs.<br />

46Vo of the LTVs are placed in the higher response group<br />

due to head to steering assembly contacts. Only 3 l7o of the<br />

PCs are placed in the higher respon$e group due to these<br />

contacts.<br />

Much higher peak force and linear stiffness and<br />

significantly lower crush are noted in the frontal structures<br />

for LTVs than for PCs. The peak force is 50Vo greater for<br />

LTVs and the stiffness is three times that of the average PC.<br />

The average maximum crush is approximately 24 inches for<br />

LTVs and is almost 30 inches for the PCs. This comparison<br />

points out two problems:<br />

L In single vehicle frontal crashes, LTVs present a<br />

more severe environment to the occupant and a more<br />

difficult design problem for the safety engineer.<br />

2. In multi-vehicle crashes where LTVs collide with<br />

PCs, PCs will dissipate more of the kinetic energy,<br />

cru$h more, and have more compartment intrusion<br />

rhan the LTVs.<br />

In an examination of the late model PCs (MYs 86, 87, and<br />

88). it is found that 33 PCs (457o of the tested PCs since MY<br />

85) had dummy responses in the level I and 2 groups. The<br />

33 late model PCs are distributed evenly among the small,<br />

compact, and intermediate weight classes. All types of<br />

re$traint systems and domestic and foreign made vehicles<br />

are included. The performance of these vehicles strongly<br />

indicate the capability and the increasing trend of the<br />

manufacturers to incorporate design parameter$ in their<br />

vehicles which produce low dummy response$ in the 35<br />

mph NCAP test.<br />

Based on a recent NHTSA projection of fatalities and<br />

injuries and the existing performance of passenger vehicles<br />

as determined from the NCAR an outline of potential future<br />

research activities for enhanced frontal protection is<br />

presented. These activities include:<br />

l. A study to determine the existence and magnitude<br />

of any safety problems in frontal impacts after the<br />

implementation of FMVSS 208.<br />

2. A laboratory testing program which consists of<br />

full scale crash and sled testing.<br />

3. Continued projects in biomechanics to improve<br />

and expand injury criteria and human $urrogate<br />

capabilities.<br />

4. Continued projects in component testing to<br />

establish the properties of restraint systems and frontal<br />

interior surfaces.<br />

5. Application of structures models and occupant<br />

simulation models to extend the results of the<br />

laboratory test$ and to assist in the problem<br />

identification, te$t procedures and countermeasures<br />

development.<br />

References<br />

(1) Hackney, James, and Carlin Ellyson, "A Review of<br />

the Effects of Belt Systems, Steering Assemblies, and<br />

Structural Design on the Safety of Vehicles in the New Car


Assessment Program," Proceedings Tenth <strong>Int</strong>ernational<br />

Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence on Experimental Safety Vehicles, pp<br />

38H13. 1985.<br />

(2) 49 CFR Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety<br />

Standard; Occupant Crash Protection, pp 28962-29010,<br />

Federal Register, vol.49, No. 138, July 17, 1984.<br />

(3) Hackney, James, and Vincent "The<br />

Quarles, New Car<br />

Assessment Program-Status and Effect," Proceedings<br />

Ninth <strong>Int</strong>ernational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence on Experimental<br />

Safety Vehicles, pp 809-824, 1982.<br />

(4) Cenelli, Ezio C., *'Risk of Fatal Injury in Vehicles of<br />

Different Size," NHTSA Report DOT HS 806-653, November<br />

1984.<br />

Inadequacy of 0" Barrier Test With Real World Frontal Accidents<br />

C. Thomas, S. Koltchakian, C. Thrriere,<br />

Laboratoire de Physiologie et de Biomdcanique,<br />

Associd h Peugeot S.A./Renault,<br />

France<br />

C. Got, A, Patel,<br />

Institut de Recherches Orthopddiques<br />

France<br />

Abstract<br />

The representativity of a global frontal impact must be<br />

assessed in relation to its concordance with the characteristics<br />

of frontal impacts in real world accidents in order to<br />

guarantee that the progress accomplished will be effectively<br />

translated on the road.<br />

The survey is based on the technical and medical investigation<br />

into 746 cars and 403 occupants restrained by 3,point<br />

seatbelts involved in severe frontal impacts with velocity<br />

change equal to or greater than 40 km/h.<br />

Precise descriptions are made of overlaps of front end<br />

with obstacle, deformation geometries, intrusion levels into<br />

the passenger compartment in terms of velocity change<br />

(delta-V) and mean acceleration (E m) of the car.<br />

The frequency and the severity of injuries to front occupants<br />

are analysed in terms of the relationship of the impact<br />

with 0o banier and 30o oblique barrier tests.<br />

The results show that the 0o barrier test does not reproduce<br />

mean acceleration values, intrusion levels or risks<br />

incurred by the majority of belted occupants.<br />

Deformations of vehicles. mean accelerations and conditions<br />

under which serious injuries occur with the largest<br />

number of belted occupants in real world frontal impact<br />

conditions, justify the choice of the 30" oblique barrier test<br />

as the most representative test.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

Frontal impact is, by far, the one causing the most deaths<br />

and serious injuries in real world accidents.<br />

That is why, as far back as the sixties, before extensive<br />

surveys were conducted and the principal results made<br />

known, it was decided in the United States that frontal<br />

impact against a wall perpendicular to the trajectory of the<br />

vehicle, herein called 0", would be the reference statutorv<br />

test.<br />

In the light of the first results of the Peugeor S.A./Renault<br />

accident survey, begun in 1970 (l)*, it did not take long to<br />

realize that at least 7IVo of frontal impacts were<br />

asymmetrical.<br />

Since the objective was to improve the secondary safety<br />

of cars by taking the reality of accidents into account, it<br />

consequently seemed logical to the French manufacturers to<br />

wonder about the representativity of the 0" barrier (2),<br />

propose a method for analysis of severity of frontal<br />

collisions (3), justify their preference for a test against an<br />

oblique wall forming an angle of 30" with the "0o barrier,"<br />

namely I 20" with the longitudinal centre-line of the vehicle<br />

(4), provide accidentological justifications (5), present the<br />

results of the test whereby an experimental vehicle hits a 30"<br />

barrier at 70 km/h (6), confirm their choice in favour of the<br />

30o barrier (7) and even deplore not having been listened to<br />

(8).<br />

As far back as 1976, K. Friedman (9) substantiated the<br />

a$sertion that 9OVo of all frontal deformations were<br />

asymmetrical in the United States. At the same time, an<br />

English survey (10), based on an analysis of 143 impacted<br />

cars, concluded in the interest of an impact test at 50 km/h<br />

against a barrier with overlap of between 25 and SOVo, on<br />

account of the fact that 56Vo of the directions of impact are<br />

Iongitudinal to the nearest I0o and that 53 of the cars<br />

presented an overlap with the obstacle of 25 to SOVo.<br />

Recently, Daimler-Benz ( I I ) gave support to the interest of<br />

this test, taking into account a32Vo frequency of the "30 to<br />

507o" overlaps among the 822 vehicles of its make involved<br />

in frontal impacts and for which the front end overlap has<br />

been able to be quantified. Let us specify that this test is<br />

presented more as a tool for development of front end<br />

structure than as statutory alternative (12).<br />

It was therefore interesting to bring up to date and specify<br />

the principal data regarding relationships with experimental<br />

frontal tests, based on a sample of severe real world<br />

accidents.<br />

Method Used<br />

Our survey files on real world accidents were used as<br />

basis and were sorted in order to select cars equipped with<br />

3-point restraint seatbelts involved in severe frontal impacts<br />

with velocity change (delta-V) greater than or equal to 40<br />

24r


km/h. The estimation of the violence of the impact (delta-V<br />

E mean) used is that described in various publications (5,<br />

l3).<br />

The distributions of overlaps and deformation geometries<br />

are first of all described. These greatly contribute to the<br />

relationships with frontal tests such as 0o barrier and 30'<br />

barrier. The analysis is completed by examinations, in terms<br />

of delta-V of the levels of mean acceleration attained and<br />

the frequencies of critical intrusion into the pa$senger<br />

compartment.<br />

The risks of injury evaluated according to the AIS scale<br />

( l4) of belted front occupants only in this sample are studied<br />

in terms of the relationship with frontal tests.<br />

Distribution of deformations of cars subjected<br />

to severe frontal impact<br />

Since 1970, 3976 cars subjected to frontal impact have<br />

been analysed both from the technical and the medical<br />

viewpoints by the team making investigations into real<br />

world accidents.<br />

Without exclusion, this survey was conducted on all car<br />

accidents occurring in the same geographic zone to the West<br />

of Paris and causing injuries to at least one car occupant.<br />

This region, consisting of urban and rural zones, comprises<br />

different types of road networks (including motorways).<br />

Retrospective analysis sometimes shows that the most seri*<br />

ous accidents are over-represented in the sample. In particular,<br />

the mortality rate is double that observed at national<br />

scale. Let us specify that the $urvey did not cover only cars<br />

of French make. The share of cars of foreign make is very<br />

close to that observed at French national scale.<br />

Insofar as a truly representative frontal impact mu$t enable<br />

the protection offered by seatbelts to advance even<br />

further, it is important that the description of the accident is<br />

not biased by a large number of low-violence, and therefore<br />

not very severe, impacts for belted occupants. That is why,<br />

to be precise and pertinent, it is important that the subsample<br />

retained takes only cars into account that have been<br />

subjected to a delta-V at least equal to or greater than the<br />

threshold of appearance of the majority of serious and fatal<br />

lesions on belted front occupants. These occur in 85Vo of<br />

cases with delta-V greater than or equal to 40 krn/h, which<br />

already constitutes a high, but neces$ary violence threshold,<br />

taking into account the objective sought after.<br />

Besides this, the deformations must involve the front end<br />

over its full height.<br />

This amounts to eliminating 3230 cars from the basic<br />

sample that meet the following criteria, sorted in<br />

succession:<br />

. cars not equipped with 3-point restraint seatbelts-470<br />

cars hitting an overhanging obstacle (generally,<br />

commercial vehicle under-run)-3 I 9<br />

cars for which dissipated energy against deformable<br />

obstacle is not known-263<br />

*Numbers in parEnthcses designate rcferences at end of paper<br />

242<br />

cars for which opposing vehicle has not been examined-Z37<br />

cars involved in front-to-front impacts between<br />

cars "with glance-off," i.e. with complete stoppage<br />

of the vehicle at a distance of more than l0<br />

metres beyond the other car-140<br />

(Note: The equivalent speed against the barrieralso<br />

called equivalent energy speed (E.E.S)-is<br />

greater than or equal to 40 km/I for 8l cars. In 40<br />

of the 81 cases, the overlap with the opposing car<br />

was of the " l/4 track type").<br />

Cars with delta-V estimated at less than 40<br />

km/h-1601<br />

The sample thus selected includes 746 cars whose deformation<br />

characteristics are quantified and the impact violences<br />

estimated.<br />

The overlap of the front end of the car with the obstacle is<br />

Flgurc 1. Clds$lflcatlon code lor frant damage locatlon8.


described by using a classification code (figure l) derived<br />

from the "Collision Deformation Classification" (SAE<br />

J224, March 1980).<br />

This improved code defines not only the overlap of the<br />

front end with the obstacle, but also takes into account the<br />

involvement of the side-member(s) in the energy dissipation<br />

process. This complementary data is necessary for understanding<br />

the behaviour of the structure undergoing frontal<br />

impact, the finality of which is above all preservation of<br />

the passenger compartment. To simplify the distribution of<br />

overlaps, the most frequent left-hand side deformations<br />

have been grouped together with right-hand side<br />

deformations.<br />

Distribution of types of overlap and obstacles encountered<br />

is given in table l. Distributed deformations, orthogonal<br />

or oblique, involving the whole of the front end of the<br />

cars, represent less than one third of the cases (213[7a6). On<br />

the other hand, cars subjected to partial overlap with the<br />

obstacle, involving half or more of the front end ( l/2 track<br />

and 2/3 track) are the most numerous. This group alone<br />

represents almost half (3511746) of the total sample,<br />

The majority of the obstacles encountered are cars (503<br />

cases), followed by stationary obstacles (199 cases) and<br />

commercial vehicles (44 cases without under-run, generally<br />

against commercial vehicle roadwheels). Let us note, inci-<br />

dentally, that more than half the cars of the sample studied<br />

were involved in a front-to-front collision with another car.<br />

The relationship with a type of test cannot only be determined<br />

on the sole basis of overlap of the vehicle with the<br />

obstacle. It is therefore necessary to complete the data by:<br />

deformation geometry, mean acceleration level, and to examine<br />

their consequences in terms of intrusion into the<br />

passenger companment.<br />

Distribution of types of overlap and deformation geometry<br />

are given in table 2.<br />

Damage is classified into four categories, according to<br />

whether deformation of the impacted vehicle is rectangular<br />

(i.e, perpendicular to the longitudinal centre-line ofthe ve-<br />

Tablc 1. Dletrlbutlon of cara sublected to delta-V > 40 km/h accordlng to type of overlap and type ol obstacle.<br />

f rmt-front<br />

Clrl front-rld.<br />

front-rur<br />

trrc,/brldr plrr<br />

(rnd<br />

Strtlomry<br />

obctaclc<br />

rrll<br />

othrrc<br />

col I lrlonr)<br />

Cmrclal vrhiclu<br />

Table 2. Dl$trlbutlon ol cars sublected lo delta-v > 40 km/h accordlng to type of overlap and type ol delormatlon.<br />

rrctrngulrr<br />

t tB'<br />

IYPEB obllq|lf<br />

16' to ,l{l'<br />

Af mkrr<br />

){t.<br />

oEF(nilTl(ta plnpolnt<br />

Dlrtrtbrltd<br />

(Do)<br />

Dlrtrlbutrd<br />

(or )<br />

121<br />

35<br />

3<br />

6<br />

22<br />

5<br />

2/$ trrck<br />

(YeZo)<br />

2/3 track<br />

(YoZr<br />

)<br />

12E<br />

I<br />

3<br />

r0<br />

tg<br />

0<br />

IYPE OF OYENI.AP<br />

l/2 trrcx<br />

(Hz{)<br />

TYPEIF WERTAP<br />

1/2 treck<br />

(Yr Z,r )<br />

1/3 trrok<br />

(LrRr)<br />

l/3 trtck<br />

(LrRr)<br />

l/4 trrck<br />

(toRo)<br />

l,/4 track<br />

(LoRc)<br />

c.ntrrl<br />

(Co)<br />

IOTAL<br />

130 l0 tl I 0 0 ta0<br />

E3 ta6 r11 t3 0 0 E43<br />

0 l5 16 30 u 0 r0a<br />

0 t? {6 3'o t8 IE la3<br />

TOTAT 213 t00 rE2 e2 l2 IE t8<br />

t03 65<br />

4l<br />

t4 0<br />

30<br />

I<br />

2<br />

3l<br />

il<br />

t<br />

37<br />

I<br />

t<br />

Critrrl<br />

(Cc)<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

TOTAT<br />

r6 T ta I 3 I 4tl<br />

TOTAL 213 r60 162 g2 12 It 7{0<br />

20 71<br />

1C<br />

I<br />

0<br />

434<br />

s3<br />

10<br />

| 2tl<br />

6i<br />

I<br />

243


hicle) or, on the contrary, oblique by approximately 30" on<br />

the one hand or more than 40" on the other. Pinpoint impacts<br />

against trees, poles or posts of all sizes are classified<br />

separately.<br />

It appears that 30o oblique deformations are most represented<br />

(343 cars), followed by rectangular deformation<br />

(166 cars), pinpoint deformation (133 cars) and finally 40"<br />

or more oblique deformation (104 cars).<br />

A first attempt at comparison with experimental tests (0'<br />

barrier, 30o barrier, impact$ against posts or others) can be<br />

made at this stage of the analysis.<br />

lmpacts related to the "0" barrier" test assume that the<br />

overlap is distributed over the full front end of the car and<br />

that the deformation is rectangular (to the nearest tlSo).<br />

Both these conditions are met by | 30 cars only. The mean<br />

acceleration levels must also be of the same magnitude as<br />

those recorded in the "0o barrier" tests for a given test<br />

speed.<br />

t5<br />

E<br />

I<br />

cl<br />

H<br />

{<br />

Srs<br />

lil<br />

(t<br />

o {<br />

z<br />

{<br />

lrJ<br />

I<br />

/<br />

''/<br />

' .--- I<br />

. / + + / l<br />

.: t-/t' ./<br />

i i,4 +' r .,"<br />

( i' ; ..i. ,,''. . /<br />

l. /ri.,..i.. . r,nt'' /<br />

i. / t....r .,/! ..-./<br />

l' / .-. t.. ,./.'.. . J<br />

L: t,..' ,/<br />

lr lilri:| .r.<br />

/<br />

i. l: ,' ':/<br />

l^ l: .'/ ''.^)t.<br />

/'<br />

lil::j"'' ./<br />

$-'fi""<br />

it!':t"" ,<br />

l.:' ,/<br />

./<br />

\. " ,'/ . FEAL r*o AccroEHrB<br />

I / +EAHHIEHTeaTE<br />

V - - rso EAL ACCIDEFTTE<br />

-- 77 EAffiIEF rEat8<br />

.,J<br />

40 !o Eo 79 E0 EO<br />

TEET EFEED Of, VELOCITY CHANcE (TN Kn/h)<br />

Fioure 2. Dlstrlbution of the mean acceleratlon ol vehicles ac'<br />

co*rding to: thc veloclty change in real lmpscts rglated to 0'tesl'<br />

the tetl apeed for 0" barrler fests.<br />

The severity of these impacts in the "Velocity change<br />

(delta-V)/mean acceleration (a)" diagram is given in figure<br />

2. Comparison with the severity of the "0" barrier" tests is<br />

presented in the same figure by using the results of 77<br />

experimental tests on the most representative cars of the<br />

impacted vehicles. For the latter, the velocity taken into<br />

account is the experimental test speed, so a$ to remain<br />

homogenous with real world accidents, where the rebound<br />

speed is unknown. The result is that the cloud of points<br />

representing the "0o barrier" tests is off-set by approximately<br />

5 g towards the highest mean accelerations. Finally,<br />

only half(66/l 30) ofthe cars presenting a rectangular defor-<br />

244<br />

/<br />

mation geometry distributed over the full front end give rise<br />

to mean acceleration levels comparable with those recorded<br />

in the "0o barrier" tests. Several reasons explain this result:<br />

. Only 33 of the 130 cars hit rigid, almost undeformable<br />

obstacles, such as walls or commercial<br />

vehicle roadwheels.<br />

r In 64 out of the 97 impacts against another car, the<br />

mean accelerations of vehicles in real world accidents<br />

are lower than in the 0" barrier test, as;<br />

r The hit areas ofthe opposing vehicle are less stiff<br />

(side doors-I7 cases----or rear end-3 cases).<br />

r The opposing vehicle hit front-on presents either<br />

oblique deformation-26 cases-or different architecture<br />

enabling imbrication of the most rigid<br />

members, without real crushing as in the 0'barrier<br />

test-18 cases.<br />

r Finally, the deformation geometry is rarely perfectly<br />

rectangular and symmetrical in real world<br />

accidents. The fact of assuming obliquity capable<br />

of attaining a maximum of 15" on the front end<br />

contributes towards increasing the maximum<br />

crush somewhat and consequently reduces the<br />

mean level of acceleration.<br />

Impacts related to the " 30o barrier " test are cars comprising<br />

an oblique deformation geometry of between 15o and<br />

40" and involving at least halfthe front end ofthe car. In this<br />

configuration, the deformation energy is dissipated by the<br />

centre and the side of the car. The most strained members of<br />

the front end unit are basically the side-member located on<br />

the side of the impact, body side and the power unit.<br />

If reference is made to table 2, it appears that oblique<br />

deformation geometries at 30o, with either distributed overlap<br />

(83 cases),<br />

"2/3 track" overlap (126 cases), or "UZ<br />

track" overlap (l I I cases), constitute a very homogeneous<br />

group both by types of deformation observed and by mean<br />

acceleration levels at given delta-V. Figure 3 gives the envelopes<br />

of the cases related to the " 30" barrier" test according<br />

to which the overlap is of the distributed type, 2/3 track type<br />

or even ll2 track type. A great similarity of acceleration<br />

levels with delta-V between 40 and 60 km/h is to be observed.<br />

Beyond that, for a few rare case$, acceleration levels<br />

are recorded that are greater than the mean connected with<br />

large overlap on the one hand or with impacts against obstacles<br />

that are relatively stiffer than the average front end units<br />

of the cars on the other hand.<br />

In orderto compare real world accidents related to the 30"<br />

barrier test and experimental " 30" barrier " tests, we applied<br />

the same method as that used in real world accidents for<br />

calculating the mean acceleration. The squared experimental<br />

test speed is divided by twice the maximum residual<br />

crush of the front end increased by 2OVo to take elastic<br />

recovery into account. Figure 4 gives the test speed and the<br />

mean acceleration of 8l cars tested against a 30o barrier.<br />

The scatter ofpoints representing the 320 cars related to<br />

the "30" barrier" test involved in real world accidents is<br />

delimited by dotted lines. The shaded area represents 48<br />

cars subjected to low accelerations in real world accidents.


|I<br />

E<br />

g<br />

tH<br />

F<br />

f; lrl<br />

lu<br />

o<br />

(J<br />

{<br />

7<br />

{t<br />

ul<br />

I<br />

TOTAL OVEfI-IP (tl-Bgl<br />

+ +, --- E/g FHfi{T-EHD oVEH-AP (H-reE)<br />

r r. - t./c FHoflt-EhE ovEH-Ap N-rttl<br />

'f<br />

tt<br />

f .. il<br />

rr*<br />

tt+*++ +++"<br />

lhflrt .'t r +dit. r"<br />

i. ;o1*.. 'r. i ,.,, '<br />

l.rlcqfr tr r.'r<br />

VELOCITY cHAftr (ln KrL/h,<br />

Flgure 3. Severlty ol lmpacts (veloclty chsng€, mean acceltration<br />

ol vehlcles) for 320 rsal frontal lmpacts related to 30'test.<br />

Apart from these cases, it emerges that, for the272 remaining<br />

cases, namely 85Vo of the sample of the 320 real cases<br />

related to the 30" barrier, reasonable adequacy exists between<br />

the mean acceleration levels recorded in real world<br />

accidents and in experimental "30" barrier" testing.<br />

In total, the relationship with the "30" barrier" test concerns<br />

320 cars, namely 42Vo of the 746 cars of the sample.<br />

This high percentage marks out the "30o barrier" test as the<br />

most representative test for restituting the deformations of<br />

cars subjected to a delta-V of more than 40 km[r. This result<br />

is due to the fact that the "30o barrier" test characterizes<br />

front-to-front collisions of highway reality parricularly<br />

well. 234 cars presenting deformations related to the 30o<br />

barrier test were involved in this type of configuration. This<br />

represents 73Eo (2341320) of the cars with deformations<br />

bordering on the "30o barrier" test and close on 607o<br />

(2341434) of the cars of the sample involved in frontto-front<br />

collisions (see table l).<br />

One single test, whatever it may be, cannot obviously<br />

cover the range of overlaps observed in real world<br />

accidents.<br />

Other remaining cases concern 39Vo (295t746) of all the<br />

cars of the sample. They are distributed as follows, by type<br />

of overlap (see table 2):<br />

t "<br />

ll4 track overlap" concem 72 cars, namely l0ola<br />

of the total sample analysed. The deformations<br />

involve the front roadwheel and support together<br />

with the entire side of the passenger compartment.<br />

The severity of these impacts in terms of velocity<br />

change and mean acceleration is generally lower<br />

than in the remainder of the accidents on account<br />

't<br />

I'<br />

E<br />

EH<br />

F<br />

{<br />

ilI tE<br />

UJ<br />

.J<br />

(t<br />

{<br />

z<br />

||r<br />

I<br />

t0<br />

+ so' ilffirEn rEBT<br />

- - HE L IOH-O ACCIDEHTE 0{-940)<br />

- to' IAffiIEF TEETA (H-el)<br />

so {Q EO SO<br />

TEET 3PEEO OR VELOCITY<br />

7Q gO AO<br />

CHAHBE (In Eil./h}<br />

Flgure 4. Dlstrlbutlon of lhe mean accelcrstlon ol vehlcles ac.<br />

cordlng to: the veloclty change ln real impactt r€lsted to 30'<br />

test, the teEt Bpeed tor 30. barrler lest8,<br />

of glance-off of the vehicle from the ob$tacle<br />

(above all in violent impacts) and the significance<br />

of residual crush.<br />

t "ll3<br />

track" overlaps are observed in 9? cases.<br />

The deformation geometries observed are quite<br />

different and could not be reproduced by one single<br />

test. The most frequently analysed are oblique<br />

and on account of this give rise to limited deformation<br />

of the end of the side-member. Only in the<br />

remaining cases (rectangular or pinpoint deformations),<br />

has the side-member been strained<br />

without bending and the amount of crushing is<br />

close to the maximum residual crush on the<br />

vehicle.<br />

t "l/2<br />

and 213 track" overlaps concern I 14 vehicles<br />

outside the cases related to the -'30" barrier"<br />

test. Here again, the deformation geometries involving<br />

roughly half the car are very dissimilar.<br />

Among these cases, the most numerous result<br />

from impacts against stationary obstacles such as<br />

large trees, bridge parapets or ditch sides.<br />

r Finally, centered poles concern only l8 cars.<br />

For the same delta-V, type of overlap and deformation<br />

geometry of the front end lead to quite different strains on<br />

the structure of the front end unit, which greatly influence<br />

the level of resistance of the passenger compartment.<br />

Frequencies of intrusion into the passenger compartment<br />

are analysed for the three main types of deformation encountered<br />

in real world accidents, which are:<br />

. impacts related to the "30o barrier" (320 cases),<br />

24s


off-set impacts (164 cases). The l/3 track and l/4<br />

track overlaps are covered here.<br />

r impacts related to the "0o barrier" (130 cases).<br />

During development of a vehicle, efforts are made to<br />

re$pect the integrity of the passenger compartment in order<br />

to preserve A DECELERATION SPACE for the re$trained<br />

occupant (and not survival space as is too often indicated)'<br />

<strong>Int</strong>rusion is quantified in the real world accidents of our<br />

sample by rearward displacement of the Iower windscreen<br />

header at A pillar level. As will subsequently be seen, since<br />

belted occupants are concerned, the risk is considerably<br />

aggravated when the reduction in deceleration space thus<br />

measured exceed$ 250 mm. Figure 5 gives the frequency of<br />

intrusions exceeding this value in classes of delta-V for the<br />

three types of most represented impacts. Critical intrusion<br />

frequencies differ distinctly from one type of impact to<br />

another. Thus, in the 51-60 km/h delta-V class, critical<br />

intrusions represent only 37o of the cases for impacts related<br />

to the 0o barrier against 29Va for those related to the 30"<br />

barrier and 60Vo in the case of the most off-set imPacts' It<br />

will be seen later that reductions in passenger compartment<br />

space constitute a significant limitation to the maximum<br />

efficiency of seatbelts. That is why it is important that a<br />

representative frontal impact used within a statutory frame-<br />

246<br />

eroportions (%) of cars<br />

with paeeenger<br />

intrueion<br />

compartment<br />

eb<br />

work verifies, among other things, the resistance of the<br />

passenger compartment. lt is undeniable that a test with<br />

overlap ofthe " l/3 track" type would present the advantage<br />

of concentrating efforts on thi$ single aspect provided that<br />

protection criteria are met.<br />

But solutions would risk being adapted to a low proportion<br />

ofcases, taking into consideration the $tatistic reality of<br />

accidents. In fact, out of 100 "critical" intrusions (rearward<br />

displacement of lower windscreen header > 250 mm), the<br />

largest number (38) occuned with impacts related to the<br />

"30"<br />

barrier" against 3l with<br />

"l/3<br />

or l/4 track" off-set<br />

impacts, 6 with impacts related to the 0" barrier and finally<br />

25 distributed among the various types of remaining<br />

deformations.<br />

Finally, the 30" banier test presents the following advantages<br />

from the sole viewpoint of accident analysis:<br />

r higher proportion of cars involved in severe impacts<br />

(3201746, namely 42Vo intotal),<br />

. realistic mean acceleration, restituted to 857o by<br />

the experimental test,<br />

. asymmetrical deformation of the car giving rise to<br />

a significant risk of critical intrusion with delta-V<br />

between 5l and 60 km/h,<br />

r larger number of cases of critical intrusion<br />

d"#<br />

",""<br />

q$<br />

""-'<br />

-or":<br />

-v<br />

delta-V<br />

40*50 51-60 61-70 >70<br />

Figure S. Frequenclea oJ <strong>Int</strong>ruslon (resnrard dlaplacoment ol the lowor windscreen hoader at A pillar level > 250 mm) by delta'V<br />

clCsses for thb throe doformatlon typeE'<br />

( in<br />

km/h)


Belted occupants involved in severe frontal<br />

impacts<br />

This second part aims to specify the risks incurred by<br />

belted front occupants in road accidents in terms of the<br />

different relationships with experimental frontal tests.<br />

A sample of 403 occupants taken from the first part of the<br />

survey was selected according to the following criteria;<br />

r front seat occupants without overload from rear<br />

pa$senger,<br />

. wearers of inertia reel seatbelts (or correctlv adjusted<br />

static seatbelts),<br />

r delta-V between 40 and 70 km/h.<br />

The distribution of the global gravity of lesions according<br />

to the place occupied in relation to the type of related impacts<br />

(table 3) reveals that:<br />

r Impacts bordering on the "30o barrier" test embrace<br />

the majority of recorded serious victims<br />

since they constitute 43Eo (39191) of the seriously<br />

injured (M.AIS 34-5) and half of those killed<br />

(10/20).<br />

r Impacts related to the "0" barrier" test represent<br />

23Vo of the seriously injured and concem 4 of the<br />

recorded 20 killed.<br />

r Gravity and mortality rates of occupant$ per types<br />

of related impact are similar, apart from off-set<br />

impacts with "l/3 or l/4 track" overlap, where<br />

they are less. This is due to the absence ofcases in<br />

the 6l-70 km/h delta-V class on account of the<br />

significant glance-off of cars in relation to the<br />

obstacle.<br />

Aggravation of risks connected with intrusion at equivalent<br />

delta-V appears clearly in the analysis of real world<br />

Table 3. Dlttrlbutlon of slobal sravlty ol leglons for 403 bcltsd<br />

occunant$ Involved In sEvere liontallmpacts (40 s delta-v < 70<br />

tm/h) accordlng to placeoccupled In relatlon to typssof relatBd<br />

lmpEcts.<br />

''t/1<br />

R. I rt.d<br />

lructt<br />

"rc."<br />

.t<br />

Ut-lricl-<br />

gfiD|rt<br />

ALIOdETHER<br />

r.AIS MIYERE FfrOT.T<br />

PA88ESER8<br />

0- t-2<br />

3-{-6<br />

xt t l.d<br />

TOTAL<br />

rr-2<br />

3-'a-6<br />

(t I l.d<br />

IOTAL<br />

(Fl-?<br />

3-4-6<br />

Kt I lnl<br />

T0rA[<br />

G-t-2<br />

3*,Fs<br />

Xl I lill<br />

roTAl,<br />

0-r-2<br />

F,FE<br />

Xl I l..l<br />

TOIAT<br />

3,4<br />

r6<br />

I<br />

87<br />

26<br />

I<br />

6t<br />

6<br />

2<br />

23<br />

13<br />

I<br />

rec<br />

0e<br />

r5<br />

60<br />

121<br />

62<br />

'all<br />

273<br />

t3<br />

6<br />

3<br />

40<br />

t3<br />

2<br />

21<br />

6<br />

o<br />

t0<br />

a<br />

0<br />

t0<br />

et 6<br />

2Z<br />

s6<br />

33<br />

20<br />

r3l,<br />

IOTAL<br />

11<br />

2l 1<br />

tl<br />

te?<br />

3t<br />

10<br />

l?c<br />

t9<br />

l4<br />

2<br />

3t<br />

rl a<br />

c6<br />

60<br />

2t2<br />

el<br />

t0 'altJ<br />

accidents, while it does not pre$ent any major problem in the<br />

0" barrier experimental tests.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>rusion is quantified by the rearward displacement of<br />

the lower windscreen header closest to the occupant. This is<br />

qualified as "critical" when the displacement exceeds 250<br />

mm.<br />

A "critical" intrusion has been recorded for only l1Vo of<br />

the occupants (see table 4). All delta-V's intermingled, it<br />

concerns 6Vo of the slightly injured, 25Vo of the seriously<br />

injured and 807o of the killed. As from a delta-V of 5l-60<br />

km/h, the number of serious victims with critical intrusion<br />

( l3 seriously injured and 4 killed) is almost as great as when<br />

the intrusion is moderate or nil (19 seriously injured and I<br />

killed).<br />

Tsble 4. Dlatrlbutlon of 403 bslted occupsnts by claaaea of<br />

della-V ln relatlon to lhe <strong>Int</strong>ruslon.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>ruttd laval<br />

(rildrrd dlsle<br />

cnnt ol lffir<br />

Ylndrcr[n hrrdar)<br />

Lll or rddarrta<br />

(( 2S0 r)<br />

c/tttfil<br />

(re60:)<br />

oYrrrl I<br />

ravarlty<br />

r.AI8 o-r-e<br />

x.AI8 3-4-6<br />

Xt I lrd<br />

TOTAT<br />

t{.4I8 Ft-2<br />

l.AI8 3-{-6<br />

Kt I l.d lolAL<br />

o.lt&V (ln h,/h)<br />

rO-60 51-t0 cr-70 r0rAL<br />

20r<br />

2A<br />

t<br />

236<br />

f<br />

I<br />

0 1{<br />

56<br />

r0 I<br />

76<br />

t3 4 26<br />

I<br />

ID<br />

?<br />

32<br />

z<br />

,<br />

t2 2t<br />

f--'l pasaenger comPartment<br />

Le8enq : U lntruBiond aso mm Nr?:i:::i::;Tgil:t."'<br />

.I1 L\\\\\I<br />

:t9.<br />

I NSSSSN<br />

40-50<br />

CIaE66a of<br />

."^ N\\\<br />

I N\\\\<br />

5r-60<br />

vclocity chenge<br />

( in kh/h)<br />

t?6<br />

ia<br />

a<br />

t7<br />

zl<br />

t0<br />

61-70<br />

Flgure 6. Gravlty rate by classee of veloclty change lor 403<br />

belled front occupanls accordlng to passenger companment<br />

lntruslon.<br />

Aggravation of the risk connected with intrusion at comparable<br />

delta-V is particularly obvious when the gravity<br />

rates (M.AIS l3limplied) presented in figure 6 are examined.<br />

In the 40-50 km/h and 5 140 km/h delta-V classes, the<br />

gravity rates in case of critical intrusion are respectively<br />

multiplied by 4. I and 2.8 compared with occupants undergoing<br />

nil or moderate intrusion. The 1z test shows that the<br />

differences observed are highly significant at the .05 threshold.<br />

In the 5l-60 km/h and 6l-70 km/h delta-V classes, the<br />

mortality rates (killed/implied) are multiplied by l0 when<br />

the occupants suffer "critical"<br />

intrusion, but the difference<br />

is not significant, on account of the low numbers involved.<br />

247


Comparison of risks with impacts related to<br />

tt0o barrier" and tt30o<br />

barrier" tests<br />

To be strict, comparison of the global gravities of lesions<br />

in the two samples should take into account the three physical<br />

parameters recorded at the time of real world accidents,<br />

which are: velocity change (delta-V); mean acceleration<br />

(fl); intrusion level (critical or not).<br />

Figure 7 gives this information for drivers according to<br />

whether the impact is related to the 0" barrier or the 30"<br />

barrier. On this side of 60 km/h. it is to be observed: that no<br />

death occurs in either sample; that for the seriously injured,<br />

the risk depends either on the mean acceleration level (0'<br />

banier), or because of the fact of critical intrusion (30o<br />

barrier).<br />

it<br />

c18<br />

g<br />

E<br />

cl<br />

H<br />

Irg<br />

E<br />

tg<br />

d IJ<br />

(,<br />

< 8<br />

z<br />

il<br />

I<br />

BlE<br />

C<br />

g<br />

E tTI<br />

rt<br />

G<br />

ltl<br />

IT<br />

t<br />

S e<br />

T<br />

H<br />

Floure 7. M.AIS of belted drlvers according to Yeloclty change!<br />

m6an acceleratlon of vehicle and intruslon for impact$ related<br />

to 0'test or 30'test.<br />

The lowest gravity rates are recorded in the absence of<br />

intrusion. They are.l0 (8/80) and.24 (10/41) respectively<br />

for drivers involved in impacts related to the 30" barrier and<br />

the 0" barrier. This difference is explained by a lower level<br />

of mean acceleration (approximately 4 g) to the benefit of<br />

drivers involved in "30" barrier" impacts.<br />

On the other hand, this advantage is completely wiped out<br />

in impacts related to the 30'barrier when the driver suffers<br />

critical intrusion. The gravity rate attains .36 (5/14). The<br />

difference with drivers related to the 30'barrier not suffer-<br />

248<br />

IIfACTS ffi-ATED TO O.TEST<br />

Fffi ELTEII OFIVEFS.<br />

. t AItr o-l-E<br />

+ HAIS 9-rl-6<br />

T KILLEP<br />

VELOCTTY CHAHEE (Tn K[/h)<br />

II#ACTS FELATEII TO 30. TEST<br />

FM EELTED OFIVERS,<br />

. XAIE o-t-e<br />

+ HAIE E-4-E<br />

x KILLED<br />

o lrlTr{ INTFUEIO}I<br />

YELOCITY Cl{Al*lEE (rn Krn./h)<br />

ing considerable intrusion is highly significant at the .05<br />

threshold (x2 = 6.61 ).<br />

With delta-V between 60 and 70 km/h, in spite of mean<br />

accelerations ofbetween l5 and 2l g, three out ofthe nine<br />

drivers involved in impact bordering on the 0" barrier did<br />

not suffer serious injury. The only killed was 42 years of age<br />

in a car subjected to considerable passenger compartment<br />

intrusion. Once again, for drivers whose impact is related to<br />

the 30" barrier, the balance is connected with presence or<br />

absence of critical intrusion.<br />

Out of l4 drivers, victims of critical intrusion between l0<br />

and 14 g mean acceleration, 8 were killed, 5 seriously injured<br />

(M.AIS 3-4-5) and only I was slightly injured<br />

(M.AIS l-2). In the absence of intrusion, the balance is<br />

more favourable since out of the l2 drivers concerned, the<br />

records show 0 killed, I seriously injured and 4 slightly<br />

injured. Since front passengers were involved (see figure 8),<br />

no case ofdirect intrusion took place on the occupant on this<br />

side of a delta-V of 60 km/h, either among cases related to<br />

the 0" barrier or among those related to the 30" barrier. The<br />

gravity rates of these front passengers are .16 (7 144) in cases<br />

bordering on the 30' barrier and higher, .23 (417) for cases<br />

assimilated to the 0" barrier. These rates are very similar to<br />

those observed for drivers under the same conditions (.10<br />

and .24 respectively).<br />

With delta-V between 60 and 70 km/h, high gravity is to<br />

6<br />

c l E<br />

6H<br />

Ers<br />

tr<br />

UT<br />

UJ<br />

.J<br />

o<br />

r t B<br />

z<br />

4<br />

lrl<br />

I<br />

6rE<br />

t<br />

g<br />

z<br />

Ers<br />

{<br />

fi<br />

lrJ<br />

IJ<br />

S e<br />

z<br />

{<br />

trl<br />

E<br />

IIfACTS FEIATED TO O. TEST<br />

FOH BELTED FHONT.PASSEI{GEtri.<br />

VELOCITY CHANGE (TN Kfi./N)<br />

IHFACTS HELATED TO S{T.TEST<br />

FOH BELTED FtrT{T-PASSE}EEFS.<br />

r l<br />

. HAIE o-l-e<br />

+ HAIE E-4-E<br />

|. KILLED<br />

O HTTH IHTruBION<br />

VELOCITY CHANBE (IN KNlh)<br />

Fioure L M.AIS ol belted front-passengers according to veloc'<br />

Itv-chanoe. mean accelerstion bf vehicle and <strong>Int</strong>rusl-on lor impicts<br />

related to 0'test or 30'test.


e observed (l killed and 4 seriously injured) for the 5<br />

pas$engers involved in impacts related to the 0o banier. This<br />

gravity appear$ less with the I I passengers involved in<br />

impacts related to the 30" barrier, who did not suffer intru*<br />

sion (l killed, 5 seriously injured and 5 slightly injured) on<br />

account of lower mean accelerations.<br />

Distribution of injuries by bodily area<br />

Non-minor injuries (AIS > 2 and AIS > 3) are given by<br />

bodily area (figure 9) for 261 ofthe 273 drivers and 126 of<br />

the 130 front passengers.<br />

fi otnrr,<br />

'.]<br />

':J<br />

DRIr/ERS (N- 261)<br />

|<br />

,*n""r" rcr.t;d to 30r test [l :lH::t<br />

LJ oo tcat<br />

tTHORAX I'PPER -ffih<br />

DOR$O ABITo|IEN PELVIS I4UEN<br />

LIXBS LTITBAR<br />

SPINE<br />

LD,qS<br />

FROI{I PA$$ENGEN$ 126 )<br />

*%ru-ffi-k LIEA,D H8tr ?HORN( Dofi3o rmmx pnlvrs<br />

UPPEN<br />

LIXBS<br />

LU;BAN<br />

SPUC<br />

ITgER<br />

LIIGS<br />

Flguru 9. AIS l 2 snd AIS r 3 Inlury dlatrlbutlon$ for belted<br />

drlvera and F.F. pas8angers by bodfly ar6as accordlns to the<br />

slmllarlty to 0. or 30" bariler terts (frodtal lmpEcts lrom:10 to 70<br />

km/h of delta-v).<br />

The exact balance of lesions arising at the time of immediate<br />

death is not known, failing authorization to perform<br />

autopsies. This concerns l2 drivers suffering critical intrusion<br />

(of which 6 in impacts related to the 30o barrier) and 4<br />

passengers (2 in impacts related to the 0o barrier without<br />

intrusion and 2 in impacts related to the 30" barrier of which<br />

I with intrusion). Consequently, it must be bome in mind<br />

that the frequency and the gravity of the injuries to drivers<br />

suffering critical intrusion is under-estimated in what<br />

follows.<br />

Among drivers, the majority of the lesions of moderate<br />

severity or more (AIS > 2) involve the head followed by the<br />

limbs. On the other hand, regarding injuries AIS > 3, the<br />

classification is reversed. This is explained by the very high<br />

frequency of AIS 2 lesions to the head, such as brief loss of<br />

consciousness or simple fracture of the maxillo-facial area,<br />

while open fractures of the limbs with AIS 3 rating are<br />

relatively more numerous-<br />

For belted passengers, the abdomen followed by the thorax<br />

constitute the bodily areas most frequently attained by<br />

serious lesions.<br />

Globally, both with drivers and passengers, the share of<br />

injuries arising from impacts related to the 0" barrier is fairly<br />

stable (between 20 and 307o) from one bodily area to another,<br />

apart from a few rare exceptions. This finding in fact<br />

hides considerable differences in risk connected with the<br />

types of related impacts.<br />

Table 5 gives the AIS > 2 and AIS 2 3 injury rates by<br />

bodily area according to the place occupied in terms of the<br />

related impact according to whether or not there was critical<br />

intrusion into the pas$enger compartment. On account of<br />

the low numbers in certain categories of cases with high<br />

intrusion, 3 drivers in impacts related to the 0" barrier and 7<br />

passengers (2 in 30" barrierand 5 with otherclassifications)<br />

do not appear.<br />

Tsble 5. AIS > and d'AlS > 3 rates bv bodllv area of belted<br />

drlv€rs and lront Dasaanq€ra accordlno to tvoe of frontsl<br />

lmpact and <strong>Int</strong>rusldn (frontll Impact$ : c0-kmlh-i delta-V < 70<br />

km/h).<br />

r H€rO<br />

r IECX<br />

. TTERAX<br />

r (rFfEF I<br />

Ll|fs)<br />

. otnSo<br />

LUfAfi<br />

SFIItE<br />

r A8tldlEll<br />

r PEIVIS<br />

r L(IER )<br />

LtnS)<br />

r HCIO<br />

. tEcx<br />

I rHnAI<br />

r UeeEr )<br />

LIr.08)<br />

.|Xnflt )<br />

Luita )<br />

8FiltEt )<br />

r AEllOa€l<br />

. PELYIS<br />

r L(ilER )<br />

LIr.S8)<br />

A - AI8 f2<br />

atiIVERS<br />

,"t,o'ilT# Oth.il<br />

(n=s)<br />

(n=e3)<br />

|<br />

.50 l.re<br />

0 l.0r<br />

,t6 | .06<br />

'ei<br />

I'<br />

.0e .0,<br />

|<br />

.116 | .01<br />

ii<br />

11.00<br />

ll 0<br />

ll .04<br />

ll .04<br />

tl<br />

tl<br />

ll.0r<br />

tl<br />

ll:li ll .re<br />

tl<br />

| :ll<br />

( n:t{t)<br />

.22<br />

.02<br />

.03<br />

.t2<br />

,01<br />

,02<br />

,01<br />

,t6<br />

0<br />

.01<br />

0<br />

.03<br />

0<br />

.01<br />

o<br />

.05<br />

Crlt lc.l<br />

<strong>Int</strong>rurl m<br />

l.ll t0'<br />

(n:tl)<br />

. 'ai<br />

.0,1<br />

. t4<br />

.tt<br />

o<br />

. ta<br />

.m<br />

. tl<br />

.06<br />

. t'a<br />

.tl<br />

0<br />

.t4<br />

.11<br />

.71<br />

.tt<br />

0<br />

.06<br />

Ffio*r P|sSErlEtS<br />

tll or ld tntrutto<br />

|!ll 50'<br />

(n'61)<br />

,zz<br />

0<br />

.tt6<br />

,t4<br />

otharr<br />

( n'at )<br />

,tt<br />

,0e<br />

,l5<br />

'1f<br />

The lessons to be drawn from this table are the following,<br />

per bodily area:<br />

t Head: The AIS > 2 lesion rate with drivers is<br />

comparable in real world accident related to the 0'<br />

barrier (.50) and in impacts with critical intrusion<br />

(.45 and .50). The rates of serious and fatal injuries<br />

(AIS > 3) are higher in the cases of critical<br />

o<br />

0<br />

.06<br />

.1t<br />

. tt<br />

0<br />

.tl<br />

0<br />

.06<br />

0<br />

.10<br />

.0'l<br />

.lo<br />

.0e<br />

0<br />

.04<br />

,06<br />

o<br />

.10<br />

.06<br />

.12<br />

.04<br />

.02<br />

.02<br />

0<br />

,02<br />

.0i<br />

0<br />

,02<br />

,02<br />

.02<br />

249


intrusion (.14 and .19) than in cases related to the<br />

0o barrier (.06r.<br />

t Thorax: The highest AIS > 2 and ) 3 lesion rates<br />

are observed for passengers involved in impacts<br />

related to the 0o barrier.<br />

. Upper /imbs; The highest risks are observed in<br />

cases of critical intrusion.<br />

t Abdomen.'The lesion rate is only lower with drivers<br />

involved in asymmetrical impact without<br />

intrusion.<br />

r Pelvis: The risk is only really present with drivers<br />

involved in impacts related to the 30" barrier with<br />

critical intrusion.<br />

t Lower limbs:The AIS > 2 or 3 risks are only very<br />

high among drivers suffering critical intrusion.<br />

In short, for all bodily areas (except the thorax), it appears<br />

that the risks are always higher when the driver is victim of<br />

critical intrusion into the passenger compartment. These<br />

risks exceed those observed in impacts related to the 0"<br />

barrier, which themselves remain higher than the gravity<br />

rates recorded in other impacts where there was no significant<br />

reduction of the pa$senger compartment space.<br />

Let us finally point out that 47Vo (68/146) of all the<br />

serious and fatal injuries (AIS E 3) are observed in impacts<br />

related to the 30o barrier against 24Vo in impacts related to<br />

the 0o barrier and 29Vo distributed among the various remaining<br />

types of impact.<br />

Discussion<br />

The 0" barrier test i$ widely used in both American and<br />

European standards. It is primarily supported by the<br />

NHTSA (15), which estimates that a 0o barrier test is<br />

preferable to a test against an oblique barrier insofar as the<br />

latter may constitute an obstacle to the development of<br />

inflatable air-bags. J. Hackney ( l6), taking the NCSS file as<br />

basis, adds that the risks connected with directions of 12<br />

o'clock impacts with deformation distributed over the<br />

entire front end are higher in real world frontal impact. Our<br />

survey shows that this is not exact in the case of belted<br />

occupant$ victims of a significant reduction in passenger<br />

compartment space.<br />

But what is desirable for any regulation is moreover<br />

absolutely essential for a system of inter-classification of<br />

vehicles, especially if its objective is comparative data on<br />

potential vehicle safety. In the United States, prediction of<br />

the safety level of tested cars is based on impact against<br />

orthogonal barrier within the framework of the New Car<br />

Assessment Program. The explanation of the divergences<br />

between this program, also called "Crashworthiness<br />

Rating," and real world accidents has been sought in terms<br />

ofrepresentativity ofthe test and consistency ofthe criteria<br />

measured on dummies with reference to the injuries<br />

observed in real world accidents (17, 18, 19,20). It appears<br />

that recourse to an asymmetrical test of the impact against<br />

"30"<br />

barrier" type and the addition of supplementary<br />

protection criteria concerning the quality of pelvic restraint<br />

250<br />

and facial protection are minimal improvements to be made.<br />

In Europe, at statutory scale, two initiatives $upporting<br />

the 30o barrier test were taken in the pa$t but were not<br />

concretized. As far back a 1974, the European Committee<br />

for Experimental Vehicles (21) declared itself in favour of a<br />

global asymmetrical test (30" barrier or 50dlo off-set banier).<br />

The other initiative is a draft regulation for global frontal<br />

impact with test against 30'barrier drawn up in 1983 under<br />

the care of the European Economic Commission. This<br />

document (22), adopted by a group of vehicle<br />

manufacturing experts, wanted to con$titute a statutory<br />

altemative to the often ancient regulations at present in<br />

force.<br />

The asymmetrical test against off-set banier with overlap<br />

in the region of 40Vo above all aims to verify that the<br />

behaviour of the front end structure of the car does not lead<br />

to critical intrusion without however resorting to<br />

rigidification of the front unit of the car to such an extent<br />

that the tolerances of the occupants risk being exceeded,<br />

especially in symmetrical impacts. Analysis of real world<br />

accidents clearly indicates that efforts must be made to<br />

attain this object. However, it is necessary to emphasize<br />

here that the largest number of critical intrusions is not<br />

observed in impacts of the " l/3 or l/4 track" type, but occur<br />

in cases where overlap with the obstacle is greater than or<br />

equal to half the front end of the car.<br />

The interest of a statutory te$t i$ to propose one single<br />

global procedure aiming to faithfully restitute the attendant<br />

risks. connected with intrusion on the one hand and<br />

accleration on the other hand, suffered by the majority of<br />

seriously injured and killed belted occupants. This means<br />

that the deformations of the vehicle must be programmed<br />

taking two complementary criteria into consideration:<br />

r integrity of the passenger compartment under<br />

asymmetrical impact conditions,<br />

r compliance with protection criteria measured on<br />

dummies.<br />

With more than 4OVo of serious victims involved in<br />

impacts related to the 30" barrier, it appears that this test<br />

constitutes the berrt compromise that can be made to<br />

advance the protection offered in frontal impact.<br />

Since the subject was voluntarily limited to the study of<br />

real world accidents. reference should be made to the work<br />

of G. Stcherbatcheff for a comparative survey of different<br />

frontal te$ts at experimental scale (23).<br />

Conclusions<br />

Analysis of a sample comprising 746 impacted vehicles<br />

ofall makes and 403 front occupants restrained by seatbelts,<br />

involved in velocity changes (delta-V's) equal to or greater<br />

than 40 km/h shows that:<br />

. Only lTVo of the cars present deformation related<br />

to the 0" barrier and mean accelerations<br />

undergone by these vehicles are less than those<br />

obtained with the 0o barrier test in half the cases.


The strict relationship to the 0o barrier test is<br />

therefore only observed for less than l07o of<br />

frontal real world impacts.<br />

r Killed and seriously injured belted occupants in<br />

impacts related to the 0" barrier represent less than<br />

a quarter of all the serious victims of the sample.<br />

r Risks of AIS E 3 lesions to drivers are lower in<br />

impacts related to the 0o barrier than in impacts<br />

with critical intrusion into the passenger<br />

compartment observed in asymmetrical impacts.<br />

r Majority of the cars involved in real world frontto-front<br />

road accidents present deformations and<br />

mean accelerations comparable with those<br />

observed against the 30o barrier.<br />

. Impacts related to the 30o barrier represent 427o of<br />

the cars studied, 43Vo of $eriously injured belted<br />

victims and half the killed belted victims.<br />

r With delta-V between 40 and 60 km/h, intrusion<br />

multiplies the risk of being seriously injured by 4.<br />

r Largest number of severe intrusions into the<br />

passenger compartment is recorded in impacts<br />

related to the 30" barrier.<br />

In short, it appears that the global frontal impact test<br />

against 30o barrier effectively constitutes the best<br />

compromise that can be made to translate risks of intrusion<br />

and the exceeding of tolerances observed in reality with the<br />

largest number of seriously injured belted victims within<br />

one same test.<br />

References<br />

(l) F. Hartemann, "Enqu€te midicale et technique sur les<br />

accidents de la route", Inginieurs de I'Automobile, 1972,<br />

n" 12<br />

(2) C. TarriEre, "De la rCalitd des blessures aux critEres<br />

pris en compte dans les tests de sdcurit0", Ingdnieurs de<br />

I'Automobile, 1972, n" 12.<br />

(3) P. Ventre, J. Provensal, "Proposition d'une mCthode<br />

d'analyse et de classification des sdvCritds de collisions en<br />

accidents riels", IRCOBI <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Amsterdam, June<br />

26.1973.<br />

(4) P. Ventre, "Proposal Methodology for Drawing-up<br />

Efficient Regulations", 4th <strong>Int</strong>ernational Congress on<br />

Automotive Safety, San Francisco, July l,t-16, 1975.;<br />

(5) C. Tarribre, A. Fayon, F. Hartemann, "The<br />

Contribution of Physical Analysis of Accidents Towards<br />

<strong>Int</strong>erpretation of Severe Traffic Trauma", l9th Stapp Car<br />

Crash <strong>Conf</strong>erence, San Diego, November l7-19, 1975.<br />

(6) R.H. Arendt, "Crash Test Performance of Renault<br />

Basic Research Vehicle",6th <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Washington<br />

DC, October 12-15, 1976.<br />

(7) J.A. Desbois, *'Peugeot Status Report", 6th <strong>ESV</strong><br />

<strong>Conf</strong>erence, Washington DC, October l2-15, 1976.<br />

(8) P. Ventre, "Renault Status Report", 6th <strong>ESV</strong><br />

<strong>Conf</strong>erence, Washington DC, October l2-15, 1976.<br />

(9) K. Friedman, "Phase II RSV Accident Analyses<br />

Techniques", 6th <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Washington DC,<br />

ocrober l2-15. 1976.<br />

(10) B.S. Riley and C.P. Radley, "Traffic Accidents to<br />

Cars with Directions of Impact from the Front and the<br />

Side", 6th <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Washington DC, October 12-<br />

15. t976.<br />

(ll) F. Zeidler, H.H. Schreier and R. Stadelmann,<br />

"Accident Research and Accident Reconstruction by the<br />

EES-Accident Reconstruction Method", SAE Congress,<br />

Detroit, Michigan, Feb. 25-March I, 1985.<br />

(12) L. Criisch, K.H. Baumann, H. Holtze and W.<br />

Schwede, "Safety Performance of Passenger Cars<br />

Designed to Accommodate Frontal Impacts with Partial<br />

Barrier Overlap", SAE Congress, Detroit, Michigan, Feb.<br />

Z7-March 3, 1989, SAE Paper 890 748.<br />

(13) Laboratory of Physiology and Biomechanics<br />

Associated with Peugeot S.A./Renault "Assessment of<br />

Crash Severity", Published at the Workshop on assessment<br />

of crash severity, Cothenburg, Sweden, September 1984.<br />

(14) American Association for Automotive Medicine,<br />

"Abbreviated Injury Scale-l980 revision".<br />

(15) NHTSA, "FMVSS 208", Docket74.l4, Notice 38,<br />

April 1985.<br />

(16) J. Hackney, "Comparison of 0o and Oblique Tests",<br />

l0th <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Oxford, England, July l-4, 1985.<br />

(17) J.R. Stewart and E.A. Rodgman, "Comparisons of<br />

NCAP Crash Test Results with Driver Injury Rates in<br />

Highway Crashes", Final Report, October 1984, H.S.R.C.'<br />

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514,<br />

U.S.A.<br />

(18) C. Thomas, F. Hartemann, J.Y. Fordt-Bruno, C.<br />

TarriEre. C. Chillon. C. Hufschmitt, C. Got and A. Patel,<br />

"Crashworthiness<br />

Rating System and Accident Data:<br />

Convergences and Divergences", SAE <strong>Int</strong>ernational<br />

Congress and Exposition, P14l, Advances in belt restraint<br />

systems, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., Feb. 27-March 2,<br />

1984.<br />

(19) J. Provensal, F. Hartemann and C. TarriEre, "Five<br />

years of New Car Assessment Program: balance and current<br />

conclusions<br />

", Proceedings of l0th <strong>Int</strong>emational Technical<br />

<strong>Conf</strong>erence on Experimental Safety, Oxford, England, July<br />

14. 1985.<br />

(20) C. TarriBre, "Comment amCliorer I'addquation<br />

entre la protection Cvalu€e dans les tests et la sdcuritC rdelle<br />

con$tatde sur la route", Proceedings of lrr'Eme <strong>Conf</strong>drence<br />

Canadienne Multi-disciplinaire sur la Sdcuritd RoutiEre,<br />

Montrdal, 26-28 mai 1985.<br />

(21) H. Taylor, "EEVC Status Report," 5th <strong>Int</strong>emational<br />

<strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence. London. June 1974.<br />

(22) Nations Unies-Commission Economique pour<br />

I'Europe, "Projet de rdglement sur le choc frontal global",<br />

TRANS/SCI1WP29/R237, Revision I du 24 ao0t 1983.<br />

(23) G. Stcherbatcheff, "Frontal Crash Tests and<br />

Compatibility", l2th <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Gothenburg,<br />

Sweden. Mav 29-June 2. 1989.<br />

251


Reference Frontal Impact<br />

G. Stcherbatcheff, R. Dornez and D. Pouget,<br />

Renault<br />

Abstract<br />

Automotive structural design is influenced by the choice<br />

of a method for evaluating the protection level provided by a<br />

vehicle in frontal impact. This choice influences the vehicle's<br />

performance in real accidents.<br />

This paper compares different reference frontal collisions;<br />

offset car-to-car impact with 507o overlap on the left<br />

side; 30' angled barrier impact on the left side with or<br />

without anti-slip system; offset half-barrier impact with<br />

45Vo overlap on the left side; and impact against 0" angled<br />

barriers.<br />

I clc (rr lo rf Yitlr dftttl 2<br />

3<br />

f iltld !*tiff<br />

r{||| ifi t{t<br />

I.<br />

lN AC<br />

5 .rr: 0.fltlad brrft vitt clfrrl 6 ]AB<br />

FIgure 1. lmpact conflgulallons.<br />

252<br />

IJJJJJJJJJI<br />

l0r rdr{ rnr.<br />

lfx#d brri.r<br />

4rl xti rlit rltfrE<br />

ts ||d|{ lrrhr<br />

These different impact configurations are compared in<br />

terms of $tructure and test dummy injury criteria by main<br />

component analysis of the data. The configurations are<br />

evaluated from the viewpoint ofrepresentatives ofreal road<br />

conditions. The question is posed as to their influence on<br />

compatibility, especially in side collisions.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

Thirty-nine frontal collisions against various barriers and<br />

car-to-car were performed and analyzed. The vehicles<br />

selected are five recent models of the Renault range. The six<br />

configurations, tested at 56 km/h, are shown in figure l.<br />

The first configuration, impact between two identical<br />

vehicles, aims at simulating a category of collisions<br />

representing 60Vo of severe injuries in frontal impact. The<br />

impact against a 30o angled barrier corresponds to a planned<br />

European standard. The offset half-barrier is a barrier used<br />

by certain laboratories and car makers for the development<br />

of their vehicles. The impact against a 0" angled barrier<br />

corresponds to European Standard ECE l2 and U.S.<br />

Standards FMVSS 204 and 208, the statutory speed being<br />

48.3 km/h instead of 56 km/l which is the speed taken into<br />

account in this study.<br />

Methodology<br />

For each of the 39 tests. 22 factors were selected<br />

describing the test conditions, structural deformations and<br />

test dummy injury criteria.<br />

The 858 (39 X 22) data items are presented in reduced<br />

form in table l. Table 2 shows the mean values of these<br />

factors for each test configuration.<br />

Above all, however, this data was subjected to analysis<br />

with the SPAD software (Portable System for Data<br />

Analysis) (1).*<br />

In view of the number offactors adopted and the scatter of<br />

certain factors, 39 tests may seem a limited number for<br />

precise analysis. However, it will be noted that the software<br />

used provides indicators allowing evaluation of the analysis<br />

validity level and also shows factors poorly represented in<br />

the data set and for which no conclusions can be reduced.<br />

It is clearly advisable to increase the data set with time so<br />

as to verify that the conclusions drawn from the 39 tests are<br />

confirmed.<br />

Factors flnalyzed<br />

All the tests were performed at a speed of 56 km/h, which<br />

was a constant in the study. The slight fluctuations in test<br />

speed around 56 kmlh do not affect the study results, and<br />

this was verified beforehand.<br />

The first two factors listed below describe the test conditions,<br />

while the other 20 factors indicate the te$t results.<br />

N.B.: Factors l, 2 and 4 are qualitative (or illustrative)<br />

factors which do not contribute to calculation of the main<br />

axis, unlike the other factors which are quantitative. However,<br />

these qualitative factors, when projected onto the main<br />

*Numbers in parentheses designate rcfetences at end of paper.


Table 1. Test reaults (for each quantltatlve fsctor, the mean calculated on all tests ls equsl to 100).<br />

i<br />

I<br />

I<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

a<br />

I<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I<br />

t<br />

t<br />

t<br />

I<br />

{ I<br />

{<br />

J<br />

t<br />

I<br />

5<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

;s.<br />

2 H<br />

i<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

s<br />

I<br />

I<br />

5<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

t<br />

I<br />

,<br />

I<br />

a<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

{<br />

I<br />

8<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I I<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I<br />

a<br />

{<br />

r<br />

f<br />

a:<br />

fl<br />

v<br />

]<br />

r0i<br />

fl<br />

E<br />

t<br />

ll<br />

ti<br />

]<br />

tl<br />

lll<br />

rll<br />

T<br />

ll<br />

T<br />

tz<br />

?{<br />

l0l<br />

tl<br />

1<br />

t<br />

!a<br />

E<br />

I<br />

at<br />

rol<br />

td<br />

tol<br />

It<br />

lt;<br />

]<br />

nl<br />

l+<br />

llaad<br />

l. Ulnl lrr<br />

I<br />

Y<br />

Y<br />

i<br />

I<br />

T<br />

I<br />

Y<br />

I<br />

f<br />

f,<br />

I<br />

I<br />

t<br />

I<br />

Y<br />

I<br />

I<br />

Y<br />

t<br />

t<br />

I<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

t<br />

Y<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

r<br />

t<br />

I<br />

t<br />

t<br />

rl<br />

il<br />

r01<br />

J'<br />

I<br />

Itl<br />

t<br />

rd<br />

I<br />

I<br />

7l<br />

tl<br />

tl<br />

E<br />

tlt<br />

lf, 7l<br />

T I<br />

lg<br />

I<br />

rta<br />

t?<br />

r0l<br />

IC<br />

T<br />

l:<br />

7l<br />

I<br />

td<br />

IT<br />

ul<br />

tfl T<br />

tl<br />

tot<br />

t0l<br />

Tfl<br />

lol<br />

n<br />

ll<br />

rfi T<br />

til<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

?t<br />

?l<br />

ltt<br />

lf,<br />

.rl<br />

I<br />

Ir(<br />

l0l<br />

lol<br />

n t<br />

T<br />

n<br />

F TT<br />

rtl<br />

lll<br />

ls<br />

l0t<br />

t<br />

rd,l<br />

Ill<br />

l0t<br />

rl<br />

lol<br />

la<br />

rl<br />

fl ll<br />

tl<br />

ll<br />

il<br />

f(<br />

I<br />

lu il<br />

t{<br />

T<br />

la<br />

tl<br />

at<br />

DI<br />

lll<br />

r.l<br />

rl<br />

It<br />

ta<br />

lf,<br />

tl<br />

tl<br />

ru<br />

ll<br />

rI<br />

n<br />

rl<br />

tl<br />

ltl<br />

H<br />

aa<br />

lf<br />

ul<br />

tal<br />

!<br />

Itl<br />

It<br />

lll<br />

fi<br />

fl<br />

J<br />

t3<br />

{t<br />

lf 3<br />

fl<br />

n,<br />

3<br />

t,<br />

!<br />

I<br />

t:<br />

?l<br />

lt,<br />

ll<br />

t<br />

f<br />

t<br />

lr<br />

l0l<br />

ll:<br />

a<br />

tl<br />

al<br />

tl<br />

a fl<br />

frt<br />

Pralc<br />

'I<br />

|.<br />

ll<br />

fl<br />

It<br />

tl<br />

||<br />

a<br />

fl<br />

IC<br />

fi<br />

{<br />

ll{ tt<br />

lll<br />

Itl<br />

?l<br />

I<br />

tl<br />

lq t<br />

an<br />

tl<br />

rll<br />

lol<br />

5t<br />

ttI<br />

?l<br />

T<br />

t<br />

t!<br />

l?l<br />

ttl<br />

lrr<br />

lrI<br />

rll<br />

tt!<br />

llr<br />

t<br />

ill 3<br />

3 t<br />

t<br />

t<br />

t<br />

I<br />

E<br />

E<br />

t<br />

ll1<br />

lll<br />

l1<br />

r0l<br />

I<br />

lol<br />

l0r<br />

l0l<br />

li<br />

llr<br />

lc<br />

E<br />

l{l<br />

tl<br />

It<br />

ll<br />

l.<br />

U(<br />

ul<br />

ttl<br />

tn<br />

I<br />

tl !<br />

ll<br />

?<br />

!<br />

||l<br />

It<br />

It<br />

tl<br />

ll{<br />

l{t<br />

til<br />

lt<br />

It<br />

ltl<br />

I$ x<br />

tr<br />

CT<br />

t?l<br />

rfl<br />

Itr<br />

I<br />

II<br />

t{<br />

ltl<br />

u<br />

rt(<br />

tl<br />

ul<br />

H llt<br />

lo{<br />

al<br />

tl<br />

!<br />

l<br />

tl<br />

n<br />

L<br />

|8!<br />

l0l<br />

?l<br />

t<br />

l0l<br />

tl<br />

|.<br />

|{<br />

x<br />

lrl<br />

lll<br />

tl<br />

t<br />

t<br />

T<br />

to{<br />

s{<br />

tl<br />

I<br />

tol<br />

77<br />

It{<br />

fl<br />

tl<br />

lc t5<br />

lx<br />

ul<br />

tl<br />

ut<br />

ull<br />

t4<br />

qr<br />

t<br />

tt<br />

tl<br />

l{<br />

u[<br />

rfi<br />

rol<br />

t<br />

i<br />

l|1<br />

rtr<br />

llt<br />

TT<br />

lol<br />

f<br />

t<br />

T<br />

l0l<br />

lfi<br />

I<br />

fl<br />

rt<br />

lr<br />

IOt<br />

l9t<br />

tl<br />

4<br />

lsl<br />

lll<br />

lol<br />

l8{<br />

tl<br />

ld<br />

tl<br />

r!<br />

tl<br />

T<br />

fl<br />

t!<br />

ttl.<br />

cFa! rt vl l0tt ill[ |lffirlf<br />

rdl<br />

Table 2. Test regultg: mean values of sach quantitatlve faclor for €sch impact conflguratlon (lor each quantltatlv€ fsctor, ths mean<br />

calculatsd on all te$ts ls equal to 100)<br />

tsrd<br />

Dt|tC<br />

tl<br />

t1<br />

l0i<br />

lr<br />

t{<br />

rll<br />

Factor<br />

No. Labcl<br />

I<br />

r0{<br />

l0l<br />

ut<br />

l|l<br />

ul<br />

ltl<br />

I<br />

I<br />

lfi<br />

lda<br />

lil<br />

tt<br />

||<br />

lr t<br />

tli<br />

lll<br />

I<br />

r0r<br />

t<br />

lrl<br />

llI<br />

l0l<br />

fi<br />

ll<br />

3<br />

rll<br />

lq<br />

lri<br />

tf,<br />

t<br />

t<br />

il<br />

ll<br />

tl<br />

I<br />

lq<br />

tl<br />

t8l<br />

tlt<br />

rl|<br />

ru tt<br />

|r<br />

d<br />

ll?<br />

u0<br />

lot<br />

rol<br />

lll<br />

ll:<br />

fl<br />

l0i<br />

td<br />

rl(<br />

rll<br />

lll<br />

t0i<br />

t'<br />

11<br />

ttt<br />

T<br />

r0f<br />

tll<br />

T<br />

|{<br />

tl<br />

tr<br />

tl<br />

ll<br />

tl<br />

I<br />

I<br />

It<br />

lr1<br />

ttl<br />

rT I?l<br />

ll<br />

frl<br />

IE<br />

tl<br />

rt<br />

I.t<br />

t<br />

tl!<br />

T<br />

5<br />

IG<br />

fl<br />

tt!<br />

?t<br />

|{<br />

t tal<br />

It<br />

lfi<br />

ll<br />

$<br />

ltl<br />

'l<br />

ttt<br />

EJ<br />

Ir I<br />

{li<br />

r|l<br />

ral<br />

I<br />

ril<br />

f,<br />

)t<br />

.'fl1<br />

-r|il<br />

-lll<br />

-r|i<br />

{ll<br />

-1rt/<br />

Dllvtl ttltErclfl ll ?ll.x llAl.tltl ll aEcrl I Pttx. DltE ttl<br />

ul<br />

tl<br />

t6<br />

l0r<br />

tt<br />

rtr<br />

Irul<br />

tl<br />

H<br />

tl<br />

l0l<br />

9t<br />

Itt<br />

tEuH<br />

la<br />

?t<br />

tl<br />

ttl<br />

rq<br />

J<br />

lil<br />

ll:<br />

f<br />

I<br />

fi<br />

a1<br />

lral<br />

pflrc<br />

tl<br />

?l<br />

lfl<br />

ltt<br />

lri<br />

rai<br />

T<br />

r<br />

l0l<br />

l0t<br />

ft<br />

tta<br />

t[uH<br />

t1<br />

lfi<br />

t{<br />

t0{<br />

tl<br />

llrl<br />

t1<br />

tl<br />

tl<br />

le|<br />

fl<br />

tt:<br />

tlD GRt.i<br />

llJ l0l<br />

ll0 rq<br />

l0t l0:<br />

It tc<br />

u0 ll:<br />

tt .|<br />

Yharlt-rtZ<br />

Ilr Itl<br />

ltt ltt<br />

rgt tl<br />

lfi tl<br />

rfl l?3<br />

u<br />

-tDl<br />

rt1<br />

ttr<br />

rifi<br />

-tl<br />

a<br />

l0t<br />

?1<br />

l1<br />

l1<br />

tq<br />

rfi<br />

YI<br />

T<br />

I<br />

tl<br />

ll(<br />

t<br />

t rtt<br />

I<br />

t<br />

I<br />

*<br />

lfi<br />

td<br />

crtr r{D(L<br />

r{<br />

ct<br />

il<br />

ll(<br />

lrl<br />

tr<br />

flrwrll<br />

Edl<br />

-ll<br />

.{A<br />

'Ut<br />

-|fl<br />

-s<br />

{ I<br />

.Il<br />

-trl<br />

al<br />

- ttl<br />

3rl<br />

-xl<br />

{<br />

It<br />

lli<br />

-tl<br />

tttY Fr|| d.d Ltrata I I I<br />

fd3t condltloB<br />

N, A, Ref Test cffiflguFrtion<br />

30 A8<br />

caF-to-car wlth ofrrat<br />

30' esrcd buFi.r (rtsdrd<br />

brrricr)<br />

30 sH 3 30' uslGd bsri$ PIus rlde Ydl<br />

30 HS 4<br />

30' rr[IGd btf,Fl.r Yttlt<br />

stt-rllD ryrtf<br />

OFTS 5 0' utl.d buFirr rlth offrct<br />

oB 6<br />

fl.4. r -:l Vrhtcl. tyF.<br />

O' fiul.d bsrlrr (itsdrt{<br />

b|frlcF)<br />

axes, give the analysis its full value.<br />

(a): Values resulting from film analysis (figure 2).<br />

(b); Definitions of mean decelerations until engine stoppage<br />

and until maximum vehicle crush (figure 3).<br />

tll<br />

fl<br />

11<br />

llt<br />

lli<br />

ril<br />

lc lr<br />

f<br />

tl<br />

fi<br />

rfl<br />

t tl<br />

f,<br />

tl<br />

?l<br />

lc 3<br />

tl<br />

||<br />

tl<br />

lq<br />

I<br />

t:<br />

lq<br />

t<br />

lot<br />

lfl<br />

l{ a/<br />

lal<br />

lll<br />

f,<br />

lr<br />

rt(<br />

rot<br />

rlj<br />

lll<br />

?t<br />

?l<br />

fi<br />

rl<br />

tl<br />

lci<br />

I<br />

tl<br />

'l<br />

t{<br />

?1<br />

I<br />

rfi<br />

t!<br />

lll<br />

I<br />

lll<br />

lll t1<br />

riE<br />

l||<br />

t<br />

tl<br />

lfl s<br />

I<br />

ll<br />

lr<br />

?1<br />

tl<br />

?l<br />

tlt<br />

ll,i<br />

l{i<br />

ltl<br />

t{l<br />

rtl<br />

ts<br />

lrl<br />

L<br />

T<br />

|r<br />

H<br />

lr<br />

ltl<br />

I<br />

I<br />

n<br />

tl<br />

J<br />

tl<br />

I<br />

la<br />

f<br />

t<br />

fl<br />

tl<br />

t!<br />

t<br />

I<br />

li<br />

ll<br />

lu I<br />

$<br />

lol<br />

tq tl<br />

lol<br />

s<br />

l{<br />

rI<br />

t?l<br />

l$<br />

lri<br />

rll<br />

Iq<br />

t<br />

rrl<br />

Itl<br />

tu<br />

l|1<br />

Iti<br />

lll<br />

ril<br />

l7l<br />

It<br />

{l<br />

t{<br />

tq<br />

tl<br />

3l<br />

ll<br />

7i<br />

tt<br />

{l<br />

l<br />

f<br />

lo{<br />

l0{<br />

lll<br />

ll<br />

tf<br />

ru<br />

r3<br />

lla t|<br />

x<br />

la<br />

tl<br />

tt<br />

t{<br />

I<br />

tu<br />

lll<br />

lll<br />

t<br />

r}<br />

ul<br />

lrl<br />

ltt<br />

r0r<br />

llt<br />

{<br />

T<br />

tot<br />

lll<br />

?l<br />

fl<br />

t<br />

a<br />

tl<br />

I<br />

l1<br />

?!<br />

rq<br />

l0r<br />

ltl<br />

t<br />

tI<br />

ui<br />

I<br />

ltr<br />

It<br />

f,<br />

lll<br />

tl<br />

a;<br />

?i<br />

Il<br />

ll<br />

tdr<br />

lI|<br />

11<br />

t1<br />

tli<br />

Itl<br />

tt<br />

(c); Passenger compartment integrity: maximum permanent<br />

intrusion of the windshield lower cross member and<br />

firewall (figure 4).<br />

Quantitative factorsi Main results<br />

Main axes and correlation circle<br />

A main component analysis is performed on all the data<br />

for the 39 tests. Each test is assigned an identical weight.<br />

Processing involves a transfer from a space of dimension<br />

n = l9 (number of quantitative factors) to a main plane l-2<br />

(annex I ) which provides an optimum representation of the<br />

data set in terms of inertia (figure 5).<br />

In the case under study, the l-2 plane found seems quite<br />

satisfactory and should be a good representation of real<br />

conditions, since these axes repre$ent 587o ofthe total inertia,<br />

whereas it is common, in data analysis, to represent only<br />

about 307o. Axis I by itself represents 43Vo of the inertia,<br />

and axis 2 represents | 5o/o. Tt,e other axes have an inertia of<br />

less than l07o (figure 6).<br />

253


Tut Frultr<br />

IlEL.r<br />

J DIIIC Drl%r ilutru EIC<br />

4 Y (or il)<br />

H6rrl lDact (or m hilil l|prct)<br />

6 thr ' rtErlns ulHl<br />

5 Dltl Y R [*IN th6ro<br />

6 DIU3 IR 3 || tldrir<br />

tlulM l.ft fff lorc6<br />

I DNF XulN ltlht fru fo*r<br />

9 9ET' lBNcnBGr ilulro HIC<br />

10 9fl t R rulu thoru<br />

DIF xut|u IGft fdr foE€<br />

12 Pnr XulE rt8ht lffir foE6<br />

Vrhlclc<br />

13 t2 Tlil rt ehtch wlrlclc cruh l| rutrs (r)<br />

r6<br />

rB al<br />

r9 .2<br />

20 t<br />

ZL<br />

22<br />

d!d fitr<br />

'}I<br />

l?l<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

drs. H*lffi fihlcle crush (a)<br />

t<br />

Lm8{tu.llnal ront of which<br />

rt riri t2 (r)<br />

Trffiwse w#nt of whiclc<br />

rt tts tl (i)<br />

thdtt vchlcli rotitton rt tlE t2 (r)<br />

pdH<br />

pdf<br />

.$P<br />

I li\<br />

t<br />

I I<br />

I<br />

lbar \tahlcli dtrrlurtlffi utll<br />

m8tn rtoppqiE (b)<br />

lbs vahtcl. d.cilultlon fH cils{ir ttofprt<br />

utll u, shlcld cruh (rt ttr t2)(b)<br />

t s rrdrlclc drcditat{ott sttl<br />

trs € (b)<br />

lt*lrlt Dtrrfirfirt ttrtulm ol thr llndthlau<br />

Iffir cffir nrbar (c)<br />

llulE p.ffit lntruto$ of tI|<br />

frffiitl (c)<br />

I rrh<br />

r|| dtililir ruh{rr|rl0-ll<br />

\ l<br />

l l<br />

\l<br />

lr<br />

II<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

thJr<br />

llrrrltrJwt rtr{r||<br />

(flh rnddrl<br />

Yirir<br />

Flgure 2. Vehlcle klnematlcs. Deflnltlon of maxlmum cruah,<br />

longitudinal and transv€rse movsments and rotation.<br />

254<br />

I<br />

rl<br />

I<br />

rl<br />

ItlntrUl<br />

rl=lild r2:,Wr2, r=y413gg<br />

dl dmrr-61 dmrr<br />

Figure 3. Vehicle klnematlcs: deflnltlon ol mean deceleratlon<br />

vsluee.<br />

Flgure 4. <strong>Int</strong>egrity ol the vehlcle'$ passenger compartmGntr<br />

locatlon of permanent<br />

d€formation,<br />

The correlation circle of radius I makes possible the<br />

following:<br />

I<br />

I<br />

,<br />

,<br />

I<br />

'r rr*-----l I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

,<br />

I<br />

i-_*_____-i<br />

Dae. r drrr brdtallrl FE mil adl*Itlil * tb L'f r*r4.hLld<br />

ffi raLr<br />

ia.l+ r rds. bnaltrdli.l Ftlmnt a.f*Drbi C tlr llrnl<br />

(a) Viewing, in the l-2 plane, of factors poorly represented<br />

in that plane and therefore unusable on first<br />

analysis. Their image points are close to the centre of<br />

the circle.<br />

In the present case, 4 factors should be eliminated:<br />

driver and passenger femur forces. Their "bad" repre-<br />

sentation is probably due to excess scatter of femur<br />

forces and/or their small amplitude.


D0tr \<br />

+ \<br />

Ddt<br />

Ar'r 2 !l57rj<br />

Flgure 5, FeProsantatlon ol quantltatlve lactors and correlstlon clrcls In the mrln plane 1-2.<br />

Ft'r<br />

+<br />

/<br />

,/<br />

| + +<br />

P|rrc<br />

Otx 1<br />

+-l<br />

/ stHt<br />

/ {<br />

/ ,<br />

/ rl<br />

+<br />

Anlt&37r1


l1<br />

s<br />

It<br />

lo<br />

It<br />

t0<br />

t<br />

0<br />

Flgure 6. Contrlbutlon of lhe main axes to totsl in€rtla.<br />

(b) Selection of the most significant factors, i'e.,<br />

those closest to the circle of radius l, since they contribute<br />

extensively to the inertias of the main axes<br />

I and 2. Factor$ located within the circle of radius 0.7<br />

are not in the main plane and cannot be used on first<br />

analysis.<br />

(c) Revelation of (positively or negatively) correlated<br />

factor$ and independent factors'<br />

Positively conelated factors are grouped clo$e together:<br />

e.9., dmax, x, Y, t2.<br />

Some of these factors could be eliminated for subsequent<br />

analyses.<br />

Negatively correlated factors are diametrically opposite:<br />

e.g., a2, dmax.<br />

Independent factors are located on radii perpendicular to<br />

one another: thetz and dmax.<br />

Main correlations<br />

The main axis of the l-2 diagram, bearing 43Vo of the<br />

inertia, gives the main physical parameters of impacts performed<br />

at constant speed, namely, mean vehicle deceleration<br />

and a2 during the second phase of the impact, and<br />

negatively correlated factors such as crush and duration of<br />

impact.<br />

The secondary axis on the l-2 diagram, bearing l1Vo of<br />

the inenia, gives the rotation factor thetz, but especially, as<br />

shown in a subsequent study performed with additional<br />

256<br />

t0 ll tt tr ta tl tr lt tl It<br />

factors not included in the present analysis, the vehicles'<br />

weight.<br />

Insofar as concerns the vehicle occupants, very good<br />

correlation of driver head and thorax injury criteria (DHIC'<br />

DTH, DTH3) is observed with deceleration a2' The driver<br />

"is<br />

canied" by the axis of the impact.<br />

The passenger head and thorax criteria (PHIC, PTH)'<br />

although correlated, are Iocated on an axis at 45" relative to<br />

the axis of the impact. This results in sensitivity of these<br />

criteria not only to vehicle deceleration but also to parameters<br />

located on the secondary axis. One possible interpretation<br />

is the influence of vehicle rotation on passenger movements,<br />

allowing for the direction of Iateral restraint of the<br />

passenger shoulder-belt relative to the axis of the vehicle-<br />

In addition to these main results, the following observations<br />

can be made;<br />

r Mean deceleration a calculated one total crush is<br />

slightly offset relative to main axis I. This deviation<br />

is due to the position of al , still further offset,<br />

al being linked to the vehicle's $tructural<br />

$trength, but also, through its correlation with<br />

thetz, to the type of barrier causing rotation and<br />

involving a variable share of the vehicle's front<br />

structure,<br />

r Vehicle longitudinal movement x is naturally correlated<br />

to crush. but also to transverse move-


ment y. This latter relation, in accordance with the<br />

kinematics of impact in the case of 30" and 0"<br />

angled barriers, is more difficult to interpret for<br />

car-to-car impacts and impacts against offset<br />

half-barriers.<br />

r Passenger compartment integrity, pdw and pdf, is<br />

located on an axis at 45o relative to the crush. The<br />

intrusion/crash relation is natural. With respect to<br />

the intrusion component on axis No. 2, this is<br />

linked to the vehicle's architecture via the<br />

relation:<br />

<strong>Int</strong>rusion = Crush-Engine compartment clearance.<br />

To summarize, the correlation circle shows the following<br />

main directions:<br />

r Vehicle deceleration and deformation. driver<br />

lnJury cntena.<br />

Vehicle weight and rotation (figure 7).<br />

Figure 7. Directions ol the physical charactsrlstlcs of lmpact<br />

ln the maln plane 1-2.<br />

Qualitative factor; Type of impact<br />

conliguration<br />

The 6 impact configuration (qualitative factor) were superimposed<br />

on thequantitative factors in the main plane l-2.<br />

Representation of a qudlitative factor by its modalities<br />

(figure 8)<br />

Each modality (specific impact configuration) of a factor<br />

is characterized by its position relative to all the quantitative<br />

factors. By projecting it on the l-2 plane, its relation with<br />

the various quantitative factors located in that plane can be<br />

characterized.<br />

The diagram in Figure 9 is interpreted as follows:<br />

The Centre O corresponds to the mean of all tests for each<br />

quantitative and qualitative factor.<br />

A Point P which is the image of a quantitative factor<br />

(physical characteristics of the structure or test dummy) is<br />

located at a distance close to unity from the centre O, or,<br />

again, at a standard deviation of O in non-reduced form, the<br />

standard deviation being calculated on all values of the<br />

factor.<br />

Figure 8. $upcrposillon of qualitatiye factor$ on quantltatlye<br />

laclors In thd maln plane l-2.<br />

;ET =oar. 6F- 6'<br />

oFFS<br />

dP<br />

pdt<br />

FT-: *m ntn d fr.rdl hlffBln<br />

-<br />

h off$r trd.ilahntirt.<br />

ldl rffid{dtlhr{lilE$i<br />

h ll hil rdiirdlir,<br />

6t : rlniard drrblhfr aa tfufl<br />

htlrJa.r,<br />

. +*t*<br />

Flgure 9. Characterl?atlon of an lmpact conflguratlon accord-<br />

Ing to s qusntltatlve fsctor.<br />

The Characteristir:.r Point H of the mean of an impact<br />

configuration according to a quantitative factor (physical<br />

characteristics ofthe impact) can be obtained by projecting<br />

point M, which is the image of the mean of impact configuration<br />

results on the straight line OP. The relation OH/OP<br />

indicates, in non-reduced form, as a number of standard<br />

deviations relative to the mean of the factor for all 39 impacts,<br />

how the vehicle behaves depending on the factor in<br />

question.<br />

N.B.; This is strictly true only if point P is in the l-2 plane<br />

and therefore located on the correlation circle.<br />

Example: For the firewall intrusion factor and the OFFS<br />

impact configuration (offset half-barrier), the characteristics<br />

point is located at approximately 1.5 standard deviations<br />

from the general mean of all firewall intrusions, indicating<br />

the severity of this type of impact with respect to<br />

passenger compafi ment integrity.<br />

Comparison of impact conftguration<br />

The distribution of impact configurations in figure 8 calls<br />

for the following initial comments:<br />

r The impact against a 0' angled barrier appears<br />

greatly offset relative to the other impact configurations.<br />

It is characterized by high levels of deceleration<br />

in the initial and final phases of the<br />

251


impact, and by slight crushes and intrusions in the<br />

passenger companment.<br />

This configuration is located more than 5 standard deviations<br />

away from the general mean. As such, it is completely<br />

different from all the other configurations and is characterized<br />

by high driver and passenger injury criteria.<br />

r The images of the other impact configurations' 30<br />

AB, 30 SW 30 NS, OFFS and C/C, show similarity<br />

between the OFFS and C/C configurations<br />

on the one hand, and between 30 AB and 30 SW<br />

on the other hand. The 30 NS impact is located<br />

between these two pairs of impact configurations,<br />

but slightty offset along the axis of acceleration.<br />

. The configuration pair 30 AB and 30 SW is characterized<br />

in relation to the otherconfigurations by<br />

slight accelerations at the start of impact, strong<br />

rotation and relatively slight passenger compartment<br />

intrusions. The thorax criteria at 30 AB and<br />

30 SW are similar to those for the other configurations,<br />

except for OAB which is more severe'<br />

r The impact configuration pair OFFS and C/C is<br />

characterized in relation to the other configurations,<br />

except for OAB, by a higher mean acceleration<br />

at the start of impact, high crush levels and<br />

especially strong intrusions. The thorax criteria in<br />

OFFS and C/C are similar to the other configurations<br />

except for OAB, which is more severe.<br />

r <strong>Conf</strong>iguration 30 NS is distinguished from the 30<br />

AB, 30 SW OFFS and C/C configurations by<br />

slightly greater vehicle deceleration, especially at<br />

the end of impact, and by passenger compartment<br />

intrusions which are intermediate between 30 AB<br />

and 30 SW on the one hand, and between OFFS<br />

and C/C on the other hand'<br />

In this 3ONS configuration, the thorax criteria are similar<br />

to the other configurations except for OAB.<br />

Head/steering wheel impact<br />

Head/steering wheel impacts are a qualitative factor, as is<br />

the "impact configuration: factor. These two factors are<br />

dealt with in the same way in the l*2 plane.<br />

For the 39 tests, 32 head/steering wheel impacts are<br />

recorded.<br />

The "balance of head/steering wheel impact" image is<br />

located in the vicinity of the 30 AB impact (5 cases out of 7<br />

without head/steering wheel impact). The "head/steering<br />

wheel impact" image is offset towards the C/C configurations<br />

(8 head/steering wheel impacts for l0 impacts) and<br />

especially 30 SW 30 NS, OFFS and OAB (100d/o of<br />

head/steering wheel impacts).<br />

The location of head/steering wheel impacts in collisions<br />

"with<br />

head impact" differs depending on the type of impact:<br />

in a longitudinal vertical plane passing through the<br />

centre of the steering wheel in OAB impacts, or against the<br />

steering wheel spokes and rim in 30 SW 30 NS, OFFS and<br />

C/C impacts.<br />

258<br />

Frontal Impact in Real Road Conditions<br />

The six impact configurations of which the characteristics<br />

have been analyzed with respect to structure and injury<br />

criteria should be compared with real road conditions' The<br />

above data is based on the accidentological survey performed<br />

by the PSA-Renault Association (APR).<br />

Type of barrier (tahle 3).<br />

Accidentological data show that of the fatalities in car<br />

frontal impacts, 38Vo are due to impacts against the rigid<br />

fixed barriers, while 36Vo arc due to cat-to*car collisions.<br />

This breakdown is different for the population of severe<br />

injuries: 24o/o against fixed barriers and 597o car-to-car.<br />

Table 3. Frontsl impact: PsA-Fensult statistics concernlng<br />

pas$Gnger<br />

car occuPant8.<br />

f,itllcd<br />

gavirult lnjuEd<br />

F|rod<br />

obitacL<br />

3716<br />

24p<br />

Obrt aL<br />

Prrrirntar<br />

CE<br />

36,5<br />

69r5<br />

IrucL<br />

?5rg<br />

re,3<br />

Front structure deformation (Jigure I0).<br />

In severe frontal collisions, the APR accidentological<br />

survey shows that:<br />

ffs f!!1<br />

FT--]<br />

I r I l r l I<br />

r t<br />

t t t l<br />

--1-/+<br />

22V.<br />

,*rtt**tt";<br />

t | | t<br />

t t t t<br />

*;<br />

AV>10 krn/h<br />

*=<br />

t'"t"n--.,,,<br />

100<br />

100<br />

t<br />

l<br />

t<br />

l<br />

t<br />

t<br />

l<br />

l<br />

*;<br />

Flgure 10. Car clagsiflcatlon according to lront struclure de'<br />

foimatlon. PSA-Henault statistlcs concerning Passenger<br />

cars,<br />

r The 507o offset and 70Vo offset configurations<br />

represent 47Vo of accidented vehicles at velocity<br />

changes greater than 40 km/h;<br />

r There are more accidents involving at least 707o<br />

vehicle offset(28Vo) than accidents involving less<br />

IhaI 5lo/o offset (?ZVo):<br />

r Deformation of the vehicle front face is oblique,<br />

ranging between 15" and 40o in46Vo ofcases, and<br />

non-oblique (


Velocity change<br />

The breakdown ofsevere injuries and fatalities according<br />

to velocity change is as follows (APR survey):<br />

Delta-V<br />

50 km/h > 50Vo of severe injuries<br />

54 km/h > SOVI of severe injuries + fatalities<br />

65 km/h > 50Vo of fatalities<br />

Mean Deceleration<br />

44Vo of fatalities and 487o of severe injuries correspond to<br />

impacts at a mean deceleration ranging between 9 and l29:<br />

r Median of severe injuries: l0 g at a delta-V of 50<br />

km/h<br />

r Medianoffatalities: l3 gatadelta-Vof65kmih.<br />

Trajectory of car occupants<br />

The direction of movement of the occupant relative to the<br />

axis of the vehicle provides an indication concerning the<br />

direction of the forces exerted on the structure.<br />

In over 'lOVo<br />

of cases, the occupants trajectories are located<br />

at ll5' relative to the axis of the vehicle (table 4).<br />

Table 4. Dlrectlon ol vehlcle occupant tralectory rslatlve to vehlcle<br />

arls ln trontsl colllelons.<br />

Drlvar<br />

PeD8.r<br />

Illbd<br />

gtvrFlr inJuEd<br />

f,llhd<br />

Erv.Ely hJurrd<br />

-{E' te -16<br />

ll Eourr<br />

33t<br />

21r<br />

l4t<br />

20x<br />

H eadl steering wheel impacts<br />

-l!' tc +lt'<br />

l2 gouil<br />

7rr<br />

72x<br />

77x<br />

741<br />

+16' to +{6<br />

I Hour<br />

The frequency of head/steering wheel impacts in frontal<br />

collisions is an additional item of information helping to<br />

specify the direction of the occupant's trajectory"<br />

For a collision of violence ranging between 40 and 60 km/<br />

h velocity change, the frequency of head/steering wheel<br />

impacts is 507o.<br />

Reference impact: discussion<br />

The selection ofa single reference configuration for frontal<br />

impact with dummies is an important factor with a view<br />

on the planned test standards. The barrier and the impact<br />

velocity must be defined.<br />

In the present study, the collision between a deformable<br />

moving barrier of given mass has intentionally not been<br />

taken into account. This configuration would result in<br />

excessive scatter of the speed variation between vehicles<br />

tested, depending on their weight. Collisions between heavy<br />

vehicles and a fixed barrier at high velocity change would<br />

not be represented in this type ofcollision, due to the excessively<br />

small velocity change in relation to a much lighter<br />

moving barrier.<br />

0r<br />

7l<br />

9t<br />

6r<br />

The C/C configuration will not be adopted, since it has<br />

the disadvantage of consuming two vehicles, which is economically<br />

prohibitive at the prototype te$t stage.<br />

The comparison of experimental results for the 30 AB, 30<br />

SW 30 NS, OFFS and OAB configurations with accidentological<br />

data shows that an impact against a 0'angled plane<br />

barrier (OAB) is not representative of real road conditions,<br />

for the following reasons (2):<br />

r Excessive mean vehicle deceleration at a given<br />

velocity change;<br />

r Unrepresentativeness of vehicle front structure<br />

deformations;<br />

r Low intrusion at a given velocity change;<br />

r Direction of forces on the vehicle oriented at 0o<br />

with a head/steering wheel impact frequency of<br />

1007o, which contradicts real road conditions<br />

where a frequency of 50Vo is observed.<br />

The other impact configurations (30 AB, 30 SW 30 NS<br />

and OFFS) are closer to real accidentological conditions.<br />

The experimental study shows that the 30 AB and 30 SW<br />

configurations are relatively similar to one another in terms<br />

of structure and dummy injury criteria. The 30 AB configuration<br />

seems better from the viewpoint of test implementation,<br />

the distance from the lateral barrier being hard to check<br />

very precisely in the 30 SW configuration.<br />

From a comparison of the 3 configurations 30 AB, 30 NS<br />

and OFFS with real accidentological conditions, it can be<br />

concluded that they have good representativeness in terms<br />

of front structural deformation, intrusion, and mean<br />

deceleration.<br />

Each of these configurations gives priority to one of the<br />

factors characterizing the impact.<br />

The OFFS impact configuration accentuates intrusion,<br />

front structural deformation being closer to a 507o offset<br />

than a 70Vo offset. <strong>Conf</strong>igurations 30 AB and 30 NS are<br />

closer to the structural deformations most commonly represented<br />

in real accidents. The mean direction of forces exerted<br />

on the structure in real accidents and resulting in a 50Vo<br />

frequency of head/steering wheel impacts is probably intermediate<br />

between the direction of forces exerted on vehicles<br />

in 30 AB and 30 NS impacts (head/steering wheel impacts:<br />

l\Vo and 1007o respectively). The deviations between the<br />

results achieved on thorax in the three configurations are<br />

within ll0Vo (3O NS) > OFFS > 30 AB).<br />

At the end of this study, it seems that the configuration<br />

most repre$entative of real road conditions is impact against<br />

a 30' angled barrier, the coefficient of friction at the interface<br />

between the barrier and the vehicle front face remaining<br />

to be specified.<br />

The speed of collision is an important item of information,<br />

defining the desired protection level.<br />

An impact speed of 56 km/h against a 30" angled barrier<br />

would cover over 507o of severe injuries and fatalities.<br />

259


The experimental study showed the difficulty of control-<br />

ling the frequency of head/steering wheel impacts. In the<br />

case of a head/steering wheel impact, only one point of the<br />

steering wheel is concerned, and this is inadequate to verify<br />

the steering wheel's qualities. This is why it seems advisable<br />

to supplement the impact with dummies by an additional<br />

test on the entire steering wheel, of the "component test"<br />

type, which remains to be defined.<br />

Reference impact and compatihility<br />

Numerous studies have emphasized the importance of<br />

inter-vehicle compatibility in frontal and side impacts. The<br />

notions of compatibility of weight, stiffness and architecture<br />

in frontal and side impacts have been illustrated (3), (4),<br />

(5).<br />

The choice of a single reference frontal impact, while it<br />

may represent a progress, could not solve the complex problems<br />

posed by stiffness and architecture compatibility, especially<br />

in side impacts. Further to the proposals made at the<br />

I lth <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence (5), thorough studies should be continued<br />

along these lines.<br />

Conclusion<br />

Thirty-nine experimental frontal collisions were<br />

performed against various barriers to define a reference<br />

configuration established on the basis of a comparison with<br />

accidentological data.<br />

An analysis of the data by means of a specific software<br />

was performed for all the test data.<br />

This analysis showed a reference plane incorporating<br />

53Vo of inertias and allowing a study of the correlations<br />

between vehicle and dummy parameters'<br />

This study shows that one impact configuration, the<br />

orthogonal barrier, is very strongly offset relative to<br />

collisions against an angled barrier, offset half-barrier and<br />

car-to-car impacts, and also relative to real accidentological<br />

conditions.<br />

The collision against a 30" angled banier $eems most<br />

representative of real accidentological conditions, with the<br />

coefficient of friction between the banier and the vehicle<br />

front face remaining to be specified.<br />

A speed of 56 km/h could cover over SOVo of severe<br />

injuries and fatalities in frontal impacts.<br />

It seems advisable to supplement the global impact tests<br />

with dummies by an additional test on the entire steering<br />

wheel, of the "component test" type, which remains to be<br />

defined.<br />

The choice of a single reference configuration in frontal<br />

impact, while it represents a progressr could not by itself<br />

solve the complex problems posed by inter-vehicle<br />

architecture and stiffness compatibility, especially in side<br />

impacts. More detailed studies should be continued along<br />

these lines.<br />

260<br />

Main component analysis-all factors are quantitative<br />

and continuous:<br />

Xtj = t"tt result i for factor j<br />

All factors are centred and reduced:<br />

*ii=@ oxj<br />

Computation of main axis of inertia defining the l-2<br />

plane. The summation of the euclidean distances between<br />

all couples of tests is maximized:<br />

fector<br />

(xij-ri';1 "<br />

Analysis of the image of the factors in the l-2 plane:<br />

r Factors close to the correlation circle are in the l*<br />

2 plane<br />

r Factors inside the circle ofradius 0.7 are not in the<br />

plane and are not taken into account for the<br />

analysis<br />

r The correlation between two points is:<br />

Conelation (Xj,Xj') = Cos(oxj,oxj').llxj1l.I IXj'I I<br />

xj"<br />

jr19<br />

drr { j-r<br />

corr(IJTXJ')=1<br />

cott(XJ'NJ")=0<br />

Annu I


References<br />

(l) SPAD.N,<br />

"SystBme<br />

Portable pour I'Analyse des<br />

Donndes", L. Lebart, A. Morineau, T. Lambert-CISIA.<br />

(2) J. Provensal, "Five<br />

Years of New Car Assessment<br />

Program: Balance and Current Conclusions", lOth <strong>ESV</strong><br />

<strong>Conf</strong>erence, Oxford, July 1985.<br />

(3) P. Ventre, "Homogeneous Safety Amid<br />

Experimental Investigation of Rear Seat Submarining<br />

Thomas F. Maclaughlin, Lisa K. Sullivan<br />

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<br />

Christopher S. O'Connor,<br />

Transportation Research Center of Ohior<br />

Abstract<br />

An experimental investigation was conducted to<br />

determine the effects of certain seating and restraint<br />

parameter$ on the tendency for an adult rear $eat passenger<br />

to submarine<br />

(i.e., for the lap belt to ride over the pelvic iliac<br />

crest$ and penetrate the abdomen) in a 30 mph delta-v<br />

frontal collision. Fourparameters were investigated:<br />

type of<br />

restraint (lap belt only or three-point belt), seat cushion<br />

stiffness, seat cushion height, and lap belt angle (within the<br />

range from 20 to 75 degrees, as specified in FMVSS 210,<br />

"Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages"). The experiments were<br />

done on the HYGE sled, using a Hybrid III dummy with a<br />

"submarining pelvis" which contains three load cells<br />

mounted on each iliac crest to indicate lap belt location. The<br />

test matrix was a fractional factorial design, which enabled<br />

determination of the statistical significance of the<br />

parameters on submarining tendency and other occupant<br />

responses. Lap belt angle was found to be a highly<br />

significant parameter-the shallower the angle, the greater<br />

the submarining tendency. The tendency to submarine also<br />

appeared to be greater for three-point belted occupants than<br />

for lap-only belted occupants, although lap belt forces were<br />

much less for three-point belts. Results indicated that only<br />

one injury (AIS l) would have occurred out of six cases of<br />

submarining in three-point belts.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

United States FMVSS No. 210, "Seat Belt Assembly<br />

Anchorages", requires that the lap belt angle from the<br />

Seating Reference Point (SRP) to the anchorage fall within<br />

the range from 20o to 75o relative to the horizontal.<br />

Although front seat lap belt angles are typically close to 75o,<br />

rear seat installations in a number of cars, particularly small<br />

cars, have lap belt angles near 20". Accident data indicate<br />

Heterogeneous Car Population", 3rd <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence,<br />

Washington, May 1972.<br />

(4) P. Ventre, "Proposal for Test Evaluation of<br />

Compatibility Between Very Different Passenger Cars",<br />

4th <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Kyoto, March 1973.<br />

(5) G. Stcherbatcheff, "Compatibility<br />

in Side<br />

Collisions", I I th <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Washington, May 1987.<br />

that, with the lap belt angle at or near 20o, there may be a<br />

possibility that rear seat occupants will slide under the lap<br />

belt (submarine), exposing themselve$ to abdominal<br />

injuries. Other parameters, such as seat cushion stiffness,<br />

the presence of a shoulder belt, etc., also may influence<br />

submarining tendency and other occupant re$ponses.<br />

We conducted a sled te$t program to determine (l) what<br />

parameters are significant in causing rear seat occupant<br />

submarining and (2) the effects of the more significant<br />

parameters on the occurrence of submarining and on other<br />

dummy responses. Prior to testing, we reviewed current<br />

literature to identify parameters which are believed to<br />

contribute to occupant submarining, and which are<br />

reproducible and repeatable<br />

in a controlled test situation. A<br />

listing (not necessarily all-inclusive) of parameters which<br />

appear to affect the tendency of the occupant to submarine is<br />

contained in table l. Based on this review, the following<br />

factors were chosen for investigation: (l) type of restraint,<br />

(2) seat cushion stiffness, (3) seat cushion height, and (4) lap<br />

belt angle. These four factors were incorporated into a<br />

generic HYCE sled buck, allowing forthe simulation of the<br />

rear occupant compartment of any vehicle. A series of 22<br />

HYCE sled tests was then performed. For more details than<br />

are contained in this paper, the reader should see the project<br />

final report (l).*<br />

Table 1. Psrametsr8<br />

lhat Itfect $ubmarlnlng<br />

A. Belt Parameters:<br />

l. Lap Only versus Lap/Shoulder Restraint<br />

2. Lap Belt Angle in Side View<br />

3. Lap Belt Angle in Top View<br />

4. Retractor Force<br />

5. Slack in the Lap Belt<br />

6. Slack in the Shoulder Harness<br />

7. Hysteresis in the Shoulder Hamess Webbing<br />

8. Location of the Buckle<br />

9. Latch Plate Design<br />

10. Shoulder Belt Anchor Location<br />

I l. Lap and Shoulder Belt Lengths<br />

rCunently with the Ford Motor Company *Numhcrs in parentheses designate refercnces trt end of papcr


B. Seat Parameters:<br />

L Angle of the Seat Cushion<br />

2. Stiffness of the Seat Cushion<br />

3. Friction Coefficient between Occupant and Cushion<br />

4. Angle of the Seat Back<br />

5. Seat Height<br />

C. Constraint Forces:<br />

I. Restraint on Knees by Front Seat Back<br />

2. Toe Board Restraint<br />

D. Irrput Forces and Accelerations:<br />

l. Time History of the Deceleration<br />

2. Deceleration Maenitude<br />

E. Occupant Parameters:<br />

1. Amount of Clothing on the Occupant<br />

2. Friction Coefficient between Occupant and Belt<br />

3. Initial Position of the Occupant<br />

4. Size of the Occupant<br />

5. "Relative Bigness" of the Occupant (Weight<br />

divided by Height cubed)<br />

6. Slope and Stiffness of the Abdomen<br />

7. Locations of the Centers of Mass of the Body<br />

8. Orientation of the Sartorius<br />

9. Joint Stiffnesses and Damping Coefficients<br />

10. Contraction of the Quadriceps Muscle<br />

Test matrix design<br />

The sled test matrix was designed to provide the most<br />

information possible about the $tatistical significance of the<br />

four factors in causing rear seat occupant submarining. The<br />

four factors and their levels were;<br />

Table 1. Parameler8 thst sffect $ubmarlnlng<br />

Factor l4wl<br />

tlrpr or restrrrn.<br />

}|:"llllrllt{.r,<br />

dedt cu'hlqn Etlffnes'<br />

ilfl I quntrftsd rn trs.ar<br />

ss,r hcishr ** I<br />

hfEh J<br />

S::l*tl:lf::"::.<br />

"serc Hclght D€cetuIn€tlonn<br />

lep b6lt af,ald 20'<br />

(off horlrof,tal) 34"<br />

:i:<br />

Three of the factors were tested at two levels; the fourfh<br />

factor, lap belt angle, had five levels. The matrix is shown in<br />

figure l, where conducted tests are designated by '*X's".<br />

One repeat test was conducted to provide a basis forestimating<br />

experimental error, which was desirable to statistically<br />

analyze results.<br />

This matrix is called a "half-factorial" or "half*replicate"<br />

because it calls for testing under only half the conditions<br />

present. The main features of factorial experimental<br />

designs are that (l) they allow the effects of independent<br />

variables on the dependent variable to be determined quan-<br />

262<br />

Flgure 1. Sled test mslrix,<br />

titatively (statistically) and (2) they allow determination of<br />

interaction effects among independent variables. (For example,<br />

knowing the "first order", or "two-way", interaction<br />

effect between lap belt angle and seat cushion stiffness<br />

provides an answer to the question: Is the effect oflap belt<br />

angle on submarining different for soft seat cushions than<br />

for stiff?). In half-factorial designs, such as ours, some of<br />

the main effects and two-way interactions are confounded<br />

with higher-order interactions. It is assumed, because it is<br />

usually true, that any effect seen is due to the lower-order<br />

interaction; i.e., that higher-order interactions are negligible<br />

compared with main and two-way interaction effects.<br />

Our primary interest was in the factor Belt Angle. Thus,<br />

we designed the sled test matrix to obtain statistical information<br />

about the four main effects and the two-way interactions<br />

involving the main effect Belt Angle (Belt Angle/Belt<br />

Tlpe, Belt Angle/Seat Height and Belt Angle/Cushion Stiffness).<br />

Information about all other interactions was not discernable<br />

due to the confounding present.<br />

For the statistical analyses (presented later in the paper),<br />

the null hypothesis was that the four main effects do not<br />

have an effect on the causation of occupant submarining or<br />

other responses of interest. The level of significance for<br />

rejecting that hypothesis was chosen tobe SVo (57o is generally<br />

used in analyses of this type). Thus, if the "p-value"<br />

from the analysis was 57o or less, the risk of rejecting the<br />

null hypothesis when it was in fact true is minimal and we<br />

are confident in saying that the factor in question does have<br />

an effect on submarining. In addition, we felt that levels of<br />

significance in the 57o to approximately lSEo range indicated<br />

"marginal" significance (i.e., we were unwilling to<br />

accept unconditionally the hypothesis that no effect existed,<br />

if the analysis indicated an 85Vo chance of an effect being<br />

present).<br />

HYGE sled buck<br />

We determined the values of several parameters in current<br />

vehicles Io enable fabrication of a "generic" HYGE<br />

sled test buck. Nine parameters were selected which described<br />

the geometry of the rear passenger compartment<br />

(see figure 2). On the basis of 1986 sales figures and vehicle<br />

availahility, we selected ten domestic and imported automobiles<br />

in different weight categories to determine average


L-AO<br />

L-3<br />

L-41<br />

L-48<br />

L-50<br />

L-5r<br />

H-31<br />

h<br />

d<br />

- -<br />

Flont Scrt BacL AnIl.<br />

Front of R.rr 3.rt t|ck to BeL of Front SorE Bmlr<br />

RGrtr s.at Brck AnEh<br />

E.rE occr+.nt Kilaa PlEt to Front S6at lrcl<br />

Frotrr Occr4tst H-Pt. to Lrr OGduSst H-Ft,<br />

f,e$ Oscr+mt H-Pt. to Hr.l pt. Dl|te.<br />

Rcar 0ccrry6t H-Ft. to H,6iI pt. Vtrtlc.I |tlrtea<br />

v.rtlcrl Dl|t.rr ftfi 16rr Occr.prntrr H-Pt. to fop of Ftmt<br />

3.rt tack<br />

tlrpth of Lrr 8.rt cMhton fril Front Edt. of cuhlon to<br />

occupantrr H-Pt.<br />

Flguro 2. Paaeenger reat compartm€nt g€ometry parameters.<br />

values for the nine parameters.<br />

The vehicles were as<br />

follows;<br />

Weight<br />

category<br />

I<br />

I<br />

2<br />

2<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

4<br />

5<br />

5<br />

vehicle<br />

1985 Ford Escort<br />

I984 Honda Accord<br />

1985 Pontiac Grand Am<br />

1985 Pontiac Sunbird<br />

1983 Toyota Camry<br />

1985 Chrysler New Yorker<br />

1985 Olds Ciera<br />

1986 Ford Taurus<br />

1983 Volvo GL<br />

1986 Buick Electra<br />

The average values for the<br />

below;<br />

Specification<br />

L40<br />

r_3<br />

L4l<br />

L48<br />

L-50<br />

L-51<br />

H-31<br />

h<br />

d<br />

1986<br />

sales po.sition:<br />

#6 domestic<br />

#3 imported<br />

#4 domestic<br />

#3 domestic<br />

#l import€d<br />

#9 domestic<br />

#l domestic<br />

#5 domestic<br />

#8 imponed<br />

#l I domestic<br />

nine parameters<br />

are listed<br />

average:<br />

25.5"<br />

26.76"<br />

25.5"<br />

2.23"<br />

3l.g l"<br />

35.94'<br />

t0.67"<br />

r7.97"<br />

15.69"<br />

The seat belt hardware consisted of the standard, automatic-locking<br />

type retractor generally used in the rear outboard<br />

seating positions. The original manufacturer's webbing<br />

was removed and replaced with a 5-bar webbing from<br />

one roll to minimize webbing differences. The same type of<br />

retractor was used for both the lap only and the three-point<br />

belts. The "D" ring chosen for the three-point belts was the<br />

locking type----over one half of the vehicles randomly surveyed<br />

had this type of "D" ring. Belt $ystems were replaced<br />

after each te$t to ensure integrity of each system. Load cells<br />

were used to record the inboard and outboard lap belt loads<br />

and the shoulder belt load, where applicable.<br />

The Escort front bucket seat was chosen to represent the<br />

average front $eat in overall height and seat back angle.<br />

Although not measured, its seat back stiffness appeared to<br />

be typical of most car seats; there was very little structure to<br />

resist rear occupant knee penetration. The Escort seat was<br />

replaced after each test to ensure an undamaged surface for<br />

the occupant to contact. The HYGE sled buck, in a pretest<br />

set-up, is shown in figure 3.<br />

Flgure 3. HYGE sled t€st sst-up.<br />

Seat cushion stiffness determination<br />

The stiffness values for the seat cushions were determined<br />

to identify the "softest" and "hardest" seats from<br />

the l0 vehicles selected above. Each rear seat cushion was<br />

tested in two places: (l) at the centerofthe occupant seated<br />

position and (2) on the forward edge of the cushion. Figure 4<br />

shows the forward position te$t set-up. The apparatus consisted<br />

of a hand-pumped hydraulic jack with a load cell and<br />

string potentiometer ailached. The load was applied at a rate<br />

of approximately l" per minute through a universal swivel<br />

joint to an 8" diameter plate. Force applied to the plate and<br />

Flgure 4. Cughlon force-deflectlon teet ssl-up (lorward<br />

poaltlon).


vertical displacement of the plate into the cushion were<br />

measured.<br />

Force versus deflection curyes for all l0 vehicles are<br />

shown in figures 5 and 6. The Toyota Camry cushion was<br />

one of the stiffest, and the Buick Electra cushion was one of<br />

the softest; therefore, these two were selected for use in the<br />

sled test matrix.<br />

j<br />

3<br />

o<br />

0<br />

o<br />

L<br />

FIgure 5. Sest stlffneea at center (in loadlng).<br />

0<br />

o<br />

L<br />

g,o 0,5 1.0 1.5 e.0 e. s 3.0 3. s<br />

0isplacemenL<br />

0isplacement<br />

tin)<br />

Flgure 6. Seat Btlffness at front (ln loadlng).<br />

Seat height determination<br />

q.0<br />

The vehicle rear seat height was measured as the vertical<br />

distance from the Seating Reference Point (SRP) to the<br />

occupant's resting heel position ("H*31" in figure 2). We<br />

obtained these values for a total of 3l vehicles (the l0<br />

vehicles selected above plus a random sample of 2l vehicles).<br />

They were non-uniformly distributed; only 6.574 of<br />

the sample were in the 5.5"-9.5" range and 93'5o/o were in<br />

the 9.5"-13.5". The median range values for these two<br />

groups were 7.5" and I1.5", respectively. The final height<br />

values chosen were 8'/ and 12".<br />

Crash pulse simulation<br />

The sled tests were conducted at a test velocity of 30 mph<br />

using a half-sine pulse. The pulse duration was approximately<br />

100 msec, resulting in peak sled accelerations of<br />

approximately 22 G's. This crash simulation pulse was<br />

based on similar pulses used for other occupant submarining<br />

studies performed by Adomeit (2, 3) and DeJeammes<br />

(4).<br />

264<br />

g,g 0. s t.s r,5 ?.s<br />

0isPlacement<br />

Vol vo rrt<br />

----+l- ci*. nt<br />

**El*trr nrt<br />

+cF! taat<br />

+G.H Ar mrt<br />

#Eccrt ceat<br />

+tr6ird mrt<br />

+tku YFkF *.t<br />

-----*-Fccrd |0r<br />

-- Tuua taai<br />

Hybrid III<br />

The anthropomorphic test device used for the sled series<br />

was the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy' A simple<br />

procedure was developed for seating the dummy such that<br />

its seated portture in the rear seat would appear more natural<br />

than was obtained by using the standard FMVSS 208 seating<br />

procedure, developed primarily for front seating. First, a<br />

male human subject (approximately 50th percentile) was<br />

instructed to sit in a "normal and comfortable" position in a<br />

typical automobile rear seat. The dummy was then placed<br />

next to the subject, and its posture adjusted to simulate that<br />

of the human. This was repeated with three other human<br />

subjects. The procedure which resulted was to seat the dummy<br />

initially according to FMVSS ?08, then move the pelvis<br />

forward enough to allow a space of about 2 inches between<br />

the rear seat back and the buttocks of the dummy.<br />

Instrumentation for the Hybrid III consisted of:<br />

r Triaxial accelerometer packages in the head, thorax<br />

and pelvis.<br />

r Femur load cells and knee shear transducers in the<br />

legs.<br />

r The "submarining" pelvis, consisting of three<br />

load bolts distributed along the anterior surfaces<br />

of the right and left ilium.<br />

. Denton six-axis upper neck load cell.<br />

r Abdominal air bladder insert.<br />

Filtering of the data consisted of SAE Class 1000 for the<br />

head accelerometer data, SAE Class 600 for neck forces and<br />

moment$, pelvic load bolts and femur loads and SAE Class<br />

180 for thorax and pelvic accelerometer data and knee<br />

shears. The abdominal bladder insert data and all of the seat<br />

belt loads were filtered using a SAE Class 60 filter-<br />

Prior to this project, an air pressure abdominal bladder<br />

insert for the Hybrid III dummy (5) was developed for<br />

measuring the depth and rate of steering wheel penetration<br />

into the abdominal region. We used the bladder insert during<br />

this project in an attempt to (l) determine if and when<br />

submarining occurred, and (2) mea$ure the amount of abdominal<br />

penetration caused by the belt when submarining<br />

occurs, hoping to determine the severity of the submarining'<br />

We found that, in its present form, the insert did not clearly<br />

indicate occurrence of submarining or penetration resulting<br />

from submarining, and would need more development work<br />

for this application. Therefore, it is not discussed further in<br />

this paper (see reference l).<br />

Sled test results<br />

A summary of the test conditions and whether or not<br />

submarining occurred are contained in table 2' Test #843<br />

wa$ to have been a three-point test. However, the retractor<br />

failed to lock during the test making the test 'tuspect for<br />

consideration in the matrix. Thus, the matrix contains 2l<br />

tests-2O of different conditions and I repeat test.<br />

Of these 2l tests, full submarining occurred in 9 tests,<br />

"one-sided"<br />

submarining in 2 tests and submarining did not<br />

occur in 10 tests. In general, we were able to detect very


Table 2. Sled tsst condlllona and results.<br />

I T6st I s.rr BGlr lEGrt t ltl S.rt I Bcrr l8ubr|rlnttgl f 16 of I<br />

tro.<br />

! !<br />

Typ6 | Antlr lo$hrmlH.rthtl occut r is'rtmrrnrngj<br />

!--:::'!-:-------:-!-::'.....1-------l------l----...----t-----------i<br />

| 843 | * hp Onlyl 20 It t. I sdft I ttr | y.r I s7 u6c i<br />

r------t---------'-t---------t----...t..----t-----------i-----,-----i<br />

| 844 l11tr.6-polntl 20 D.r. I Sofr I Itr | Fr | 42 u6c i<br />

r------t---"'------t---------t---"---t------t----------.t,--,-------l<br />

| 845 lltr66-potntl 75 D.r, I Eofr I In I y.r I 12 ucc i<br />

t------t-----------t---------t-------t------t-----------t----,-,-,--l<br />

l#8461 lapontylTsltrt.l sofrlHtshl ffi | l| i<br />

l'-:-:-l---'-'-----l---------l-------l-----'l-----------t-----------l<br />

I 853 | Irp only | 20 Drg. | ltoft I HtEh I y6r i 58 -.. i<br />

! -':::-l:'------:--<br />

! -::.-.---l ------- | ------ 1...-------- | ----------- i<br />

I E9l lThrao,potntl 20 Dit. I Hffrt I Hrth I yir j 43 .r.. i<br />

t------t-----------t---------t-------t------t--...---,--t-----------i<br />

| 89? llhr6a-polntl 75 D.E, I Hffd I HrCt I m i Xr i<br />

l--:::-!"-----:----!-::--'---l-------l------l------'----t-----------i<br />

lsgSllrponlylTsD.t, lHffdlInl m i nr i<br />

l'- :--l-----------1...------l-------l----.-l- i-----------i<br />

I f894 | lap only | 20 D6t. I thfd I Ifl | y$ | 4l u6c I<br />

I--:---l----------'l---------l---.---l'-----l-----------t- ---------l<br />

| 895 lThrrc-pottrrl47.5 ILg.l lterrt I Htth I t/2 yte i 75 raac i<br />

r------r-----------t---------t-------t,-----t---.-------t-----------l<br />

| 896 lThr66-potnrl47.5 Dr6.l Soft I In I yGr i 55 -.. i<br />

!--:::'!-"'---:-:--!::-:-.-'-l-------l------l-----'-----t-----------l<br />

| 897 | Irp only 147.5 Dct.l Hrrd I rtr | m I l{A i<br />

l--:::-l--------'.-l---------l-------l'-----l-----------l-----------l<br />

| 898 | tap odly 147.5 nrg.l soft I Hrth | rc i xr i<br />

l--::--l-----'-'---l---------l----'--l------l-----------l---,-------i<br />

| 899 lrtrer-poltrr|47.5 ltr8.l HrEd I Hrth | rc i Xe i<br />

l--:::-t-----------t---------t-------t,-,---t-----------t---<br />

_____,_l<br />

| 904 | Irp only | 34 Deg. I soft I Hlgh I nd i rrr i<br />

t--:__-t-----------t---------t-------t*--,--t-----------t---_ _ __--l<br />

| 905 | hp only | 14 Drg. I Hrrd I rav I t., i tz rcac i<br />

l-':::-l-----------l---------l-------l----'-l-----------t--- -----,-l<br />

| 906 llhrae-potntl 34 D6g. I Soft I Ifl | yrr i aZ uac i<br />

! --:::-<br />

!:------':-- l':--'---- | -'-'--- l------l----:------ t -----------<br />

porated three factors: ( I ) how high on the pelvis belt loading<br />

occurred, (2) whether submarining, when it did occur, was<br />

one-sided or two-sided and (3) the time of initial indication<br />

of submarining.<br />

The rating scheme consisted of six categories, which are<br />

listed below (although somewhat arbitrary, selection of the<br />

time intervals in categories 4-6 was based on the natural<br />

grouping that occurred in the experiments):<br />

L No submarining occurred; loads on pelvic lower<br />

load bolts only.<br />

2. No submarining occurred; loads on pelvic lower<br />

and middle load bolts ozly.<br />

3. One-sided submarining occurred.<br />

4. Full (two-sided) submarining occurred; initial<br />

submarining in 7(F-79 msec.<br />

5. Full (two-sided) submarining occuned; initial<br />

submarining in 50-59 msec.<br />

6. Full (two-sided) submarining occurred; initial<br />

submarining in 4G49 msec.<br />

In none of our tests did loading occur on the upper-most<br />

pelvic load cells without submarining occuning; nor did<br />

r<br />

| 907 lThrer-polnrl 34 Dag. I Herd I Htth I Lt/z ye, i SZ r*" submarining initiate in the time frame i<br />

of 6(F49 msec in any<br />

l-':---l-----'-----l---------l-.-----l------t----.------t-----------i<br />

| 9081 l,!ponlyl6lDrt,l Hrrdl rni of our tests.<br />

I lIA i<br />

!-':::'l-'----:'---l'::.-----l-------l------l-----------t-----------l Each of the 2l tests was rated according to the above<br />

| 9091 lrponlyl6lDrg.l BofrlHrEhl m i xe i<br />

l--::--l---'-'--'--l---------l-------l------t-'---------t----------<br />

i scheme. The categorization results of the tendency for occu-<br />

| 910 lrtrcr-polntl 6I D.B, I H.rd I HrEh I no I NA i pant submarining are shown in the matrix format in figure 7.<br />

t------t-----------t----,----t-------t------t-----------i-------_-_i<br />

| 911 lrhrGo-potntl 61 D6t. I Soft I Itr | yrr j sn mec i<br />

t------t----'------t---------t-------t------t-----------t____----_-l<br />

* - fI *rs to hav6 b6rn r thrG6-polfiti ritrrctor frlldd to lock.<br />

# - lap B6lt brok. ht6 ln dvrnr (eftrr 80 ucc).<br />

clearly the occurrence of submarining from the films, the<br />

lap belt force-time response$ and the force-time responses<br />

of the load-measuring bolts on the pelvis (three located on<br />

each side).<br />

In addition to noting whether submarining occurred or<br />

not, the following five elements were analyzed:<br />

Tendency for rear seat occupant submarining.<br />

Occupant head forward (X) velocity.<br />

Occupant Head Injury Criterion (HIC).<br />

Occupant peak chest acceleration.<br />

Peak chest deflection for three-point belted<br />

occupants.<br />

Tendency<br />

for rear seat occupant suhmarining<br />

In addition to noting simply whether or not submarining<br />

occurred under certain conditions, we devised a rating<br />

method to indicate the "tendency" for submarining to occur.<br />

By "tendency", we mefln (l) if submarining did not<br />

occur, how close it came to occurring and (2) if it did occur,<br />

whether it was on both sides, and how early it was in the<br />

crash event. As a measure of the near-occurTence<br />

of submarining,<br />

we determined the location of the lap belt on the<br />

pelvic iliac crests, as indicated by the pelvic load cell bolts.<br />

From our literature review, time of occurrence. and whether<br />

one- or two-sided, were seen to be important indicators of<br />

submarining tendency. The rating method, therefore, incor-<br />

"4"<br />

't4 \<br />

c..<br />

\q,. I<br />

t. \\n<br />

|<br />

'**"<br />

'' -"., .1" l" 1.,, l"; l;<br />

I- l:l: l '.l ' I ' l ' l ..<br />

r \ | 'l* | I | |<br />

rlF rrs rrfi I<br />

I I *" l*<br />

i,i f""H,i,['r*.,"'*<br />

''. r . r. r6.rnrt nrFrd; t* F Flvi.<br />

I tu.i# rlhrl^rN d.v.r*.<br />

;l;<br />

;i il*<br />

1,,,,,,,,,1,;,i;,,,,1,,,,,,,,,),,,,,,,,,1,,,,,,,,,t,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,<br />

l r * r t l<br />

|-" |;",. lo' ,1; .1; ;l; ;l; ;<br />

| | I : | r l r l r l l<br />

i ' ilii iil'ir$i iE llril f#Ei nririi i#iilifr ; il'fi it iii ii*,<br />

Flgure 7. Tandency<br />

lor aubmarlnlng.<br />

The categorization results were analyzed statistically to<br />

determine which of the four main factors and two-way interactions<br />

were significant. Figure 8 presents the four main<br />

effects of the test matrix. Each bar represents the average<br />

response for all tests conducted at the particular level (e.g.,<br />

lap only) of the particular factor (e.g., Belt Type). Three of<br />

the factors have two levels each; one (Belt Angle) has five<br />

levels. If the difference between the average responses of<br />

different levels of a factor is "sufficiently large" compared<br />

with the response variances and the error estimate, then the<br />

statistical analysis will indicate that the main effect of that<br />

factor is "significant". Whether or not the main effect was<br />

265


found to be statistically significant is indicated beneath the<br />

effect, along with the p-value (as a percentage). Belt Angle,<br />

Belt Tlpe and Seat Height all had highly significant effects<br />

on the tendency to submarine. (Significance levels were less<br />

than l%). Cushion Stiffness had a marginal effect (l0.l1Vo<br />

significance level). No two-way interactions of main effects<br />

were significant (i.e., the effect a particular factor had on the<br />

submarining tendency was the same regardless of the level<br />

of other factors).<br />

o<br />

E r<br />

c<br />

E<br />

h<br />

t 8<br />

I<br />

c<br />

S e<br />

o<br />

F<br />

Figure 8. Tendency lor roar seat occuPant rubmarlnlng,<br />

The data indicating submarining tendency are presented<br />

in more detail in figures 9, 10, I I and 12. Each point in<br />

figures 9, l0 and I I represents an aYerage of two tests (or<br />

three, when the repeatability test result was included), chosen<br />

to illustrate particular main and interaction effects.<br />

In figure 9, lap-only and three-point belt results are plotted<br />

separately. It is clear that submarining tendency is differ-<br />

ent for the two restraint types (i.e., the Belt Tlpe main effect<br />

is significant). Also, lap belt angle strongly affects submarining<br />

tendency for both restraint types, indicating the absence<br />

of a Belt Angle/Belt Tlpe interaction effect.<br />

t<br />

llrr-PL lrlt<br />

+<br />

s<br />

..s<br />

t.<br />

a<br />

Er<br />

$,<br />

E<br />

14 o||U lS<br />

"'{r.*<br />

td UF $dirdr<br />

lErnd. *ilrffi<br />

L+ Edt figh<br />

r o.tfr<br />

- ofif<br />

Orgts)<br />

Flgure L Tendency lor submarlnlng versu$ lap belt angle for<br />

belt type.<br />

In figure 10, results are shown separately forthe low and<br />

high seat heights. Submarining tendency differs for the two<br />

$eat heights, but is strongly influenced by lap belt angle for<br />

both heights (similar to Belt Type results in figure 9).<br />

Figure I I suggests similar trends for the factor Cushion<br />

Stiffness. However, separation of the two curves is less<br />

266<br />

Erlt Typr<br />

Angli<br />

Y$ - 0.721 Yrr - o.olli<br />

Hrlght Curhlon<br />

Vif - O.E9!i Msrllhil -<br />

I 0.77*<br />

f.<br />

!r<br />

g'<br />

I<br />

+t.E<br />

Lt tdt rlrb (D.F.)<br />

T*Hlt*ftliln- [|S<br />

l* r.d. filEH r o,flf<br />

Flgure 10. Tendency for submarlnlng veraua lap belt angle for<br />

$eat helght.<br />

distinct, indicating marginal difference between the two<br />

cushion stiffnesses in the submarining tendency versus lap<br />

belt angle relationship (as was indicated in the statistical<br />

analysis).<br />

g<br />

f,.<br />

i,<br />

i:<br />

I{ {7't tl<br />

|.oF ldt Atg|r (Drgu)<br />

qC$n trtrt lltliil.r r<br />

Htht ftr||cilFr 00ll<br />

toB Cflilc|r<br />

+<br />

Hr{ Cfltit<br />

Flgure 11. Tendency for submarlnlng v€raus ldp bcll angle for<br />

cushlon Btlflnsss.<br />

Figure 12 contains the results for each individual test. An<br />

interesting observation, which puts some degree of uncertainty<br />

on trends discussed thus far, is that three of the curyes<br />

fall closely together, while the fourth is very different. One<br />

could conclude from this that the relationship between submarining<br />

tendency and lap belt angle is the same, regardless<br />

of type of restraint or seat cushion stiffness or seat height,<br />

except when the low seat is combined with the soft cushion.<br />

If this were true, it would indicate that the two-way interaction<br />

effect, Seat Height/Cushion Stiffness, is significant.<br />

This effect is confounded with the main effect of Belt Tlpe,<br />

and, as previously stated, when confounding occurs, we<br />

have assumed that the observed effect is due to the lower-order<br />

interaction (i.e., the higher-order interaction effect<br />

is negligible). It is possible that this assumption is incorrect;<br />

however, we feel that is highly unlikely, since both logic and<br />

past experience indicate that submarining is more likely to<br />

occur in a three-point belt than in a lap-only belt. The only<br />

way to know for sure, however, would be to conduct more<br />

tests in the matrix.


f:<br />

t<br />

R<br />

T,<br />

Lt Ertt AnCr (Dryr)<br />

flgg_re t!. Tendency for submarlning ysraus lap belt angle for<br />

bslt type/seat helghvcushlon rtlffness.<br />

There is another issue which raises some uncertainty; the<br />

effect of seat height on submarining tendency, as observed<br />

in the sled tests, may have questionable validity. The Hybrid<br />

III dummy has a fixed angle between the lower spine and the<br />

upper legs. Therefore, when fhe dummy is placed in the<br />

lowered seat, the pelvis rotates with the upper leg, exaggerating<br />

the pelvic angle and predisposing the dummy to<br />

submarining more than is likely for the human. (The reader<br />

should bear in mind that the feet are constrained against<br />

moving forward by the front seat).<br />

Occupant head forward (X) velocity<br />

The occupant's head forward velocity was derived by film<br />

analysis---digitizing the l" target at the head C.G. Iocation<br />

and obtaining both longitudinal and vertical displacements<br />

of the C.C. The longitudinal head trajectory was differentiated<br />

to obtain the corresponding velocity.<br />

Prior to testing, the occupant's head was located, on average,<br />

slightly over 20" behind the Escort front seat back.<br />

Therefore, 20" was considered the maximum distance the<br />

head could travel without impacting the front seat back.<br />

When the occupant was restrained by the three-poirrt belt,<br />

maximum head excursion was less than 20". When restrained<br />

by the lap belt only, his head travelled ar leasr 29".<br />

Thus, head impact was considered a possibility only for the<br />

lap-only belt system.<br />

!-#rr-t.st-dtl<br />

r..*hriB*<br />

I *E.l.li<br />

iu,FrHbldr<br />

Flgure 13. Head loward (X) veloclty (mph).<br />

In figure I 3, longitudinal head velocities are presenred in<br />

the matrix format. For the three-point belt, the velocities are<br />

maximum values, and range from l8 to 25 mph. For each lap<br />

belt only test, the longitudinal component of head velocity<br />

was determined at the point at which the head had travelled<br />

forward 20" lthe rearmost point at which head impact might<br />

occur). These are the values which appear in figure l3 for<br />

the lap belt only; they ranged from 26 ro over 33 mph, and,<br />

therefore, were considerably greater than maximum noncontact<br />

head velocities for the three-point belt restrained<br />

occupantrr,<br />

Flgure.l4- Fffect of lap brlt angle on head longltudlnal veloctty<br />

by restralnt.<br />

iliFifr'ffi*<br />

LS H firaL<br />

Y[ ' a,fll<br />

Flgure 15. Head Inlury crlt€rlon (HlC).<br />

ts lrli lflL<br />

h. at,ttt<br />

Since our main concem in analyzing head motion was<br />

to det€rmine potential contact velocities, we statistically<br />

analyzed head velocities separately for the lap-only and<br />

three-point belt restrained occupants. These results, shown<br />

in figure 14, indicate<br />

that Belt Angle has a small but significant<br />

affect on the head velocity of lap belt restrained occupants,<br />

at the point at which head impact may occur; but does<br />

not affect maximum head velocity of three-point belt<br />

restrained occupants. Also, this figure clearly shows that<br />

head velocities at 20" of excursion for the lap-only tests<br />

greatly exceed maximum head velocities for the three-point<br />

tests.<br />

267


Head injury criterion (HIC)<br />

The HIC was determined using the head C.C. resultant<br />

acceleration. Figure l5 contains the HIC values for the sled<br />

series.<br />

The statistical analysis indicated that none of the four<br />

main effects or interactions appear to have a strong effect on<br />

the occupant's HIC value, which is shown by the bar charts<br />

in figure 16. However, the difference between the average<br />

lap-only and the three-Point belt HIC's is substantial, and, at<br />

a 15.630/o level of significance, is considered marginally<br />

significant. HIC values, separated by Belt Tlpe and plotted<br />

against Belt Angle, are presented in figure I 7. These curves,<br />

and the individual HIC values shown in figure 15, show that<br />

HIC was far more erratic for occupants restrained by the lap<br />

belt only. Observations of the films indicated the reason;<br />

head contact occulTed in nine ofthe ten tests involving lap<br />

belt only, but did not occur in any of the eleven three-point<br />

belt tests. (Specifically, the head contacted either the front<br />

seat back or the dummy's knee in test 853, 893, 894, 897,<br />

898, 904, 905, 908 and 909.<br />

o<br />

;<br />

ta00<br />

| 600<br />

| 200<br />

e00<br />

Brlt TyFr Angh<br />

Mrrglnrl - l5.69tt il6 - 72.19%<br />

Hilght curhlon<br />

No - 35,51t N6. 65,43t<br />

Flgure 16. Head Infury crlt€lla for rear seal occuPants.<br />

s000<br />

20<br />

3n<br />

,.o rrn lt,t ,o.",".r<br />

Figure 17. Head injury criterlon (HlQ) lor rear seat occupsnts.<br />

Occupant peak chest acceleration<br />

The occupant'$ peak chest resultant accelerations are<br />

summarized in figure 18.<br />

The statistical results are shown in figure 19. Cushion<br />

was the only main effect which was shown to be significant<br />

in effecting the chest acceleration, with a p-value of 2-5To.<br />

268<br />

61<br />

The remaining main effects and interactions were nol<br />

sienificant.<br />

Brlt Typ. Anglr llrlght cu8hlon<br />

ilo-e0.13't ilo-34.70% Nd-60.74% Yrr-2.5o'{<br />

Flgure 19. Peak chest accel€ration for rear Eest occuPants'<br />

Peak chest deflection<br />

for three-point belted<br />

occupants<br />

The peak chest deflections are summarized in figure 20<br />

for those tests where a three-point belt system was used. lt is<br />

interesting that the two tests where submarining did not<br />

occur resulted in the least amount of chest deflection.<br />

The statistical results are displayed in figure 2l ' Note that<br />

only I main effect is present in the statistical model-Belt<br />

Angf e. It is significant, with ap-value of l.llo/o. Seat Height<br />

.,F:r-1.0tt(Hrddl<br />

r.i*hhkd<br />

r . F l*rnr[<br />

t2 - h.rl#l*hr[<br />

Flgure 20. Peak chest deflection (lnches) lor three-point only,


and Cushion Stiffness are confounded, so the main effect<br />

due to either one cannot be discriminated without more<br />

testing. <strong>Int</strong>erestingly, the confounded main effect is significant,<br />

with a p-value of l.3lVo, indicating that one of the<br />

factors, or a combination of the factors (low seat and soft<br />

cushion versus high seat and hard cushion) is significant.<br />

a<br />

E oE<br />

o<br />

o<br />

E<br />

,.illli',*<br />

Figure 21. Chsst d€flsctlon for lap/shoulder belted rear seat<br />

occupantg,<br />

Abdominal<br />

injury severity<br />

Leung, et al., (6) conducted l0 sled tests, in which human<br />

cadavers were restrained by three-point belts, to develop an<br />

abdominal injury criterion associated with submarining.<br />

Nominal sled velocity was 30 mph and peak decelerations<br />

ranged from 2 I to 30 g. Most of the cadavers were tested in a<br />

rear seat configuration. Upper and lower shoulder belt loads<br />

and inboard and outboard lap belt loads were recorded.<br />

Autopsies were performed.<br />

They observed a relationship between post-submarining<br />

peak force on the lap belt (average of both sides), normalized<br />

with respect to the mass of the part 572 dummy, and<br />

abdominal injury severity. This relationship, reproduced<br />

from Reference 6 and shown in figure 22, represents an<br />

approximate injury criterion which can be applied to our<br />

three-point belt test results. The criterion should not be<br />

applied to tests involving lap belt only, because the lap belt<br />

would be expected to penetrate a different region of the<br />

abdomen, causing injury to different organs, and, therefore,<br />

a different overall injury severity for a given force, than<br />

would occur in a three-point belt system.<br />

E<br />

T<br />

3 t<br />

i<br />

t<br />

I<br />

t<br />

kv.rnyer^iffid5Fhr tJD<br />

tr .''sruH<br />

Flgure 22, Relatlonshlp between the standsrdlzed tenelon of<br />

the lap-beltr (after rubmarlnlng) and th€ abdomen AlS.<br />

Lap belt forces (average ofboth sides) from all ofour sled<br />

tests are shown in figure 23. For tests where submarining<br />

did not occur, values shown are maximum forces. For tests<br />

with submarining, values shown are the highest forces that<br />

were generated after submarining (full or half) occurred. No<br />

statistical analyses were performed on lap belt force because<br />

differences in injury consequences of high belt forces<br />

would be expected to greatly vary, depending on whether or<br />

not submarining occurs. As expected, maximum values<br />

(from tests with no submarining) were much higher for the<br />

lap-only belt (2ff)0 to 30fi) lbs or 8.9 km to 13.4 km) than<br />

for the three-point belt (approximately 14fi) lbs or 6.2 km).<br />

Post-submarining belt forces for the lap-only belts having<br />

the shallowest angles (20' and 34") were comparable in<br />

magnitude to peak forces that resulted in tests with no submarining.<br />

Maximum belt forces after full submarining in<br />

the three-point system ranged from 240 to 700 lbs ( l. I km ro<br />

3.1km).<br />

ilfrh;iH_"*'<br />

Flgure 23. Peak lap belt lorces (both sldes averaged) (tba).<br />

For the three-point belt tests, injury severities (AIS levels)<br />

were obtained from the post-submarining lap belt<br />

forces, by means of the relationship in figure 22. These are<br />

presented in figure 24,and indicate that, although full submarining<br />

occurred in six out of the eleven tests, only one<br />

injury would have occurred and it would have been of minor<br />

severity (AlS I ). (Although not specifically stated in reference<br />

6, it is assumed that the lap belt force/injury relationship<br />

of figure 22 applies only for full submarining).<br />

i,#;r'0 (|*rdEt<br />

I t*rnt{kd<br />

r , F blnt[<br />

r/? - h.rrs nErnrfl<br />

Flgure E4. Inlury aeverlty (AlS) for three-polnt only.


Summary and Conclusions<br />

Based upon the results of the sled test series, the following<br />

summary and conclusions are made about the occurrence<br />

of submarining for rear seat occupants:<br />

l. The occurrence of submarining, in general, was<br />

very clearly detected by observing test films, forcetime<br />

responses of the load cells mounted in the submarining<br />

pelvis and force-time responses of lap and<br />

shoulder belt load cells.<br />

2. Of the four factors investigated in the test matrix,<br />

Lap Belt Angle has a statistically highly significant<br />

effect on the tendency for submarining to occur. Belt<br />

Tlpe (lap belt only versus three-point belt) and Seat<br />

Height appear also to have a significantz effect on, and<br />

Cushion Stiffness appears to marginally affect, submarining<br />

tendency. (While the effect of Lap Belt Angle is<br />

clear, a small degree of uncertainty exists with regard<br />

to the effects of the other factors, because of the confounding<br />

inherent in half-factorial designs).<br />

a. The shallower the angle (off horizontal), the<br />

greater the tendency for submarining to occur. A lap<br />

belt angle of approximately 45o appears to be a transition,<br />

below which the tendency for submarining to<br />

occur increases rapidly with decreasing angle.<br />

b. The tendency to submarine appears to be greater<br />

for three-point belted occupant$ than for lap belt<br />

only occupants. This appears, from the films, to be<br />

due to the shoulder belt ( I ) pulling up on the lap belt<br />

and (2) preventing forward jackknifing motion of<br />

the upper torso.<br />

c. It appears that submarining tends to occur more<br />

frequently when the height between the occupant's<br />

H-Pt. and heel resting position is low (8") than when<br />

that height is relatively high (l?"). The probable<br />

explanation for this is that with the lower heiSht, the<br />

occupant's pelvis is rotated rearward more than at<br />

the higher height. However, the effect of seat height<br />

on submarining tendency is questionable, due to<br />

lack of leg articulation in the Hybrid III dummy, and<br />

the resulting uncertainty regarding the dummy properly<br />

duplicating the human pelvis orientation for low<br />

seating heights. We feel the dummy's pelvis probably<br />

was rotated more in the lower seat than a human's<br />

would be, exaggerating the pelvic angle and<br />

predisposing the dummy to submarining more than<br />

is likely for the human.<br />

d. Although statistical significance is marginal,<br />

submarining tendency appears to be greater for the<br />

softer seat cushion.<br />

3. Forward head excursions and velocities were<br />

much greater for dummies in lap belts only than in<br />

three-point belts. Lap belt only restrained dummies<br />

had head velocities around 30 mph at a point represent-<br />

r Throughout rhe Summary and Conclusions, the tem "significant" or "signifi-<br />

caflce" is used to denote statistical signiflcance.<br />

270<br />

ing the rearmost location of a front seat back; they<br />

appeared to be slightly higher for steeper lap belt angles.<br />

Head excursionrt of three-point belt restrained<br />

dummies were less than that which would cause head<br />

contact; maximum head velocities were approximately<br />

2l-22mph.<br />

4. HIC value$ were marginally higher, and more<br />

variable due to some head/front seat back contacts and<br />

head/knee contacts, for dummies in lap-only belts than<br />

in three-point belts. HIC's averaged approximately<br />

1400 in the lap-only restraint, and 920 in three-point<br />

belts.<br />

5. Peak chest acceleration values were significantly<br />

affected only by seat cushion stiffness, averaging just<br />

under 60 g's for the hard cushion andjust under45 g's<br />

for the soft cushion.<br />

6. Peak chest deflections (three-point belt re$trained<br />

dummies only) were significantly affected by lap belt<br />

angle, ranging from about 2.1 inches for the $teepest<br />

angle to around 3 inches for the shallowest angles. The<br />

two tests where submarining did not occur resulted in<br />

the least amount of chest deflection.<br />

7. Maximum post-submarining lap belt forces of<br />

2839 and 2233 lbs occurred for the lap-only belts hav-<br />

ing the shallowest angles (20o and 34o, respectively).<br />

8. Maximum lap belt forces after full submarining in<br />

the three-point belt system ranged from 240 to 700 lbs.<br />

9. A useful, though approximate, injury criterion<br />

exists for evaluating severity of submarining for threepoint<br />

belt restrained occupants only. Injury severity<br />

can be inferred from peak lap belt forces that occur<br />

after full (two-sided) submarining (6). Although full<br />

submarining occurred in six out of eleven tests involving<br />

three-point belts, only one injury (AIS I ) was indi-<br />

cated. No criterion appears to exist for determining<br />

submarining severity when only a lap belt is worn;<br />

therefore, no conclusions can be made regarding sub-<br />

marining injury severity in lap-only belted occupants.<br />

Acknowledgments<br />

The views and findings in this paper are those of the<br />

authors and do not necessarily represent the policy of the<br />

NHTSA.<br />

The authors are grateful to Rodney Herriott, Doug Hayes,<br />

William Gwilliams, Claude Melton and Timothy Schock for<br />

their technical support in the fabrication ofthe test buck and<br />

processing of test data.<br />

A special thanks goes to Susan Weiser for the preparation<br />

of the manuscript.


References<br />

(l) Maclaughlin, T.F., Sullivan, L.K., and O'Connor,<br />

C.S.,<br />

"Rear Seat Submarining Investigation," DOT HS 807<br />

347, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,<br />

VA 22161, May 1988.<br />

(2) Adomeit, D. and Heger, A., "Motion Sequence<br />

Criteria and Design Proposals for Restraint Devices in<br />

Order to Avoid Unfavorable Biomechanic Conditions and<br />

Submarining", SAE Paper 751 146.<br />

(3) Adomeit, D., "Seat Design-A Significant Factor for<br />

Safety Belt Effectiveness", SAE Paper 791004.<br />

(4) DeJeammes, M., et al, "Factors Influencing the<br />

Estimation of Submarining on the Dummy", SAE Paper<br />

8l1021.<br />

(5) Mooney, M.T. and Collins, J.A., "Abdominal<br />

Penetration Measurement Insert for the Hybrid III<br />

Dummy", SAE Paper No. 860653, SAE <strong>Int</strong>ernational<br />

Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 24-<br />

28. 1986.<br />

(6) Leung, Y.C., et al, "Submarining<br />

Injuries of Three-<br />

Point Belted Occupants in Frontal Collisions-Description,<br />

Mechanisms and Protection", SAE Paper 821158.<br />

An Experimental Study of Crashworthiness of Vehicle Front Structure<br />

Akihiro Miyajima, Noboru Takahashi,<br />

Gyoichi Hataya,<br />

Subaru Engineering Division,<br />

Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.<br />

Abstract<br />

Frontal impact test data of vehicles which have various<br />

front structure configuration are analyzed, and relationship<br />

between crashworthiness and occupant injury level is<br />

discussed.<br />

Specific displacement, R (ratio of actual to free vehicle<br />

displacement) is introduced as an index for estimating the<br />

crashworthiness of front structure. Value of R at a certain<br />

time (here t = 40 msec) can represent the feature of<br />

crashworthiness in earlier period of impact and has close<br />

correlation with occupant injury level. To keep less R value,<br />

that is, to keep less vehicle displacement in earlier period of<br />

impact is effective to reduce injury severity.<br />

Presumed value of R is also obtained by computer<br />

simulation. [t could give an indication for predicting<br />

occupant protection performance with certain exactness in<br />

the first stage of vehicle body design.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

Vehicle crashworthiness is, needless to say, one of the<br />

most important factors which influence the occupant injury<br />

severity, as well as the performance of restraint systems.<br />

Many studies have been done theoretically and/or<br />

experimentally on this subject (Reference l, 2, 3, 4).<br />

Recently, large scale deformation analysis of vehicle<br />

structure by super-computer has come to be widely used to<br />

estimate crashworthiness, while occupant injury level is<br />

predicted by two- or three-dimensional victim behavior<br />

analysis (Reference 5, 6.).<br />

In order to provide appropriate crashworthiness at the<br />

early stage of vehicle development it is essential to e$tabli$h<br />

a simple and effective means to estimate the crashworthiness<br />

and to confirm its validity. From this point of<br />

view, as a practical approach, we analyzed impact test data<br />

of various vehicles, examined the relationship between<br />

occupant injury level and vehicle crashworthiness in earlier<br />

period of impact, and tried to introduce an index to be used<br />

to evaluate conveniently the crash performance of a vehicle<br />

front structure. We also compared this index with the<br />

calculated value by computer simulation.<br />

Vehicle Crashworthiness and Occupant<br />

Injury Level<br />

Vehicle deceleration curve<br />

Analysis of vehicle deceleration curve in a collision test<br />

is one of the mo$t frequently used means to eyaluate the<br />

crashworthiness. Vehicle deceleration is determined by<br />

impact speed, vehicle weight, stiffness of front structure<br />

members and configuration of rigid components, such as<br />

engine and drive train.<br />

Figure I shows certain vehicle deceleration curves in 30<br />

mph frontal impact tests on fixed barrier (measurement; on<br />

rear trunk floor). Specification of test vehicles is shown on<br />

Table l, where dimension a is the length of the front end<br />

(distance between the top of bumper and frontbulkhead), b<br />

is the distance from the top to powerplant, and c is the<br />

distance from the top to side frame (majorenergy-absorbing<br />

member).<br />

50 l0O raec<br />

rue<br />

Flgure 1. Vehlcle decelerallon ln 30 mph frontal lmpact test on<br />

flxed berrler.<br />

Basic diinensions and body structure of vehicle A and B<br />

are the same. but dimension b is not identical because of<br />

carrying different engine. Vehicle C has smaller body and<br />

powerplant compared with A and B.<br />

Difference of deceleration curve is derived from these<br />

differences of construction. Deceleration of vehicle A is<br />

27r


Table 1. Test vehlcle tpeclflcatlons<br />

bFct .Fd (hA) €.6 4E.r 49. r<br />

l.rrcrr v.rsht (E) r, a9' 1. Bl<br />

&lo4rtlo! ol !!rt htt<br />

hrlloltrlly o!tsrrt, 46t61 Horfuoltlllt oPo6.d. tutl<br />

r,3F r,2s 9r0<br />

JF 4m<br />

l@ !60 l?0<br />

115 725 415<br />

fr 1, 6l<br />

rd ril 6t<br />

t-Hs<br />

i{'!-{-<br />

H*-=+ V<br />

l i- ---1<br />

lower in -"r,,*, o*.,"0 ilt#;e that of vehicle c is<br />

higher. Vehicle B is the medium. Between these three cases,<br />

however, there are no big differences of the highest peak<br />

value of deceleration.<br />

Occupant injury level<br />

Occupant injury indices at the test of these three vehicles<br />

(mean value of several test cases) are shown in figure 2. We<br />

used passenger side data to eliminate the influence of secondary<br />

impact by steering post. From these data we can<br />

conclude that occupant injury level is higher when the vehicle<br />

has relatively lower deceleration in earlier period of<br />

impact (vehicle A), and on the other hand, we can expect<br />

lower injury level if it has higher deceleration in earlier<br />

period of impact (vehicle C). Vehicle B has the middle value<br />

of A and C.<br />

Flgure 2. Comparlaon of Inlury level of three lest vehlcles.<br />

Numerical expression of crashworthiness<br />

When discussing vehicle crash process, displacement is<br />

more convenient than deceleration to compare different<br />

vehicles.<br />

Figure 3 shows the vehicle displacement, S, to time, and<br />

Figure 4 shows its non-dimensional expression, R = S/Sc.<br />

Sc is the free displacement (viftual displacement) at 40<br />

msec, according to the impact speed. The time of 40 msec is<br />

adopted for convenience's sake. In the case of 30 mph to 35<br />

mph impact, value of free displacement, Sc = 0.53 m to 0.62<br />

272<br />

t<br />

m is close to the crash stroke, that is, effective energy<br />

absorbing deformation of compact/subcompact class vehicle.<br />

Accordingly, the vehicle displacement expressed as the<br />

ratio to this value is convenient to roughly estimate the<br />

crashworthiness.<br />

Flgure 3. Vehlcls displacement.<br />

vehtcle A. vo = \8.6 h/h<br />

lr0<br />

Celculatlon of n<br />

In this sense value of R may be called specific displacement,<br />

and less value of R to time means higher crushresistant<br />

characteristic in earlier period of impact.<br />

In the case of the three vehicles, as shown in figure 4,<br />

values of R are not so much diff'erent at 20 msec. At 30 msec,<br />

A and B has nearly the same, and C has less R value. At 40<br />

msec, where A(0.847) > B (0.795) > C (0.758), difference<br />

becomes distinct.<br />

& EEEC<br />

Flgure 4. Comparlaon of crashworthiness by non-dlm6nsional<br />

exPre99ron.<br />

Flgure 5. Inlluence ol drlve traln snd Impsct apeed<br />

(baaed on<br />

vehlcle A).


We also examined by test influence of different drive<br />

train configuration and different impact speed, in the case of<br />

the same body construction. The results show no significant<br />

difference ofR value in any case (figure 5). Consequently,<br />

with R value, we can quantitatively evaluate the basic characteristics<br />

of vehicle crashworthiness in relation to displacement<br />

and/or time.<br />

R value and occupant injury level<br />

In order to clarify the relationship between R value and<br />

occupant injury level, we examined test data of seventeen<br />

cases of 30 and 35 mph frontal crash of subcompact class<br />

passenger car,<br />

As shown in figure 6, a close correlation exists between<br />

the value ofR at 40 msec and occupant injury index, chest 3<br />

msec-G (correlation factor k = 0.9 l2).<br />

Figure 7 shows HIC versus R value at 40 msec for the<br />

same test data. Though it i$ not so much obvious as chest G,<br />

there is a tendency that HIC decreases as the value of R<br />

reduces (correlation factor k = 0.693).<br />

From the facts mentioned above, R value at 40 msec can<br />

be utilized as a practical index ofcrashworthiness for 30 to<br />

35 mph impact. Thus a bodystructure which has lower R<br />

value is preferable from the viewpoint of occupant<br />

protection.<br />

o<br />

d<br />

E<br />

E<br />

e<br />

E<br />

o<br />

Flgure S. Gorrelatlon botwo€n R at 40 mssc and chest 3 msec G.<br />

o k - 0.69,<br />

Flgure 7. Correlatlon between R at 40 maec and HlC.<br />

R value and ride-down effect<br />

Vehicfe l0nphl]5npt<br />

A o I<br />

B A A<br />

Ride-down effect generally increases with advance of the<br />

beginning of restraint of occupant with seat belt. We also<br />

examined the relationship between R value and ride-down<br />

effect.<br />

Figure 8 illustrates the vehicle deceleration and chest G<br />

of dummy versus vehicle displacement in frontal impact<br />

tests of the vehicle A, B, and C. The highest peak of chest G<br />

occurs immediately before the ultimate displacement. Rise<br />

up point of chest G (Sl), that is, beginning of occupant<br />

restraint is 300 mm for A. 230 mm for B and 195 mm for C<br />

re$pectively. Shaded area in figure I is expressed as<br />

E<br />

o<br />

r*t<br />

E -\ e ds .<br />

s1<br />

Vehiete A Drruy cheBt<br />

\ i<br />

:<br />

SI Se 500 m<br />

Vehlcle illsplBcment, g<br />

Flgure 8. Vehlcle and dummy chest deceleratlon vE. vshlcls<br />

dlaplacemant.<br />

k - -0,819<br />

rs2 '-\r.<br />

(-u. )'<br />

Flgure 9. Correletlon between R and rlde-down elfect.<br />

This value is proportional to the kinetic energy of dummy<br />

absorbed by deformation ofvehicle body in the period from<br />

the beginning of restraint (Sl) to the displacement at 40<br />

msec (S2), namely, the amount of ride-down effect.<br />

i<br />

273


Using the same test data shown in figures 6 and 7, relationship<br />

between E and R is obtained and $hown in figure 9,<br />

where E is corrected equivalent for 30 mph (48.3 km/h)<br />

impact. Correlation factor is k = -0.849, and less R value (t =<br />

40 msec) gives bigger ride-down effect.<br />

Computer Analysis of Crashworthiness<br />

As an index of vehicle crashworthiness, we calculated the<br />

value of R by mathematical simulation and compared with<br />

experimental data.<br />

The program employed forcomputation is DYCAST/GC<br />

Code (Reference 7, 8).<br />

Model<br />

The analyzed model is based on the vehicle B. For computation,<br />

engine hood, fenders and auxiliary Parts are neglected<br />

(figure l0). Components and members involved are<br />

substituted to finite elements as follows:<br />

r Sumpsl-non-linearspringelement<br />

. Side f14ns-nsn-linear spring element and beam<br />

. Crossmember-beam<br />

r Panel-shell<br />

r Powe{plant-rigidbody<br />

r Tire


Test data for the calculation model vehicle<br />

We also conducted impact test with the very vehicle used<br />

as the model for calculation. The results are shown in figure<br />

l2 and figure I 3 in comparison with calculation. Crash and<br />

displacement mode are fairly similar to that of calculation.<br />

R value at 40 msec obtained from the test data is 0.839,<br />

which has good coincidence with the calculated R value.<br />

From this experience, analysis with DYCAST simulation<br />

model seems to be useful for estimating vehicle<br />

crashworthiness.<br />

I<br />

Flgure 14. Vehlcle dl$placement In slmulatlon and cxperlm€nt.<br />

Conclusion<br />

(l) At a frontal impact test, relatively higher vehicle<br />

deceleration in earlier period of collision generally gives<br />

reduction of occupant injury level.<br />

(2) Specific displacement, the value of R = S/Sc (here at<br />

40 msec) can be used as an index for estimating vehicle<br />

crashworthiness. Less R value could provide lower<br />

occupant injury level. R value of a certain vehicle body is<br />

hardly affected by impact speed and drive train<br />

configuration.<br />

(3) Smaller R value generally means bigger ride-down<br />

effect.<br />

(4) R value could be calculated by computer simulation<br />

and utilized as an indication of vehicle structural design.<br />

We introduced an idea to estimate the vehicle<br />

crashworthiness using the value of R (specific<br />

displacement). It is, however, only one of the possible<br />

approach. The authors wish to conduct further experimental<br />

and analytical studies and to establish more effectual means<br />

to evaluate total crash performance of a vehicle.<br />

References<br />

Safer Steering Wheels to Reduce Face Bone Fractures<br />

Keith C. Clemo,<br />

Motor Industry Research Association,<br />

Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England<br />

Slade Penoyre,<br />

Transport and Road Research Laboratory,<br />

Crowthorne, Berkshire, England<br />

Martin J. White,<br />

Motor Industry Research Association,<br />

Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England<br />

(l) G. Hataya, J. Takizawa, S. Kojima; Crash Analysis of<br />

Vehicle Structure Including Occupant. Bulletin of JSAE,<br />

No.8, 1975.<br />

(2) N. Aya, K. Takahashi, H. Nosho; A Method How to<br />

Estimate the Crashworthiness of Body Construction.<br />

Nissan Technical Review, No. I I, 1976.<br />

(3) M. Hashimoto, R. Nakahama; Influence of Crash<br />

Characteristics on Occupant Injuries. Journal of JSAE, No.<br />

4. Vol.4l. 1987.<br />

(4) M. Kondo, K. Takahashi; Relation between Vehicle<br />

Deceleration Curves and Occupant Responses in<br />

Collisions. Bulletin of JSAE. No. 35. 1987.<br />

(5) D.A. Vander Lugt, R.J. Chen, A.S. Deshpande;<br />

Passenger Car Frontal Barrier Simulation Using Nonlinear<br />

Finite Element Methods. SAE 871958.<br />

(6) J. Wismans, J.H.A. Hermans: MADYMO 3D<br />

Simulation of Hybrid-3 Dummy Sled Tests. SAE 880645.<br />

(7) R. Winter, J. Crouzet-Pascal, A.B. Pifko; Front Crash<br />

Analysis of Steel Frame Auto Using a Finite Element<br />

Computer Code. SAE 840728.<br />

(8) Grumman Corporation Research Center; DYCAST/<br />

GC Nonlinear Structural Dynamic Finite Element<br />

Computer Code User's Manual, Ver. 1.4.<br />

Abstract<br />

The paper starts by reviewing accident data from UK and<br />

other countries which shows that restrained drivers frequently<br />

receive brain injuries and face bone fractures from<br />

striking their steering wheels in frontal crashes. These fracture$<br />

are not usually fatal but are extremely unpleasant,<br />

requiring skilled surgery and long periods of immobilisation<br />

during recovery, and often resulting in permanent disfigurement.<br />

Possible counter-measures considered are seat<br />

275


elt pretensioners, air bags, and improved steering wheel<br />

designs, and the paper suggests that while pretensioners and<br />

air bags would be very effective their cost and complexity<br />

will prevent widespread use in high-volume cars for several<br />

years. In the meantime improved, less aggressive, steering<br />

wheel designs are seen as a good, cheap and quick way of<br />

reducing head and face injuries. A practicable safer wheel<br />

designed by TRRL and Sheller-Clifford was shown at the<br />

lOth <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence at Oxford in 1985, together with a<br />

proposed impact test procedure using a flat disc of aluminum<br />

honeycomb. The honeycomb crush strength is chosen<br />

to be the same as the maximum pressure which the weakest<br />

important par"ts of the human face can withstand without<br />

bone fracture, so deformation of the honeycomb during<br />

impact indicates a wheel which is dangerously stiff' The<br />

present paper describes how this proposed test has since<br />

been developed, and gives test results for 15 designs of<br />

production wheels. It concludes that the test is easy to carry<br />

out and gives repeatable results, and suggests that use ofthis<br />

test in legislation would lead to steering wheel designs<br />

which would greatly reduce the risk of brain damage and<br />

face bone fracture.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

Seat belts have been shown to be very effective in<br />

reducing deaths and serious injuries to car occupants, with<br />

most studies sugge$ting that when worn they approximately<br />

halve the risk of death (1,2,3).* However, normal lap/<br />

diagonal belts are not able to prevent a driver's face from<br />

hitting the steering wheel in a severe frontal crash, for<br />

reasons that are very obvious to anyone who tries a simple<br />

experiment-sit in the driver's seat with your belt fastened,<br />

jerk the belt to lock the inenia reel, then lean forward as far<br />

as the belt allows. Nearly all drivers find their faces or<br />

foreheads touch the wheel, even under the very low belt<br />

forces produced in the test. In a frontal crash, with the car<br />

decelerating at perhaps 30 g and a shoulder belt load of<br />

perhaps half a ton, the amounts of belt stretch and b-Jy<br />

movement are of course much greater, and the driver's head<br />

can meet the wheel at a high relative speed. Since most<br />

current production steering wheels are not designed with<br />

face impact or energy absorption in mind, it is hardly<br />

surprising that face injuries are both common and serious<br />

for restrained drivers.<br />

Accident Data on Face Injuries to<br />

Restrained Drivers<br />

The most comprehensive and recent source of accident<br />

data on restrained drivers appears to be the UK's continuing<br />

study organised by TRRL/DTp and being carried out by<br />

teams from the Institute for Consumer Ergonomics,<br />

Loughborough and the University of Birmingham, with<br />

financial suppoft from Rover, Jaguar, Ford, and Nissan (4).<br />

The most relevant data from this study on the driver face and<br />

head impact problem is contained in three recent<br />

publications by the TRRL and ICE teams (5,6,7). Taking<br />

+Numbers in parentheses designatc referencts at end of paper.<br />

276<br />

these in order of publication, the first (5) "examines the<br />

incidence, severity and causation of head injuries in car<br />

accidents in post seat belt legislation Britain". It uses data<br />

from 940 accidents and I 603 occupants, of whom 89 (6Vo)<br />

died, 401 (25o/o) werc seriously injured, 548 (347o) were<br />

slightly injured and 565 (357o) were uninjured. 936 (587a)<br />

were drivers, of whom 572 were restrained, 60 were<br />

unrestrained, and the restraint use of the remaining 304 was<br />

not known. 9 I of the drivers had head or face injuries from<br />

$triking their steering wheels, and nearly all of these were<br />

wearing seat belt$ (967o) and were in frontal impacts (95Vo).<br />

36 drivers received head (i.e. non-face) injuries from their<br />

wheels, 28 having AIS 2 brain damage (unconscious or<br />

amnesia) and ? having severe (AIS 3-6) brain damage. 84<br />

drivers had face injuries from steering wheel contact, 46<br />

being cut, bruises and abrasions (5 rated AIS 2),3l having<br />

single face bone fractures and 5 multiple fractures. The<br />

authors considered which parts of the steering wheels<br />

caused these injuries, and concluded that of I I AIS 3 or<br />

above injuries, 3 were caused by the hub and 8 by the rim or<br />

spokes. Taking all severities, the hub was repsonsible for<br />

34Vo and the rim or spokes for the rest. The author$<br />

concluded that "the steering wheel has been shown to be a<br />

major cause of facial bone fractures and AIS 2 brain injury<br />

to drivers."<br />

The second relevant paper by the TRRl/Loughborough<br />

teams (6) was presented at I lth <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence in<br />

Washington, May 1987. It starts by quoting Rutherford's<br />

findings (2) that compulsory wearing of seat belts was<br />

effective in reducing most injuries to drivers and front seat<br />

passengers, but that drivers' skull and face bone fractures<br />

increased by 8 and l07o respectively while the<br />

corresponding figures for front seat passengers fell by 7l<br />

and 46Vo. Since the main difference in a frontal crash<br />

situation between the driver and the front passenger is the<br />

presence of the steering wheel ahead of the driver, it seems<br />

reasonable to conclude that steering wheel impacts account<br />

for this large difference between the figures. The paper uses<br />

a more recent and Iarger data base than (5) with information<br />

from l6l8 vehicles and2720 occupants collected between<br />

January 1984 and June 1986. 213 of the vehicles were<br />

impacted frontally, and in these impacts with restrained<br />

front occupants it was found that the legs were the body<br />

region most often injured (63Vo of all injured occupants),<br />

followed by the head/face (52Vo). Excluding AIS I injuries<br />

leaves l08l of AIS 2 or more, of which the head/face<br />

accounts for 314 = 29Va and the legs for 230 = ZlVo.<br />

Considering the mechanism of injuries of AIS 2 or more to<br />

"vulnerable<br />

body regions", the steering wheel is the most<br />

important object struck, accounting for 34Vo of all injuries'<br />

while the next most frequent source is seat belt webbing at<br />

32Vo, and no other contact location exceeds 57o. When<br />

studying frontal collisions with passenger compartment<br />

intrusion, the steering wheel was found to be an even more<br />

important cause of injuries, accounting for 5l7o of all<br />

contacts while the next most common sources were "other<br />

vehicle" at lTVo and the A Pillar at 107o.


The third and most recent relevant paper published using<br />

this UK data base is (7). This pap€r says that 484 out of 2650<br />

re$trained drivers in frontal impacts sustained steering<br />

wheef head or face injuries (lBok),compared with2?l/2650<br />

= 87o sustaining torso injuries from their wheels. It was also<br />

found that the face injuries occurred at much lower crash<br />

speeds than the torso ones. The author of(7) attributes this<br />

difference to the fact that the $eat belt restrains the torso<br />

directly, so preventing torso/wheel contact except in very<br />

severe accidents, while the restraining load on the head can<br />

only be applied via the neck. The head is therefore much<br />

freer than the tor$o to move forward, and will receive less<br />

benefit from restraint use. This paper also points out a<br />

difficulty with using AIS to classify rhe seriousness of face<br />

injuries, because it does not take account ofthe potential for<br />

permanent disfigurement and consequent emotional and<br />

other problems. The author concludes that "the steering<br />

wheel is a frequent source of head and face injuries (to<br />

restrained drivers); the mo$t common non-minor head<br />

injury caused by steering wheel contacts is AIS 2 brain<br />

damage (unconsciousness); facial bone fractures are also<br />

common and more severe brain injuries do occur".<br />

While these recent papers provide strong evidence of the<br />

frequency and severity of head and face injuries from<br />

current steering wheel designs, the problem is by no means a<br />

new one. It was clearly identified by Gloyns et al in l98l<br />

(8), who concluded that both brain damage (concussion)<br />

and face bone fracture are very common in frontal impacts<br />

with restrained drivers. For example,2/3 of the drivers in<br />

the sample were injured only by making head or face<br />

contacts with their wheels, and of these 3l7a suffered a face<br />

bone fracture and 22Vo were concussed. The authors<br />

recommended improving steering wheel designs to increase<br />

their energy absorption, and suggested changes to<br />

legislation covering steering wheel testing.<br />

The problem of injuries produced by steering wheels is<br />

not of course unique to UK; researchers elsewhere have<br />

found very similar results when considering restrained<br />

drivers, and as belt wearing rates improve in other countries<br />

these injuries will become more important there too. For<br />

example (9) shows that in Finland in 1987 with front seat<br />

belt wearing rates of 82Vo in built-up areas and 92o/o on<br />

highways (in 1983/84), --steering wheel caused injuries<br />

have not shown a decreasing tendency during recent years<br />

",<br />

although injuries from other parts ofthe car had decreased.<br />

French workers had also identified the problem as long ago<br />

as l98l; (10) shows that 74 out of 405 belted drivers in<br />

frontal impacts had head to wheel impacts. To sum up,<br />

therefore, everyone who has studied this subject has found<br />

that head and face injuries from steering wheels are a<br />

serious problem for restrained drivers, and it is clear that a<br />

solution would be extremely worthwhile.<br />

Possible Solutions to Reduce Steering<br />

Wheel Injuries<br />

Since face bone fractures and brain injuries are being<br />

produced by head to wheel impacts, it is necessary either to<br />

prevent these contacts altogether, or to reduce their speed,<br />

or to design the wheel so it can absorb the head's kinetic<br />

energy without exceeding allowable human tolerance<br />

figures. Two ways of preventing head to wheel contacts, or<br />

ofreducing their speed, are to use seat belt pretensioners<br />

or<br />

steering wheel air bags. Either of these methods (or of<br />

course both together) should be very effective, panicularly<br />

if the pretensioner<br />

system not only tightens the belt but also<br />

moves the wheel forward as in the VW Audi Procon-ten<br />

design ( I I ). But pretensioners<br />

and air bags are complex and<br />

expensive, and it is not realistic to expect them to be used in<br />

popular cars soon, although they are gradually being<br />

introduced in quality cars and it is possible that when they<br />

prove to be effective there, public opinion will encourage<br />

wider use. However for high-volume cars the only<br />

financially viable approach to reducing drivers' head and<br />

face injuries seems to be the use of less aggressive steering<br />

wheels which are designed with energy absorption in mind.<br />

One such design was shown by TRRL and Sheller Clifford<br />

at the 1985 <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, figure I. This would be only<br />

very slightly more expensive than a standard hard wheel,<br />

and has been found to be highly acceptable to drivers in road<br />

trials. At least two car manufacturers (Volvo and GM)<br />

already make steering wheels using some of the same<br />

principles, and so the cost penalty is clearly not prohibitive.<br />

But other manufacturers have shown little enthusiasm for<br />

improving their wheels, and so it appears that it would be<br />

necessary to legislate for a test procedure to achieve wider<br />

use of safer designs. The aim of such a test procedure must<br />

be to limit the loads and decelerations of the driver's head<br />

from wheel impact to levels which will not cause injuries,<br />

and so a knowledge of human tolerance figures is an<br />

essential first step in designing the test procedure.<br />

,{4frrdr#v_ttrrrl<br />

2. fdr l|ltrl rpE*B. rdt rdl Fdrlid fid drhn d to buhlr *lfil<br />

3. I tilck mlt rim with itr -xlttrltr rfit|l rolntuEsttdlt pshlomd t lrr d<br />

r po&ibkeryfffi th.&lfittH.<br />

Flgure 1. TRFL/Sh€ll€r-Cllfford safety wheel


Human Tolerances For Head and Face<br />

Loadings<br />

Work on human tolerance to face loads goes back at least<br />

to the cadaver experiments of Rene Le Fort in Paris in 190 I ,<br />

and his system ofclassifying the unpleasant fractures ofthe<br />

middle third of the face which occur when the tolerable<br />

loads are exceeded is still used today. Anyone who feels<br />

face bone fractures are not serious injuries (and who has a<br />

strong stomach) is advised to read some of the numerous<br />

medical papers on the problems of treating these fractures,<br />

eg. (12, 13). When trying to protect car occupants, two<br />

different kinds of possible injury must be considered; brain<br />

injury, caused by excessive deceleration, and face bone<br />

fractures, caused by excessive local loads. As with all<br />

questions of human tolerance, the available data is very<br />

limited for both these kinds of injury, but for brain damage<br />

the figure of 80 g for 3 ms has been accepted in legislation<br />

for many years (eg ECE Reg 21, FMVSS 201) and appears<br />

to be a reasonable criterion. For face bone fracture the<br />

problem is more difficult, as the skull is a very complex<br />

structure whose $trength varies over its different parts, and<br />

the risk offracture will depend on the applied force, the area<br />

over which this is applied, and the stiffness of the object<br />

which is loading the face. The best practical approach seems<br />

to be that taken by Nahum, (14, l5), who argued that<br />

pres$ure is the important criterion. His cadaver tests<br />

suggesred rhat a load of 200.-225 lb (0.9-l kN) when<br />

applied with an impactor of 1 sq. in. (645 sq mm) was<br />

unlikely to cause fracture of the zygomatic (cheek bone) or<br />

maxillary (top jaw) areas, Nahum also found that a much<br />

Iower load (50 lb, 0.22 kN) could break the nose, but the area<br />

of bone being loaded there is much less than I sq in; if this<br />

area is in fact about l" X l/4" then the allowable pressure is<br />

again 200 psi.<br />

Other workers, eg (16) have found similar levels of<br />

tolerable pressures for the zygomatic and maxillary regions,<br />

and although the subject does not appear to be well<br />

understood this pressure of approximately 200 psi seems a<br />

reasonable maximum to be allowed for steering wheel<br />

impacts. Cadaver testing cannot be carried out in UK, but<br />

we hope that countries where it can be done will in fact do it;<br />

such testing seems the only way of testing our hypothesis<br />

that an impacting device which crushes at 200 psi (1.4<br />

N/mmz) will not produce face bone fractures.<br />

Proposed Steering Wheel Test<br />

Procedure-1985<br />

At the 1985 <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence in Oxford, TRRL presented<br />

a paper ( l7) proposing a steering wheel impact test based on<br />

existing "<strong>Int</strong>erior Fittings" legislation, ECE Reg 2l or<br />

FMVSS 201. The test would use the same mass and speed<br />

( 15 lb, 6.8 kg and 15 mph, 24.1 kph) as those regulations but<br />

would replace their rigid metal spherical impactor with a<br />

disc of aluminium honeycomb whose crush strength<br />

corresponds to the human face tolerance, about 20O psi. Ttvo<br />

278<br />

pass/fail criteria were suggested, (l) that the impactor<br />

deceleration does not exceed 80 g for 3 ms (cumulative, so<br />

that a "ringing" accelerometer does not give a false pass),<br />

(2) that the permanent dent in the honeycomb is not deeper<br />

than 2 mm (measured only over the central 100 mm<br />

diameter area of the disc, so as to avoid edge effects-the<br />

disc's diameter is I 50 mm). In the I 985 work the aluminium<br />

honeycomb was used in its "as manufactured" condition,<br />

without pre-crushing, and a specification was chosen with<br />

the required initial crush strength in this condition.<br />

The 1985 paper Eave results for 7 standard production<br />

wheels and the TRRL/Sheller Clifford safety wheel. Only<br />

this safety wheel met the proposed deceleration and<br />

indentation depth criteria at all the points te$ted (hub, spoke/<br />

rim junction, longest part of rim without a spoke, shortest<br />

part of rim without a spoke). The production wheels all<br />

passed on deceleration levels in the rim impacts but failed<br />

on indentation depth in those impacts, while in the hub<br />

impacts all failed on deceleration levels and only the Volvo<br />

passed on indentation depth.<br />

Development of Proposed Test Since<br />

1985<br />

Initial proposals for legislative test<br />

Following the publication of a proposed legislative test<br />

for steering wheels in the 1985 <strong>ESV</strong> Paper, a document was<br />

prepared for the European Community Group on Passive<br />

Safety (ERGA) for consideration for use in an EEC<br />

Directive to Member States.<br />

The document incorporated the test details proposed in<br />

the <strong>ESV</strong> Paper, with the addition of two tests to be<br />

performed on samples of the honeycomb material to verify<br />

its crush load performance.<br />

The document stipulated that each steering wheel should<br />

be impact tested at the four points chosen for the tests<br />

reported in the <strong>ESV</strong> paper, namely the hub, the join of the<br />

spoke and rim, the centre of the longest unsupported arc of<br />

rim, and also the shortest unsupported arc of rim. lt also<br />

allowed for a further impact point to be selected by the<br />

technical service responsible forthe tests where such apoint<br />

might be judged to offer a significantly greaterrisk of injury.<br />

Revised proposals incorporating pre-crushed<br />

honeycomb material<br />

In the discussion of this document by ERGA, it was<br />

suggested that there were two features of the honeycomb<br />

crush performance which made it unsuitable for the measurement<br />

of peak pressures. The first of these is the high<br />

initial peak which occurs at the beginning of crush on the<br />

honeycomb. A typical honeycomb crush load/deflection<br />

curve, as shown in figure 2, illustrates this. The initial peak<br />

is due to the buckling of the foil surface$ which make up the<br />

cells; once folding is established, the crush load falls and<br />

continues at an approximately constant level. It is clear that,<br />

if we choose our honeycomb material so that the height of


our initial peak matches our threshold pressure value, then<br />

continuing crush will occur at a significantly lower load,<br />

and therefore, penetration of the honeycomb represents a<br />

non-linear measure of severity. Also, and this was the second<br />

criticism of this material, the buckling behaviour of the<br />

foil, ie, its initial peak load, is significantly altered by imperfections<br />

in its shape, making a given sample very variable in<br />

this respect. The later working paper produced by TRRL to<br />

report initial trials of the honeycomb ( l8) confirms this. The<br />

paper reports initial peak values for a group of6 discs which<br />

vary between l. l8 N/mmzand 2. I I N/mmz, a spread of 56%<br />

of the mean.<br />

Wo(k doil to Inltirts<br />

hilur ol th6 horuybmb<br />

Flgure 2. Grush charactsrlstlcs of alumlnlum honeycomb<br />

As a result of these criticisms, a new approach to the<br />

preparation of the honeycomb material was adopted. Instead<br />

of using the honeycomb as it is normally supplied, it<br />

was decided to prepare each disc by pre-crushing it over the<br />

whole of its surface before test. The crush is continued up to<br />

a point where the crush load has passed the initial peak and<br />

fallen to the flat ponion of the curve beyond; this ensures<br />

that the buckling of the foil which causes rhe inirial peak is<br />

completed and the material is collapsing in a series of regular<br />

folds. Ifthe deflection is stopped at this point, the pattern<br />

of folding in the foil is preserved, and further crushing of the<br />

honeycomb will proceed as a continuation of the load/deflection<br />

curve already established. Thus, it is possible to<br />

predict the crushing load of each specimen by its performance<br />

in the pre-crush without the need for the tests mentioned<br />

in the previous section. Tests with pre-crushed honeycomb<br />

specimens proved that the behaviour of the<br />

honeycomb after interruption of the crush was exactly as<br />

predicted, the original curve being resumed as the crush is<br />

continued. The level ofthe flat part ofthe curve also proved<br />

to be much more repeatable than the initial peak for a given<br />

specimen. A sample of 6 pre-crushed discs gave crush loads<br />

varying between l.0l N/6rnz and 1.08 N/mm2, a spread of<br />

jVo compiled to 567o in initial peak loads of the previous<br />

group.<br />

In addition to the improved consistency of the precrushed<br />

specimen, the technique brings two practical advantages<br />

to benefit the test. The crushing gives the honeycomb<br />

disc a robust surface of folded foil which is much less<br />

susceptible to accidental damage than the exposed foil<br />

edges of the uncrushed material. The folded foil also lends<br />

itself to accurate measurement of the surface profile before<br />

and after impact, the tester being able to traverse the probe<br />

over the smooth surface, whereas measurements of the uncrushed<br />

foil edges required great care to avoid damage.<br />

One precaution which must be taken in pre-crushing is to<br />

lightly deform the upper surface foil edges before the crush<br />

load is applied. This ensures that the folding commences at<br />

the upper surface; without this, the honeycomb may fold at<br />

the lower surface or even at some point within the disc. The<br />

deformation may be achieved by a series of light hammer<br />

blows.<br />

Naturally, by pre-crushing the disc, the crushing load<br />

achieved in the impact test is considerably reduced. For the<br />

original material the mean steady crush load is 1.04 N/mmz<br />

which is considerably less than the previously quoted criteria<br />

of 1.4 N/mmz, representing the strength of the facial<br />

bone structure. A new material watr therefore selected for<br />

the tests, having the following specification:<br />

Manufacturer-{iba-Geigy (Aeroweb)<br />

Cell Size-{.25 in (6.35 mm)<br />

Foil Thickness--4.fi)Z in (0.051 mm)<br />

Material-Aluminium Alloy 5052 T (non<br />

perforated)<br />

Density-4.3 lb/frr (68.9 Kc/M3)<br />

Crush tests of 6 specimens of this material gave a mean<br />

crushing pressure of L7 I N/mmz with a spread from 1.70<br />

N/mmz to 1.72 N/mmz (l% spread). This is approximately<br />

20olo above the suggested human tolerance figure, but it was<br />

neces$ary to select a material which is a standard product to<br />

ensure availability, and it was felt that wheel manufacturers<br />

could reasonably object to a test material which is weaker<br />

than the tolerance figure.<br />

At the same time as changing the method of preparing the<br />

honeycomb discs, the opportunity was taken to give some<br />

attention to the way the profile of the disc surface and the<br />

subsequent penetration was measured. The TRRL working<br />

paper describes a technique for carrying out these mea$urements<br />

and a suitable apparatus. The honeycomb disc<br />

after impact is placed between two flat plates, the upper one<br />

having a circular hole 100 mm diameter, corresponding to<br />

the central zone over which measurements are made. A 3 kg<br />

weight is placed on the top plate, and 4 screws joining the<br />

plates tightened finger tight. Once clamped in this manner,<br />

the profile of the disc surface within the 100 mm diameter<br />

window is measured by taking readings from a dial test<br />

indicator mounted on a beam across the surface ofthe upper<br />

plate. The dial gauge has a 6 mm diameter probe with a flat<br />

end. To determine the penetration depth, five readings are<br />

taken of the highest point (undeformed surface) and five of<br />

the lowest point (bottom of dent). The difference between<br />

the mean values of these two quantities gives a measure of<br />

the penetration.<br />

A series of trials conducted by TRRL to investigate the<br />

repeatability of penetration depth measurements showed<br />

2t9


that estimates of depth by a single experimenter measuring a<br />

single disc (mean estimate of depth of crush 1.39 mm) gave<br />

a standard deviation of 0.016 mm, and that estimates by five<br />

different experimenters of the same disc gave a standard<br />

deviation of 0.034 mm. It seems clear that maximum penetration<br />

can be measured to sufficient accuracy to justify<br />

setting the permitted maximum at I mm, thus approaching<br />

the ideal criterion of zero penetration (since any permanent<br />

deformation of the disc shows that its yield strength was<br />

exceeded in the impact).<br />

U. K. test series to evaluate revised proposed<br />

legislative test<br />

In order to gain experience of the use of the revised<br />

proposed legislative test procedure under realistic conditions,<br />

TRRL awarded a contract to MIRA in March 1988 to<br />

carry out a series of tests on the steering wheels from eleven<br />

recent popular saloon cars, plus the TRRL/Sheller Clifford<br />

Safety Wheel.<br />

The tests were conducted to the procedure set out in the<br />

document ERGA S33 Rev I and incorporating all of the<br />

changes mentioned in the previous section. Two samples of<br />

each steering wheel were tested at each of the five impact<br />

positions, (that is, the four specified positions plus a further<br />

point chosen by MIRA to repre$ent the point judged to offer<br />

the worst hazard, not covered by the other four).<br />

The tests were conducted on the MIRA Head Impact<br />

Pendulum Rig, using a specially constructed pendulum having<br />

an effective mass of 6.8 kg and a centre of percussion<br />

coincident with the centre of the disc mounting face' This<br />

was achieved by designing the beam to extend below the<br />

centre of the impact face and above the pivot point by the<br />

correct amount. The pendulum incorporates two accelerometers,<br />

measuring the acceleration of the impact mass<br />

centre along a tangent to its arc of movement. The speed of<br />

the pendulum just before impact was measured optically.<br />

The impact velocity of the pendulum was determined by its<br />

position when released.<br />

The steering wheel was mounted on a rigid anvil for the<br />

test, using a steel stem to simulate the column inner shaft.<br />

The wheel's mounting on the anvil allowed a minimum of<br />

150 mm clear space behind the wheel. Care was taken to<br />

ensure that the profile ofthe end ofthe shaft and the securing<br />

nut matched that of the original components.<br />

The signals from the accelerometers and the photoelectric<br />

speed measuring device were amplified and passed<br />

to a digital data acquisition system, with a U.V. recorder<br />

providing a back up. The signals also passed through a low<br />

pass filter unit, having a re$ponse to SAE J 2l I Class 10fi)'<br />

The honeycomb material used for the discs was equivalent<br />

material to that specified in the TRRL Working Paper,<br />

but was obtained from a different manufacturer, namely<br />

Hexcel (UK) Ltd. The difference allowed a comparison of<br />

materials of nominally similar specification from different<br />

manufacturers.<br />

The honeycomb material was supplied in a continuous<br />

sheet 50 mm thick. Discs were cut from the sheet using a<br />

280<br />

circular cutter in the form of a cylinder of 150 mm inside<br />

diameter and 2 mm thickness, chamfered at one end to form<br />

a sharp edge at the inside. After cutting, the discs were<br />

inspected for irregularities in their cell structure and surface<br />

blemishes.<br />

The discs were then prepared for pre-crushing by lightly<br />

deforming the foil edges all over one surface using light<br />

hammer blows. and were then crushed to a thickness of 40<br />

mm,<br />

The crushing was conducted in a compression test machine,<br />

set to a crush speed of l2 mm/min. A loadcell was<br />

fitted between the fixture and the test machine crosshead to<br />

record the crush load and a potentiometer to record the<br />

deflection. The signals from these were amplified, passed<br />

through a low pass filter set to SAE J2l I Channel Class 60,<br />

and recorded on a digital recording apparatus. After crushing,<br />

the disc was again inspected and was then identified<br />

with a code number in marker ink on its crushed surface.<br />

The crush load and deflection of the specimen were plotted<br />

on a graph which was kept with the specimen for further<br />

examination.<br />

Results of U. K. test series-honeycomb<br />

performance<br />

A total of l4l discs were cut from the Hexcel mflterial.<br />

Three of these were rejected due to irregularities in theircell<br />

structure and the remainder were subjected to pre-crushing.<br />

The mean crush load of each of these in the last 2 mm of<br />

crush (8 to l0 mm deflection range) was noted. The mean of<br />

this value for all of the specimen$ was 30. 13 kN with a<br />

standard deviation of I.59 kN; this conesponds to pressure<br />

values of I.705 N/mm2 and 0.09 N/mm2 respectively. lt can<br />

be seen that this mean value is very close to the mean of 1.7 I<br />

N/mmz measured by TRRL in the Aeroweb sample, although<br />

it is again rather higher than the pre$$ure required to<br />

match the facial bone performance. This difference strongly<br />

favours the manufacturer, since a wheel which is upto24Eo<br />

higher in crush pressure than the original quoted threshold<br />

will still pass the test when using this material.<br />

In order to improve repeatability it was suggested by<br />

TRRL that all discs having a mean crush load outside the<br />

range 28 kN to 32 kN should be rejected. This led to I 2 discs<br />

being rejected which represents 8.57a ofour original stock.<br />

Results of U. K. test series*steering wheel<br />

performance<br />

The results obtained from the series oftests are given in<br />

table I . The pass/fail criteria proposed for the legislative test<br />

requires a penetration of the honeycomb not exceeding I<br />

mm and an impactor acceleration not exceeding 80 g for<br />

more than a 3 ms cumulative period.<br />

Reference to the table shows that, of the twelve types of<br />

wheel tested only one, the TRRl/Sheller-Clifford wheel,<br />

satisfied both requirements at all five positions. Of the other<br />

wheels, five failed at two positions, two at three positions,<br />

two at four positions and two at all five positions. It should<br />

be pointed out that, in several instances where failure oc-


Table 1. Results of UK Teat Serlea (11 PopulEr European Saloon Cars)<br />

Ychlcls Ht$ Spokr<br />

/Rrl<br />

Lrnctlon<br />

A<br />

B<br />

c<br />

D<br />

E<br />

F<br />

G<br />

H<br />

I<br />

J<br />

K<br />

ftIEEL T 2<br />

XIIEEL I<br />

z<br />

TTIEEL I<br />

2<br />

XI{EEL I<br />

2<br />

XTIEEL I<br />

2<br />

THEEL I<br />

2<br />

XI{EEL I<br />

z<br />

ITIEEL I 2<br />

T}IEEL I 2<br />

TI{EEL I 2<br />

XTIEEL I<br />

2<br />

TRRL SAFETY XTIEEL I<br />

rRRL SAFETY iHEEL Z<br />

L'4.J<br />

148.9<br />

lzt.5<br />

tz7.j<br />

Itt.8<br />

ut.r<br />

lzu.0<br />

125.8<br />

82.8<br />

84.0<br />

78. r<br />

78,7<br />

100.5<br />

l0?. r<br />

1t4.5<br />

lto. '<br />

I20.9<br />

120.6<br />

126.6<br />

115.6<br />

t4t. t<br />

l?8.0<br />

7r.0<br />

72.9<br />

I rr CuilIstlvc Exccrdcncr (g) Hrxlrrr Honoycol$ Ptnrtrrtlon (m)<br />

4r,1<br />

tl.8<br />

40.5<br />

TB.'<br />

]6.8<br />

t5.0<br />

4{t,0<br />

19.0<br />

rt.8<br />

4t.8<br />

t1.5<br />

44,5<br />

48.5<br />

48.0<br />

4t. t<br />

49.I<br />

47.8<br />

47,2<br />

49.7<br />

49.5<br />

49.'<br />

tI.8<br />

28.0<br />

27.r<br />

Short<br />

Rfn<br />

tr.5<br />

4r.6<br />

t0.0<br />

t0. t<br />

22.O<br />

22.7<br />

?8.8<br />

29.8<br />

41.7<br />

t7.t<br />

40.t<br />

,7.7<br />

t4.5<br />

16.t<br />

2r.,<br />

?4.0<br />

,7.6<br />

t9.r<br />

21.o<br />

28.0<br />

29.0<br />

t].0<br />

tt?.2<br />

hI.J<br />

Long<br />

Rtr<br />

22.'<br />

2r.6<br />

24.0<br />

zJ.5<br />

?4.6<br />

24.1<br />

10. t<br />

18.9<br />

2J,7<br />

2t.8<br />

2I.6<br />

t0.5<br />

50.0<br />

67.2<br />

69.8<br />

20.7<br />

20.8<br />

22.j<br />

?J.O<br />

2r.0<br />

2r.8<br />

2,.6<br />

ltt.2<br />

curred at more than one point, one of these points was a<br />

"worst<br />

case" position which may have been closely related<br />

to one of the other positions and not a distinct part of the<br />

wheel in its own right. Of the 34 instances of failure<br />

amongst the whole group, 8 were due to acceleration alone,<br />

l5 due to penetration alone and I I due to both acceleration<br />

and penetration.<br />

It can be seen that, although none of the commercially<br />

available wheels selected fully met the requirements, a large<br />

group were only marginally outside the test requirements<br />

and possibly require only minorchanges to be able to satisfy<br />

the propo$ed legislation.<br />

Considering the repeatability of the results, the mean<br />

difference between the cumulative 3 ms exceedence (acceleration<br />

level exceeded for a total of 3 ms) values for equivalent<br />

positions on two similar wheels is 3.1 g. The mean<br />

difference between maximum penetration values between<br />

equivalent positions on similar wheels is 0.32 mm.<br />

IorBt<br />

Ciaa<br />

t6.9<br />

It,9<br />

1r2.0<br />

rll.0<br />

rto.6<br />

r08.0<br />

Itr.8<br />

1t7.0<br />

85.1<br />

86. r<br />

78.0<br />

76.9<br />

94.8<br />

8r. t<br />

152.9<br />

Itl.5<br />

84.2<br />

81. r<br />

rlt.6<br />

It?.?<br />

88.5<br />

90,0<br />

25.2<br />

29.5<br />

HLb Spokc<br />

/Rlr<br />

Junctlor<br />

7.2<br />

7.0<br />

2.2<br />

1.05<br />

0<br />

0.1<br />

r,6<br />

2.t<br />

0<br />

0.1<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0.0t<br />

0.1<br />

2.5<br />

2.2<br />

0.t<br />

0.1<br />

2.0<br />

1.9<br />

2.6<br />

2.9<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0,6<br />

0.r<br />

1.8<br />

t.4<br />

r.tt<br />

2.7<br />

0.6<br />

0.7<br />

0<br />

0.4<br />

2.7<br />

2.'<br />

z,e<br />

2,5J<br />

2.6<br />

2.6<br />

0,65<br />

0.25<br />

0.8<br />

0.65<br />

2.77<br />

t.r5<br />

0.1<br />

0<br />

Short<br />

Rin<br />

0<br />

0,t<br />

0.15<br />

0.2<br />

0,2<br />

0.5t<br />

t,0<br />

0.6<br />

0.45<br />

0,9<br />

0.7t<br />

0.I5<br />

2.7,<br />

2.9'<br />

l.t<br />

2.0<br />

0.75<br />

1.00<br />

z.r,<br />

2.60<br />

2,r5<br />

r.8<br />

0<br />

0.2<br />

Long<br />

Rir<br />

0<br />

0.t<br />

2.7<br />

1.75<br />

0.t<br />

0.2<br />

o.7,<br />

0.4<br />

0.6<br />

0.4<br />

1.7<br />

0.8<br />

l.d<br />

l. tt<br />

2.,<br />

l.t<br />

0.4<br />

0.4<br />

0.85<br />

0,80<br />

l.l5<br />

0.85<br />

o.z,<br />

0<br />

Further developments of legislative test<br />

llorrt<br />

Cuc<br />

0.4<br />

I.7<br />

2.6<br />

2.0<br />

0.4<br />

0<br />

2.6<br />

,.2<br />

0,2<br />

0,15<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

l.r<br />

l.6t<br />

0.7t<br />

0.9t<br />

l.tt<br />

r.50<br />

,,2<br />

5.t5<br />

After the previously described series of tests had been<br />

conducted, increasing interest in the possibility ofnew legislation<br />

led to agreement within the ERGA Group that a<br />

programme of comparative trials should be carried out by<br />

several test houses throughout Europe. The participating<br />

bodies are: Netherlands (TNO), West Germany (BASI),<br />

United Kingdom (MIRA), France (UTAC) and Italy (FIAT).<br />

The proposed series of tests involves impacts using a<br />

modified form of the legislative test on three production<br />

steering wheels. These were selected for their general avail-<br />

ability, and were from the 1980 Ford Cortina Mk 4, 1984<br />

Ford Escort, and the 1987 GM/Vauxhall Cavalier. While all<br />

ofthese designs have since been superseded, they are typical<br />

examples of high-volume steering wheels of their re-<br />

spective dates.<br />

Each wheel is required to be tested at the stipulated im-<br />

0<br />

0


pact positions on the centre of the hub and the spoke/rim<br />

junction. Each facility will test each of the wheels 5 times at<br />

each of the positions. The test results are then to be compared<br />

to establish the repeatability ofresults between different<br />

test rigs at different facilities. In addition, the results are<br />

to be compared with results of tests involving the use of a<br />

rigid head form similar to that used in existing <strong>Int</strong>erior<br />

Fittings legislation. The revised technique adopted for these<br />

tests incorporates four main changes designed to improve<br />

the repeatability and resolution of the results obtained.<br />

The first change is in the pre-crushing procedure for the<br />

honeycomb. One feature of the crush characteristics of the<br />

honeycomb material is the fluctuation in load which occurs<br />

over the nominally flat portion of the load deflection curve.<br />

This occurs as a consequence of the folding which takes<br />

place in the foil. It was felt that the variation in crush load<br />

between different discs could be considerably reduced ifthe<br />

crushing procedure were changed to allow the crush to be<br />

terminated at a given level of load in its fluctuation' rather<br />

than a fixed deflection as before.<br />

To achieve this, it wa$ proposed that the disc should be<br />

crushed to an appropriate thickness and then, without stopping<br />

the crush, the operator should wait until the risirrg load<br />

curve achieved the chosen threshold level. The crush would<br />

then be stopped immediately. Subsequent crushing of the<br />

disc during the wheel impact test would then continue at the<br />

threshold value. Trials of the new method proved that the<br />

technique was feasible, provided the crushing deformation<br />

rate could be reduced to approximately 4 mm/min.<br />

Tests conducted at the same time using round-edged<br />

probes penetrating limited areas of the disc surface led to the<br />

discovery that the "skin" formed on the surface of the disc<br />

by the folded Iayers of foil had a significant effect in the way<br />

the disc responded to limited areas of high pressure. In other<br />

words, the reinforced surface layer of deeply crushed discs<br />

tended to spread the effect ofa local high pressure area over<br />

a greater number of cells, reducing the disc's ability to<br />

detect such features. For this reason, it was decided that the<br />

honeycomb crush deflection should be reduced to a minimum.<br />

and therefore crush deflection limits of 2.5 mm to 3'5<br />

mm were adopted. This appears to be the minimum practical<br />

level of crush, considering the thickness lost in folding over<br />

the foil edges and the need to achieve a full peak to ensure<br />

crushing is occurring all over the top surface.<br />

The second change put forward was in the direction of the<br />

impact device in striking the wheel. It had long been recogni$ed<br />

that the previous stipulation (that the impact is directed<br />

perpendicular to the plane of the wheel) could lead to<br />

discs being deformed to a wedge shape when striking a hub<br />

surface which slopes in relation to the plane of the rim- The<br />

result of such a test would be a deformation occurring mainly<br />

outside the central 100 mm diameter zone (and also very<br />

difficult to measure). The procedure was therefore revised<br />

to allow for the impact to be re-aligned at up to 30 degrees<br />

from the original direction so that the face of the disc was<br />

parallel to the wheel sutface, or at a tangent to some "high<br />

spots" on the wheel.<br />

282<br />

The third change was in the technique of measuring the<br />

penetration. A new apparatus was designed by BASI in<br />

Germany similar to the measurement clamp described<br />

above but with a mask recessed into the top surface. This<br />

mask incorporates an array of holes which covets the central<br />

100 mm diameter measurement area. The mask may be<br />

aligned with the honeycomb to place the holes in line with<br />

the flat sides of the honeycomb cells. A probe is then lowered<br />

into the holes to measure the depth below the datum<br />

surface of the plate. The apparatus incorporates a base plate,<br />

onto which the disc is fastened by three serrated pins engaging<br />

in the cells of the honeycomb. The undeformed disc's<br />

surface is first measured, then the base plate and disc are<br />

transferred to the impact rig as a unit, then they are retumed<br />

to the measurement apparatu$ in the same alignment to be<br />

re-measured.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>ernational test series{hanges to impact<br />

rig requirements<br />

As well as the changes to the honeycomb preparation<br />

procedures described above, it was agreed to standardise the<br />

type of impact rig used for those tests, to remove one source<br />

ofvariability between countries. The test chosen is a vertical<br />

drop rig with the 6.8 kg impactor being guided in a<br />

straight line during the 24.1 km/h impact. This was preferred<br />

to a pendulum rig because pendulum design is complicated<br />

by the need to achieve the correct effective mass of 6.8<br />

kg while making the centre of percussion coincide with the<br />

impactor. Also the required mass distribution of the pendulum<br />

and its stiffness both in torsion and in bending should<br />

be specified to ensure that the honeycomb faceform cannot<br />

rotate significantly during impact and that nearly all the<br />

pendulum's kinetic energy is delivered rapidly to the wheel'<br />

Otherwise, as an extreme example, a pendulum consisting<br />

of a heavy chain carrying a light plate behind the honeycomb<br />

could be used to meet the energy/speedlmass requirements<br />

while allowing any wheel to pass! It would clearly<br />

have taken too long for all the test houses involved in this<br />

programme to agree on a pendulum design and to build new<br />

rigs, so a vertical drop rig was chosen.<br />

A free drop (unguided during impact) rig was considered<br />

but was rejected because slight errors in impact point on the<br />

wheel rim produce large differences in the free headform's<br />

motion as it rotates round the rim and spins off; if this<br />

happens the required energy of 152 J (from 6'8 kg moving<br />

atZ4.l fm/h) is not of course being absorbed by the wheel'<br />

A fully guided vertical drop rig therefore appears to be the<br />

best choice for this wheel impact test.<br />

Results of international test series-disc<br />

performance<br />

In addition to its role as one ofthe test houses participating<br />

in this study, MIRA was also called upon to prepare all<br />

of the honeycomb discs used in the te$ts. A further batch of<br />

Hexcel honeycomb material was ordered and a total of 210<br />

discs prepared.<br />

The new technique involving the crushing being abruptly


stopped at the threshold load proved relatively easy to carry<br />

out at the 4 mm/min crushing rate. However, variations<br />

between discs in the way the crush load fluctuated meant<br />

that in many cases it was not possible to achieve the threshold<br />

load of 3 I t 0.5 kN on a rising curve within the specified<br />

crush limits and 50 discs (247o of the total) were rejected<br />

because of this. Of the remaining specimens, however, the<br />

crush terminal load proved to be very consistent, with a<br />

standard deviarion of 0. l3 kN.<br />

Results of international test series-steering<br />

wheel performances<br />

Only the UK results are available at the time of writing,<br />

and these are summarised in tables 2 and3.In addition to the<br />

three production wheels, designated L, M and N in the<br />

tables, the UK programme also tested the TRRL/Sheller<br />

Clifford Safety Wheel.<br />

In these table$ the honeycomb indentation depths given<br />

are those measured using the TRRL method described on p7<br />

above, rather than using the German apparatus described on<br />

pl l. Trials with the Cerman apparatus on typical test discs<br />

showed that the mask with its array of holes was very timeconsuming<br />

to use, and in most cases no hole coincided with<br />

the lowest part of the dent. Measurements through the holes<br />

were therefore being taken from the sloping sides of the dent<br />

rather than from its flat bottom, and were neither as repeatable<br />

nor as accurate as those made by the much simpler and<br />

quicker TRRL method.<br />

Considering the honeycomb faceform tests first, the tables<br />

show good repeatability borh for indenrarion depth and<br />

for deceleration. On spoke/rim impacts, table 3, all four<br />

wheels passed on decelerarion (80 g/3ms; but only rhe<br />

TRRL/Sheller Clifford wheel passed on indentation ( I mm<br />

maximum allowable). Wheel L, with a mean dent depth of<br />

1.60 mm, was fairly close to passing, but the other two<br />

designs had dents of over twice the allowable depth. On the<br />

hub impacts, table 2, rhe TRRL/Sheller Clifford wheel<br />

passed easily on both dent depth and deceleration, and<br />

wheel L passed easily on dent depth and passed marginally<br />

on deceleration. The other two wheels failed very definitely<br />

on indentation depth ( I 9.6 and 5.6 mm) and wheel M clearly<br />

failed on 3ms deceleration. Wheel N showed extremely<br />

high peak deceleration levels but 3 out of the 5 samples<br />

passed on their 3 ms levels. This illustrates a well-known<br />

problem with using the 3 ms criterion-if the impactor hits a<br />

rigid non-yielding structure, a huge force will be developed<br />

on it but the whole speed change may be over in less than 3<br />

ms. This can give'a spurious pass result for a design which<br />

would be highly dangerous in a real head impact. To avoid<br />

the problem it has been suggested previously (19) that the<br />

principle of using a low-pass filter with a high cut-off frequency<br />

(eg CFC lfi)O) and a 3 ms window should be replaced<br />

by using a much lower cut-off frequency (eg CFC<br />

60) and a simple measure of peak deceleration. But this<br />

change has not been accepted for legislative use, and in<br />

practice the matter has not been important in Reg 2l testing<br />

because real car structures yield far enough to spread the<br />

deceleration pulse over longer than 3 ms. However, this is<br />

not true in the proposed steering wheel test, when the wheel<br />

alone is being tested on a rigid mounting, and a further<br />

criterion may be necessary to prevent manufacturers from<br />

arguing that a very hard wheel actually passed the letter of<br />

the test. Possibilities would be to use a lower CFC or to<br />

specify a maximum allowable peak figure of say 200 g as<br />

well as the 80 g/3 ms limit.<br />

The very deep dent in the honeycomb made by wheel M<br />

was cau$ed by the $teering column end, which projects<br />

about 20 mm from the wheel centre in this design and is<br />

covered only by a thin plastic trim which was punched<br />

through by the column end in each test. A major attraction of<br />

the proposed honeycomb test is that it would prevent this<br />

type of wheel mounting, which is now used by many manufacturers,<br />

from being fitted in future car designs.<br />

Tuming now to the suggested altemative of using a rigid<br />

spherical headform test, in spoke/rim impacts table 3 shows<br />

that all the 3 ms deceleration figures are well below 80 g.<br />

Since deceleration is the only measurement which can be<br />

made in this test, all the wheels would pass. This test clearly<br />

cannot detect the fact that the thin hard rims of wheels M and<br />

N would produce high local pressures which could break<br />

face bones, as shown by the honeycomb results in table 3.<br />

As mentioned above, (5) shows that spoke and rim impacts<br />

account for about 2/3 of all drivers' face injuries from their<br />

wheels, so the inability of a rigid headform test to detect<br />

dangerous spoke and rim designs makes it unsuitable for use<br />

in legislation.<br />

On the rigid headform hub impacts, table 2 shows rhat all<br />

four wheel designs greatly exceed the allowable 80 g. This<br />

was of course to be expected for designs M and N, as the<br />

headform simply hits the rigid end of the steering wheel<br />

mounting shaft, with no yielding structure. Testing of wheel<br />

N was stopped after two such impacts as the 500 g limit of<br />

the instrumentation was being exceeded. Wheel M was tested<br />

once at l/3 the standard speed (8.1 km/h instead of 24.1<br />

km/h), when it produced over 260 g. When used in cars<br />

these wheels would be mounted on steering columns designed<br />

to pass the Reg l2 ("Black Tufy") resr by yielding at<br />

below I l.l kN, which corresponds ro I I 100/6.8 X 9.81 :<br />

166 g, and so headform decelerations above this figure are<br />

not realistic.<br />

The TRRL/Sheller Clifford design and wheel L have rhe<br />

steering column end set well below the surface of the wheel,<br />

which is designed to yield to absorb energy. This feature<br />

worked well to produce low deceleration figures in the<br />

honeycomb tests, but in the rigid headform tests the spherical<br />

shape of the impactor allowed it to sink so far into the<br />

wheel padding that it hit the steering column end before it<br />

had stopped, whereas the flat honeycomb faceform had<br />

been decelerated more quickly immediately atter touching<br />

the wheel padding and so had stopped before reaching the<br />

column end. Since the flat disc is a more accurate representation<br />

of the shape of the human face than is the spherical<br />

headform (which was chosen to represent the round parts of<br />

the skull not the face), we feel that the high deceleration<br />

283


Table 2. Wheel Test Results. Flub Impacts Gulded Drop Flg Tests<br />

284<br />

l{heel<br />

TypeL<br />

I<br />

2<br />

1<br />

4<br />

5<br />

Hean<br />

Stsndard<br />

Deviation<br />

TyFeM<br />

I<br />

2<br />

1<br />

4<br />

5<br />

Mean<br />

Sbendard<br />

Devlation<br />

TypeN<br />

I<br />

z<br />

1<br />

4<br />

5<br />

Mean<br />

Standard<br />

Deviation<br />

TRRL/SheIler<br />

Clifford<br />

Safety Wheel I<br />

2<br />

,<br />

4<br />

,<br />

Mean<br />

Standerd<br />

Deviation<br />

DeFormable Honeycomb<br />

FeeeForm Tests<br />

Peek Decel ]ms DEcEI Max Dent<br />

I tl DePth'<br />

mm<br />

88.4 79.1 0.06<br />

87.4 78.0 0.05<br />

98.9 82.2 g.5Z<br />

99.7 77.5 0.06<br />

82.9 72.6 0,0J<br />

Bg.7 77.9 0.r4<br />

5.89 '.47 0,21<br />

241 ll9 L9.2<br />

2t8 rr} 2].0<br />

alt 99.7 r8,8<br />

22J Il4 18.2<br />

217 lZ2 18.7<br />

227 rI].5 19.6<br />

L2.6 8.56 1.94<br />

4rl 99.2 4.84<br />

68.4 6.04<br />

4lI 68.6 5.8]<br />

464 6]. r 5.91<br />

84.0 5.40<br />

429 76.7 5.61<br />

I0.0 r4.8 0.49<br />

74.J 70.4 0.0'<br />

7r.o 70.5 0.05<br />

7L.7 67.8 0.0I<br />

90.5 72,1 0.06<br />

76.8 7I.5 0.0]<br />

75.1 70.5 0.04<br />

1.47 1.65 0.014<br />

Rigid Spherical<br />

Impactor TEets<br />

PEak Jms<br />

Decel Decel<br />

s 9<br />

221 lr4<br />

254 rl0<br />

2r4 r04<br />

165 98.?<br />

L5? 92,6<br />

292 I0'.8<br />

42.' 8.7<br />

267 48.5<br />

( et 8.I<br />

kn/h)<br />

Not tesbedl<br />

See tExt<br />

511+ Il0<br />

526+ L57<br />

Not testedr<br />

Ses text<br />

I44<br />

19.l<br />

t88 102.6<br />

I87 98.6<br />

I79<br />

r99<br />

?L'<br />

96.9<br />

102.1<br />

106.'<br />

19' l0I.'<br />

r}.l ,.67


Table 3. Wheel Test Fesults. Spoke/Rlm Impactt Gulded Drop Flg Teats<br />

Wheel<br />

TypeL<br />

I<br />

2<br />

1<br />

4<br />

5<br />

Mean<br />

SbEndard<br />

Deviation<br />

Type<br />

H I 2<br />

1<br />

4<br />

5<br />

l'lean<br />

Standard<br />

Deviation<br />

TyPeN<br />

I<br />

z<br />

,<br />

4<br />

5<br />

Heen<br />

Sbanderd<br />

Devistion<br />

TRRL/Sheller<br />

Cll Fford<br />

Safety l{heel<br />

Mean<br />

StandErd<br />

Deviation<br />

I<br />

2<br />

j<br />

4<br />

5<br />

Deformable Honeycomb<br />

Faeeforn Tests<br />

Peak Decel ]ms Decel l,lex Dent<br />

I I Deptht<br />

mm<br />

106 6r.2 2.04<br />

I07 67.4 L77<br />

104 60,0 l.lg<br />

106 61.] L,52<br />

I09 65,0 I.50<br />

106.4 63.4 1,60<br />

l.B2 2.94 0. f 2<br />

101 70.0 2,9?<br />

I0l 66.7 ,.67<br />

106 6].0 2,5L<br />

104 60.0 2,27<br />

r05 51.7 2,4L<br />

lo].g 64.' ?.74<br />

L,gz 4,94 0.56<br />

lll 66.4 2,50<br />

105 58.7 2.88<br />

107 58.?. 1.6]<br />

108 J6.' 2.27<br />

r04 56.2 2.72<br />

1.07.4 59.2 2.40<br />

],5I 4.16 0.49<br />

52.2 Jt.g 0.0t<br />

4J. r t4.? 0,06<br />

52.J ,4,' 0.09<br />

44.1 t4.0 0.10<br />

48.5 11 .7 0.10<br />

48.0 ,4.4 0.07<br />

4.11 0.7J 0.0]<br />

Rigid Spherical<br />

Impector Tests<br />

PEek Jms<br />

Decel DecEl<br />

g 9<br />

97.1 52.7<br />

95.7 5r.5<br />

89.J 5t.0<br />

88.5 48.0<br />

94.2 45.6<br />

9t,0 50.?<br />

t,9l i,?l<br />

tt6 J6.5<br />

llg 5l.g<br />

II7 65.I<br />

120 65.1<br />

Il' 60.4<br />

117.0 61.8<br />

2.74 J.60<br />

r00 51.0<br />

lot 4J,2<br />

104 46.7<br />

107 '9.7<br />

r04 45.5<br />

roi,z 49,2<br />

2,77 6.51<br />

29,9 26.7<br />

,r,4 28.4<br />

t4.8 27.9<br />

t0.l 28,7<br />

29.9 26.'<br />

]1.6 ?1.6<br />

2.r2 1.05


levels found with the TRRL/Sheller Clifford design and<br />

wheel L indicate that the test method rather than the wheel<br />

designs is wrong. However if a manufacturer wishes to<br />

make wheels which pass this impact test with either a rigid<br />

spherical impactor or a flat honeycomb disc this could easily<br />

be done by using a greater depth of soft hub padding.<br />

To sum up these test results given in tables 2 and 3, it is<br />

clear that the rigid headform test would not be satisfactory<br />

because it cannot detect dangerous wheel designs which<br />

could produce face bone fractures. The honeycomb faceform<br />

test has been shown to have good repeatability and to<br />

be able to discriminate clearlv between different wheel<br />

designs.<br />

Steering Wheel Design Requirements<br />

to Pass the Faceform Test<br />

For the deceleration criterion part of this test and<br />

considering the wheel hub impact, the first e$sential is of<br />

course to use padding which provides a long enough<br />

distance for the impactor to stop before it hits the end of the<br />

steering column, without exceeding 80 g. Assuming the<br />

ideal case of constant deceleration at 80 g, the stopping<br />

distance required from velocity Y = 24.1km/h is given by<br />

5 = yz/2a = 28 mm, but in practice at least twice this figure<br />

should be used to allow for a more realistic deceleration<br />

curve. This necessary deceleration distance could of course<br />

be achieved by the wheel designer either by crushing foam<br />

plastic or by deforming metal, but the chosen method must<br />

not cause a local pres$ure which is high e;rough to deform<br />

the aluminium faceform in the test, ie. about 1.7 N/mm. The<br />

wheel designer must also make sure that if a large area of<br />

padding is used this padding is soft enough not to produce a<br />

total force on the whole faceform which gives a deceleration<br />

above 80 g, ie 80 X 6.8 X 9.81 = 5340 N. The faceform has a<br />

diameter of 150 mm and an area of 177fi) mm2, so if the<br />

padding covers the whole disc area then its crush strength<br />

must not exceed 534Oll77OO = 0.30 N/mmz.<br />

Considering rim impact, table 3 shows that deceleration<br />

is not critical for any of the wheels te$ted, because they all<br />

yield well below the force of5340 N needed to produce 80 g<br />

with 6.8 kg. But the problem now is to limit the pressure on<br />

the honeycomb to I .7 N/mmz. If a rim yield strength of 3330<br />

N is assumed (which would produce 50 g on the faceform)<br />

then this load must be distributed over at least an area of<br />

3330/l .7 : 1960 mmz. If the length of the "contact patch"<br />

between the rim and the faceform is approximately 150 mm<br />

(the faceform diameter) then the average width of this patch<br />

must be at least 1960/150 = l3 mm. Since many high quality<br />

steering wheels use rim section diameters of 25 or 30 mm<br />

this contact patch width requirement is quite reasonable, but<br />

it may require the designer to u$e a "chunky, soft feel" rim<br />

and to locate any reinforcing metal in this rim as far as<br />

possible away from the driver's face. On initial impact this<br />

will allow the wheel rim rather than the honeycomb to<br />

deform and spread the load over a large enough area to limit<br />

the contact pressure to 1.7 N/mmz. Similarly the wheel<br />

286<br />

spokes must be well padded and must be designed to yield at<br />

a suitable load when impacted. This will be easier to achieve<br />

with 3 or 4 spoke wheels but careful design should allow I<br />

or 2 spokes to be used if necessary for styling reasons; table<br />

3 shows that production wheel L, a 2 spoke design, came<br />

fairly close to passing the rim impact honeycomb test.<br />

This test may eliminate thin hard steering wheel rims, but<br />

may also make it difficult to provide a rim which is strong<br />

enough to be used by a large man to push his car out of a<br />

snowdrift, for example. However, this seems a small price<br />

to pay in return for a large reduction in face bone fractures.<br />

The design features described above (deep soft padding<br />

over the hub, thick soft rim with the reinforcing metal<br />

Iocated away from the driver, 3 or 4 spokes well padded and<br />

designed to yield when hit) have all been used in the TRRL/<br />

Sheller Clifford safety wheel, figure l. Fifty of these wheels<br />

have been in road service since 1986 in Police, Army, and<br />

private Metros, with no reported problems and with users<br />

expressing a strong preference for these wheels over the<br />

standard ones. GM and Volvo wheels using the same design<br />

principles are already in widespread use, and while not quite<br />

meeting the proposed test requirements they would only<br />

need minor changes to do so. It is therefore clear that the<br />

honeycomb te$t can be passed by wheels of acceptable<br />

appearance and cost, and that provided the results from the<br />

other European countries confirm our findings on the<br />

repeatability and practicality ofthe test, there are no sound<br />

reasons to delay its introduction into legislation.<br />

Conclusions<br />

l. Recent accident data from UK and other countries have<br />

confirmed the results of earlier studies showing that in<br />

frontal crashes drivers wearing lap/diagonal seat belts often<br />

suffer brain damage and face bone fractures from hitting<br />

their steering wheels.<br />

2. Possible ways of reducing these injuries include the use<br />

of seat belt pretensioners and/or air bags, but these may be<br />

too expensive for widespread use in popular cars soon. A<br />

good cheap and quick way forward is therefore to improve<br />

the design of steering wheels to rnake them less likely to<br />

cause injuries when struck.<br />

3. Biomechanical data suggest that brain and face injuries<br />

are unlikely if the head deceleration during impact is kept<br />

below 80 g and the local pressure on the face is kept below<br />

1.4 N/mmz (200 psi).<br />

4. An energy absorbing steering wheel has been<br />

developed by TRRL and Sheller Clifford which can meet<br />

these requirement$ in an ECE Reg 2I|FMVSS 201 impact<br />

test (6.8 kg at 24.1 km/h, 15 lb at 15 mph). Road use has<br />

shown that this wheel is attractive to drivers and it would<br />

cost little, if any, more than standard non-energy-absorbing<br />

wheels. The paper has described the design requirements<br />

for this safety wheel.<br />

5. At the lOth <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence in 1985 TRRLproposed a<br />

modification to the Reg 2I/FMVSS 201 <strong>Int</strong>erior Fittings<br />

impact test by which an aluminium honeycomb faceform of


specified crush strength would be used instead of the<br />

standard rigid headform. This would en$ure that the<br />

allowable level of pressure on the driver's face is not<br />

exceeded in a steering wheel impact. The present paper has<br />

described subsequent development of this test to improve its<br />

repeatability. Results of tests on production steering wheels<br />

have been given which show that the current version of the<br />

test is highly repeatable, can discriminate between different<br />

designs of wheels, and is easily carried out by a competent<br />

test establishment.<br />

6. Results of similar tests on three designs of production<br />

wheels are now awaited from test houses in France.<br />

Holland, Germany and Italy for presentation to the EEC<br />

ERGA Working Group on Passive Safety. If these confirm<br />

the UK results given in this paper it is hoped that legislation<br />

can be agreed very $oon to require all steering wheels sold in<br />

Europe to meet this honeycomb faceform test.<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

The work described in this paper forms part of the<br />

programme of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory<br />

and the paper is published by permission of the Director.<br />

Crown Copyright. The views expressed in this paper are not<br />

necessarily those of the Department of Transport. Extracts<br />

from the text may be reproduced, except for commercial<br />

purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.<br />

References<br />

(l) Department of Transport, Compulsory Seat Belt<br />

Wearing, HMSO, London. October 1985.<br />

(2) Rutherford W.H. et al, The Medical Effects of Seat<br />

Belt Legislation in the United Kingdom, DHSS Research<br />

Report No. 13, HMSO, London, 1985.<br />

(3) Evans L. Occupant Protection Device Effectiveness in<br />

Preventing Fatalities, Proceedings of llth <strong>Int</strong>emational<br />

<strong>Conf</strong>erence on Experimental Safety Vehicles, Washington,<br />

USA, May 1987.<br />

(4) Mackay G.M. et al, The Methodology of In-Depth<br />

Studies of Car Crashes in Great Britain, SAE Paper<br />

850556. Detroit 1985.<br />

(5) Bradford M.A. et al, Head and Face Injuries to Car<br />

O c c upant s I n Ac c ide nt s-F i e I d D ata 1 98JJ6, Proceedings<br />

of IRCOBI <strong>Conf</strong>erence, September 1986.<br />

(6) Harms P.L. et al, Injuries to Restrained Car<br />

Occupants-What Are The Outstanding Prablems?<br />

Proceedings of I lth <strong>Int</strong>ernational <strong>Conf</strong>erence on<br />

Experimental Safety Vehicles, Washington, USA, May<br />

1987.<br />

(7) Thomas P.D. Head and Torso Injuries to Restrained<br />

Drivers From the Steering System, Proceedings of IRCOBI<br />

<strong>Conf</strong>erence, September 1987, Birmingham, UK.<br />

(8) Cloyns P.F. et al, Steering Wheel Induced Head and<br />

Faciul Injuries Amongst Drivers Restrained By Seat Belts,<br />

Proceedings of 6th IRCOBI <strong>Conf</strong>erence, September 1981.<br />

(9) Arajarvi E. A Retrospective Analysis of Chest Injuries<br />

in 280 Seat Beh Wearers, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 20 No 4<br />

pp25l-9,1988.<br />

(10) Taniere C. et al, Field Facial Injuries and Study of<br />

Their Simulatian with Dummy, Proceedings of 25th Stapp<br />

Car Crash <strong>Conf</strong>erence. l98l.<br />

(l l) Sieffert U. Occupant Protection in Motor Vehicle<br />

Accidents, SAE Paper 870490.<br />

(12) Manson P.N. Structural Pillars of the Facial<br />

Skeleton: an Approach to the Management of Le Fort<br />

Fractures, Plast. Reconstr. Surgery, 1980 July 66(l) pp54-<br />

62.<br />

(13) Manson P.N. et al,Mrdlsce Fractures: Advantages of<br />

Immediate Extended Open Reduction and Bone Grafting,<br />

Plast. Reconstr. Surgery, 1985 76 ppl-10.<br />

(14) Nahum A.M. et al, Impact Tolerance of Skull and<br />

Face, Proceedings of the I 2th Stapp Car Crash <strong>Conf</strong>erence,<br />

Detroit, 1968, SAE Paper 680785.<br />

(15) Nahum A.M. The Prediction of Maxillofacial<br />

Trauma, Trans. Am. Acad. Ophth. Otol. 1977 54 pp932-3.<br />

(16) Hodgson V.R. Tolerance of the Facial Bones to<br />

Impact, Am. J. Anat. 1967 120 ppl 13-22.<br />

(17) Petty S.P.F. and M.A. Fenn, A Modified Steering<br />

Wheel to Reduce Facial Injuries and Associated Test<br />

Procedure, Proceedings of lOth <strong>Int</strong>emational <strong>Conf</strong>erence<br />

on Experimental Safety Vehicles, Oxford, UK, July 1985.<br />

(18) Robinson B.J. and S. Penoyre, Progress Towards a<br />

European Legislative Test for Steering Wheels, TRRL<br />

Working Paper WPIr'SD 90, Nov 1987. Issued as EEC<br />

Document ERGA Sll33.<br />

(19) Penoyre S. An Impact Test Programme Using Six<br />

Models of Lower-Medium-Sized Cars, Proceedings o{ lOth<br />

<strong>Int</strong>ernational <strong>Conf</strong>erence on Experimental Safety Vehicles,<br />

Oxford, UK, July 1985.<br />

The Inertial Flow Crash Sensor and its Application to Air Bag Deployment E<br />

Vittorio Castelli and David S. Breed<br />

Abstract<br />

The results of a theoretical investigation of a crush zone<br />

sensor based on the motion of a translating mass damped by<br />

inertial fluid flow through an orifice are reported. The<br />

characteristics of such a sensor are shown to be well suited<br />

to both frontal and side impacts.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

As a result of recent theoretical studies and field<br />

experience automotive engineers are directing increasing<br />

287


attention to the importance of crush zone sensing for triggering<br />

passive restraints such as air bags or seat belt tighteners<br />

(l), (?), (3), (4).*<br />

It now appears that side impact protection by means of<br />

inflatable restraints is also feasible. In this case, appropriate<br />

crash sensing must be in the crush zone although the desirable<br />

sensor characteristics may be somewhat different from<br />

the case of frontal impacts.<br />

Not much choice exists in the selection of crush zone<br />

$ensors. Ball-in-tube sensors. where the motion of a ball is<br />

damped by viscous gas flow through a small clearance, are<br />

the present industry standards. Crush detectors, which sense<br />

the progress of the crush zone in the vehicle body, are still<br />

under development.<br />

A new crash sensing device has been introduced which<br />

may possess characteristics more suitable and more easily<br />

tailored to all types of crush zone applications. It consists of<br />

an inertial mass, the travel of which is resisted by a damping<br />

force generated by inertial gas flow and thus quadratically<br />

related to the velocity. A spring provides the necessary bias<br />

force.<br />

This sensor has several favorable properties; it can be<br />

designed rather flat in the sensing direction and, thus, easier<br />

to mount; it can be designed to be much less sensitive to very<br />

short duration pulses, essential in sensing side impacts for<br />

some types of cars and an excellent property to provide<br />

immunity to hammer blows and other sharp impulses; it can<br />

be designed less sensitive to lateral vibrations than the ballin-tube<br />

sensor.<br />

Encouraged by such promise, an analytical and experimental<br />

study was undertaken to construct and validate a<br />

mathematical model for this device. The theoretical results<br />

are reported herein.<br />

Common strategies for crush zone crash<br />

sensing<br />

For orthogonal and angular frontal impacts, these authors<br />

have identified the existence of a crushing front which progresses<br />

through the vehicle in a manner characteristic of the<br />

vehicle itself, the type of crash, and the speed. Scaling<br />

techniques were introduced which help analyze the performance<br />

of a sensor in many different crashes based on data<br />

obtained in only a few tests.<br />

Proper frontal crash sensing has been performed by either<br />

crush zone sensing or pa$senger compartment (single point)<br />

sensing. These authors have recently concluded ( I ), (3) that<br />

the former strategy produces better results and has more<br />

general applicability. It requires the presence of at least one<br />

sensor within the crush zone for all crashes requiring restraint<br />

deployment. Crush sensing switches must signal the<br />

arrival of the crushing front. Other sensors must measure as<br />

closely as possible velocity change and trigger when its<br />

value equals or exceeds the injuring level (typically l0-12<br />

MPH).<br />

The sensing problem for side impacts can be stated in<br />

terms of the following principles (2):<br />

*Numbcrs in parenthcses designate rcferences at end of papcr.<br />

288<br />

(a) the time budget is very short since injuries to the occupant<br />

are the result of intrusion of the door structure.<br />

(b) the rapidity of the door structure intrusion causes passenger<br />

compartment sensing to trigger air bag deployment<br />

much too late to be effective. Crush zone sensing is necessary.<br />

The $ensors must be mounted on the door reinforcement.<br />

not on the skin.<br />

(c) at least one sensor must be in the early crush zone which<br />

means that, in many cases, up to three sensors per side may<br />

be necessary: just before the A-pillar, just after the B-pillar<br />

and at the door center.<br />

(d) in vehicles with stiff door structures, the sensors should<br />

measure velocity change threshold for short pulses (on the<br />

order of l0 milliseconds); the threshold speed should be<br />

equal to the injuring velocity change, i.e., l0-l? MPH.In<br />

cases of weaker side structures, the threshold velocity<br />

change for short pulses should be higher than injuring velocity<br />

change; possibly up to a factor of two.<br />

(e) marginal crarthes have a much increased time budget.<br />

(f1 sensing "L-crashes", where the door structure does not<br />

intrude toward the occupant, may not be as important due to<br />

the usually low level of the velocity changes involved.<br />

However, it could be accomplished by means of passenger<br />

compartment sensing.<br />

(g) the distance traveled by the occupant relative to his own<br />

vehicle before striking an injuring part of the interior is<br />

shorter than in frontal crashes. Therefore, the 5 inches minus<br />

30 millisecond criterion will have to be modified for<br />

these crashes (a further reason for its modification will be<br />

the requirement of much faster inflator action).<br />

Safing (arming) sensors for these applications could be<br />

crush sensing switches.<br />

In both frontal and side collisions, lateness in triggering is<br />

a very negative characteristic ofany sensor system because<br />

the out ofposition occupant can be injured by the deploying<br />

air bag.<br />

The inertial flow damped sensor<br />

The requirements outlined above suggest a sensor which<br />

responds to velocity change, with a response curve to acceleration<br />

pulses which can be tailored to several applications.<br />

For crush zone sensors, the response would be divided into<br />

three regions: the very short time duration, in which the<br />

threshold may be higher than the injuring velocity change;<br />

the intermediate pulse durations, in which the threshold is<br />

equal to the injuring velocity change; and the long pulses<br />

where the sensitivity decreases again. This response curve<br />

may look like the ones represented on figure l. The solid<br />

curve has the shape required for a side impact crash sensor<br />

for vehicles with weak door structures. This behavior may<br />

be deemed quite desirable for frontal crash sensing in order<br />

to provide immunity to sharp blows. The dotted curve is for<br />

side impact crash sensing in cars with very stiff side structure<br />

and displays the maximum sensitivity required of a<br />

frontal crush sensor. The ball-in-tube sensor also displays a<br />

slight decrease in sensitivity for short pulse duration.<br />

The fact that it may be desirable for the sensitivity to


20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

0 20 40 60<br />

Pulse Duration, msec<br />

80<br />

Side lmpact w.Soft Target<br />

Frontal lmpacts<br />

Side lmpact w.Hard Target<br />

Flgure 1. Crush Srnsor Charactsristic$<br />

decrease for acceleration pulses of short duration suggests<br />

employing a physical effect which generates force at a higher<br />

rate than linearly with increasing velocity. Hence the idea<br />

of using a damping mechanism proponional to the square of<br />

the velocity. Fluid flow through an orifice has just such a<br />

behavior.<br />

A possible implementation of such a device is depicted in<br />

figure 2. An elastic diaphragm suppon$ a sensing mass and<br />

keeps it pressed against a top stop with an appropriate bias<br />

force. An acceleration pulse in the sensing direction causes<br />

the mass to move through the deflection of the diaphragm.<br />

This motion displaces the fluid filling the cavity (probably<br />

air) and forces it to flow through the orifice. The resistance<br />

to this flow causes a pressure difference between the two<br />

sides of the diaphragm which resists the motion of the<br />

sensing mass. As long as Mach number effects on the velocity<br />

can be neglected, this pressure difference is proportional<br />

to the area of the orifice and the second power of the fluid<br />

velocity.<br />

The orifice in the figure is shown of a circular shape.<br />

Other geometries are also usable, as they might facilitate the<br />

design of the diaphragm.<br />

Mathematical sensor model<br />

A very useful tool in adapting a sensor to a variety of real<br />

crash applications is a realistic mathematical model. Under<br />

Flgura 2. InFrtial Flou, Damped Sensor<br />

the stimulus of axial acceleration only, the behavior of this<br />

sensor is simulated by the following analysis.<br />

The nomenclature is<br />

A = sensed acceleration<br />

A = effective area on which pressure acts<br />

B = bias force<br />

C = discharge coefficient<br />

e = volume displaced by motion x<br />

f = force on the sensing mass<br />

G = sensor mass<br />

k = diaphragm spring constant<br />

m = gas maSS<br />

M = Mach number<br />

I = mass flow rate<br />

r = orifice radius<br />

R = gas constant<br />

t = time<br />

T = temperature<br />

y = gits velocity in the orifice


v = gas volume<br />

x = forward travel of the sensing mass<br />

7 = ratio of specific heats for the gas<br />

p = ga$ density<br />

Subscripts:<br />

d = downstream<br />

f = fill<br />

g=gas<br />

i = initial<br />

s = diaphragm spring<br />

u = upstream<br />

+ = forward<br />

*=aft<br />

For the sake of simplicity, the analysis is going to be<br />

presented for the case in which the ga$ velocity in the orifice<br />

does not achieve a Mach number of unity. Therefore, its<br />

accuracy range is limited to pressure ratios below the critical<br />

value (approximately 2: I for air). Furthermore, the analysis<br />

is going to consider perfect gases with constant specific<br />

heats.<br />

For a circular sharp edged orifice the discharge coefficient<br />

C is typically taken to be equal to 0.6. Its value may be<br />

quite different for other geometries. Thc gas constant for air<br />

ts<br />

^ 497?0 ft tb<br />

'( = t0 sfu;F-<br />

Thc rqurtion of motion of thr nnring mmr ir<br />

i.<br />

o T; = -fr- fr+ Go<br />

dt'<br />

and<br />

whcrt<br />

fr=B+Lx<br />

fr--(P* - P-l,t<br />

P+=I+RT, P* tP-trf<br />

F+=m+lV+, 9-=n*lV-<br />

V*t{*-r*, V_=l|r-+cr.<br />

Thc mrrt flow xrom thr orificr obryr thr<br />

follwingrquotiom<br />

d^,<br />

dr<br />

= +{l<br />

Pt Pit<br />

-i* = vi* Ei- = vlfr<br />

frr'<br />

?hr mmr flow rrtr through tht orificc<br />

givrnby<br />

,' - lzuP(P-llti<br />

9-nr'Crr(ffif<br />

rnd<br />

I'.<br />

"=f3)'<br />

'Pdl<br />

ar<br />

The mass flow rate through the orifice is<br />

given by<br />

and<br />

Q = n ,z c na(<br />

, = ( \ \ Y<br />

' Pt /<br />

2yP(P* l)<br />

RTu(y-l)<br />

y- I<br />

Starting from appropriate initial conditions, integration<br />

of the above equations in time with the time varying input of<br />

the body acceleration a, yields the motion of the sensing<br />

mass. When the travel reaches the contact spring, the spring<br />

force may change (note that the contact spring would typically<br />

start in contact with the sensing mass). When further<br />

travel causes the contact to be clo$ed. the sensor circuit is<br />

activated. The integration can continue and follow the motion<br />

further and through possible reversal, Particularly in<br />

cases where hard contact with the anvil is not achieved. an<br />

flccurate evaluation of the contact dwell can be made.<br />

For the sake of producing a useful model, integration of<br />

the above equation is best performed numerically using one<br />

of many available algorithms. The speed of integration<br />

using modern computers is so high that, for most applications,<br />

even the simple Euler method is adequate since the<br />

required rccuracy can be achieved by decreasing the time<br />

step siae.<br />

Refinements of the above-described sensor model can be<br />

achieved by including choking (mach number equal to unity)<br />

effects on the gas velocity in the orifice and by including<br />

the energy equation. The latter correction would account for<br />

the fact that the energy dissipation in the orifice flow cause$<br />

an increase of the temperature (hence the pressure in the<br />

cavity).<br />

Simulation re$ults<br />

I<br />

)u<br />

A computer program representing the above equations<br />

was con$tructed and exercised under a variety of conditions.<br />

In order to exemplify the ability to tailor the properties of<br />

this sensor, this section displays families of responses to<br />

haversine acceleration pulses.<br />

Figure 3 shows the fire-no fire threshold for a sensor with<br />

the following dimensions:<br />

Sensingma$$EBgrams<br />

Bias force = 4.25 g's<br />

Bias stiffness = 3.64 lh/in<br />

Diameter = 2 inches<br />

Orifice radius = 0.045 inches<br />

Aft volume = 0.107 cu. in.<br />

Filling condition = I atmosphere 70 deg. F.<br />

The three curvcs indicate the effect of varying the distance<br />

which the sensing mass must travel before closing the


25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

t0<br />

5<br />

0<br />

------<br />

AV, MPH<br />

0 20 40 60 80<br />

Pulse Duration, msec<br />

0.050"<br />

o,067<br />

"<br />

0.075"<br />

Flgure 3. Sensor Gherictsrl$tlcs. Effect of Travel<br />

contact. Longer travel desensitizes the sensor in a rather<br />

uniform manner at all pulse durations.<br />

The rather high slope of the curves with increasing pulse<br />

duration is due to the high spring rate used for the<br />

diaphragm.<br />

Figure 4 represents the effect on the response characteristics<br />

of the same sensor of variations in the aft volume.<br />

Smaller aft volumes cause a vacuum to be readily formed<br />

behind the diaphragm when its speed is high. Therefore,<br />

small aft volumes desensitize the sensor for short duration<br />

pulses. The effect is limited to short duration pulses; therefore,<br />

the abscissa axis has been expanded.<br />

Figure 5 indicates the effect on the sensor response of<br />

varying the orifice diameter. Smaller orifice diameters increase<br />

the flow impedance thus desensitizing the sensor.<br />

This effect is less pronounced for pulses of longer duration<br />

since, in this case, the sensor response is dominated by the<br />

bias.<br />

Figure 6 points out the effect on the sensor response of<br />

varying the bias force. A higher bias force increases the<br />

slope of the response curve for pulses of long duration.<br />

Therefore, the sensor becomes desensitized to gentle crash<br />

signals.<br />

The general behavior of the response curves carl be divided<br />

into major regions. The first region is characterized by an<br />

increased sensitivity to extremely short pulse$ (below 5<br />

AV, MPH<br />

0 10 20 30 40<br />

Pulse Duration, msec<br />

----** 0.471 cu.in.<br />

0.107 cu. in.<br />

0.050 cu. in.<br />

Flgure 4. $ensor Character|stlcs. Efioct of Aft <strong>Volume</strong><br />

milliseconds) due to gas compressibility. This part of the Flgurr 5. Senror Characlerlrtlcr. Effect of Orlllce Dlsm€t€l<br />

25<br />

20<br />

r5<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

I<br />

r l<br />

AV, MPH<br />

\ ' t r r r . . . . " " : ;<br />

\- -::F<br />

0 20 40 60 80<br />

Pulse<br />

Duration, msec<br />

0.045"<br />

0.040"<br />

0.035"<br />

291


25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

- * - * F -<br />

AV, MPH<br />

..,<br />

* t t<br />

a'*?<br />

20 40 60 80<br />

Pulse Duration, msec<br />

4.25 g's<br />

6.00 g's<br />

8.00 g's<br />

FIgure 6. Sensor Charsctsrl8tlcs. Efl€ci of Blss Force<br />

curves may not be realistic because the intervening structure<br />

would act as a mechanical filter and would prevent such a<br />

pulse to reach the sensor. The second region, from 5 to 15<br />

milliseconds displays the effect of the nonlinear character of<br />

the inertial flow damping: shorter pulses create a higher<br />

damping force. For pulses longer than l5 milliseconds the<br />

effect of the nonlinearity is mild and the sensor behaves as<br />

an acceleration integrator until the uniform positive slope<br />

characteristic of bias force and mass response takes over.<br />

The properties ofball-in-tube sensors are sensitive to the<br />

value of the gas viscosity which varies with temperature.<br />

Elaborate compensation $chemes must be employed in the<br />

design. The functioning of inertial flow damped sensors<br />

does not rely on viscosity. Thus the effect of temperature<br />

should be felt only when compressibility effects are present<br />

(pulses of very short duration). Figure 7 presents simulation<br />

results on the effect of ambient temperature on a sensor<br />

which had been filled with ambient air at 70 degrees Fahren*<br />

heit and sealed. Note that the exaggerated situations of an<br />

operating temperature 200 degrees F above and 104 degrees<br />

F below ambient was picked. As expected, the effect of<br />

ambient temperature in the range of pulse durations of interest<br />

is minimal.<br />

Conclusions<br />

The above-presented data give an idea ofwhat effect each<br />

of the essential design parameters have on the performance<br />

292<br />

25 r{<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

I<br />

II<br />

I<br />

f<br />

I t<br />

JV, MPH<br />

20<br />

40<br />

PulseDuration,<br />

msec<br />

70 deg F<br />

270 deg F<br />

-34 deg F<br />

60 80<br />

Flgure 7. Ssneor Gharacterlstlcs. Effect of Operatlng<br />

Temperature<br />

of this type of sensor. The decreased sensitivity to short<br />

duration pulses makes it a particularly good candidate for<br />

mounting in lateral crush zonetr where the structural rigidity<br />

is low and in frontal crush zones where the danger of hammer<br />

blows exists. A flatter response curye can be obtained<br />

by proper choice of parameters.<br />

It can be shown that this sensor can also be used as a<br />

distance measuring device for families of similar acceleration<br />

pulses. However, this property is not applicable because<br />

this type of functioning requires rather large displacements<br />

of the sensor bodv.<br />

References<br />

(l) "Problems in Design and Engineering of Air Bag<br />

Systems", by David S. Breed & Vittorio Castelli, SAE<br />

Technical Paper 880724, March 1988.<br />

(2) "Trends in Sensing Side Impacts", by David S. Breed<br />

& Vittorio Castelli, SAE Technical Paper 890603, March<br />

89.<br />

(3) "Trends in Sensing Frontal Impacts", by David S.<br />

Breed & Vittorio Castelli. SAE Technical Paper 890750.<br />

March 89.<br />

(4) "New Sensor Developments Leading to Sensor System<br />

Simplication", by Roben W. Diller, SAE Technical<br />

Paper<br />

841218, May 1984.


Vehicle Tests Required For Air Bag System Design<br />

David J, Romeo,<br />

Autoliv North America, Inc.<br />

John B. Morris,<br />

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<br />

Abstract<br />

At this time, a consen$us does not exist regarding the<br />

number and types of crash tests which need to be conducted<br />

to establish a basis for crash sensor threshold behavior.<br />

Experience obtained from the 1973-1976 General Motors<br />

air bag equipped cars ( l-3),* the Police Fleet Retrofit Driver<br />

Air Bag Program (4), and the Ford Tempo GSA Project<br />

(5), are reviewed and results from these projects, and from<br />

tests conducted by and for the automotive industry, are<br />

discussed. Such sensor threshold tests could be conducted<br />

as par"t of the design of an air bag system.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction and Summary<br />

Over the past twenty years, numerou$ methods have been<br />

used to design, develop, and evaluate air bag restraint<br />

$ystems. These methods have been reviewed, and this paper<br />

identifies five distinct categories or types of vehicle tests<br />

which should be performed. The tests are, in part,<br />

categorized by practical factors such as whether test<br />

dummies, test drivers or neither are required; whether a<br />

complete test facility is required, i.e., crash barrier, test<br />

dummies, high speed cameras, etc., and finally whether the<br />

entire system or only component$ are actually needed.<br />

The five types of vehicle tests are:<br />

l. High Speed Impact Te$t$ (test dummies,<br />

complete test facility, total destruction of vehicle).<br />

2. Low Speed Threshold Barrier Tests (no driver or<br />

dummy, moderate damage to vehicle).<br />

3. Fleet Testing (general popularion drivers, no<br />

damage to vehicle intended).<br />

4. Test Track Tests-Normal including rough road<br />

(test driver, little or no damage to vehicle).<br />

5. Severe Rough Road Exposures (with or without<br />

test driver, moderate damage to vehicle).<br />

In the following section, a general discussion of each of<br />

these categories is given. Specifics of proposed Severe<br />

Rough Road Tests are given. An attempt to evaluate the tests<br />

proposed in terms of real world air bag deployment<br />

experiences are presented. Finally, conclusions and<br />

recommendations are presented.<br />

Definition of Vehicle Test Types<br />

High speed impact tests<br />

These, of course, are where air bag deployment occurs.<br />

Although full systems tests are preferred, these tests can be<br />

+Numbers in parentheses designate refercnces at end of paper.<br />

conducted with or without a complete working sensordiagnostic<br />

assembly (time delayed barrier contact switches<br />

can be used to simulate sensor closure). Tests without cra$h<br />

sensors are sometimes conducted early in a development<br />

program to determine dummy performance given a<br />

specified sensing time, prior to the availability of<br />

production crash sensors. Equally clear, these are the<br />

expensive tests since a complete facility is required and the<br />

vehicle is destroyed. The baseline test here is the Federal<br />

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 test<br />

condition at 30 mph (48.3 kph) full frontal.<br />

The FMVSS No. 208 test, although obviously the most<br />

important with regard to safety standard compliance,<br />

appears to be less critical with regard to design ofthe air bag<br />

system, particularly the crash sensor. This is illustrated in<br />

table I which summarizes results for the 30 mph barrier<br />

crash for eight different vehicles, all with the same retrofit<br />

air bag system that was used in the Police Fleet<br />

Demonstration Program, reference 4. In general, excellent<br />

results were obtained in all of these vehicles despite the fact<br />

that they differ in size, weight, and engine drive train<br />

configuration.<br />

Table 1. Hesults ot pollce tleet drlver alr bag retrollt syslems ln<br />

varloue aulomoblles-3O mph, FiIVSS 208 craah teat.<br />

Ford LID<br />

Yeh lc l.<br />

D'odga Dlplmat<br />

Dodg€ Arl6s<br />

Chevrol6f Caprlc€<br />

0pal Kadrtf<br />

Stcrl Ing 800<br />

YUgp GY<br />

Ford llustlng<br />

Dafe<br />

9/9/8i<br />

t2^t/6,<br />

5lt186<br />

1l?E/86<br />

4/ZlE7<br />

9/2tlS7<br />

tlilaE<br />

?lt6lE9<br />

_HIC-<br />

176<br />

9t9<br />

t76<br />

572<br />

d66<br />

505<br />

21'<br />

772<br />

Chgst ors<br />

S€n6'0r<br />

Cfosurs<br />

?0 msm<br />

This basic compliance test can be extended through the<br />

t30 degree barrier face, 35 mph vehicle assessment<br />

condition, and various dummy size, seat position, manual<br />

belt usage conditions as program budgets allow. The<br />

following table lists these in order of importance.<br />

The first three tests are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety<br />

Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 tests. The first test is the<br />

predominate test. It determines air bag performance when<br />

the safety belts are not used. The second test evaluates<br />

system performance in oblique crashes, a common<br />

occurence in real world accidents. The third test provides<br />

data on air bag performance when used with safety belts.<br />

The fourth te$t, the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)<br />

test, provides performance data when the system is<br />

subjected to a more severe crash speed. The fifth test<br />

evaluates the adequacy of the crash sensor threshold setting<br />

/tE<br />

61<br />

,7<br />

57<br />

48<br />

5l<br />

5t<br />

48<br />

t6<br />

t6<br />

24<br />

t,f<br />

IE<br />

rt<br />

t4<br />

293


to react to this type of impact in time for the air bag to<br />

provide the protection desired.<br />

Speed<br />

30 mph<br />

30 mph<br />

30 mph<br />

35 mph<br />

30 mph<br />

Gondltlon<br />

full frontal<br />

+ 30 dBgree$<br />

wmanual belts<br />

full trontal (NCAP)<br />

centered pole<br />

Bslt Use ln T6st<br />

No<br />

No<br />

Yes<br />

Yes<br />

No<br />

Additional high speed impact tests, which have been<br />

conducted (6), include:<br />

Speed<br />

30 mph<br />

E0 mph (closing)<br />

20 mph<br />

15 mph<br />

Condltlon<br />

30 deg, A-pillar<br />

car to car, half car offset<br />

underride<br />

frontal imDact<br />

The 60 mph closing speed offset car to car test is quite<br />

representative of many real world accidents. However, it is<br />

expensive and can be simulated with a single vehicle into a<br />

half barrier or pole offset to the driver side. This would be a<br />

worthwhile addition to a complete test matrix.<br />

Less can be said for the side impact, underride, and lower<br />

speed tests which all represent longitudinal velocity<br />

changes of a lower magnitude which in turn produce<br />

ambiguous results regarding sensor closure and dummy<br />

performance requirements. The results are considered<br />

ambiguous because at the relatively low longitudinal<br />

"delta-V's"<br />

experienced in these crashes the dummy injury<br />

indices are always low, regardless of whether or not the air<br />

bag deploys. Because of this the outcome always tends to be<br />

considered acceptable. ln other words, from the dummy<br />

results it is not possible to determine clearly a need for<br />

deployment and until a larger data base of real world<br />

accidents has been analyzed the need will continue to<br />

remain unclear.<br />

It is believed that the dummy results for tests which<br />

produce "barrierequivalent" velocity changes of l5 mph or<br />

less are oflittle value because ofthe lack ofbiofidelity at the<br />

deceleration levels experienced. Seat friction and, more<br />

importantly, muscular restraint of arms and legs are known<br />

to dominate occupant kinematics at these low speeds (7).<br />

The same reservations must be made with regard to<br />

computer simulation models which treat the occupant as a<br />

"free<br />

body." These results tend to generate sensor closure<br />

requirements inconsistent with real world experience.<br />

Reference 8, for example using the 5 mph, free body criteria<br />

concludes that air bag deployment is needed in situations<br />

such as running a car into deep water, a snow bank, or into a<br />

crash attenuation barrier. All of these events (crashes)<br />

produce vehicle decelerations in the range ofup to 6 or 8 g's<br />

and the model allows the dummy to strike the interior at a<br />

large "delta-V,o' indicating air bag deployment is<br />

warranted. Real world experience, on the other hand,<br />

294<br />

indicates that the air bag in fact is not needed in these<br />

situations.<br />

Consequently, if analysis of air bag component<br />

performance is to be conducted at these low speeds, it is<br />

suggested that incorporation of a preload into the dummy or<br />

computer model of the dummy be used. A preload of the<br />

order of4 g's is suggested as a starting point.<br />

Low speed threshold barrier tests<br />

These crash te$ts are conducted to determine the threshold<br />

of sensor closure in a frontal barrier crash. Based upon<br />

many factors, but primarily human injury tolerance, the<br />

threshold speed is normally chosen to be 1ill9 kph (9.9-<br />

I I.8 mph). By definition of threshold, 50 percent of the tests<br />

conducted at this condition will result in sensor closure (air<br />

bag deployment) and 50 percent will not. Therefore, it is of<br />

little value to conduct tests at this speed (unless an unreasonably<br />

large number of them are to be done). Rather, we<br />

mu$t test at speeds below and above where non-closure or<br />

closure must occur. Thus we define the terms;<br />

"Must<br />

not close with reasonable certainty" and<br />

"Must<br />

close with reasonable certainty."<br />

These conditions, based again on tolerance to injury, but<br />

also somewhat on system capability, are 4 kph (2.5 mph)<br />

above and below threshold velocity.<br />

Therefore, the following te{it protocol is established-<br />

For threshold of 16 kph, test at;<br />

t 12 kph with result that sensors must not close, and<br />

at<br />

r 20 kph with result that sensors must close.<br />

For threshold of 19 kph, test at;<br />

r l5 kph with result that sensors must not close, and<br />

at<br />

. 23 kph with result that $ensor must close.<br />

The exact threshold, i.e., between 16 and 19 kph, is selected<br />

based upon the particular project's analysis of human<br />

tolerance, car interior friendliness, system capability, indication<br />

of safety belt u$e, etc.<br />

Fleet tests<br />

These so called "fleet tests" should use as many vehicles<br />

(from one or two, up to several hundred) as possible. The<br />

complete air bag system is installed in the vehicle and the<br />

vehicle is driven oyer a wide range of normal conditions<br />

with mileage accumulation. The purpose of these test$ are<br />

many. Examples of design problems which have been experienced<br />

in the Police Fleet are listed below as illustrations.<br />

l. Appearance, aesthetics, consumer and service acceptance.<br />

The vehicles are made available to a wide range of<br />

people who look at, feel and experience the system. This is a<br />

"Show<br />

and Tell" exposure. Examples of concems to be<br />

evaluated are:<br />

r knee bar intrudes, is difficult to get in and out of<br />

car (was not a problem).


electrical connector coil broken due to improper<br />

steering wheel removal (was a big problem).<br />

r readiness indicator light stays on for sufficient<br />

duration to be seen and is located so that it provides<br />

the proper incentive when it stays lit (fault<br />

indicated) that service is sought. In the Police<br />

Fleet, the indicator light was, in some cases, ignored,<br />

and in some cases, rendered inoperative<br />

(broken).<br />

r appearance feedback-is air bag module attractive<br />

and does it obstruct view of in$truments.<br />

Steering wheel leather wrap was a big "plus"<br />

toward offsetting large air bag module<br />

appearance.<br />

2. Normal function of diagnostic and its exposure to<br />

normal vehicle electrical variants such as, low battery, electrical<br />

voltage surges, and/or interruptions during starting.<br />

Problems experienced<br />

include:<br />

. improper indication of fault due to electrical system<br />

transients.<br />

r diagnostic memory drained battery after several<br />

weeks of parking.<br />

. unnecessary fault readout information was given<br />

to the service mechanic.<br />

3. Mechanical response of components such as steering<br />

wheel, clock spring electrical connector, knee bar:<br />

. steering re$ponse affected by added mass ofsteering<br />

wheel air bag module.<br />

clock spring electrical connector drag and noise<br />

can be felt and heard<br />

interference with directional signals, horn.<br />

4. Environmental exposure to rain, cold, salt, etc. Problems<br />

have included:<br />

r moisture in diagnostic.<br />

r corrosion of sensors, wiring harness, connectors.<br />

5. Normal rough road, rough use exposure, parking lot<br />

speed bumps at low speed, i.e., less than 5 mph, impacts,<br />

door slams, hood slams, etc. No problems have been experienced<br />

to date from these exposures.<br />

Test track tests<br />

Test track tests are conducted for purposes similar to<br />

Fleet Tests except that the road (test track), driver (professional),<br />

and vehicle performance (speeds, cornering g's,<br />

etc.), are defined a priori. A second distinction is that expo-<br />

$ures more severe than normally encountered in the real<br />

world are studied.<br />

In some cases, many of the potential problems which<br />

eventually show up in the Fleet Tests are seen early enough<br />

to permit resolution before full scale production, as might<br />

be the case with Fleet Tests.<br />

Normally included in these evaluations, are a series of<br />

tests which include driving the vehicle over man made<br />

"Belgian<br />

Blocks", steps, bumps, pot holes and ramps.<br />

These are the so called "shake. rattle and roll" tests commonly<br />

used for durability testing. These tests have been<br />

used in earlier programs and found to be of little value in<br />

evaluating sensor closure. Put simply, they lack severity. In<br />

fact, it has been found that the inadequacy of these tests to<br />

produce potential crash sen$or closure situations has led to<br />

and forced the development of the "Severe Rough Road<br />

Exposures.<br />

"<br />

Severe rough road exposures<br />

These tests simulate vehicle exposure outside of the normal<br />

rough road durability type envelope often run on new<br />

vehicles. These tests all involve impacts which will damage<br />

the vehicle to some extent (scrapes, dents, tire and wheel<br />

failure) and cause deceleration pulses which may be sufficient<br />

for sensor closure. The extent of damage and severity<br />

of exposure to an occupant as a function of these impact<br />

parameters is not known at the beginning of the test. One<br />

can only state that the condition of sensor closure should be<br />

warranted. This can be thought of as shown in the following<br />

table.<br />

Vehicle<br />

damage<br />

None or slighl<br />

Minor<br />

Moderate<br />

Severe<br />

Inlury<br />

potcntial<br />

None<br />

None<br />

Minor<br />

Mod€rate<br />

Sensor<br />

closure<br />

No<br />

No<br />

Borderline<br />

Yes<br />

Equlval€nt<br />

barrler<br />

speed<br />

"delta-V"<br />

5 mph<br />

7 mph<br />

10 mph<br />

15 mph<br />

Four types of severe exposures have been proposed and<br />

will be discussed<br />

in the next section:<br />

2. Railroad Track<br />

3. Ditch<br />

4. Deer<br />

Specifics of Severe Rough Road<br />

Exposures and Deer Impacts<br />

Curb tests<br />

These tests involve driving the vehicle over a step or curb<br />

at increasing rates of speed and for increasing curb height to<br />

a point where sensor closure occurs. Its occurrence is<br />

compared to severity of exposure both with respect to the<br />

vehicle and the driver. The literature recommends curbs<br />

ranging from 100 mm to 200 mm in height and speeds from<br />

l0 to 50 kph.<br />

Some indication of the relationship of the recommended<br />

test curb height to wheel hub height is shown on the<br />

following table. Forreference, curb height can be expressed<br />

as a ratio ofvehicle ground to centerline ofhub distance. For<br />

13 inch to 15 inch wheels, this distance is approximately<br />

280 mm plus or minus l0 percent, and gives ratios of;<br />

295


Curb Height<br />

100 mm<br />

150 mm<br />

200 mm<br />

% Curb Height<br />

Axle Helght<br />

The following test protocol is recommended:<br />

h = 100 mm, v = 20,30,40,50 kph with driver<br />

h = 150 rlrl, v: 10, 20, 30, kph and up until tests are<br />

terminated due to sensor closure or severe vehicle<br />

damage<br />

h * 200 mm, may approach low speed barrier<br />

conditions<br />

Railroad track<br />

In this test, the vehicle is driven such that the undercarriage<br />

is snagged or impacted by a segment of railroad track'<br />

This simulates the single most common cause of unwanted<br />

airbag deployment in the early General Motors airbag fleet.<br />

Ceneral Motors recommends meeting a condition of a l'2<br />

inch (30 mm) interference at 20 mph without sensor closure.<br />

This recommendation may need further definition as to<br />

what part of the undercarriage to strike. The rail segment is<br />

approximately 300 mm in width. This can also be run at<br />

increasing speeds of 20, 30, 40 kph etc. until termination<br />

due to severity.<br />

Ditch<br />

Note that in the curb tests, vehicle loading occurs due to<br />

impact to the tires, wheels and front axle. In the railroad<br />

track test, which can also simulate a boulder contact, impact<br />

occurs to the vehicle undercarriage and in the low speed<br />

barrier tests, loading obviously occurs through the bumper.<br />

The ditch tests decelerate the vehicle through all three load<br />

paths, bumper, undercarriage and tires and, consequently<br />

are less quantifiable than the others. It is essentially an<br />

extension of a dirt road testing campaign and has its origin<br />

in the police fleet retrofit program where it was found to be<br />

ofconsiderable value.<br />

Showing Direction of Travel<br />

h . dround to center lind of axle WB . Wheel base<br />

Flgure 1. Concrete dltch.<br />

296<br />

.35<br />

.53<br />

.71<br />

The dimensions of the ditch are presented in figure I and<br />

may be modified to suit the particular vehicle. Tests can be<br />

initiated at 20 kph with a driver and continued as severity of<br />

results warrants,<br />

Deer impacts<br />

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Reference 9,<br />

announced that in Pennsylvania the game commission reported<br />

that close to 40,000 deer were killed in 1988 in<br />

collisions with vehicles. Injuries were relatively rare, although<br />

considerable property damage frequently occurred.<br />

Reference 9 also reports that there are 20,000 such accidents<br />

per year in Michigan and when a car impacts a deer at high<br />

speeds, the car can crush locally and impart a l0 mph velocity<br />

change to the air bag crash $en$or while causing a relatively<br />

minor velocity change to the vehicle, resulting in an<br />

unwanted air bag deployment. On the other hand, the air bag<br />

may help prevent occupant injury in the event the deer<br />

carcass penetrates the windshield after the air bag deployed'<br />

General Motors, Reference 10, in recommending tests for<br />

evaluating air bag sensor performance in circumstances<br />

where deployment is not desired, proposes the following car<br />

to deer impact:<br />

"Tow<br />

the car at 50 mph into a horizontally oriented<br />

water-soaked boxer training bag simulating a deer. The<br />

bag is suspended at a height which aligns its center<br />

with the sensor. The water-soaked Everlast Model<br />

4543 training bag weighs 50 kg."<br />

Real world accident experience<br />

In this section real world air bag deployment experience<br />

is examined in an effort to establish the merit of the aforementioned<br />

vehicle tests. In general, the deployments should<br />

fall into the first, second or fifth categories listed under<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction and Summary. That is "High Speed," "Low<br />

Speed," or Severe "Rough Road." ln a few case$, however,<br />

they fall under "Fleet" or "Test Track" tests.<br />

General Motors 1973-1976 ACRS vehicles<br />

References 4,5, and 6 provide data on General Motors air<br />

bag equipped vehicles produced from 1973 through 1976.<br />

Over I 1,000 air bag equipped vehicles were produced during<br />

this period. These data contain over 200 deployment<br />

accidents. As seen in the following table, accidents involving<br />

another car produced the most deployments in frontal<br />

impacts. Deployments produced by undercarriage contact<br />

are not included but are reported later.<br />

General Motols Flset Frontal lmpact Demonstration<br />

Object struck<br />

Car<br />

Pole<br />

Tree<br />

Truck and Van<br />

Other<br />

% of deploymenta N = 152<br />

64<br />

I<br />

I -l<br />

11


A distribution of all deployment accidents is shown on<br />

the following table. Undercarriage contact produced a significant<br />

number of the deployments.<br />

Crash mode<br />

Frontal<br />

Undercarriage<br />

$ide<br />

General llotor$ Flest<br />

The severity of the accidents resulting in the deployment<br />

of the air bag is shown in the following table. The velociry<br />

change, in most cases, was computed using the CRASH<br />

computerprogram. Reference I I reports that CRASH tends<br />

to underestimate velocity change at speeds under 30 mph,<br />

the speeds at which most crashes occur. The velocity<br />

changes shown in the following table were therefore corrected<br />

using an equation similar to that recommended in<br />

Reference ll. The velocity changes obtained from crash<br />

recorders installed in some of the vehicles were used as<br />

reported.<br />

Crash<br />

$EYerity<br />

Minor<br />

Moderate<br />

Severe<br />

Gcneral MotorE Fle€l<br />

Veloclty<br />

change<br />

Lessthan 13<br />

mph<br />

13-20 mph<br />

2G-50 mph<br />

Police fleet 198L1988<br />

% of deploymenls N = lg4<br />

79<br />

13<br />

I<br />

% of deploym8nt$<br />

1.1=<br />

98<br />

26<br />

40<br />

34<br />

The following observations are made from accident repons<br />

of police vehicles in which retrofit driver air bag<br />

system$ were installed. Approximately 5fi) kirs were installed<br />

in the Ford LTD Crown Victoria, the Dodge Diplomat/Plymouth<br />

Gran Fury, and the Chevrolet Caprice. The<br />

number of deployment$ are quite small, 29 resulting from<br />

frontal impacts, neglecting undercarriage, for which we<br />

have data. As seen from the following table, a significant<br />

number of deer impacm resulted in air bag deployment.<br />

Obfoct struck<br />

Car<br />

Deer<br />

Pole<br />

Tree<br />

Other<br />

Pollce Fleat Frontal lmpact Dcploymsnts<br />

% of deployments N = 29<br />

55<br />

21<br />

10<br />

7<br />

7<br />

As with the C€neral Motors fleet, a significant number of<br />

deployments as a result ofundercaniage contact occurred in<br />

the police fleet. The impacts are summarized on the following<br />

table.<br />

|mpact<br />

Frontal<br />

Undercarriage<br />

Polics Fl€€t<br />

% ol deployments N = 34<br />

85<br />

15<br />

The severity ofthe accidents resulring in air bag deployment<br />

is shown in the following table. The number of velocity<br />

changes calculated is very small (N = 20). As with the<br />

General Motors data, the CRASH computed delta-V's have<br />

been corrected.<br />

Pollce Fleet<br />

Craeh severlty Voloclty change % ol deployments<br />

H=20<br />

Minor<br />

Moderate<br />

Severe<br />

Ford Tempo f985-1988<br />

Less than 13 mph 1 5<br />

13-20 mph 65<br />

More than 20 mph 13<br />

The Ceneral Services Administration purchased 5,O00<br />

1985 Ford Tempos equipped with driver side air bags. The<br />

following observations can be made from the experience<br />

with this fleet. As with other fleets, accidents involving<br />

another car produced the most deployments. The objects<br />

struck are summarized<br />

in the following table.<br />

Ford Tempo Fleet Frontal lmpsct Deployment8<br />

Oblect atruck<br />

Car<br />

Truck and Van<br />

Deer<br />

Tree<br />

Pole<br />

Other<br />

As with the other fleets, frontal impacts were the predominant<br />

crash mode. Undercarriage deployments were not as<br />

predominant in the Ford Tempo fleet. The types of impacts<br />

producing deployments are summarized in the following<br />

table.<br />

fmpsct<br />

Frontal<br />

Side<br />

Rollover<br />

Undercarriage<br />

Ford Tempo Fleet<br />

% of deployments N = 153<br />

63<br />

19<br />

5<br />

4<br />

3<br />

6<br />

% of deploymentc N = 165<br />

The crash severity of the deployment accidents are shown<br />

in the following table. The number of known delta-V's is<br />

rather small. As in the other cases. the CRASH calculation<br />

has been corrected.<br />

92<br />

5<br />

2<br />

1<br />

?97


Ford T6mpo Fleet<br />

Craeh eeverlty Veloclly change % ol deplolments<br />

Minor<br />

Moderate<br />

Severe<br />

Less lhan 13 mph<br />

13-20 mph<br />

More than 20 mph<br />

Air bag deployment situations versus<br />

proposed test matrix<br />

In previous sections of the paper tests were proposed to<br />

establish a basis for crash sensor threshold behavior. The<br />

accident data files were $earched to determine how frequently<br />

these tests simulated situations in which the air bag<br />

was deployed in on-the-road accidents. The following table<br />

summarizes air bag deployments in the three air bag fleets<br />

that relate to the various test conditions proposed. Although<br />

in the above examination of fleet deployment crash severity<br />

was classified as "minor." "moderate," or "severe," the<br />

following table divides these crash deployments into two<br />

categories,<br />

"High Speed" and<br />

"Low<br />

Speed," in keeping<br />

with the proposed test categories outlined in previous sections<br />

of the paper. The "Low Speed" category was arbitrarily<br />

set as those deployments below 15 mph and "High<br />

Speed" as those above l5 mph. Since the velocity change<br />

was not known in every case, the percentage obtained from<br />

those known was distributed over the entire file to determine<br />

the number of occurrences.<br />

Test<br />

High Speed<br />

Low Speed<br />

Severe Rough Rd<br />

Fleet<br />

No. of Occurrencee<br />

Follce TemPo<br />

The Fleet test numbers reflect non-crash deployments'<br />

Fleet tests provide invaluable information on the air bag<br />

system other than causes for undesired deployments. Information<br />

gained on maintenance problems and procedures,<br />

system durability and reliability, design problems, and sys*<br />

tem acceptability are not reflected in the table above.<br />

The section on Severe Rough Road Exposures outlined<br />

four tests to simulate exposures outside normal rough road<br />

driving. The following table summarizes the fleet experience<br />

relating to deployment accidents resulting from these<br />

types of exposures.<br />

T6st<br />

Ditch<br />

Curb<br />

Rail<br />

Deer<br />

Gl,l<br />

6<br />

7<br />

11<br />

3<br />

GM<br />

g9<br />

56<br />

27<br />

14<br />

No, of Occurrence$<br />

Pollce Tempo<br />

3<br />

2<br />

6<br />

12<br />

17<br />

11<br />

e<br />

10<br />

76<br />

14<br />

108<br />

99<br />

I<br />

1<br />

i<br />

7<br />

The real world accidents that these tests simulate, in<br />

addition to railroad crossings, include impact with boulders,<br />

culverts, buried objects, irregular terrain, embankments,<br />

and rocks. as well as ditches and curbs. The deer test simulates<br />

accidents involving related low mass animals as well<br />

as deer.<br />

Conclusions<br />

I. At this time, there appears to be a lack of consensus as<br />

to definition of the vehicle tests required for air bag system<br />

development.<br />

2. A review oftests that are presently being used has led to<br />

a definition of five distinct categories of vehicle tests which<br />

could be conducted. Specifics ofthe te$ts in these categories<br />

are given.<br />

3. A category defined as "Severe Rough Road<br />

Exposures" includes tests of fundamental importance with<br />

regard to crash sensor requirements.<br />

4. A review of procedures in present use indicates that<br />

results of dummy data and simple computer modeling may<br />

be inappropriate for analysis of crash sensor requirements in<br />

the regime of relatively small "delta v" crash occurTences.<br />

5. Real world air bag deployment experiences with three<br />

groups or "fleets" of cars was analyzed and the relative<br />

merit or value of the te$t was established.<br />

6. Additional definition and supplementation of these<br />

tests are required. However, a move to establish a protocol<br />

in the vehicle test community may be warranted.<br />

This paper pre$ents the views of the authors, and not<br />

necessarily those of the National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration.<br />

References<br />

( I ) DOT HS-802 30 I Executive and Tabular Summary of<br />

Air Bag Field Experience, <strong>Volume</strong> l, No. 1, April 1977<br />

(2) DOT HS-803 416 Executive and Tabular Summary of<br />

Air Bag Field Experience, <strong>Volume</strong> 2, No. I, May 1978<br />

(3) DOT HS*805 062 Executive and Tabular Summary of<br />

Air Bag Field Experience, <strong>Volume</strong> 3, No. l, August 1979<br />

(4) Romeo, D. J., and Morris, J. B., Driver Air Bag Fleet<br />

Demonstration Program, A 24 Month Progress Report,<br />

Tenth <strong>Int</strong>emational <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, DOT HS-806 916,<br />

Oxford, England July 1985<br />

(5) Backaitis, S, H., and Roberts, J. V., Occupant lnjury<br />

Pattern$ in Crashes With Air Bag Equipped Government<br />

Sponsored Cars, SAE 812216<br />

(6) Wilson, R. A., General Motors Corporation, Crash<br />

Testing The General Motors Air Cushion, Fifth<br />

<strong>Int</strong>ernational <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence, London, England, June<br />

1974<br />

(7) Wagner, R., Audi A.G., A 30 MPH Front/Rear Crash<br />

With Human Test Persons, SAE 791030 October 1979,<br />

Ttventy Third Stapp Car Crash <strong>Conf</strong>erence<br />

(8) Breed, D., and Costelli, V., Problems in Design and<br />

Engineering of Air Bag Systems, SAE 880724 February<br />

1989<br />

(9) Insurance Institute For Highway Safety Status Report


Vol.24, No.2, Februarv 25, 1989<br />

(10) Letter, dated June 18, 1984, Ceneral Motors to Michael<br />

M. Finkelstein, NHTSA, forwarding a Description of<br />

General Motors Tests for Evaluating Air Bag<br />

The Development of an Advanced Airbag Concept<br />

Lennart Johansson, Jan Billig,<br />

Hugo Mellander,<br />

Volvo Car Corporation<br />

Bernd Werner, Peter Hora,<br />

Bayern Chemie GmbH<br />

Abstract<br />

<strong>Int</strong>eraction between the head of the driver and the steering<br />

wheel may cause facial injuries, especially in high speed<br />

accidents.<br />

Air cushion technology provides the means of distributing<br />

and reducing the inertia forces acting on the head and the<br />

face.<br />

This paper describes the development of an airbag system,<br />

including the electrical sensor which is integrated in<br />

the steering wheel, and it focuses on the problems of positioning<br />

the sensor in the steering wheel.<br />

Information from necessary sensor testing, both on rough<br />

roads and in crash conditions, is presented.<br />

The improvements which are achieved, in terms of reduced<br />

violence to the face, have also been assessed experimentally<br />

by using a test dummy with a load sensing face.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

ln connection with the increased usage of seat belts in<br />

Europe, the number of serious injuries in collisions has<br />

decreased.<br />

%<br />

.lO<br />

so<br />

20<br />

10<br />

Uilattsd<br />

Flgure 1. Inlury rates for belted and unbelted front $eat<br />

occupant$ at dlflcrent statod sccldent Bp€eds.<br />

(Ref. 1)<br />

However, despite the belt, there is still the problem of<br />

skull and facial injuries sustained by the driver when his<br />

head hits the steering wheel in high speed accidents. Volvo's<br />

accident statistics show that lOVo of drivers in head-on<br />

collisions receive skull and facial injuries. See figure 2.<br />

Performance in Circumstances Where Deployment is not<br />

Desired<br />

(l l) Accuracy and Sensitivity of CRASH, DOT HS-806<br />

152, March 1982<br />

,-. Forehead<br />

Nos€<br />

- Mouth/Teeth<br />

- Jew<br />

FIgurc 2. Faclal Inlurl€s ars mostly to the forehead, no$e,<br />

mouth/teeth snd lsw'<br />

Since the total pattern of injuries decreases with the usage<br />

of belts, the remaining facial injuries constitute a greater<br />

proportion of the injuries suffered than previously.<br />

Normally, the injuries are relatively slight, but this type of<br />

co$metic injury often creates psychological problems for<br />

the victims, and rehabilitation can, in some cases, take<br />

years.<br />

Our goal was to optimise an airbag system for the belted<br />

driver and, by using a high level ofintegration, to produce a<br />

cost-effective and compact system. A bag in the steering<br />

wheel would protect against skull and facial injuries in<br />

head-on collisions and increase the chances of survival in<br />

high speed collisions. Trimming a bag for a restrained<br />

occupant meant that the bag could be made smaller than the<br />

US-system (for unrestrained occupants).<br />

Eurobag U$.bag<br />

Flgure 3. Ths plctur€E show ths dlfference In sizB b€tw€€n a<br />

Egg lo*r a belted drlver (Eurobag) and a bag complylng wlth<br />

FMVSS zOE.<br />

The results after computer simulation and sled tests<br />

showed that a bag with a volume of approximately 35 litres<br />

(diameter 550 mm) without internal straps gave the best<br />

results.<br />

299


A small bag has advantages with regard to out-ofposition-exposure.<br />

omission of the strap$ meant that the<br />

bag could be made relatively simple in design. If a bag<br />

material with a coating which can be welded is used, a cheap<br />

method of manufacture can be developed whereby two discs<br />

(one of which has a pre-welded disc with the necessary<br />

attachment holes for the inflator) are welded together. (See<br />

figure 4).<br />

The advantages of this are, among other things, that the<br />

sensor can be fitted directly onto the inflator and, because of<br />

the fact that all system components are in the steering wheel,<br />

the system could be installed as an aftermarket item.<br />

Sensor development<br />

The Eurobag sensor, fitted in the steering wheel, is basically<br />

an electronic software controlled microprocessor<br />

system. The trigger algorithm follows<br />

ilffi<br />

"standard" accelera-<br />

Figure 4. Three parts welded together to a bsg.<br />

Since the inflator only needed to generate gas for a 35 litre<br />

bag, its dimensions could be reduced as shown in figure 5.<br />

Standrrd<br />

lnflator<br />

Ncw Inllator<br />

Fioure 5. A Eurobao Inflator (-157o smaller In dlamster and<br />

-2b* lower ln helght) compare'd with the conventlonal inflator.<br />

This gives not only a reduction in weight, but the new<br />

inflator also occupies less space in the steering wheel.<br />

System layout<br />

The whole system is located in the steering wheel, i.e. the<br />

cover, the bag, the inflator, the sensor, including diagnostic<br />

and reverse energy units, the connector coil and the warning<br />

lamp. (Figure 6)<br />

Figure 6. Eurobag concept.<br />

@F<br />

ffi<br />

WF*lg lrrltF<br />

tion signals within electronic airbag systems, i.e. above a<br />

certain acceleration threshold and when a certain velocity<br />

change has occurred, the power switch is triggered to ignite<br />

the squib. The threshold depends on the crash behaviour of<br />

the actual car.<br />

The development of the sensor was directed towards Volvo740[60.<br />

The 760 model also contains a tiltable steering<br />

wheel (tiltable +7'), and this must be considered in the<br />

development of the rlensor. (figure 7)<br />

Figure 7. The 760 steerlng wheelcan b€ tlltsd to thres posltione<br />

(+7o<br />

from the normal positlon).<br />

Flgure 8. Steering wheel wlth 5 accelerometers In th€ dlflsrent<br />

dlrectlons.<br />

Development of software<br />

The sensor development began with the accumulation of<br />

measuring data. With the aid of a measuring unit with five<br />

accelerometers fitted in the steering wheel, signals from a


number of different collisions were registered, to be analysed<br />

later.<br />

The accelerometers were placed in the X, Y and Z axes<br />

and f45o from X. (figure 8)<br />

Tests were carried out at different speeds from 4 mph to<br />

35 mph and were of types 0",30",90", 180o, pole and<br />

underride. (figure 9)<br />

oo ior lo. ttoo<br />

r t<br />

HHE\r<br />

r|1l<br />

HEEEE<br />

F'. uirf--'-- Ii<br />

ftT. _h E<br />

Flgure 9. Dlfferent types of colllalon Bltuallons, where measurements<br />

ol acceleratlon In the steerlng wheel were reglstered.<br />

Since the sensor should not trigger during different types<br />

of rough-road driving, measurements were carried out on<br />

that type of surface as a reference. Examples of "nontriggering<br />

situations" are curbs, road depressions and different<br />

types of bumps. (figure l0)<br />

Ost r|'m rrff, dffistr.r<br />

Gcdqrbad<br />

Flgure 10. Examples of rough-road sltuatlons.<br />

r Curb-stone testing was performed against a 100<br />

mm high curb at 35 mph and a 150 mm high curb<br />

at 30 mph. After such curb-stone driving, the car<br />

is damaged, but the driver unharmed.<br />

r Road depressions at speeds up to 55 mph and with<br />

maximum load in the car.<br />

r Driving on pot-holes and Belgian pavd with<br />

wheels both locked and rolling.<br />

r Test driving was also performed with unbalanced<br />

wheels at different speeds.<br />

The accumulation of signals was also supplemented by<br />

measurements made when hitting the steering wheel with<br />

different objects, e.g. a hammer and a fist. All tests were<br />

done with the steering wheel tilted at the three different<br />

angles. The measured acceleration levels from the different<br />

tests wsre used as input data to a computer simulation program,<br />

which simulates the sensor's signal processing. The<br />

calculated times were compared with the requirement according<br />

to the 125 mm criteria.<br />

The trigger time that the total $y$tem must meet wa$<br />

determined by the conventional 125 mm requirement, i.e.<br />

the time required for an unbraked mass to move 125 mm in a<br />

crash. (figurE ll). This is to avoid interaction between a<br />

deploying bag and the occupant.<br />

Flgure 11. Unbraked msBB (the "worst case"" of an unrastralnad<br />

drlver) msy move, due lo Inertla, a marlmum of 125 mm<br />

before the bag le fully lnflated.<br />

Further analysis work has shown that when belts are used,<br />

a longer time delay can be accepted. But for the development<br />

of this sensor, the 125 mm requirement was adhered<br />

to,<br />

After a number of development stages, a signal processing<br />

algorithm was obtained which fulfilled the set triggering<br />

criteria, without inadvenent triggering during rough-road<br />

simulation.<br />

The algorithm is subdivided into four path$. Path I integrates<br />

the acceleration signal once to a delta velocity proportional<br />

voltage. Path 2 integrates the acceleration signal<br />

twice to a voltage that is proportional to the displacement of<br />

a free mass. Path 3 integrates the negative acceleration once<br />

to a velocity proportional signal and is used to recognize the<br />

direction of the crash. Path 4 compares the acceleration with<br />

a certain threshold and controls the connection ofthe signals<br />

evaluated in Path I to Path 3. In the logic block, the signals<br />

are connected together depending on certain thresholds and<br />

timing functions.<br />

In general it can be said that in a normal crash, the trigger<br />

signal for the squib is generated by Path l, if a certain<br />

threshold is exceeded. Path 2 to Path 4 are used to distinguish<br />

between a crash situation when a trigger signal should<br />

be generated and, for example, an acceleration signal generated<br />

in rough road conditions where no triggering is<br />

required.<br />

This algorithm was implemented in the hardware solution<br />

which was developed simultaneously. (figure l2)<br />

The programme also includes a diagnostic section which<br />

continuously controls the main component$ of the $y$tem.<br />

Also included is a pan of the progrflmme which calibrates<br />

the acceleration Fansducer during the final test in the fac-<br />

301


Figure 12. Schematlc blockdlagram showing the slgnsl conditloning<br />

parts of the sensor.<br />

tory via software and compensates the acceleration transducer<br />

sensitivity over variou$ temperatures. If a failure is<br />

detected a failure lamp lights up.<br />

Development of hardware<br />

With the help of simulation and practical tests it was<br />

found that an accelerometer in the direction of the steering<br />

shaft was sufficient to give acceleration signals which could<br />

be used. The hardware was built up around a microprocessor<br />

with the necesssary protective circuits and watchdog.<br />

The unit was fitted with a capacitor for a reserve energy<br />

supply in case the ordinary voltage feed is cut off in a<br />

collision. The voltage supply to the sen$or is fed through a<br />

contact reel of clockspring type since the slip rings for the<br />

horn were found unreliable. The tests performed with slip<br />

rings showed that in cold conditions condensation could<br />

freeze on the tracks and cause a voltage cut for up to l0<br />

minutes. Consequently the voltage feed via the slip rings is<br />

used for redundancy.<br />

The hardware concept, shown in the attached block diagram,<br />

is structured in three major parts: acceleration sensor<br />

with amplifier; microcontroller and memory; power switch<br />

and power supply.<br />

Acceleration sensor with amplifier<br />

Piezoelectric acceleration sensor with high shock resis*<br />

tance; amplifier as impedance converter and filter; diagnostic<br />

unit for acceleration sensor.<br />

Microcontroller and memory<br />

Triggering of power switch for squib ignition depending<br />

on implemented software controlled trigger algorithm; controlling<br />

of all diagnostic functions; software stored in the<br />

memory.<br />

Power switch and power supply unit<br />

Low impedance power switch for squib ignition and failure<br />

lamp control with integrated diagnostic functions; voltage<br />

regulator for conditioning of the car supply voltage;<br />

overvoltage protection and switch for reserve energy supply<br />

302<br />

on board. If faults occur in any of the components, the<br />

diagnostic unit gives a signal to a lamp located in the steering<br />

wheel cover.<br />

i<br />

ir'; r<br />

; l E f<br />

l L - t<br />

I<br />

Flgure 13. Elock dlagram showlng the hardware concept.<br />

The final prototypes were verified in a large number of<br />

sled tests and full-scale collision tests. The system fulfilled<br />

all criteria. Furthermore, a number of different rough-road<br />

tests were performed, and these proved positive, i.e. the<br />

sensor did not trigger.<br />

Crash test results<br />

Full-scale collisions have been performed from 0" and<br />

30", pole and under-ride at speeds of 30, 35 and 40 mph. The<br />

Eurobag system was found to function well as a complement<br />

to the seat belt in all the above situations. The sensor<br />

located in the steering wheel fulfils the specified requirements<br />

and functions with the steering wheel tilted in different<br />

positions.<br />

The tests showed that the Eurobag concept reduced Hic<br />

by approximately 25*30qo, see figure 14.<br />

Hlc<br />

800<br />

40 mph 3s mph 30 mph<br />

Sled t€st Barrler tsst Barrlor tcat<br />

Figure 14. Typlcal valuee from the evaluation tests.<br />

Another advantage with the Eurobag was that it reduced<br />

the forward movement of the head by approximately 20o/o.<br />

The forces on the torso belt were reduced by approximately<br />

l0o/o, see figure 15.<br />

Without a Eurobag there is a variation in measured Hic<br />

values due to different head impact location in the tests with<br />

I<br />

Sertb.tt ontY<br />

H zg% @ tu'o"t


KN<br />

I<br />

6<br />

I a.rbilt only<br />

$ euroleg<br />

Flgure 15. 1096 raductlon of torao belt forces wlth Eurobag.<br />

the steering wheel tilted at different angles. However, with<br />

the Eurobag concept, a much more consistent behaviour<br />

was observed. with lower Hic values.<br />

fiplcal readlngr from *led tetilng<br />

I Whh Eurohg<br />

tr w|thourEurob|g<br />

Flgure 16. Gomparison of faclal pr€saure wlth and wlthout Eurobag.<br />

The bar dlagram $howt the hlghoet achleved preesure ln<br />

any of the meaeurlng plEles wlth the samo designatlon.<br />

The Passive Restraint Approach<br />

Robert H. Munson,<br />

Automotive Safety Office, Ford Motor<br />

Company, United States<br />

Abstract<br />

This paper presents an overview of Ford's experience<br />

with "passive restraint" systems. It seeks to update the<br />

conference as to the available field experience with passive<br />

restraint systems being installed in Ford Motor Company<br />

vehicles. The present United States occupant crash<br />

protection standard requires a phase-in ofpassive restraints.<br />

Passive restraints can be automatic belts or air bags. An<br />

overview will be presented of Ford's passive belt and<br />

supplemental driver and passenger air bag experience,<br />

including:<br />

In order to confirm the reduction offacial injuries, a loadsensitive<br />

face dummy was used in the different collision<br />

situations. With the Eurobag concept, the facial pressure is<br />

reduced by an average of80Vo, (figure 16).<br />

Conclusions<br />

This project has shown that a small bag, optimized for<br />

belted drivers is an excellent complement to the seat belt. It<br />

protects the head against impact against the steering wheel<br />

and thereby reduces the risk of head and facial injuries in<br />

head-on collisions.<br />

The possibility to position the sensor in the steering<br />

wheel was successfully demonstrated. By using an<br />

electronic sensor, a sufficiently complex conditioning of the<br />

signal could be made to meet the non-triggering and<br />

triggering requirements and also to diagnose and indicate<br />

faults in the system. There is now the possibility to choose<br />

between a body-mounted crash sensor or a sensor located<br />

directly on the safety system.<br />

The advantages and disadvantages of these two<br />

approaches have to be further investigated and they will<br />

probably vary for different categories of cars.<br />

References<br />

(l) H Norin, G Karlsson, J Komer; "Seat Belt Usage in<br />

Sweden and its Injury Reducing Effect". SAE 840194.<br />

(2) S Koyabashi, K Honda, K Shitanoki: "R.eliability<br />

Considerations in the Design of an Airbag System". <strong>ESV</strong><br />

1987.<br />

(3) C F Kirchoff et al; "Advanced Concepts for Driver<br />

Air Cushion Systems". <strong>ESV</strong> 1985.<br />

(4) D S Breed, V Castellir "Problems<br />

in Design and<br />

Engineering of Airbag Systems". SAE 880724.<br />

r The Decision Making Process-Supplemental<br />

Air Bag vs. Motorized Automatic Belts vs.<br />

Manual Automatic Belts<br />

r Air Bag and Passive Belt System Overview<br />

r The Effects of Mandatory Use Laws on Passive<br />

Restraint Decisions<br />

r Passive Restraint System Field Experience<br />

r The Continental Passenger Side Supplemental<br />

Air Bag<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

This paper will focus on Ford's passive restraint<br />

experience since the lOth <strong>ESV</strong> conference, where another<br />

paper entitled "Supplemental Driver Airbag System-Ford<br />

Motor Company Tempo and Topaz Vehicles" was<br />

presented.<br />

303


Ford's passive restraint program consists of the air bag<br />

supplemental restraint system in combination with an active<br />

3-point safety belt on certain vehicles and motorized<br />

automatic shoulder belts with active lap belts for driver and<br />

right front passenger on other vehicles. It is estimated that<br />

through late April 1989, over 40,000 Model Year 1985<br />

through 1989 Ford Tempo and Mercury Topaz vehicles with<br />

the Supplemental Driver Air Bag Restraint system have<br />

been built and sold (see figure l). These vehicles have<br />

experienced more than three-quarters of a billion miles of<br />

travel. with an estimated 620 accidents that were severe<br />

enough to cau$e the air bag to deploy. Ford and NHTSA's<br />

monitoring programs have reports of 233 of these<br />

deployments. The results are summarized in figure 2.<br />

FLEETS<br />

a<br />

a<br />

FEOERAL<br />

OTHER<br />

HETAIL<br />

TOTAL<br />

r (As oF 4t20l8s)<br />

TEMPO I TOPPZ, SALES *<br />

l$85 t9E8 1987 1S88 1989<br />

s{xto<br />

2400 3700<br />

100<br />

1500<br />

4800<br />

5400<br />

3100<br />

8000<br />

2600<br />

3500<br />

TOTAL<br />

6500<br />

16,5{t0<br />

17,000<br />

40,000<br />

Figure 1. Sales of Tempo and Topaz equipped with the drlver<br />

air bag supplemental r€stlsint $y$tem.<br />

TEMPO / TOPAZ AIR BAG<br />

FLEET EXPERIENCE (AS OF 4-20-8e)<br />

ESTIMATED<br />

MILES DRIVEN (lulLLlONS)<br />

ACCIDENTS<br />

DEPLOYMENTS<br />

REPORTED<br />

DEPLOYMENTS<br />

BELT USE<br />

INJURIES: MODERATE<br />

sERrous<br />

FATALTTTES (DRTVER)<br />

Flgure 2. Tempoffopaz supplemental all bag fleet experlence.<br />

The 1989 model year Lincoln Continental is equipped<br />

with a standard driver and right front passenger Air Bag<br />

Supplemental Restraint System. For the 1990 Model Year,<br />

Ford plans to equip nine car lines with a driver-side Air Bag<br />

Supplemental Restraint System.<br />

The Decisionmaking Process<br />

800<br />

5200<br />

620<br />

23tt<br />

87%<br />

16<br />

3<br />

In July 1984, NHTSA amended FMVSS 208 to require<br />

restraints for both the driver and right front<br />

3<br />

passenger on U.S. pa$senger cars beginning, on a phasein<br />

basis, in 1987. Further, NHTSA required installation<br />

of passive restraints on a// U.S. passenger cars manufactured<br />

on or after September I, 1989 (i.e., the 1990 model<br />

year). The following summarizes a few of the many factors<br />

that Ford considered regarding passive restraint<br />

implementation.<br />

Ford began its evaluation program by prioritizing the<br />

anticipated practical safety benefits of various passive<br />

restraint alternatives on the basis of overall eff'ectiveness,<br />

anticipated usage and customer acceptance. The two-point<br />

motorized passive shoulder belt system was viewed very<br />

favorably, although more costly than non*motorized belt<br />

systems, based on anticipated usage and resultant<br />

effectiveness. Market research confirmed customer<br />

preference for motorized belts, but they were not considered<br />

practicable fbr larger cars with three front $eat positions.<br />

NHTSA, after extensive investigation, had concluded<br />

that air bags in combination with three-point active belts<br />

offered the highest effectiveness in terms of reducing both<br />

fatalities and injuries (see figure 3). However, this<br />

conclusion assumed that three-point active belt use was 100<br />

percent. Before an air bag supplemental restraint systembased<br />

program could be pursued feasibility and<br />

practicability had to be established and there had to be<br />

assurance of greatly increased three-point safety belt usage.<br />

Ford believed then as now that air bag practicability u,ould<br />

be established and the vast majority of the U.S. population<br />

would be covered by effective mandatory seat belt use laws.<br />

On that basis, Ford continued pursuit of an aggressive air<br />

bag implementation program that continues to the present<br />

time.<br />

IIS'URY LEVEL<br />

NHTSA ESTIMATED<br />

RESTRAIHT EFFECTIVENESS RANGES<br />

I/<br />

E$TIIIATED RE$TRAINT EFFECTIVET{ES$ RAI{GES<br />

I-AP AI{D<br />

SHOULDER BELT<br />

AUTOilANC<br />

EELT<br />

AIR BAO<br />

(oNLn<br />

AIB BAS<br />

AI{D I-AP/<br />

SIIOULOEf,<br />

EFLT<br />

FATAL 40-50* 35 - 5{lt6 e0-ttot 'ff - SSti<br />

ats 2-6 45- 55% 40 "55t6 It -t5tg 60-00t9<br />

-!Jf I{HIEA DOCI(ET 74-l4i NOTICE 80, *t'OCUFAHT CF EH FROTECTnili Fll{ L BULP.<br />

Flgure 3. NHTSA efiectiveness estimates.<br />

After thorough review ofthe technical issues and supply<br />

base requirements necessary for supplemental air bag<br />

programs, it was determined that programs calling for<br />

supplemental air bags on some vehicle lines and motorized<br />

belts on other vehicles would be the only practicable means<br />

of meeting the 1990 effective date. To allow for increased<br />

driver-side supplemental air bag availability, Ford<br />

petitioned NHTSA for extension of the 1.0 credit to allow<br />

for driver-side air bag and 3-point active belts after the I 989<br />

model year.<br />

In its petition to NHTSA, Ford stated that if the petition<br />

were granted, it would, in all likelihood;


lnstall supplemental driver air bags on a majority<br />

of its NAAO-designed cars.<br />

Install passenger-side air bags in some 1990<br />

model year cars as resolution of technical issues<br />

and supply base constraints allowed.<br />

These product plans have produced real and tangible<br />

effects. In the 1987 model year, Ford offered its first<br />

motorized two-point passive belt system as standard<br />

equipment on the Ford Escort and Mercury Lynx. In 1988,<br />

use of this system was extended to the Ford Tempo and<br />

Mercury Topaz, while continuing to offer a driver side<br />

supplemental air bag as an option. The all new 1989 Ford<br />

Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar models are equipped<br />

with the motorized belt system while the 1989 Continental<br />

is the first domestic U.S. car to offer both driver and right<br />

front passenger side supplemental air bags as standard<br />

equipment.<br />

For the 1990 model year, Ford will provide supplemental<br />

driver-side air bags on nine of its car lines; some of which,<br />

like Continental, will also offer standard supplemental<br />

passenger side air bags. We anticipate approximately one<br />

million 1990 Ford passenger cars will be sold with<br />

supplemental driver or driver/right front passenger air bags<br />

as standard equipment; we believe in the 1990 model year,<br />

Ford will produce and sell more cars equipped with standard<br />

supplemental air bags than any other manufacturer in the<br />

world (see figure 4).<br />

FORD f,OIOH COTPAI{Y<br />

FASSIVE FESTRAINT AVAILABILITY<br />

;gSry _4!!!L Afm|ltE Hwffi<br />

lttt ffi ruoEil wEr<br />

ilEffi ilrs-Halilolol r-ff<br />

r[r ffi ffiE[ wEr<br />

ltsffi ffiE[ WBI<br />

ffi MflSEIO' r-|w<br />

laaa ffi IffiE[ wat<br />

ffi IffiEN WEI<br />

r-tffi ffiE[ wET<br />

EFffi ffrH-Hllrulol r-ffi<br />

ffiEflil oi|Y[ffiAnrm l-ff<br />

itm il[i-filf|'l.fliilxrlmlllFmff tHtlf,l<br />

(EffiffiffiIfrtM<br />

-DEOI$EY*I41ffffi<br />

ffiilrus|.5rEsEreImrffi<br />

Fffiffi&1ffi<br />

Flgure 4. Ford passlve restralnt avallablllty.<br />

Air Bag and Passive Belt System<br />

Overview<br />

As shown in figure 5, the supplemental air bag system has<br />

four basic subsystems, the sensors, the diagnostic module,<br />

the electrical system and the air bag module or modules. A<br />

detailed description of these subsystems is included in<br />

attachment l. The Ford passive belt system, consisting of a<br />

motorized automatic shoulder belt, active lap belt and knee<br />

bolsters also is described in detail in attachment l.<br />

Mandatory Use Laws<br />

Unlike many other countries, the United States does not<br />

have a national law or regulation governing safety belt<br />

usage by the occupants of motor vehicles. It has been left to<br />

1 989 LINCOLN CONTINENTAL<br />

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR BAG RESTRAINT SYSTEM (SRS)<br />

Flgure 5. Supplemental alr bag $ystem.<br />

each of the fifty states to enact legislation on requiring<br />

safety belt u$age. Currently, thirty-three states plus the<br />

District of Columbia (see figure 6) have laws requiring<br />

safety belt usage at least for front seflt occupants. In<br />

addition, all fifty slates have enacted laws requiring the use<br />

ofchild restraints for infants and young children. Ford has<br />

been actively involved in supporting the passage of these<br />

laws and has encouraged safety belt usage through public<br />

support of safety belt education for our employees, our<br />

customers and the public at large.<br />

MANDATORY<br />

SEAT BELT USE LAWS<br />

Flgure 6. Mandatory use laws.<br />

Increased safety belt usage remains key to passive<br />

restraint system overall effectiveness. Prior to the<br />

enactment of the first state safety belt use laws in the mideighties,<br />

safety belt usage in the U.S. was only about 12<br />

percent. Today, it has reached 46 percent nationally and<br />

over 5l percent in $tates with mandatory use laws. Passive<br />

belts, either motorized or non-motorized, result in<br />

substantially higher usage rates than active belts, leading to<br />

greater net effectiveness in helping reduce fatalities and<br />

injuries on American highways. As active safety belt usage<br />

rates continue to increase, the combination of an active<br />

three point safety belt and supplemental air bags for the<br />

305


driver and right front passenger has the potential to provide<br />

eYen greater net effectiveness.<br />

Thus, it is very important that we in the safety community<br />

continue to strive for increased safety belt usage so the<br />

maximum benefit from the "passive" restraint systems now<br />

being installed in cars may be obtained. We have known for<br />

many years that getting vehicle occupants to buckle up is the<br />

single most important action for improving highway safety.<br />

It is clear that buckling up is still the most important action<br />

even in vehicles with supplemerrtal air bags or a 2-point<br />

motorized shoulder belt system.<br />

Air Bag and Passive Belt System Field<br />

Experience<br />

Ford vehicles with supplemental air bags have now<br />

experienced over three-quarters of a billion miles of travel.<br />

To date, I am pleased to report, the system has functioned as<br />

designed in every collision that has been reported to us. In<br />

addition, we are unaware of any air bag equipped car in<br />

service experiencing an inadvertent inflation of the air bag<br />

or bags. The vast majority of the mileage and reported<br />

collisions which caused the air bag to inflate have occurred<br />

in the Ford Tempo and Mercury Topaz vehicles, which have<br />

been in production since the 1985 Model Year.<br />

There are now also a small number of collisions which<br />

have resulted in the inflation of the driver and passenger<br />

supplemental air bag system in 1989 model year Lincoln<br />

Continentals. These data are summarized in figure 7. I<br />

would also like to emphasize two other points about the<br />

data. Active safety belt usage in the Ford Tempo and<br />

Mercury Topaz vehicles was reported as over 85 percent.<br />

This undoubtedly played a significant role in the<br />

effectiveness of the supplemental air bag. Many of the<br />

vehicles are owned by government and private fleets, which<br />

require or strongly encourage safety belt usage. Moreover,<br />

it is interesting to note that belted drivers have yet to suffer a<br />

non-fatal serious injury. All serious injuries reported were<br />

suffered by unbelted vehicle drivers.<br />

There have been two driver fatalities in these vehicles<br />

that resulted from head-on crashes with trucks (one belted).<br />

As can be seen from figures 8 and 9, neither vehicle had an<br />

intact passenger compartment following the crash and<br />

LINCOLN CONTINENTAL AIR BAG<br />

SALES (AS OF +20)<br />

DEPLOYMENTS (A$ OF 4.20)<br />

PASSENGERS<br />

INJURIES<br />

I'TODERATE<br />

SEHIOUS<br />

FATALITIES<br />

27,300<br />

37<br />

4<br />

DEPLOYMENT NONCE INFORMATION I9 SKETCTIY<br />

Flgure 7. Llncoln Contlnental alr bag supPlementsl restraint<br />

exp€rience,<br />

306<br />

neither incident was judged to be survivable by experts at<br />

the scene, regardless ofrestraint system design. In addition,<br />

our search of the FARS, orFatal Accident Repofiing Sy$tem<br />

data for the supplemental air bag- equipped vehicles has<br />

provided information on two additional fatalities in these<br />

vehicles. The other two fatal accidents were side impact<br />

collisions, for which air bags are not designed to activate.<br />

Figure E. Tsmpa air bag fatal accldent No. 1.<br />

One resulted in a driver fatality and one resulted in a<br />

passenger fatality. Although the numbers are quite small,<br />

we currently have equal numbers of fatalities from frontal<br />

accidents and from non-frontal accidents.<br />

Flgure 9. Tempo air bag latal accident No.2.<br />

The data available from our passive restraint-equipped<br />

vehicles is too limited to allow us to evaluate system<br />

effectiveness quantitatively. However, detailed studies of<br />

both supplemental air bag and passive belt vehicles are<br />

ongoing. One key area of research underway is to compare<br />

safety belt usage rates in 1988 and 1989 model year<br />

Continentals. We are concerned that safety belt usage rates<br />

be maintained at their current high levels, or increased. Our<br />

studies of front seat occupants of new Ford and LincoltV<br />

Mercury vehicles including non-air bag 1988 Lincoln<br />

Continentals show safety belts usage of approximately sixty<br />

percent. We will be measuring usage rates in the air bagequipped<br />

1989 Continentals later this year in the same


locations to evaluate if supplemental air bags affect safety<br />

belt use (see figure l0). We are continuing to study usage<br />

rates and will study crash statistics to develop objective<br />

measures of our passive restraint system field performance.<br />

We look forward to reporting the results of these studies at a<br />

future date.<br />

BELT USAGE SURVEY PLANS<br />

. CONTINENTAL - wlTH / WITHOUT AIR BAGS,<br />

MODEL YEAR 1988 veruur 19Bg<br />

r BELT USE lH CURRENT CARS AND LIGHT TRUCK$<br />

OUARTER<br />

I<br />

il<br />

ill<br />

IV<br />

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE<br />

vEHtcLE UI{ES<br />

TEMPO / TOPAZ, F-SERIES, BRONCO<br />

MUSTANG, PROBE, AEROSTAR<br />

CONTINEI{TAL, TAURUS / SABLE,<br />

ECONOLINE<br />

CROWN VIC / GRAND MARqU|s, TBIRD,<br />

RANGER / BROI{CO<br />

Flgure 10. Ford bslt uaage aurvey plana.<br />

Continental Passenger Side<br />

Supplemental Air Bag<br />

The 1989 Lincoln Continental has the first driver and<br />

right front passenger air bag supplemental restaint system<br />

introduced as standard equipment in the 1980's by a United<br />

States automaker. These vehicles have now been available<br />

to the public since last fall. Over 27,300 have been sold as of<br />

late April 1989. There have been 37 reported accidents of<br />

sufficient severity to have deployed the air bags. We are<br />

unaware ofany fatalities or serious injuries ofeither drivers<br />

or passengers in these vehicles.<br />

Summary<br />

We are clearly on the threshold of a new era in restraint<br />

systems. Ford will go from producing 70,000 driver or<br />

driver/right front passenger air bag-equipped vehicles in the<br />

I 989 model year to one million in the 1990 model year. The<br />

remainder of our passenger cars will have automatic<br />

shoulder belt restraint systems. The magnitude of these<br />

changes is likely to make the next few months a very<br />

challenging time for our assembly operations, and for the<br />

many involved supplier$. Our initial assessment of<br />

customer acceptance and observed usage rates in vehicles<br />

equipped with these systems are encouraging. Detailed<br />

studies are underway, and we look forward to seeing and<br />

reporting the results of passive restraint technology on the<br />

safety of automotive travel.<br />

Attachment L-Air Bag and Passive<br />

Belt System 0verview<br />

Sensors (Figure ll)<br />

The sensors are used to determine the onset of a crash<br />

severe enough to require the inflation of the air bag<br />

Flgure 1 1. Alr bag aensor.<br />

supplemental restraints and are of ball and tube design.<br />

They utilize a biasing magnet to hold the ball firmly at the<br />

aft end of the tube. The activation of the $ensor requires a<br />

deceleration of sufficient magnitude and duration to<br />

overcome the bias of the magnet and sustain the travel of the<br />

ball down the tube for several milliseconds, damped by the<br />

column of air in the tube. to close the contacts at the forward<br />

end ofthe tube. The ball and the contacts are gold plated for<br />

reliability. The sensor is designed to respond to impacts up<br />

to 30" left and right ofthe longitudinal axis ofthe vehicle. A<br />

typical system will have five sensors in the front of the<br />

vehicle. Three are "crash sensors" and two are "safing<br />

sensors". At least one crash $ensor and one safing sensor<br />

must close simultaneously to activate the air bag system and<br />

inflate the air bags.<br />

Diagnostic Module<br />

The air bag system diagnostic module continuously monitors<br />

the system readiness and verifies for the vehicle operator<br />

that it is ready to function whenever the vehicle is started.<br />

This is done through the readiness indicator lamp on the<br />

instrument panel, which illuminates for about six seconds<br />

each time the vehicle is started. Each inflator and sensor<br />

circuit is checked and, should a fault be found, the lamp will<br />

flash to alert the vehicle operator that service is required.<br />

The flashes are coded to indicate the location and nature of<br />

the service required, and the "fault codes" are provided in<br />

the service manual so the service technician knows which<br />

area of the system requires service.<br />

Electrical System (Figure 12)<br />

The electrical system con$i$t$ of a power circuit directly<br />

from the battery, and wiring to each crash sensor, to the<br />

diagnostic module, to the readiness indicator lamp, from the<br />

stan circuit, and to each air bag module. The driver side<br />

circuitry includes a "clock spring" mechanism to transmit<br />

the electrical signal to the $teering wheel-mounted driver<br />

module with a high degree of reliability. Current systems<br />

307


wtRtl{G<br />

HAEHESS<br />

BELT WAFI{ING LIGHT<br />

AHD CHII{E<br />

TEMPO/TOPAZ AIFBAG<br />

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM<br />

cFASH 8EI{$QXS<br />

"'lEBtil'"<br />

Flgure 12. Alr bag electrlcal system.<br />

also include wiring to a tone generator to provide indication<br />

of malfunction of the readiness indicator lamp circuit.<br />

Air Bag Modules (Figure 13)<br />

Flgure 13. Air bag moduleE.<br />

The air bag modules, either driver-side or passenger-side<br />

consist of the same basic components, although they are of<br />

different size and shape, and operate in slightly different<br />

manners. Each has a nylon "bag" although they are different<br />

in shape, size and venting. The driver-side is smaller,<br />

approximately two cubic feet. The nylon is neoprene coated<br />

and venting is by way of two or more vents on the steering<br />

wheel side of the bag. The bag also has internal $traps to<br />

help shape it into a flat cushion shape rather than a sphere.<br />

The passenger side "bag" is uncoated nylon, somewhat<br />

larger, without straps, and vented through the fabric porosity<br />

and through the aspiration ports between the inflator<br />

and the bag. Its shape is more spherical, but flattened somewhat<br />

against the windshield.<br />

Each module also has an inflator assembly, consisting of<br />

a steel canister containing the gas generant, a sodium azide<br />

compound which combusts and releases nitrogen ga$ to<br />

inflate the bag. The inflator is activated by an electrical<br />

signal which causes an igniter to initiate combustion of the<br />

gas generant. Filtering media is used to cool the gases and<br />

contain the combustion process within the inflator canister.<br />

308<br />

Finally, each module has a cover which protects the bag,<br />

but is designed to open when inflation is required. The<br />

driver modulelt use a molded design which tears at molded<br />

in seams as inflation commences. The passenger side may<br />

use a similar design, or a series of small interlocking plastic<br />

tabs to $ecure the two halves ofthe cover together, depending<br />

on the geometry of the cover.<br />

Other System Components (Figure 14)<br />

WAHNING<br />

This restraint module cannot be<br />

repalred. Use Ford publirhed diagnostic<br />

lnetructlons to determine if the unit is<br />

delective. lf defective, replace and dispoee<br />

of the entire unit ae directed in inetructionr.<br />

Und€r no circum$tancee Ehould diagnosis be \<br />

performed using electrically powered test equipment<br />

or problng devlces. Tamperlng or mlshandling<br />

can reeult in personal injury. For spsciel<br />

handllnE handllng lnetructlons, refer to the Ford AlrbaE Alrbag<br />

Shop Manual. eogB.o4ogoso-AA<br />

CONTAIN$ $ODIUM AZIDE<br />

AND POTASSIUM NITRATE CON.<br />

TENTS ARE POISONOUS AND EX.<br />

TFIEMELY FLAMMABLE CONTACT WITH<br />

ACID. WATEH, OB HEAVY METALS MAY PRQ.<br />

DUCE HAHMFUL AND IRRITATING GASES OR<br />

EXPLOSIVE COM.<br />

POUNDS DO NOT<br />

DAI{GEF<br />

DISMANTLE. IN.<br />

CINEHATE, OR<br />

BRING INTO<br />

CONTACT WITH<br />

ETECTFICITY OR<br />

STOFE AT ]EM.<br />

PERATUHES<br />

EXCEEOI{G 2co"F.<br />

FIRST AID: lF<br />

CONTFNTS AHE<br />

OF CHILDREH<br />

SWALLOWED, IN.<br />

OUCE VOMITING - FOR EYE CQNTACT, FLUSH<br />

EYES WITH WATER FOR 15 MINUTES - IF<br />

GASES FROM ACID OR WATER CONTACT<br />

ARE INHALED, SEEK FFIESH AIFI*IN<br />

EVERY CASE GET PROMPT<br />

MEOICAL ATTENTIOT.<br />

THIS VEHICLE IS EOUIPPED WITH A SUPPLE-<br />

MENTAL DRIVER AIRBAG SYSTEM. TAMPER.<br />

ING WITH OR DISCONNECTING THE AIRBAG<br />

SYSTEM WIRING COULD DEPLOY THE BAG<br />

OR RENDER THE SYSTEM INOPERATIVE.<br />

WHICH MAY RESULT IN HUMAN INJURY.<br />

Flgure 14. Air bag system labellng.<br />

The supplemental air bag restraint system is designed to<br />

supplement the conventional lap/shoulder safety belt by<br />

providing additional protection for the face, chest and head<br />

in a frontal crash that is equal to or more severe than an<br />

impact at ?8 mph into a parked car of similar size, or a fixed<br />

object at l4 mph. Thus, there are many types of collisions<br />

where it is not designed to activate, and probably will not.<br />

Examples are side, rear and rollover types of accidents. The


Flgure 15. Automatlc shoulder belt passlve restralnt system.<br />

safety belt must be wom to help protect in these other types<br />

of accidents. We also believe that the safety belt works with<br />

the air bag in frontal collisions to help position and restrain<br />

the occupant for maximum benefit from the combination of<br />

belt and bag. However, in the event someone does not buckle<br />

up, knee bolster surfaces are provided to help control<br />

submarining and provide maximum benefit from the supplemental<br />

air bag.<br />

An additional area that should be rnentioned is labeling.<br />

Each vehicle equipped with the air bag supplemenral restraint<br />

system is labeled, from the vin plate "air bag" nomenclature,<br />

to the individual warning labels on the modules<br />

themselves. These labels are designed to aid the people who<br />

will use, service and, eventually, recycle the vehicle in<br />

accomplishing their contact with the vehicle without unreasonable<br />

risk ofinjury or accident.<br />

Passive Belt System (Figure 15)<br />

The Ford motorized automatic belt system consists of a<br />

motorized automatic shoulder belt with an inboard mounted<br />

Crash Simulation Methods for Vehicle Development at Nissan<br />

Tatsuya Futamata, Hiroyuki Okuyama,<br />

Nobuhiko Takahashi,<br />

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.<br />

Abstract<br />

For vehicle frontal crash simulation, Nissan has been<br />

using a relatively simple lumped mass-spring simulation<br />

combined with an in-house frame crash program CRAFT.<br />

However, it has been recognized that this procedure does<br />

emergency locking retractor. The motors which position the<br />

belt are activated by the position of the door switch and the<br />

ignition switch. The belt will move forward to allow ingress<br />

and egress whenever the adjacent door is opened. The belt<br />

will move back to the rear, or restrained, position whenever<br />

the adjacent door is closed and the ignition is on. However,<br />

in the event of a moderate to severe accident, the inertia<br />

safety shutoff switch which disables the electric fuel injection<br />

system pump also shuts off the power to the safety belt<br />

system motors. The shoulder belts are designed to work<br />

with the active lap belt to provide maximum protection. In<br />

the event the lap belt is not fa$tened, a knee bolster surface is<br />

provided to help control submarining. Two approaches have<br />

been used to provide for emergency release of the automatic<br />

shoulder belt. Some vehicles have an emergency release<br />

lever mounted on the console adjacent to the retractor. This<br />

lever allows the belt to spool out eyen if the retractor remains<br />

locked after an accident. Other vehicles have a buckle<br />

for emergency release located at the outboard end on the<br />

moving carriage.<br />

not always have capability to simulate frontal crash responses<br />

for vehicle structural design changes directly. Thus,<br />

as an alternative to this conventional method, a commercial<br />

nonlinear dynamic finite element program PAM-CRASH<br />

have introduced and researched to simulate vehicle crash<br />

characteristics using that program run on a super computer.<br />

A step-by-step approach was taken to simulate a test<br />

vehicle crash response staning with its front side rail crash<br />

simulation, and finally, the simulated deceleration of the<br />

309


test vehicle was successfully conelated with its actual crash<br />

test result.<br />

The major issues to be solved in our further study will be<br />

model simplification and application of this simulation<br />

method to various types of test vehicles.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The techniques used in carrying out large deformation<br />

vehicle crash analysis have recently been improved by the<br />

use of super*computers and commercial nonlinear finite<br />

element analysis programs which have been suitably<br />

developed specifically for these computers.<br />

In parallel with these improvements, a number of papers<br />

have appeared mainly conceming the modeling methods<br />

and the crash characteristics obtained in vehicle high-speed<br />

frontal crash simulations.<br />

There has been no report of good vehicle deceleration<br />

correlation between crash tests and finite element<br />

simulations by which the dummy injury criteria can be<br />

accurately determined. The principal reasons for this seem<br />

to be (l) computational cost (10 hours'to 20 hours'CPU<br />

time even with a super-computer), (2) software problems,<br />

and (3) the lack of a reasonable modeling technique.<br />

Computational cost may be significantly reduced in the<br />

near future by improving hardware capabilities in<br />

conjunction with optimizing software algorithms. Software<br />

problems include the lack of appropriate finite element<br />

types for modeling some vehicle components, as some<br />

papers mentioned.<br />

Modeling techniques become an issue when viewed from<br />

the fact that some paPers show that the simulated vehicle<br />

deceleration curves do not simulate the tendencies seen in<br />

test results especially with regard to the latter part of the<br />

deceleration's time history.<br />

To overcome these deficiencies, we have introduced a<br />

commercial nonlinear dynamic finite element analysis<br />

program called PAM-CRASH. The program simulates<br />

vehicle crash analysis and has been successful in<br />

reproducing the results of the test vehicles' deceleration<br />

characteristics.<br />

This paper, accordingly, discusses the modeling<br />

techniques acquired in our research which is necessary for<br />

simulating vehicle frontal crash characteristics.<br />

Conventional Method<br />

Nissan has thus far been usiltg "spring-mass simulation"<br />

combined with an in-house program we call CRAFT as the<br />

method for simulating vehicle component crash<br />

characteristics. Figure I shows its simulation concept.<br />

In CRAFT, a frame like a front side rail is modeled as a<br />

structure consisting of rigid beams and plastic hinges for<br />

connecting those beams. The program simulates its<br />

deformation pattern and force-deformation characteristics.<br />

The force deceleration characteristic$ are used for the<br />

corresponding spring element in the spring-mass model and<br />

the vehicle characteristics are determined by spring-mass<br />

310<br />

*<br />

tln<br />

,H<br />

Y\<br />

HSa. I<br />

_ff<br />

Flgure 1. Sprlng-mass mBthod in conlunctlon wlth craft.<br />

simulation. This method has been recognized as being very<br />

useful because it requires a very little time to prepare the<br />

models and run the simulation calculations.<br />

Several issues have remained unresolved, however. One<br />

of them is that CRAFT does not have the capability to<br />

simulate the crash characteristics of frames having<br />

longitudinal shapes which are too straight, that is, no plastic<br />

hinges can be predetermined. This is especially true for<br />

those frames which tend to fold like an accordion. Another<br />

problem is that spring-mass simulation cannot deal directly<br />

with the structural design changes intended.<br />

Against this background, we introduced the commercial<br />

nonlinear dynamic finite element program PAM-CRASH<br />

for three purposes: to simulate every type of frame crash<br />

deformation pattem, to deal with partial or slight structural<br />

design changes, and to simulate vehicle deceleration<br />

characteristics with sufficient accuracy.<br />

Simulation of Vehicle Frontal Crash<br />

Deceleration Characteristics<br />

As noted above, PAM-CRASH is being employed to<br />

simulate the deceleration characteristics of vehicle<br />

passenger car components during crash tests. We take a<br />

step-by-step approach using partial models to finally<br />

correlate all vehicle model characteristics with the test<br />

results. Each step or phase is outlined below.<br />

Phase l. Frame model<br />

Figure 2 shows a typical vehicle deceleration curve at a<br />

crash speed of around 50 km/h (Prototype A). Figure 3<br />

presents typical characteristics during the first half of the<br />

crash. The dotted curve indicates the result of the simulation<br />

with a spring-mass model consisting of a lumped mass and<br />

nonlinear springs, as shown in figure l. This simulated<br />

result correlates fairly well with the crash test data result<br />

which, in turn, implies that the spring-mass model can effectively<br />

reproduce the crash phenomena as far as the first<br />

half of the crash is concemed.<br />

Figure 4 shows a time history of the energy absorbed by<br />

each spring element in this model. From figures 3 and 4, it<br />

can be recognized that the first peak in figure I is derived


g<br />

z<br />

v ECE<br />

5<br />

U<br />

t<br />

Flgure 2. Tlplcal dec€taraflon curve.<br />

0 z<br />

q<br />

E(E<br />

H<br />

LIJ<br />

O<br />

uJ<br />

o<br />

TIME (ms)<br />

_<br />

.--..TEST<br />

MASS SPRING<br />

SIMUI.ATION<br />

Flgure 3. Comparlson of deceleratlon curv€ between mass<br />

Epr|ng slmulatlon<br />

snd crash test.<br />

mostly from the deformation force of the front portion of the<br />

front side rails. This means that the first step in simulating<br />

vehicle deceleration is to obtain correlation for the front<br />

side rail characteristics.<br />

The front portion of the front side rail was then modeled<br />

by thin plate (shell) finite elements, and a dynamic crash<br />

simulation was carried out using PAM-CRASH. In this<br />

case, modeling of the panel assembly was abbreviated as a<br />

thickness increase although the test piece was spotwelded.<br />

This modeling concept is based on the fact that our fundamental<br />

study indicated that the simulation results were not<br />

appreciably affected by different approaches to modeling<br />

panel assemblies (figure 5),<br />

Figures 6, 7, and 8 compare the results of the simulation<br />

L€g€nd<br />

E oTHEFS<br />

N RAD|AToR<br />

m HoooLEoGE<br />

E<br />

CTR MBH<br />

W re stDE RA|L<br />

Flgure 4. Engrgy absorbed by vehlcle components (springmaas<br />

slmulatlon).<br />

o<br />

I<br />

nME (MSECI<br />

Flgure 5. Effect of spot wsld modo|tng.<br />

rEST .f r-|l<br />

tL<br />

EMut.^Ttor [)<br />

C0iarr|ol{ ISO€ fr.<br />

srMutlTKil{ filt<br />

M.€tE Dfi|fiEss<br />

lfll<br />

M<br />

and the crash test ofthe front side rail. These figures clearly<br />

indicate that both the deformed shape and the force-defor,<br />

mation characteristics derived during finite element simulation<br />

correlate well with the test results.<br />

Phase 2. Engine compartment panel model<br />

The result of the spring-mass simulation (figure 4r time<br />

history of energy absorbed by each spring element) also<br />

indicates that the passenger compartment absorbs only<br />

small amounts of energy during phases I and II of the whole<br />

collision process. This implies that the passenger compartment<br />

moves almost as a rigid body with only a very small<br />

plastic deformation. Accordingly, we attempted to reproduce<br />

the results ofportions I and II ofthe deceleration curve<br />

3ll


Flgure 6. Sllnulatlon deformed shape of front slde rEll.<br />

Flgure 7. Teet deformed shape ol llont slde rall'<br />

UJ<br />

o cc<br />

o<br />

L<br />

Flgure 8. Force-tlms characterl8tlcs of lront alde rail.<br />

of the test results using finite element modeling of the engine<br />

compartment (the front portion of the body) and the<br />

simulation.<br />

As a preparatory stage, only the body panels ofthe engine<br />

compartment were modeled. The simulation result was<br />

312<br />

t<br />

tl<br />

ll<br />

tl<br />

1l<br />

li<br />

-T--<br />

,'r\<br />

'w^. F- \<br />

*,._t't-.-.<br />

I l l l<br />

10<br />

- stMutr\TtoN<br />

.---TEST<br />

2b so 40 50<br />

TIME (msec)<br />

compared with the test result obtained under the same condition<br />

to confirm the appropriateness of the body panel<br />

modeling.<br />

The engine compaftment body panels of the te$t vehicle<br />

were assembled for use as the test piece. All panels of the<br />

test structure were spot-welded to each other. On the other<br />

hand, the panel connections made by panel flanges in the<br />

finite element analysis model were modeled as a thickness<br />

increase as in the case of the frame model (figure 9)'<br />

Flgure 9. Engine comPailment panel model'<br />

Figure 10. Slmulation delormed shape of €nglne compartment<br />

pa-nel etructure at 30 ms.<br />

Flgure 11. Delormedshape<br />

of engine comPailment Pan€l<br />

$tructure at 30 m3,


Figures 10, ll and 12 compare the simulation and test<br />

results in this case. These figures indicate that the finite<br />

element analysis model conelate$ well with the panel crash<br />

characteristics, and confirms the appropriateness of the<br />

body panel modeling. The calculation took I.5 hours of<br />

CPU time when PAM-CRASH Ver. 10.0 was run on the<br />

CRAY-XMP/I2.<br />

0<br />

z<br />

I {CE<br />

5IIJ<br />

o<br />

UJ<br />

o<br />

I<br />

I<br />

20<br />

TIME (ms)<br />

SIMUI-ATION<br />

.--.-* TEST<br />

i..i<br />

i i:.i<br />

Flgurc 12. _Dsceleratlon-tlme chsrscterlstlc of englne compart.<br />

m6nt panel.<br />

Phase 3. Addition of power train components<br />

For the final $tep, the large components inside the engine<br />

compafiment, such as the engine and the transmission, were<br />

modeled by shell elements to simulate the first half of the<br />

test vehicle crash deceleration characteristics. Those component<br />

models were connected with the engine compartment<br />

model as mentioned above.<br />

Lumped masses were attached to some of the component<br />

model nodes so that the total mass, the center of gravity, and<br />

the inertia moment of each component could be adjusted to<br />

the same values as those of the test vehicle. The engine<br />

mounting brackets were also modeled by thin shell elements<br />

and the rubber bushes were neglected. The suspension components<br />

were represented as lumped masses and added to<br />

the corresponding nodal points which support them.<br />

The crash characteristics of all components except for the<br />

body panels between the barrier and the front wall of the<br />

engine were represented by shell modeling of some of the<br />

major components and by the stiffness of the front portion of<br />

the engine model (figure l3).<br />

Although the body panel structure model was reformed to<br />

extend backward slightly, the floor panels of the passenger<br />

compartment were modeled only at the front portion for the<br />

following reason. On test vehicle A during the frontal crash,<br />

L'<br />

30<br />

Flgure 13. Englne compartmant slmulation model.<br />

the force from the power train components to the body<br />

panels is transmitted mainly through the closed sectional<br />

beams around the lower area of the dash panel. Therefore,<br />

it<br />

Flgure 1tl. Slmulatlon deformed shape.<br />

g<br />

z<br />

at-<br />

{<br />

E<br />

IJJ<br />

tu<br />

(J<br />

uJ<br />

o<br />

Flgure 15, Comparlson of slmulailon and crash te$t dec€leratlon<br />

curves.<br />

3r3


can be assumed that the dependence of force transmission<br />

on the shear stress field of the floor panel is small enough to<br />

neglect the effect of modeling the rear portion of the floor<br />

panel.<br />

The rear half of the vehicle body was represented as a<br />

moving barrier attached to the front body, with the motion<br />

ofthe rear end nodes on the front body all being constrained<br />

except for the vehicle longitudinal direction.<br />

Figures l4 and l5 show the result of the simulation using<br />

this model in comparison with the vehicle test results. The<br />

figures clearly indicate that the simulation correlates closely<br />

with the first half of the test deceleration time history<br />

except for the shape of the second peak curve as shown in<br />

figure 15. This calculation took 5 hours of CPU time using<br />

PAM-CRASH Ver. 10.0 run on a CRAY-XMP/I2.<br />

Full Vehicle Simulation<br />

As outlined previously, considerable testing was<br />

involved to confirm the applicability of the finite element<br />

modeling method for simulating the crash characteristics of<br />

a vehicle front end.<br />

Here, the entire vehicle was modeled mainly by shell<br />

elements to simulate the vehicle frontal crash<br />

characteristics until crash deformation process was<br />

complete. The reason for this is that the pitching of the<br />

vehicle at the last half of the deceleration time history<br />

cannot be simulated by a model which has the rear half of<br />

the body acting as a rigid moving barrier to which a lumped<br />

mass is attached. On the other hand, some studies have been<br />

employed to determine the reason the Phase 3 model cannot<br />

simulate the second peak of the deceleration curve.<br />

Actual vehicle tests were carried out to analyze the<br />

phenomenon responsible for making this peak' It was found<br />

that the time of contact between the power train and body<br />

panels was distributed around the peak of the deceleration<br />

curve as shown in figure 16.<br />

Thus, the meshing and the material characteristics of the<br />

model around these contact area$ were reviewed, and the<br />

Figure 16. Test vshlcl€ dccelsration.<br />

314<br />

z<br />

Fd<br />

TE<br />

u<br />

t!<br />

r<br />

TIME (ms)<br />

shell modeling procedure was partially modified and<br />

lumped masses were added.<br />

The actual vehicle crash test around on initial velocity of<br />

50 km/h also demonstrated that the tires did not affect the<br />

deceleration characteristics significantly as far as this test<br />

vehicle and conditions were concemed. The doors were<br />

modeled by beam elements which have the correlated<br />

Y-direction crash characteristics of the door panels. The<br />

hood and the fender panels were excluded in both the<br />

simulation and test. Figure l7 shows the whole vehicle<br />

model that was finally devised.<br />

FIGUHE 17. FUII VEHICI"E $IMULATION MQDEL<br />

Figures l8 and l9 indicate the simulated results obtained<br />

using this whole vehicle model. These figures clearly show<br />

that both the deformed shape and the deceleration<br />

'-r- .-- - r- I<br />

*_.:1 ,,'-<br />

--..-..'.,'..1<br />

Figure 18. Compsrlson of simulation and crash test<br />

d€lormatlons.


g<br />

z<br />

I {<br />

EE<br />

3<br />

u,<br />

(J<br />

u<br />

o<br />

TIME (m$l<br />

Flgure 19. Comparlson of slmulstlon and crash test<br />

decelerstlon curves.<br />

characteristics of the passenger compartment from the<br />

simulation result correlate well with the test result.<br />

This calculation took 20 hours of CPU time using PAM-<br />

CRASH Ver. 10.2 run on a CRAY-XMP/I2.<br />

Conclusion<br />

This paper has presented a study in which frontal crash<br />

characteristics, especially the deceleration of the passenger<br />

compartment, were simulated using an explicit dynamic<br />

finite element code. Furthermore, the vehicle<br />

characteristics obtained with the finite element model were<br />

successfully correlated with actual test results using a stepby*step<br />

procedure, beginning with only a small portion of<br />

the whole vehicle body.<br />

Our future studies will focus on four principal objectives.<br />

One will be to reduce the 20 hours of CPU time needed for<br />

whole vehicle simulation. Simplification of the modeling<br />

involved will be a factor in this improvement.<br />

A second objective will be to find a way to make use of<br />

paftial vehicle models introduced as a means of developing<br />

the final whole vehicle mode. It will be possible in this sense<br />

to use the engine compartment model to simulate and<br />

reform the early portion of the deceleration curve. This will<br />

thus be a very useful first step in studying ways to improve<br />

Simulation of Vehicle Crashworthiness and lts Application<br />

Koji Kurimoto, Koji Taga,<br />

Hiroyuki Matsumoto, Yutaka Tsukiji,<br />

Mazda Motor Corporation<br />

Abstract<br />

Vehicle crashworthiness simulation has become increasingly<br />

important in recent years from the standpoint of determining<br />

feasible $tructure within a limited period. This paper<br />

describes simulation of a full scale passenger car with an<br />

ride-down efficiency by reforming the deceleration<br />

characteristics of passenger compartments.<br />

Another aim will be to use component models to ascertain<br />

force-deformation characteristics. Spring-mass simulation<br />

can be carried out using these force-deformation curyes as<br />

input data. This hybrid method will be most effective when<br />

used at the early conceptual design stage.<br />

Finally, the development of an efficient modeling<br />

methodology for vehicles having various types of power<br />

train layouts and body structure$ will be a key objective.<br />

References<br />

( I ) H.G. Hock, A. Poth and W Schrespfer,<br />

"lnfluence of<br />

Modeling Undercarriage and Power Train Componentrr on<br />

the Quality of Numerical Crash Simulation", The Second<br />

<strong>Int</strong>ernational <strong>Conf</strong>erence on Supercomputing Applications<br />

in the Automotive Industry, October 1988.<br />

(2) B. Hazet and M. Guiraud, "Some Applications of<br />

Crash Simulation in Car Manufacturing Industry", The<br />

Second <strong>Int</strong>ernational <strong>Conf</strong>erence on Supercomputing<br />

Applications in the Automotive Industry, October 1988.<br />

(3) J. Hillmann and W. Rabethge, "Computer Aided<br />

Development of a Vehicle Front-end Structure to Improve<br />

Safety for Car Occupants in Frontal Collision", ATZ,<br />

November 1988.<br />

(4) D.A. Vanderlugt, R.J. Chen, and A.S. Deshpande,<br />

"Passenger<br />

Car Frontal Barrier Simulation Using<br />

Nonlinear Finite Element Methode", SAE paper No.<br />

87 I 958.<br />

(5) P.D. Bis and J.F. Chedmail, "Automotive<br />

Crashworthiness Performance on a Supercomputer", SAE<br />

paper No. 870565.<br />

(6) T. Sakurai et al., "Crash Analyses on Passenger<br />

Cars", Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers of<br />

Japan, Vol.42, No. 10, October 1988.<br />

(7) K. Ishii and I. Yamanaka, "Influence of Vehicle<br />

Deceleration Curve on Dummy Injury Criteria", SAE paper<br />

No. 880612.<br />

(8) K. Matsushita and S. Morita, "Relationship Between<br />

Vehicle Front-end Stiffness and Dummy lnjury During<br />

Collisions", The Eleventh <strong>Int</strong>ernational <strong>ESV</strong> <strong>Conf</strong>erence.<br />

May 1987.<br />

explicit finite element method in case of a frontal crash.<br />

Discussions on how to validate a full vehicle simulation<br />

model with respect to vehicle deformation and rotation of<br />

passenger compartment in a vertical plane are presented.<br />

For the former, it is shown that deliberated component models<br />

such as crossmember, engine supports, and sliding interfaces<br />

between suspension towers and dash upper, etc., result<br />

in a good correlation between experiment and simulation.<br />

For the latter, main components such as hinge pillars, doors,<br />

3t5


tires are characterized in such a way that good correlations<br />

between dynamic component tests and simulation are<br />

achieved. As a result, it is found that a simulation by a full<br />

vehicle model agrees quite well with the experimental results<br />

in relation to the rotational behavior of vehicle.<br />

Analytical results to represent the crash characteristics by<br />

rneans of intemal energies and transmitted forces among<br />

various components are also presented. This approach will<br />

be useful to examine and to improve the crashworthiness.<br />

Preface<br />

At high speed frontal collisions, a rotation of passenger<br />

compartment in a vertical plane, commonly referred to as<br />

"nose<br />

dive", as well as the longitudinal vehicle<br />

deformation often play important roles.(l) This rotation<br />

may give rise to substantial increase of crash space, or it<br />

may degrade restraint capability of a seatbelt system, due to<br />

an additional forward movement of the seatbelt anchorage<br />

points. This paper describes the application of a large scale<br />

computer model to simulate the vehicle dynamics in the<br />

frontal barrier crash. The vehicle is assumed to be a typical<br />

passenger car repre$ented by about 18,000 thin rthell<br />

elements governed by a three dimensional Lagrangian<br />

explicit finite element code, called PAM-CRASH.(2X3)<br />

The object of this study is to validate a full vehicle<br />

simulation model with respect to vehicle deformation and<br />

rotation. In addition, some discussions on the feasibility of<br />

treating crash process in relation to intemal energies and<br />

transmitted forces are presented.<br />

Mathematical Modeling<br />

Mathematical representation of an ordinary passengercar<br />

of front engine and front wheel drive is formed on a threedimensional<br />

space, assuming it crashes into rigid banier'<br />

A total of 18,000 thin shell elements are used for the<br />

bodywork and engine, to allow an accurate representation<br />

of their external geometries and of the internal impacts that<br />

occur during a crash. In addition, bar elements are used to<br />

approximate the suspension unit by providing equivalent<br />

horizontal and vertical stiffnesses to these components. Bar<br />

elements are also used to represent longitudinal door<br />

stiffness. Nodal constraint is used to approximate the engine<br />

supports. Bumper is excluded to reduce cpu-time. Instead,<br />

equivalent dimension of rigid body to residual of deformation<br />

of bumper is added as a substitute of the residual and<br />

longitudinal deformation of vehicle is expressed in such a<br />

way that difference of length between the bumper and its<br />

residual is added to calculated deformation of the<br />

bodywork.<br />

A mesh of approximately l0 X l5 mm elements are used<br />

at the front half of the engine compartment to capture the<br />

impact buckling modes. This then is made progressively<br />

coarse toward the rear ofthe car. Static strain-stress curves<br />

of steel, linearly interpolated by 8 points, are used to<br />

characterize the steel. The windshield is included in the<br />

model because of its structural impoftance, and represented<br />

316<br />

by a mesh of 100 X 100 mm elements with the material<br />

characteristics which is assumed to be equivalent to thin<br />

steel plate of I mm thickness.<br />

Time integration by finite differences yields the solution<br />

of the problem consisting out of acceleration, velocity and<br />

displacement time histories at each material particle or node<br />

of the struature. This time integration is performed using<br />

explicit method.<br />

Simulation Fidelities<br />

A full scale frontal barrier crash test at 35 mph was<br />

performed, obtaining both barrier force, which is defined as<br />

force measured from load cells set on the banier, versus<br />

vehicle deformation, and rotation and vertical movement of<br />

passenger companment versus time.<br />

Taking the observation from test results and the outcome<br />

of several componentwise simulation into account, a<br />

computer simulation is executed on the full scale vehicle<br />

simulation model, shown in figure l.<br />

Figure 1. Full scale model.<br />

The comparison of tested and calculated results with<br />

respect to the barrier force and the rotation and vertical<br />

movement of passenger compartment is shown in figures 2,<br />

3. and 4. At this moment, the results of simulation do not<br />

compare to the test results.<br />

li fr[1a1, orr<br />

lrsl,<br />

Flgure 2. Comparlson ol deformatlon charscterlstlce (orlglnal<br />

condition).<br />

Vehicle deformation<br />

Firstly, it is observed,<br />

in figure 2, a shift of 120 mm from<br />

the origin on the lateral axes is made for the calculation,<br />

because of the reason stated before. Secondly, three phe-


(ilsrrLr)<br />

ilend<br />

Flgure 3. Comparison of passenger compartment rotatlon<br />

(original condltlon).<br />

__11:l__!J:ht rr"ltl-l_lj. j<br />

Flgure 4, Compariron of pa88enger compartment yertical<br />

movement (at slde rail lront, orlglnsl condltlon).<br />

Large neeh SD4l I ncEh<br />

Flgure 5. Eft6cr by modlflcetlon ol crossmember.<br />

nomena which differ between test and simulation are observed<br />

as follows.<br />

(i) For phenomenon l, firsr peak force by simulation is<br />

recognized a$ a consequence ofan impact of the equivalent<br />

dimension of rigid body to residual of bumper deformation,<br />

to the rigid banier, which is neglected. Next, the value of the<br />

second peak force by simulation is higher than that by test.<br />

Judging from the difference of the deformation of crossmember<br />

between test and simulation as shown in figure 5,<br />

the cause is considered that mesh used to represent crossmember<br />

is too coarse for that to buckle at the point between<br />

its front-end and the engine support. Consequently, changing<br />

the mesh size for crossmember from 100 X l0O mm to<br />

30 X 30 mm, difference between test and simulation with<br />

respect to the deformation of the crossmember and barrier<br />

force are improved.<br />

(ii) For phenomenon 2, the deformation of the vehicle by<br />

simulation is smaller than that by test in figure 2, when the<br />

peak force is produced at the time when the engine contacts<br />

to the rigid barrier. Judging from the difference of the behavior<br />

of the engine between test and simulation as shown in<br />

Sol id nount Sol t nount<br />

Flgure 6. Effect by modificatlon of englne mounl.<br />

figure 6, the cause is considered that the engine supports<br />

modeled by using nodal constraint are too $tiff for the engine<br />

to move parallel to the ground a$ test. Consequently,<br />

changing the model for the engine supports to bar elements,<br />

which are characterized by using static stress-strain curves<br />

of the engine supports by test, good agreementri between test<br />

and simulation with re$pect to the behavior of the engine<br />

and the barrier force are achieved.<br />

; t , ; l<br />

- - i<br />

- l<br />

; i<br />

t' ,|'.1<br />

' f i<br />

!. L\'<br />

1 !<br />

i ,., 1<br />

l<br />

I<br />

I '\\ ii<br />

Flgure 7. Comparlson ol deformed characterlstlc (modlfled<br />

condltion).<br />

(iii) For phenomenon 3, at this region, the barrier force by<br />

simulation, which is attained after the engine impacts barrier,<br />

is lower than that by test. Deliberately adding sliding<br />

interfaces behind the engine between suspension tower and<br />

dash upper, etc., good agreements between test and simulation<br />

with respect to the barrier force are achieved.<br />

Figure 7 shows the result of comparison of test with<br />

simulation with all of the above-mentioned measures at a<br />

crossmember, engine supports, and sliding interfaces. It is<br />

shown on this figure that these considerations result in good<br />

correlation between test and simulation with respect to barrier<br />

force.<br />

Vehicle rotation<br />

llnflj<br />

inr<br />

\<br />

In figure 3 and 4, it is observed that the rotation and<br />

venical movement of passenger compartment differ between<br />

test and simulation. Comparing deformation process<br />

of each component during the crash between test and simulation,<br />

observing high speed movie films of the test and<br />

animated pictures of the simulation, it is recognized that<br />

deformation of the tires, of the doors and of the hinge pillar<br />

of passenger compartment are much different between test<br />

and simulation. Accordingly, validity of material characteristics<br />

or method of modeling for each of those components<br />

are examined further as follows.<br />

(i) The tire, so far, has been represented by thin steel<br />

317


I<br />

I i<br />

l^l-<br />

l;f<br />

1,,)f,<br />

I<br />

itrl<br />

lct<br />

lc)<br />

lIa-<br />

f,...<br />

q)<br />

L.<br />

(s<br />

dla<br />

00<br />

80<br />

[]i 0<br />

40<br />

40 B0 120 l[i0 200<br />

Dr:1'orrrra,Iion(mm) i<br />

Flgure 8. Deformatlon charsctsristic ol tlre<br />

plates of 2 mm thickness. A crash test of the tire into the<br />

rigid barrier is performed at 4.7 mph, which is selected as<br />

the speed for the tire to deform on the full scale vehicle crash<br />

test, obtaining barrier force versus tire deformation. By<br />

executing the simulation of the tire about deformation characteristics<br />

with various thickness of thin steel plates, it is<br />

found that using thin steel plates of 0.1 mm thickness results<br />

in good agreement between test and simulation with respect<br />

to barrier force as shown in figure 8.<br />

t--<br />

I<br />

II<br />

I<br />

l^<br />

lEa<br />

i-x<br />

lv<br />

I<br />

ior<br />

l(J<br />

i L<br />

l o<br />

it*<br />

| ,"<br />

l*,<br />

t -<br />

I t"..,<br />

I r..,<br />

I rtt<br />

lca<br />

I I<br />

II<br />

I<br />

40<br />

2,0<br />

ltl<br />

I<br />

?0 40<br />

Dr:lora,1,ion(mn)<br />

Figure 9. Deformatlon characterlstlcs of dool<br />

!i imrrla,Li<br />

'l'Er<br />

s 1,<br />

(ii) The door, hitherto, has been represented by three bar<br />

elements. Here again a crash test of the door into the rigid<br />

barrier is performed at 8.9 mph which is selected to obtain<br />

comparable deformation to compare the results with those<br />

by the full scale crash test. It is found that deliberated model<br />

of the door using shell elements results in good agreement<br />

between test and simulation with respect to barrier force as<br />

shown in figure 9.<br />

(iii) The hinge pillar, so far, has been represented by a<br />

mesh of 100 X 100 mm. A crash test of the hinge pillar into<br />

the rigid barrier is performed at 13.8 mph, which is selected<br />

by the same reaEon stated just above. It is found that using a<br />

mesh size of 30 X 30 mm results in good agreement between<br />

test and simulation with respect to barrier force as shown in<br />

figure 10.<br />

;{t<br />

*}(<br />

"tJ<br />

(t{<br />

Ct<br />

J<br />

t-<br />

.9<br />

Btj<br />

[:i 0<br />

/t n<br />

'l<br />

\/<br />

r-. ') fl<br />

at{<br />

4t5<br />

Sirirrla,l;ion<br />

'l'c:<br />

sl t<br />

l) cr l' o r rna, L i o n ( rnni)<br />

Figure 10. Deformstlon characterlstlce of hlnge pillar'<br />

l0<br />

2<br />

0 50 100<br />

T iilc( ilsec)<br />

(4) l,cft llund slde<br />

T i ile( ilsec)<br />

(b) Rirht Haild Side<br />

Flgure 11. Comparlaon of passenger compartm€nt lotation<br />

(modified condltlon).<br />

Tine (rscc)<br />

0 E0 100 0<br />

(a) Left llrhd Sidtt<br />

g<br />

+ t00<br />

f, 200<br />

Tile (rsec)<br />

(b) Risht Hand Side<br />

Fioure 12. Compsrison of pas3enggr compartment vertlcsl<br />

mdvement (at slile rail front,'modlflet condiiion)'


Figure I I and 12 show the results of comparison of test<br />

with simulation with all the above-mentioned measures at<br />

tires, doors and hinge pillars. It is shown on these figures<br />

that these considerations results in good agreement between<br />

test and simulation with respect to the rotation and the<br />

vertical movement of passenger compartment.<br />

Decomposition of Transmitted Force<br />

and <strong>Int</strong>ernal Energy<br />

In order to understand well of crash phenomena in the<br />

process ofvehicle crash, it is necessary to obtain data such<br />

as force, deformation, etc., at various components of<br />

vehicle, as well as at vehicle as a whole. However, generally<br />

these data obtained from the direct measurement are limited<br />

because of large deformation, interference between each<br />

component, high deceleration during the impact, etc.<br />

Therefore, it is thought quite useful and also necessary to<br />

obtain the supplemental information by taking advantage of<br />

the simulation of mathematical model as described in this<br />

pflper.<br />

As typical examples, figure 14 and figure 15 show the<br />

transmitted force and internal energy among various<br />

components obtained from the simulation described above.<br />

These figures show thflt the force inflicted on the front end<br />

of the front rail is conveyed to respective components<br />

toward the passenger compaftment and that the energy is<br />

absorbed at these points. The location of these points are<br />

shown in figure 13.<br />

Flgure 13. Sch€matlcs of anglne cornpartment.<br />

Figure 14 indicates that, in this case, the engine seems to<br />

have a small effect on the transmitted force on the front rail<br />

at the rear part of engine support, because the value of<br />

transmitted force at front end of front rail nearly correspond<br />

to that at rear part of engine support. In addition, transmitted<br />

force of front rail seems to be divided equally at rear part of<br />

suspension tower into the rear end offront rail and the upper<br />

part of the engine compartment, namely, wheel apron.<br />

Figure 15 indicates that the percentage ofthe absorption<br />

of the initial kinematic energy possessed by the vehicle is<br />

about 307o for the front rails and about 25Vo for the<br />

cro$smember. Thus, the paths or amount of, transmitted<br />

-<br />

(u<br />

L<br />

o<br />

t!<br />

800<br />

600<br />

400<br />

200<br />

-f1snl end of f ront rail<br />

"-" Rear side of<br />

eng i ne support<br />

---.- Rear end of f ront rail<br />

..*.--Rear end of uheel apron<br />

0l<br />

0 l0 20 30 40 50 60<br />

T i me( msec )<br />

Flgure 14. Decomporltlon of tren$mltted force.<br />

l5<br />

Eto<br />

>r<br />

bo<br />

L<br />

o)<br />

u D<br />

Flgurc 15. tl,ecomposlllon ol <strong>Int</strong>ernal energy.<br />

force and internal energy are easily obtained, which<br />

generally difficult to measure.<br />

Summary and Discussions<br />

ln it ia I K inemat ic<br />

Energy<br />

0 20 40 60 B0 100<br />

Time(ers)<br />

Front rail<br />

Crossnenbe<br />

Eng i ne<br />

t/hee I apro<br />

It is demonstrated that the vehicle model by finite<br />

element method is effectively and conveniently used.<br />

In order to achieve good correlation between the mathematical<br />

model and actual full scale frontal barrier crash test.<br />

it is found necessary to deliberately make model of<br />

components such as a crossmember, engine supports, etc.,<br />

and to carefully characterize main components in such a<br />

way that good correlation between dynamic component test<br />

and simulation are achieved.<br />

Among this area to be examined further is a curtailment<br />

of the number of shell elements for reducing cpu-time. An<br />

approach to this area may lie in a simplification of the model<br />

based on closer examination of actual phenomena, by<br />

eliminating ineffective components.<br />

Although there is room for improvement, the computer<br />

simulation method presented here is considered acceptable<br />

for practical applications, for example, to various parameter<br />

studies.<br />

319


Acknowledgment<br />

The authors would like to thank the related people of<br />

Mazda Motor Corporation, who gave kind suggestion in<br />

preparing this paper.<br />

References<br />

(l) K. Kurimoto, et al., "An Analytical Management of<br />

Frontal Crash Impact Response", Proc. of lOth <strong>ESV</strong> conf.,<br />

pp.452{459, 1985.<br />

(2) Paul Du Bois, et al., "Automotive Crashworthiness<br />

Performance on a Supercomputer", SAE paper 870565,<br />

1987.<br />

(3) Donald A. Valder Lugt, et al., "Passenger<br />

Car Frontal<br />

Barrier Simulation Using Nonlinear Finite Element<br />

Methods", SAE paper 87195t1, 1987.<br />

Occupant Simulator Preprocessors: Parameter Studies Made Easy<br />

Edwin M. Sieveka and Walter D. Pikey,<br />

University of Virginia Department of<br />

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,<br />

William T. Hollowell,<br />

U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway<br />

Traffic Safety Administration<br />

Abstract<br />

The use of computer simulated parameter studies<br />

provides a cost-effective means for examining a wide range<br />

ofaccident scenarios and vehicle designs. To facilitate these<br />

studies the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<br />

is developing preprocessor programs for several occupantenvironment<br />

crash simulators. Given an existing input file,<br />

these preprocessors automate the task of generating the<br />

many, perhaps thousands, of additional files that are used in<br />

large parameter studies. This paper describes two such<br />

programs, PADPREP and MVMAPREP. PADPREP creates<br />

new input files for the PADS simulator which is used to<br />

study driver/steering-assembly interactions. MVMAPREP<br />

supports the MVMA-ZD program, which is used for<br />

passenger and pedestrian simulations. In addition to<br />

describing program use, demonstration parameter studies<br />

generated by each preprocessor are included as examples.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

A high priority in automotive safety research has always<br />

been to optimize occupant compartment design so that the<br />

largest margin of safety is provided over the widest possible<br />

range of accident conditions. The variables which need to be<br />

considered include seat design, restraint design, dashboard<br />

design, steering assembly design, collision speed, and<br />

compartment integdty (resistance to intrusion). Adequately<br />

assessing the effects of these many parameters can require<br />

thousands of test "crashes." Performing such a parameter<br />

study with actual vehicles is prohibitively expensive and<br />

time consuming; only a few subsystem and full scale crash<br />

te$ts can reasonably be performed on each production<br />

vehicle, and these are usually done at the impact speed<br />

required by government te$t specifications. Thus, the goal<br />

of optimizing vehicles for occupant safety, or of evaluating<br />

320<br />

the full performance range of existing vehicles, cannot<br />

begin to be realized without the aid of computer simulated<br />

crashes.<br />

In its frontal protection research program, the National<br />

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has<br />

chosen to focus on the MVMA-ZD and PADS occupant<br />

simulators (1, 2, 3).+ MVMA-ZD is used for passenger<br />

simulations; PADS was designed to simulate primarily the<br />

driver and steering assembly interaction. Using only the<br />

simulators, parameter studies are difficult because they<br />

require manually editing hundreds of input files, which is<br />

tedious and time consuming. To expedite creating the<br />

numerous input files required in parameter studies, the<br />

NHTSA has sponsored projects at the University of Virginia<br />

to write preprocessor programs for both PADS and<br />

MVMA-2D. They are referred to as PADPREP and<br />

MVMAPREP. Starting from a single input file, these<br />

programs can generate sets of up to 1000 new input files for<br />

their respective simulator programs.<br />

This paper present$ sample parameter studies which<br />

demonstrate the use of the PADS and MVMA-ZD<br />

simulators in conjunction with their newly created<br />

preprocessors, PADPREP and MVMAPREP.<br />

Overview of the PADS Software<br />

System<br />

Pads<br />

The PADS occupant simulator was developed for the<br />

NHTSA by MGA Research Corp. and has been updated by<br />

the University of Virginia (4, 5). It can model both drivers<br />

and passengers but it is designed primarily to model<br />

driver/steering-assembly interactions. Six modes of<br />

steering assembly deformation are provided, including<br />

radial and tangential wheel-rim bending, whole-wheel<br />

crushing, wheel rotation, column rotation, and column<br />

stroke. Inertial resistance of the wheel/column mass is<br />

included, as well as frictional resistance at the $hear capsule<br />

and the column bushings. The capability of restraining the<br />

occupant with a 3-point belt system is also included.<br />

*Numbers in puentheses designate references at end of papcr.


The occupant's body is modeled with four jointed<br />

segments representing the head, torso, thigh, and lower leg.<br />

Five contact sensing circles, shown by dashed circles in<br />

figure l, detect impacts with vehicle surfaces other than the<br />

steering assembly. The surfaces recognized are the roof<br />

header, windshield, upper dash, middle dash, lower dash,<br />

seat cushion, and seat back. In driver simulations, torsocircle<br />

impact with the dashboards is assumed not to occur<br />

due to the presence of the steering wheel, but the head circle<br />

is used for roof and windshield contact and the knee circle<br />

for lower dashboard contact.<br />

Wheel contacts with the occupant are presently<br />

determined from the Beometry represented by the heavy<br />

lines in figure l. The torso region is translated forward,<br />

relative to the torso line-segment, by the radius of the upper<br />

torso circle; its thickness remains constant as the occupant<br />

rotates. It is divided into shoulder and abdomen regions.<br />

The head region is also rectangular but is based on the radius<br />

of the head circle. It, too is unaffected by rotation of the<br />

body or head. Future plans call for the head circle to be used<br />

for head/wheel contact, but this requires additional<br />

revisions to the contact algorithm.<br />

Flgure 1. PADS contsct zonee.<br />

Kinplot<br />

The PADS KINPLOT program produces plots of occupant,<br />

steering assembly, and contact surface position at<br />

specified time intervals; figure 2 shows an example of such<br />

a plot. Occupant position plots are essential when working<br />

with simulator programs as a qualitative check on the fidelity<br />

of the calculations. If one ignores position plots and<br />

concentrates too much on numerical results such as the<br />

Head Injury Criteria (HIC), the Chest Severity Index (CSI),<br />

or the peak head and chest accelerations, it is possible to<br />

obtain plausible quantitative answers which actually come<br />

from qualitatively unrealistic occupant kinematics.<br />

PADPREP<br />

The PADPREP preprocessor program accepts as input a<br />

standard PADS input file as well as another file called the<br />

experiment design file (EDF). The EDF file contains<br />

information for the PADS program and also a list of up to<br />

eight variables which are to be modified by PADPREP. The<br />

file is in template form with u$er prompts built in. This<br />

approach reduces the amount of interactive input required<br />

by PADPREP while still giving the user clear input<br />

directions; it also provides a useful reminder of the<br />

parameter study's contents. A sample EDF template is<br />

shown in figure 3. The fitrst five entries tell PADPREP about<br />

the type of input file being used and the type of output<br />

ffi tut af,tnl$ ffiffi flPtr<br />

I-EffiIft z-Tfl-AffiIE<br />

I<br />

--- ffirM Drarg ttd<br />

---- lM3 ru-lM'il<br />

(MIIEHnIBIfCfi|EII<br />

ArrCE Td ffDI O' lEHilD ffiPU? DISTEDI<br />

IrDlttrru z-MilfiD 3-lllUlffi VEGA ffiI a.xffi<br />

I<br />

arc ffi ffi tr!ftffi rcl DlDt ffir Ot ffi MIEI<br />

r) fftffi yw xril lldtt tmY<br />

b) IX?E-ilil LI'TIrc IT E IIT<br />

ot f,ItrFH Dlil-rrut<br />

d) fiEIff DEF'ITS<br />

.) cuffitlE rul-PHElaor tM<br />

tt CUMTIE S4il rr& ffiFr<br />

o.H.r mrs l|IEil<br />

(F f,fi aEPrsI rdat f ,g ttTt cffi il ap&!a]<br />

t0t0r0<br />

ffif, Til ffDI OI trCUPffiI<br />

l-DRrWf, Z-FEAEHI<br />

I<br />

aEH rd ff?l Ot tEI EAmIFT<br />

0<br />

o-ffiilgmlED l-N ffit :.tfllo fitt<br />

ErE rE xlmEt or vffiilg s Sctu (H. il 8)r<br />

j.N r ffiO<br />

ETE VNINC DIfA II IE 'IE4 IH trI N& LIEI<br />

VNl:IIr<br />

{vr!'rr[ xrEr Eaf il rE sgtttrtot<br />

Til{<br />

cdfrect<br />

COHIE<br />

ATMIft IIffiM ruI COIxlnIIfi<br />

VEM VEE OF trEA trc<br />

0,5<br />

0.d3<br />

0.5<br />

0.03<br />

Flgure 3. PADPFEP erporlment deslgn flle.<br />

0 0<br />

0 t<br />

ad<br />

ibor<br />

32,1


desired. The next entry is the number of variables in the<br />

parameter study. At the end of the file is a table containing a<br />

list of variable names, with starling values, increment<br />

values, and the number of cases (increments) to be<br />

computed for each variable. Two additional entries are also<br />

included. The correlation flag permits a variable to be<br />

correlated with the one immediately preceding it if this flag<br />

is non-zero; a chain ofcorrelated variables can be built up in<br />

this manner. Finally, the .rcale mode field determines<br />

whether scaling (scale mode = 0) or direct input (scale mode<br />

= I ) is used. Either is permitted except for vector quantities;<br />

in which case, the new value is treated as a scale factor only.<br />

PCFG<br />

The PADS Control File Generator (PCFG), which was<br />

written at the DOT Transportation Systems Center (TSC),<br />

expedites the creation of PADS input data sets. It is designed<br />

to operate on a special PADS database that is maintained by<br />

the NHTSA. The user specifies the type of vehicle, the type<br />

of steering wheel, the collision acceleration pulse, occupant<br />

size and age, and other data, such as whether the occupant is<br />

belted or not. The PCFG can also be used to alter most of the<br />

PADS input variables and can do parameter ranging to create<br />

multi-file "run sets" for use in parameter studies. It<br />

differs from PADPREP in that new input files are always<br />

created by accessing original information from the PCFG<br />

database. PADPRER on the other hand, operates directly on<br />

an existing PADS data file. The two programs can operate<br />

effectively in tandem, with the PCFG used to create a baseline<br />

file which can then be modified easily with PADPREP.<br />

This combination is especially useful if the baseline file is to<br />

contain numerous changes to the database values since the<br />

PCFG can be used to "edit" the database information before<br />

creating an input file. Once this baseline file has been<br />

created, however, it is more efficient to perform parameter<br />

scaling with PADPREP since no further reference to the<br />

database is necessary.<br />

PADS Simulator Demonstration<br />

The examples which follow are a qualitative<br />

demonstration of the capabilities of PADS and PADPREP<br />

and their potential usefulness in occupant compartment<br />

parameter studies.<br />

Basic capabilities<br />

The set of plots in figure 4 demonstrates the various<br />

modes of steering assembly motion. The interior dimensions<br />

approximate those of a subcompact passenger car and<br />

the collision speed is 20 mph. In figures 4a4c the steering<br />

column position is such that the contact forces generated by<br />

the occupant are primarily parallel to the axis of the column<br />

and hence there is little column rotation but considerable<br />

column stroke and wheel crush. Head injury in this case<br />

would be due only to windshield contact. In figures 4d-4f,<br />

the column has been raised higher relative to the occupant.<br />

The first position is closer to the actual wheel position, but<br />

322<br />

the second situation could occur during an accident ifdistortion<br />

of the car's front end displaces the steering assembly<br />

from its normal location. In this case. the forces perpendicular<br />

to the column axis are much larger and significant column<br />

rotation occurs. More important, the column strokes<br />

much less, Because of the design of collapsible steering<br />

columns, if the perpendicular force is too large it creates<br />

excessive friction between the column's moving parts and<br />

the stroking motion is inhibited. Thus, a column which<br />

strokes properly and mitigates injury in its normal design<br />

configuration may perform poorly if its alignment relative<br />

to the occupant is altered during a crash. This is a good<br />

example of a case in which a simulator program can prove<br />

very useful. Since it is not practical to build actual cars with<br />

steering assemblies in different locations, the simulatorprogram<br />

can be used to estimate the range of displacements<br />

relative to the occupant over which the column's crush<br />

characteristics can provide significant injury reduction.<br />

Standerd C-olufll Rafued C;olumn<br />

time = .080 sec<br />

timc =.120ecc<br />

timc = .180 sec<br />

Flgure 4. Subcompact-20 MPH colllelon.<br />

Parameter study<br />

As a simple demonstration of a parameter study, PAD-<br />

PREP was used to generate nine PADS input files from the<br />

subcompact file that was used for figures 4a4c. The variable<br />

studied was the steering column stroke resistance and it<br />

was allowed to vary from 0.5 to 2.5 times its baseline value<br />

in increments of 0.25. Figure 5 shows the entries in the EDF<br />

template needed to generate this study. All of the PADS


simulations produced plausible occupant behavior. The injury<br />

measure numbers are of the appropriate magnitude but<br />

for now should be considered relative to each other only.<br />

The HIC and CSI results are plotted in figure 6. In general,<br />

the curves display the anticipated trend of increasing injury<br />

level as column stiffness increases. Note that both curves<br />

show a decrease in injury for columns softer than the baseline<br />

value. This could indicate that a softer column would<br />

provide for greater occupant safetyn but other factors such as<br />

injury levels at higher collision speeds would have to be<br />

considered as well.<br />

lEl rfl ffilt 6t vNlMt S ru (ll.t. Ot t)t<br />

t<br />

ffi vW ilTl Itr Tf,E tIru M Wg NBES LIXIr<br />

(V[M TIEA roAf IT TE ilAIIFIEDI<br />

V|W ATNTIfr IXffiT roEI' CffiIIfr 'ffi<br />

w vEu vE4 0t illt w Ht<br />

ffiE 0.5 0.I5 I 0<br />

Flgure 5. EDF rntrleE for column stlftnoss study.<br />

C.olumt Stilfnct<br />

Flgure 6. HIC and CSI reaponae surfacee.<br />

The peak acceleration levels for the herd and chest are<br />

plotted in figure 7. The chest results show only moderate<br />

sensitivity to column stiffness for values below 2 times the<br />

baseline, however, at higher stiffnesses the curve rises<br />

sharply before leveling off again. In the case of head acceleration.<br />

the results are even more dramatic. with the curve<br />

being completely flat through 2 times the baseline and then<br />

jumping suddenly by about 30 G's for the last two points.<br />

Other than to say that a softer column seems slightly bener,<br />

there is no clear indication from these results of what the<br />

optimum design should be. They do, however, illustrate<br />

another important piece of information that can come out of<br />

a parameter study.<br />

While one generally approaches a parameter study with<br />

the intention of finding an optimum design, it can also be<br />

important to identify design regions that are particularly<br />

bad. In this case, based on peak head and chest acceleration,<br />

the conclusion would be that column stiffness should be<br />

restricted to values less than about 1.75 times the baseline<br />

value. These results also illustrate how a study ofdifferent<br />

injury measures can be useful. The values of HIC and CSI<br />

Grlumn Stlffncq<br />

Flgurc 7. Peak acceleratlon r€sponse surfaces.<br />

rise steadily with column stiffness over most of the design<br />

space, but there is nothing dramatic or unexpected about the<br />

curves. The sudden jumps in the acceleration curves, however,<br />

clearly alert the investigator that a transition to a different<br />

column-performance regime has occurred.<br />

MVMA-2D Software Overview<br />

MVMA-zD<br />

The MVMA-2D occupant simulator has been developed<br />

at the University of Michigan Transportation Research<br />

Institute with support from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers<br />

Association (6). The occupant's body is modeled by<br />

eight lumped masses with fourteen degrees of freedom. The<br />

body's "surface" can be represented by user defined<br />

ellipses. As in PADS, the vehicle's interior is represented by<br />

a series of line segments, but in MVMA-2D the number of<br />

segments can be chosen by the user. Contacts can occur<br />

Flgure 8. MViIA-2D/TRIX output.<br />

323


etween body ellipses and the vehicle line segments, and<br />

between the body ellipses themselves. The program also<br />

contains an airbag model, simple and complex belt models,<br />

and a steering assembly model. The latest documentation<br />

states, however, that the steering assembly model is not<br />

fully operational. An example of MVMA*ZD passenger<br />

and vehicle geometry is shown in figure L<br />

TRIX<br />

The TRIX program (shon for Tektronix Stick figure plotting<br />

program) is the MVMA-2D equivalent of the PADS<br />

KINPLOT program. It produces occupant position plots<br />

such as the one in figure L As with KINPLOT, examination<br />

of TRIX output is essential in order to verify that the occupant's<br />

motion is realistic and that occupant/vehicle contacts<br />

are properly accounted for.<br />

MVMAPREP<br />

The MVMAPREP program is a preprocessor designed to<br />

create multiple MVMA-ZD data files for a parameter study<br />

which uses an existing MVMA-2D data file as a starting<br />

point. As with the PADPREP program, the modifications to<br />

be made to the baseline file are specified in a template-style<br />

EDF file. An example template is shown in figure 9. Each<br />

line of user input must begin with a ">" marker in column<br />

one and all entries must be placed within the fields delimited<br />

by the dashed lines below each entry header. All numerical<br />

data items can be scaled or directly replaced by a user<br />

defined quantity. Character data items can be modified in<br />

the sense that ellipse contacts can be changed, added, or<br />

deleted, as well as material propefties associated with ellipses<br />

and vehicle surfaces. Justification of numerical data<br />

CN@ ETIPEE CffircT8I<br />

----- lHHffi DIAIOX tIU<br />

------ M-lD ffi-ffilgaoR<br />

ffil lxBM ffi IHI rxDlilsD rrff6 ----------------<br />

-- oH lrf,lE Eclfrlffi srTf, t<br />

"<br />

><br />

ITIPAE ES M c@rtr til cilT&t<br />

ttcf,<br />

sDorutr<br />

ssD<br />

aEN<br />

ffi<br />

ffit r?<br />

ffitD<br />

CErre! ETIPEE OR ffiIil ATERIE FNOruf,TY E'IGXI|EMI<br />

> @ F<br />

lttrtBt oE<br />

nlclof, xrE<br />

SIIRIE<br />

CErrcE trlERICd FMEB IY ffiIfd dR DIruCT ItrFM:<br />

Ill xox-PNtEtr 4sDl v&l$lEar<br />

tlltl<br />

ID*<br />

&IPAE OR<br />

ruolox trrE<br />

ffi<br />

ftc, trltD<br />

t f<br />

f , m E<br />

VEE<br />

t07 xrDaftT 2 3 r.1 0<br />

1 0 I I 6 1 0 0 . 1<br />

l2I euErnr I t 40,0 I<br />

(21 PIIIETER alml v*ISl88 (N. oF 8)t<br />

LItrE<br />

rDf<br />

ETI'8E ff<br />

MIil<br />

tIFEr r<br />

LIFSTAT<br />

f,rE<br />

- { i<br />

- 4 3<br />

Flgure L Experlment deslgn fil6.<br />

324<br />

0,5<br />

X<br />

('cC. Frrd ATffitlrc IfCUEm I Or C a vlslM<br />

| | vsur v&E lflcR. r f, NrE<br />

0,5 a 0 0 EtoftE<br />

a r 0 twtdcr<br />

within associated fields is not necessary. However, since<br />

MVMA-2D treats blanks within character data fields as<br />

significant, the user must insure that ellipse, region, and<br />

material names in the EDF file occupy the same position<br />

within the field that they occupy in the baseline file.<br />

The first two categories in the EDF file, ellipse contacts<br />

and material property assignment, represent one-time<br />

changes. MVMAPREP reads the baseline file into an internal<br />

workfile and makes all the above changes before generating<br />

the parameter study files.<br />

The first sub-category under numerical parameter<br />

changes is also used for one-time changes, in this case for<br />

numerical data which is not part of a parameter study. A line<br />

ID number is required for all enfries. The ellipse or region<br />

name is needed for those cartes for which there are multiple<br />

lines with the same line ID number. The occurrence number<br />

entry (OCC.#) allows a specific data point within a force/<br />

deformation table to be altered or allows the entire table to<br />

be scaled. Once a match is found for the line ID number and<br />

the name field, MVMAPREP moves down (OCC.#-1) additional<br />

lines, if the occurrence number is positive, before<br />

making a change. If it is negative, MVMAPREP changes<br />

ABS(OCC.#) lines including the original match. The new<br />

value field contains scale factors or new values for direct<br />

input. Finally, the scale mode field (SM) determines whether<br />

scaling (SM = 0) or direct input (SM = I ) is used. Either is<br />

permitted except when the occulrence number is negative,<br />

in which case the new value is treated as a scale factor only.<br />

The last entry category in the EDF file is for numerical<br />

parameter study variables. Up to eight variables, producing<br />

up to lff)O different case combinations, can be processed in<br />

a single study. Most of the entry fields are the same as for the<br />

non-parameter study category, but a few have been added.<br />

The new value field has been replaced by a starting value<br />

field plus an increment field. The increment number field<br />

specifies how many levels of each variable are to be calculated.<br />

The correlation factor field (CF) permits variables to<br />

be correlated with one another in the same manner as described<br />

for the correlation flag in PADPREP. Finally, the<br />

last addition is the variable name field which allows the user<br />

to give name$ to the variables in the parameter study.<br />

MVMAPREP/MVMA-ZD Parameter<br />

Studies<br />

Following sections describe two related parameter<br />

studies performed with MVMA-2D with the aid of the<br />

MVMAPREP preprocessor. The variable chosen for these<br />

studies was the stiffness of the torso belt portion of a threepoint<br />

belt restraint system. The baseline data set was<br />

derived from a NHTSA simulation of a mid-sized passenger<br />

car sled test at 30 mph.<br />

The motivation for studying the torso belt stiffness came<br />

from the observation that the restraint belts permitted very<br />

little forward motion of the occupant's torso despite the<br />

relative severity ofthe crash (see figure l0). This suggested<br />

the possibility that belts with greater stretch (or spoolout)


would reduce injury measures, such as HIC and peak<br />

acceleration, by providing the occupant with a longer "ridedown"<br />

time.<br />

Flgure 10. Msxlmum forward occupant posltion wlth origlnal<br />

belt stlffnssE.<br />

Case one<br />

The force/strain data in the original data file was linear<br />

beyond a strain of 6Vo and reached a value of 9450 lbs. at a<br />

strain of lfi)7o. For the purpose of the parameter study, the<br />

following baseline data was chosen:<br />

Strain -0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00<br />

Force -0.00 2500 5m0 7500 l0(n0<br />

To create the study, the entries shown in figure I I were<br />

entered into a blank EDF template. The changes in the nonparameter<br />

study category ensure that the instrument panel<br />

area is sufficiently stiff for contact with the head to be<br />

obvious. Any change in belt design which permits head/<br />

dash contact is considered unacceptable in this study and<br />

such contact should not be masked by an overly soft dashboard.<br />

The parameter study itself is described by the last<br />

line in the EDF file which specifies that the force/strain data<br />

table for the torso belt is to be scaled in ten l07o increments,<br />

beginning at l07o of the baseline value. The resulting family<br />

of force/strain curves. one curve for each of ten new<br />

MVMA-2D input files, is shown in figure 12.<br />

CBrEr ffid Tffi IT ffiIffi il DIffi Iffit<br />

III H-tM ml vull$rul<br />

LIil ETffi * trC. 'IE H<br />

rDI HIf,rM I . YM<br />

> 407 TItGlt -a I I0.0 0<br />

I ao7 EEI! -a r 3.0 b<br />

tzl rM tmt vw (ru. or lrr<br />

ttn Erflt il ffi, trH EErc rrffi | d t I<br />

IDI rEIilff T I vEil vEE IfcI. Ix IrE<br />

> tol affiT -3 t o.LI 10 0 0 tEffi<br />

Flgure 1 1 . EDF entrles lor belt stlfine$$ *tudy-Case 1.<br />

I<br />

I<br />

F<br />

o<br />

R<br />

c<br />

E<br />

Flgure 12. Bell stlflneas.4sse 1.<br />

l.f 6.4 a.a<br />

STRAIN<br />

The parameter study response surface$ for the HIC, peak<br />

head acceleration, and peak chest acceleration injury measures<br />

are plotted in figure 13. The most dramatic feature<br />

occur$ at the belt stiffness scale factor of l0vo. At this<br />

stiffness the occupant makes hard contact with the dashboard<br />

as shown in figure 14. For all other stiffnesses, even<br />

down to 20Vo of maximum. no dashboard contact occurs.<br />

however, there is also no dramatic improvement in the injury<br />

measures. The best case is for a scale factor of 0.4, for<br />

which the improvements in HIC, head g's, and chest g's are<br />

9Va, llo/a, and lTVa, respectively. Still, one would probably<br />

TBE. E<br />

I .r"."<br />

N<br />

J<br />

U<br />

R<br />

rla..<br />

Y<br />

M<br />

E<br />

A<br />

s<br />

U<br />

R<br />

E<br />

rfttt. I<br />

tQl6. a<br />

AEEE. E<br />

768E. E<br />

65Ca,5<br />

t€ea,a<br />

{EEE. E<br />

tE6€,6<br />

eE6C. a<br />

1464. €<br />

6,6<br />

tf .5<br />

lo.c<br />

3E.E<br />

s.6<br />

t.l<br />

E.e<br />

c. a E.a<br />

Flgure 13. Inlury reeulta-Caee 1.<br />

5,1<br />

a,t<br />

BELT STIFFNESS SCALE FACIUR<br />

t.t<br />

32s


conclude that for belts with linearly increasing stiffness,<br />

there is little to be gained by simply reducing the stiffness of<br />

the original design.<br />

Flgure 14. Occupant-dashboard contact tor belt stlffness factor<br />

ot 0.1.<br />

Case two<br />

There are, however, other ways in which the belt performance<br />

can be changed. It is well known from shock isolation<br />

theory that having an energy absorber with piecewise<br />

constant force/deformation properties is the best way to<br />

minimize peak accelerations. Furthermore, the first constant-force<br />

plateau should be reached as quickly as possible.<br />

In the case of seat belts, some approximation of this effect<br />

might be achieved via the spoolout mechanism.<br />

To test a simplified version of such a force/strain curve<br />

for seat belts, the parameter study EDF template was modified<br />

as shown in figure 15. Before scaling, the force and<br />

strain data table was changed so that a constant force plateau<br />

extends from a strain of l2.5%a to 62.5Vo. Since it was<br />

observed in Case I that the maximum force stayed below<br />

25fi) lbs, this value was used for the plateau level of the<br />

stiffest curve (scale factor of l). The resulting family of new<br />

belt stiffness curves is shown in figure 16.<br />

The injury measure curves for this parameter study,<br />

shown in figure 17, are indeed much more interesting. Solid<br />

contact with the dashboard again occurs for a scale factor of<br />

cwd Iruw tM tt ruIU6 fi DIIH llml<br />

(llH-Pffirffiffir<br />

Ltn<br />

rDl<br />

tEDttrt 0t<br />

ffiIf, ffi<br />

ocd, tttD id t<br />

f f f f i r<br />

> aor rrrrsT -a 3 10,0 0<br />

> tot Effitt -a I t.0 0<br />

' ,01 rffi 2 2 0.lll I<br />

' 706 8ffi! I 5 2100. r<br />

> 70r rM a I 0,625 I<br />

> 70t dffiE! a I 2f,O0. I<br />

IzlDr$GHffiffi(H.qr't<br />

im &IrEil ffi.tttrttMIBffiad cavM<br />

rDl wrilIE | | vEE vEE lf,f,.tx IM<br />

- --*;---<br />

0,I 0 0 tl[$ff<br />

Flgure 15. EDF entde$ for b€lt $tlffness study4ase 2.<br />

326<br />

F'<br />

U<br />

t9666 , E<br />

96eE ' a<br />

EE6€'6<br />

?666.e<br />

6CaO.e<br />

R<br />

t668.€<br />

c<br />

E<br />

+EEE. E<br />

3EEE. E<br />

8685.6<br />

1666.6<br />

6.8<br />

6,6 6,a e.{ 6,3 E,a 1.S<br />

STRAIN<br />

Figure 16. Belt stillness.4aae 2.<br />

0.1 and a grazing contact also occurs for the 0.2 case. Injury<br />

measures for the three stiffest belts are similar to those<br />

obtained in Case I. This time, however, the curves show<br />

clear minima in the HIC and head acceleration values at a<br />

scale factor of 0.4. The corresponding chest acceleration<br />

value is also the next to lowest. The improvements in the<br />

three injury measures relative to the original linear baseline<br />

curve are 54Vo, 4OVa, and22Vo, respectively, a very substantial<br />

change. The occupant's maximum forward position<br />

when using this belt stiffness is shown in figure 18.<br />

While the results of this study have not determined the<br />

optimum design characteristics for torso belts, they have<br />

I<br />

N<br />

J<br />

U<br />

R<br />

Y<br />

M<br />

E<br />

A<br />

s<br />

U<br />

R<br />

E<br />

6.t 8.3<br />

BELT STIFFNESS SCAI.E FACTOR<br />

Flgure 17. lnlury results-Gase 2.<br />

E.J s.?


Tirnc(mmc): 120.fi<br />

Flgure 18. Maxlmum forward occupsnt po8ltlon wlth belt stlffness<br />

factor of 0.4.<br />

demonstrated the power of even a simple, qualitative occupant<br />

simulator parameter study to shed new light on safety<br />

system design. The simulation study has shown that occupant<br />

injury levels show remarkably little variation over a<br />

wide range of belt stiffnesses when using belts with linear<br />

stiffness characteristics, and that significant improvements<br />

may be possible through proper tailoring of the belt's force<br />

versus strain behavior.<br />

Simulator validation<br />

An often overlooked application of preprocessor generated<br />

parameter studies is in the area of simulator program<br />

and model validation. The usual approach to occupant simulator<br />

validation is to compare simulated occupant responses<br />

to measurements taken from a sled test or a fullvehicle<br />

crash test, of which only a limited number are available.<br />

Due to this small sample space, initial validation efforts<br />

do not always uncover program limitations that can<br />

cause problems when other designs and crash environments<br />

are simulated. Sometimes input data can be chosen during<br />

the initial validation effort that gives agreement with test<br />

results while masking a flaw in the program. Since extensive<br />

parameter studies place special demands on simulation<br />

programs by requiring them to run reliably over a wide<br />

range of input data, such flaws will often surface during a<br />

study which pushes the limit$ of the original model.<br />

Even when a program has been properly validated, it is<br />

still possible to construct a model with data that irr too tightly<br />

bound to a particular test. For example, a table of force<br />

deformation data which gives good agreement in a 25 mph<br />

simulation may be too limited in range for an impact at 35<br />

mph; leading to incorrect results. For such reasons, it is a<br />

good idea to subject a baseline model to some preliminary<br />

"test"<br />

parameter studies in order to make refinements be-<br />

fore using the model extensively.<br />

References<br />

( l) Cohen, D., L. Stucki, C. Ragland,<br />

"Development of<br />

Analytical Procedures to Characterize the Vehicle<br />

Environment in Frontal Impact Accidents", SAE paper no.<br />

850251,1985.<br />

(2) Stucki, L., D. Cohen, and C. Ragland,<br />

"Evaluation of<br />

Frontal Occupant Protection Using the Passenger/Driver<br />

Simulation Model", Proceedings of the Tenth<br />

<strong>Int</strong>ernational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence on Experimental<br />

Safety Vehicles, Oxford, England, pp.459-4?9, May 1985.<br />

(3) Cohen, D., and L. Simeone, "The Safety Problem for<br />

Passengers in Frontal Impacts-Analysis of Accident,<br />

Laboratory, and Model Simulation Data", Proceedings of<br />

the Eleventh <strong>Int</strong>ernational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence on<br />

Experimental Safety Vehicles, Washingron, D.C., lgB7, to<br />

be published.<br />

(4) McGrath, M. and D. Segal, "The Developmenr and<br />

Use of the PADS (Passenger/Driver Simulation) Computer<br />

Program", Final Report, National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration (NHTSA), Conrract No. DTNH2Z-EZ-R-<br />

07017, March 1984.<br />

(5) Sieveka, E.M. and W.D. Pilkey, "Implemenration<br />

of<br />

the PADS Program in the Safety Systems Optimization<br />

Model", Final Report, National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administrarion (NHTSA) Conrracr No. DTRS-s7-95-<br />

00103, 1988.<br />

(6) Bowman, 8., R. Bennett, and D. Robbins, MVMA<br />

Ttvo-Dimensional Crash Victim Simulation, Version 4,<br />

Vols. l-3, University of Michigan Highway Safety Research<br />

Institute, Final Repofi No. UM-HSRI-79-5*1,2,3,<br />

June 1979.<br />

on the Safety Body Structure of Finite Element Method Analysis<br />

Toshiaki Sakuria, Toshihiro Aoki,<br />

Passenger Car Engineering Center<br />

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation<br />

Abstract<br />

In developing the safety body structure of a small vehicle,<br />

it is necessary to consider both the body structure system<br />

and restraint system. In this paper, body structure system is<br />

discussed without changing the current characteristics of<br />

restraint system. In order to determine the crashworthiness<br />

requirements of body structure, the body is divided into two<br />

subsystems viz. engine compartment and passenger<br />

compartment. Deceleration Ge and Gc are introduced for<br />

subsystems, while for total body structure, transfer function<br />

Dc is introduced.<br />

Thus, there exists the optimal crashworthiness balance<br />

between the engine compartment and passenger<br />

compaflment.


On the other hand, it is necessary to devise an analytical<br />

method to verify the requirements. Various analyses are<br />

studied. As a result, it is seen that FEM (Finite Element<br />

Method) is useful to predict the crashworthiness. It is also<br />

$een thflt the passenger comPartment protection predicted<br />

from FEM is verified by testing the prototype vehicle'<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

Computer simulation makes it possible to evaluate the<br />

safety related characteristics of a vehicle. ln previous<br />

studies of crash analysis of a vehicle mass-spring<br />

simulation, static buckling analysis and experimental<br />

formulas have been carried out (l)+. However these<br />

methods could not respond to design of engineer for safety<br />

vehicle in an intial design stage of development-<br />

The objective of this paper in noticing body structure<br />

system without changing the current restraint system<br />

discusses the following items:<br />

(l) To investigate the experimental data variance at<br />

the fixed barrier frontal impact test'<br />

(2) To compare data with finite element code which<br />

is capable of treating non-linear materials and<br />

experimental results.<br />

(3) To illustrate crashworthiness of body structure<br />

by defining factors Ce, Gc and Dc as dependent<br />

variance.<br />

(4) To confirm that there exists the optimal<br />

crashworthiness balance between the engine<br />

compartment and passenger compartment on the basis<br />

of from FEM and verify it by testing the prototype<br />

vehicle.<br />

Primary Experiment<br />

Experimental Dsta Variance<br />

It is necessary to confirm the reliability of experimental<br />

data by evaluating calculation results and experimental<br />

data. A few impact tests have been carried out' Table I<br />

shows the coefficient of variation with the test results of<br />

initial maximum deceleration of a vehicle to the fixed<br />

Table L Cosfilclent of varl8tlon.<br />

u--H*"<br />

i : Mcan Valuc 6 ; $t6ndrrd Deviation<br />

barrier in Iow and high velocity. Table 2 shows the<br />

coefficient of variation with the respect of static and<br />

dynamic compression test of straight and curved frame.<br />

Table 3 illustrates the results of tests executed to study the<br />

coefficient of variation of occupant injury from sixteen<br />

+ Numbers in parentheses designdtc rcferences at end of ptper.<br />

328<br />

Coefficicnt of Variation<br />

X,=oli<br />

5mph fixed vanier 0.05<br />

30mph fixed vanier 0.07<br />

Tsble 2. Coefficlent of varlstlon.<br />

Coefficient of Variation<br />

0 0.05 0.1<br />

Straight<br />

Frame<br />

Curved<br />

Frame<br />

i-iTFI<br />

tFl : Sratic l-l ; Dynamic<br />

Table 3. Coetflclent ot varlatlon of occupant inlury.<br />

Occupant Injury x o x<br />

HIC<br />

CHEST g<br />

FEMER LOAD<br />

lb<br />

D:Driver Seat P:Passenger Seat<br />

vehicles under the fixed banier frontal impact tests. As<br />

shown in table 3, the coefficient of variation is considered to<br />

be about 0.07. In general the coefficient of variation is<br />

relatively small in case of tests carried out with less<br />

uncertain factor such as compression test with simple<br />

figure; on the other hand, it is somewhat larger in the tests<br />

with some degree of uncertainty involved such as complex<br />

injury evaluation tests.<br />

Comparisons between FEM and test re$ults<br />

Test vehicle<br />

Using a production vehicle as a basis, it is possible to<br />

check the FEM analysis performance and compare test results<br />

against model results. Test vehicle is a body in white<br />

equipped with suspension to move on in testing' Table 4<br />

describes the test conditions.<br />

Table 4. Test condltlons.<br />

D 685 140 0.20<br />

P 70t 8l 0.12<br />

D 4l 3.2 0.08<br />

P 33 2.r 0.06<br />

D 440 218 0.50<br />

P 579 247 0.43<br />

Vehicle Type 4 doors small sedan<br />

Vchicle Weight 470 kg<br />

Impact Velocity 30 mph (48km/h)<br />

Impact Form Fixed Varrier


FEM analy$is and model<br />

It is necessary to include the following items for analyzing<br />

crashworthiness<br />

of vehicle:<br />

( l) geometric non-linearity,<br />

(2) material non-linearity,<br />

(3) elasto-plasric rhin plate/shell,<br />

(4) non-linear spring element,<br />

(5) progressive rivet failure with structural collapse,<br />

(6) a slide line algorithm which prevents penetration<br />

of internal structure surface.<br />

Irt case of transient response problems such as crash, it is<br />

al$o necessary to solve the motion equation with time int€gration.<br />

Explicit integration is preferable for solving crash<br />

simulation problems compared implicit integration, Furthermore<br />

the dependence of strain rate of material is to be<br />

considered.<br />

One program is selected of a few crash simulation program<br />

codes vectorized for supercomputer (2).<br />

Next, FEM model in question is explained as follows.<br />

The body panel such as frame, outer panel, floor and roof are<br />

modeled with thin shell element to capture the impact buckling<br />

modes. In addition, bar element are used to approximate<br />

the suspension unit and wheel by providing equivalent<br />

horizontal and vertical stiffness for these components. A<br />

part of flange of panel connected with spot welding is modeled<br />

with two plate thickness. The weight of tires is anributed<br />

to the suspension model with lumped mass. Rigid walls<br />

may be defined which provide extemal impact surfaces,<br />

while a slide line algorithm prevent$ penetration of internal<br />

$tructure surfaces that may collide during the crash simulation.<br />

Slide line interface conditions are available for frames.<br />

In deciding mesh element of FEM analysis, they must be<br />

decided according to purposes, time and accuracy of calculation,<br />

and restraint conditions in the program itself. Especially<br />

in the explicit method, the solution advances through<br />

the impact duration using a small time step ba$ed on the<br />

velocity of sound (or wave propagation time) across the<br />

smallest mesh element. Thi$ ensures that the physical phenomena<br />

including stress wave effects are completely followed<br />

qnd that solution is stable. The velocitv of sound of<br />

steel Co is Co = [f/p. es is Co = 5 X 106 mm/sec, rhere fore<br />

the size of timestep is less than I (F seconds. In view of the<br />

above the optimum size of mesh element is 20 mm X 20<br />

mm. The number of mesh elements is about 9000 because<br />

the finer mesh contributes to deformed area. while the<br />

coarser mesh does to the undeformed zone such as rear body<br />

structure. This is why mesh becomes more coarse toward<br />

the rear of the vehicle.<br />

Comparisons between calculation and test<br />

results<br />

The correlation of the simulation against experimental<br />

results is a key point of the calculation. Specific items under<br />

consideration include:<br />

FI<br />

vl<br />

q'<br />

tr<br />

tr<br />

fit<br />

q.)<br />

q,J<br />

(J<br />

0)<br />

;<br />

q<br />

^o<br />

z?,<br />

tr4.-<br />

q)<br />

(J<br />

o<br />

IJ.<br />

L}<br />

(q<br />

r<br />

tr<br />

q<br />

0.0<br />

0.0<br />

calculation<br />

time (second)<br />

calculation<br />

time (second)<br />

0.3t)<br />

o'30<br />

Flgure L l{odal decclsrstlon versus fimo curyo and lmpact<br />

Ioad Y€rEUS<br />

tlme.<br />

. to verify the accuracy of the simulation with regard<br />

to the impact force and deceleration pulse.<br />

. to study collision modes of each structural member,<br />

critical member being front side member and<br />

passenger floor.<br />

The numerical and experimental deceleration and impact<br />

force illustrated for a 30 mph impact into a fixed barrier in<br />

firgure [. The important first 0.30 seconds are calculated and<br />

are shown in the figure. The first peak is a little delayed in<br />

the analytical model, but as shown in the figure, the result of<br />

calculation shows reasonable correlation with the experimental<br />

ones. Figure 2 shows a FEM model and deformation<br />

mode of calculation. A good correlation between the calcu-<br />

3?9


lated and experimental results is shown as in figure 2.<br />

Thus the FEM has been proved to be one of the valuable<br />

tools in predicting the crashwot"thiness of body structure<br />

with the aid of high speed computer.<br />

Flgure 2. FEM model snd doformatlon mode.<br />

Evaluation of Crashworthiness and<br />

Verification by Testing the Prototype<br />

Vehicle<br />

Evaluation of crashworthiness<br />

It is imponant for a safety vehicle how crashworthiness<br />

and occupant protection characteristics are developed and<br />

incorporated in vehicle designs. There are targets for<br />

occupant protection for example HIC in FMVSS No. 208.<br />

However, targets for body structure to construct to a safety<br />

vehicle cannot be found in previous papers. In order to<br />

determine the crashworthiness requirements of a new car<br />

design, two dependent variations are offered: one is<br />

deceleration Gc and Ge observed on the side-sill around<br />

peripheral front seat, and other decelerance Dc.<br />

Body deceleration Ge and Gc<br />

Figure 3 shows a definition of deceleration Gc and Ge.<br />

Here Ge is defined as average crash pulse in initial deformation<br />

and Gc is defined as average one in laterdeformation of<br />

vehicle. If deformation is assumed that occurs progressively,<br />

it is found that Ge is a crash pulse of engine<br />

compartment of vehicle and Gc is a one of the rear frame<br />

around the peripheral dash board and passenger<br />

compartment.<br />

Furthermore, a merit of this figure in presenting a deceleration<br />

deformation curve as shown in figure 3 is to<br />

estimate the distribution of energy absorption.<br />

Total crash energy E is denoted as follows:<br />

E=GeXt+GcXr (l)<br />

330<br />

cl<br />

0)<br />

tu<br />

o<br />

{)<br />

A<br />

Flgure 3. Deflnltlon of Ge and Gc.<br />

Thus Ge and Gc is related to crashworthiness, progression<br />

ofcrash and occupant injury as mentioned later' In<br />

addition, the fact that body deformation occurs progressively<br />

can be proved by a simple mass-spring simulation.<br />

The simulation results are shown in figure 4. From<br />

figure, a condition is found as follows:<br />

Kr/K2


x<br />

o<br />

g<br />

A<br />

SOhDh<br />

l - t<br />

.jtttt -_xlJ.ph,-\<br />

\ \\<br />

\..-<br />

r_-r<br />

-- \q-a- I<br />

- 2.8nph<br />

-----<br />

o-<br />

Body Cofigunrim<br />

Flguro 5. ,Dsceleratlon at varlous Impact velocltles and body<br />

conllguratlon.<br />

Verification by testing the prototype vehicle<br />

Various analyses are studied by considering Gc, Ge and<br />

Dc from FEM in order to obtain a high quality of crashworthiness.<br />

Figure 6 shows the target verified by testing the<br />

prototype vehicle. In checking the occupant injury twodimensional<br />

simulation is carried out (4). Figure 7 shows<br />

the results of calculation. As the figure 7 shows, occupant<br />

injury is unchanged. Figure I illustrates the sketch of the<br />

prototype body structure. Countermeasured components<br />

are the strengthened side member, the additional perimeter<br />

frames around peripheral wheel housing, the strengthened<br />

floor and side-sill, and the formed double floors. Total<br />

weight of this vehicle is not increased by adjusting the<br />

stringer onto the floor panel.<br />

Test Results<br />

Static crash te$t<br />

In order to confirrm a deceleration Gc and Ce of the<br />

prototype vehicle a static cra$h test is carried out as shown<br />

in figure 9. Figure 9 (a) shows rhe outline of rhe test<br />

procedure for determining the frontal buckling load and<br />

figure 9 (b) shows the outline of the test procedure for rear<br />

Ll<br />

o t.0<br />

.E<br />

d<br />

E<br />

tr 0.9<br />

0.8<br />

currcnl model<br />

Flgure 7. CElculatlon resulta of occupant Inlury.<br />

I<br />

5<br />

E<br />

{)<br />

t)<br />

o<br />

d<br />

Body Dcformation<br />

Flgure 6. Target verllled by te3tlng the prototypg vehlcle.<br />

Double Floor,<br />

Strengthened Side Member<br />

.Perimcicr Frame<br />

, .Strengthened Side-sill<br />

Flgure 8. Sketch ofth€ prototype body structure.<br />

Ldad Ccll<br />

/<br />

t *,1--1<br />

AU -/ll)_ry/ I AV,<br />

U - U<br />

Flgure 9. Test method.<br />

- r-o<br />

Body Deformation Body Deformation<br />

0<br />

U<br />

0.9


part buckling load of body structure. In case of (b), the<br />

suspension part is incorporated so as to be similar to an<br />

actual vehicle. Figures l0 and I I show the test results. As<br />

shown in those figures, static buckling load has a tendency<br />

to increase.<br />

*<br />

b4<br />

G<br />

.g<br />

6<br />

I<br />

Flgurc 10.<br />

memDer.<br />

^f<br />

E{<br />

.g<br />

d<br />

6<br />

100 200<br />

Deformation of Side Member (mm)<br />

Statlc compregelon test r€sults of thc lront $ldE<br />

50 100 150<br />

Deformation of Rear Side Member (mm)<br />

(Passenger Compartment)<br />

Flgure 11. Statlc compresclon t6$t resultE of the rear slde<br />

member.<br />

35mph barrier impact test<br />

Figure 12 shows the relationship between deceleration<br />

and deformation of vehicle in the 35 mph barrier impact test'<br />

Figure 13 illustrates the experimental results of deceleration<br />

Dc. As the figure shows, Ge and Gc increase, and Dc also<br />

increases.<br />

J9<br />

E<br />

o<br />

E<br />

0<br />

0<br />

o<br />

d<br />

Body Deformation (mm)<br />

Flgure 12. Relationshlp b€twocn doceleratlon and deformatlon<br />

In 35mph.<br />

332<br />

Model<br />

Flgure 13. D€celeratlon of the experimentsl results.<br />

ln addition, vibration phenomenon considered as one of<br />

the vehicle functions is investigated before the crash test.<br />

Figure 14 shows the relationship between response and<br />

frequency. In comparison with current body structure, its<br />

frequency increases.<br />

bo<br />

!4<br />

g<br />

Flgure 14. Relatlon betwsen lcsponse and frequency.<br />

From the above mentioned results, it is found that factors<br />

Ge. Gc and Dc come to be variable to estimate crashworthiness<br />

of body structure. It is also found that FEM analysis is a<br />

very useful tool to predict the crashwofihiness of body<br />

$tructure in an early design stage.<br />

Conclusion<br />

Deceleration<br />

Dc<br />

Cunent Model I<br />

Prototype Vehicle l.l<br />

(J<br />

-<br />

,F 0'l<br />

,4)<br />

6<br />

F<br />

0.01<br />

By introducing Ge, Gc and Dc for estimating the<br />

crashworthiness of body structure, the optimal design rule<br />

for safety vehicle which has been ambiguous is discussed.<br />

By using the FEM program of vectorized supercomputers<br />

on a commercial scale, complex and varied impact<br />

phenomena are clarified.<br />

(1) Variation of estimating the crashworthiness exists.<br />

(2) FEM analysis is very useful to predict the crashworthiness<br />

of body structure in impact.<br />

(3) Safety body designed from FEM analysis and testing<br />

a prototype vehicle is confirmed.<br />

The authors intend to continue their research into safety<br />

vehicle in the future.


References<br />

(l) T. Sakurai, M. Takagi, Nonlinear Structure Analysis<br />

on Vehicle Development-Present Status and Future<br />

Trends, J. JSAE (in Japanese), Vol. 43, No. l, 1 989.<br />

Identification of Safety Problems for Restrained Passengers in Frontal Impacts<br />

Daniel S. Cohen,<br />

Office of Crashworthiness Research,<br />

National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration,<br />

U.S. Department of Transportation<br />

Lawrence F. Simeone,<br />

Transportation Systems Center,<br />

Research and Special Programs Administration,<br />

U.S. Department of Transportation<br />

Donald J. Crane,<br />

MGA Research Corporation<br />

Abstract<br />

The objective ofthe frontal crashworthiness research and<br />

development effort at the National Highway Traffic Safery<br />

Administration (NHTSA) is to assess the safety problems<br />

associated with occupants of passenger cars involved in<br />

frontal impacts and to identify potential remedies for the<br />

problem. The focus of this paper is the identification of the<br />

safety problem for restrained right, front seat passengers.<br />

NHTSA's National Accident Sampling System files and<br />

individual state files contained in the Crashworthiness State<br />

Database were utilized to identify the crash environment,<br />

vehicle factors, and injury mechanisms associated with<br />

restrained pa$sengers. The New Car Assessment Program<br />

provided data on over 200 full scale crash tests containing a<br />

restrained right, front seat dummy. Analyses utilizing the<br />

accident and crash test data are presented in this paper.<br />

A laboratory test program has been conducted to<br />

characterize head to instrument panel contacts which<br />

appears to be a major injury mechanism. The material<br />

properties and geometric characteristics of the upper<br />

instrument panel have been collected and analyzed for<br />

several of the production vehicles tested as part of the New<br />

Car Assessment Program. Dynamic and static forcedeflection<br />

data was collected utilizing a head component<br />

impactor. Results of thi$ laboratory prografi are presented.<br />

The MVMA 2-D computer model is being utilized to<br />

simulate the associated New Car Assessment Program crash<br />

tests to assist in the identification of mitigation concepts.<br />

The paper discusses the input data requirements, the<br />

validation process, and results of initial simulations.<br />

(2) USER's Manual<br />

"PAM-CRASH". ESI.<br />

(3) T. Sakurai, Y. Kamada, Structural Joint Stiffness of<br />

Automotive Body, SAE paper 880550, 1988.<br />

(4) H. Katoh, R. Nakahama, A Study on the Ride-Down<br />

Evaluation. The Ninth <strong>ESV</strong>. 198?.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction-Passenger Safety<br />

Assessment<br />

The objective ofthe frontal crashworthiness research and<br />

development effort at the National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration (NHTSA) is to assess the safety problems<br />

associated with occupants of passenger cars involved in<br />

frontal impacts and to identify potential remedies for the<br />

problem. The focus of this paper is the identification of the<br />

safety problem for re$trained right, front seat passengers.<br />

Insight into the safety problem for the restrained right,<br />

front seat passenger can be gained by examining available<br />

field accident data and crash test data. TWo accident data<br />

files were utilized within this study-the National Accident<br />

Sampling System (NASS) and the Crashworthiness Srare<br />

Database (CWSD). NASS (l)* files contain a nationally<br />

representative sample of crashes occurring within the<br />

United States. The data contained in the files are collected<br />

by teams located throughout the country. Detailed<br />

information on the vehicle, occupant, and crash factors are<br />

obtained from on-site inspections, vehicle examination,<br />

occupant interviews, and police and medical records. The<br />

CWSD (2) has been developed by NHTSA to support<br />

research programs aimed at improving vehicle<br />

crashworthiness. The database contains information<br />

extracted from several State files and the data contained in<br />

the files is primarily obtained from police investigations. It<br />

is being used to supplement the information contained in<br />

NASS.<br />

In addition to field accident analyses, the crash tests<br />

performed as part of the New Car Assessment Program<br />

(NCAP) have been examined to help in the definition of the<br />

safety problem. NHTSA has conducted more than 250 crash<br />

tests under this program since 1979. Vehicles in this<br />

program are subjected to a full frontal impact against a flat,<br />

stationary barrier at 35 miles per hour. This is 5 mph faster<br />

than the prescribed speed for compliance with Federal<br />

motor vehicle safety standards. The crash tests are designed<br />

to indicate, for vehicles within the same size class. the<br />

relative levels of occupant protection and vehicle safety<br />

performance. Each vehicle contains a restrained driver and<br />

passenger side dummy. Data is collected on structural and<br />

dummy responses during the crash and stored at NHTSA in<br />

a computerized data base (3). The analyses related to the<br />

*Numbers in parenlhcses dcrignatc rrfercnce$ ar rnd of paprr.


field accident data and the crash tests are presented in the<br />

next section titled "Problem Determination".<br />

Based on these analyses, it was decided to focus<br />

particular attention on head injuries caused by contact with<br />

the instrument panel. The material proper"ties and geometric<br />

characteristics of the upper instrument panel have been<br />

collected and analyzed for several of the production<br />

vehicles tested as part of the New Car Assessment Program.<br />

Dynamic and static force-deflection data were collected<br />

utilizing a head component impactor. Injury criteria data<br />

obtained from these component tests were compared to the<br />

full scale NCAP crash tests. This work is discussed in the<br />

section titled "Laboratory Testing for Head to Instrument<br />

Panel Impacts".<br />

The MVMA ?D Crash Victim Simulator is being utilized in<br />

this effort to help characterize the baseline conditions of a<br />

restrained front seat passenger. In future work this model<br />

will be utilized to assist in postulating and analytically<br />

evaluating mitigation concepts as to their effect on harm<br />

reduction. Input data issues and requirements related to the<br />

occupant characterization, instrument panel material<br />

properties, restraint system, and geometry are discussed.<br />

lnitial validation efforts and sensitivity analyses are<br />

presented. This work is contained in the section titled<br />

"Analytical<br />

Characterization of Baseline Vehicles".<br />

Problem Determination<br />

The following sections present analyses conducted using<br />

accident data and crash test data to better define the safety<br />

problem for restrained right, front seat passengers in frontal<br />

impacts.<br />

Field accident dflta<br />

Both NASS and CWSD accident data were utilized in<br />

performing the analyses presented in this section. The<br />

NASS files utilized included the calendar year 1979 to 1987<br />

individual files. Comparisons are made by the distribution<br />

of both "harm" and injuries. NASS utilizes a national expansion<br />

factor to make the NASS files representative of the<br />

population of accidents which occur in the United States.<br />

These factors are available for the 1979-86 NASS files, but<br />

not for the 1987 NASS file. Because of this difference and<br />

the limited sample size available for restrained passengers----€specially<br />

at the higher injury severity levels,<br />

both weighted and unweighted data are presented. The<br />

counts ofinjuries that are used in the comparisons presented<br />

in this section are based on a count ofall injuries received by<br />

the passenger. ln the NASS file, up to six individual injuries<br />

for each injured occupant may be coded into the<br />

computerized file, and it is all these injuries that are included<br />

in these analyses.<br />

Additional comparisons are made utilizing the concept of<br />

"harm"<br />

as originally defined by Malliaris, et al. (4,5). To<br />

obtain "harm", a harm weighting factor that is associated<br />

with each of the AIS injury severity levels is utilized. The<br />

harm factors are applied to all the injuries received by the<br />

passenger. The harm weight factors that were utilized are<br />

334<br />

based on the information included in reference 5.<br />

INJURY AIS 6 HARM 265<br />

LEVEL AIS 5 WEIGHTING 228<br />

AIS 4 FACTORS 62.8<br />

Ars 3 12.6<br />

AIS 2 3.8<br />

AIS I ,45<br />

Other weighting concepts that attempt to account for the<br />

consequences ofdifferent types and severities of injuries are<br />

being evaluated by NHTSA (6).<br />

The CWSD files were also utilized. The analyses were<br />

limited to the use of the Pennsylvania 1983-86 state files.<br />

The distributions are based on the police recorded body<br />

region which received the most severe injury. Counts are<br />

based on injuries that were considered either incapacitating<br />

or fatal.<br />

Figure I presents the distribution of injuries and harm to<br />

restrained passengers by body region injuried based on the<br />

O<br />

z<br />

U a n<br />

-)<br />

Lv<br />

u<br />

L<br />

HEAD FACE<br />

1 979-86<br />

WEIGHIED<br />

1979-87<br />

UNWEIGHTED<br />

1 979-86<br />

HARM<br />

NECK CHES<br />

BODY REGIONS<br />

Flgure 1. Restralned passengers In frontal lmpacts. Dlstrlbutlon<br />

of body reglona lnlured. NAS$, AI$ 2+ Inlurles.<br />

HEAD<br />

CWSD*PA,<br />

FACE NECK TRUNK<br />

BODY REGIONS<br />

LOW EX<br />

Figure 2. Reetralned passengers in frontal impact$. Distribution<br />

of body regions iniured. Crashworthiness State<br />

databasFPennsylvsnls f lles. Incapacltatlng and fatal Inlurles.


NASS files. Three comparisons are presented including<br />

distributions based on 1979-86 AIS 2+ injury weighted<br />

counts, 1979-87 AtS 2+ unweighted counts, and 1979-86<br />

harm weighted data. Head injuries account for l5 to l9Vo of<br />

the AIS 2+ total injuries for both the weighted and unweighted<br />

injury counts. For the harm weighted distribution,<br />

the head accounts for 25Vo of the total harm. Figure ? presents<br />

body region distributions based on the CWSD files.<br />

The head body region accounts for 25Vo of the injuries<br />

classified as incapacitating or fatal.<br />

NASS contains information as to the injury source for the<br />

body regions injured. Figure 3 presents the distribution of<br />

injury sources for head injuries. Because of the small sample<br />

size, only the analysis using unweighted data for the<br />

1979*87 file is presented. There is information on injury<br />

source for 2l injuries at the AIS 2+ level. Nine of the head<br />

injuries were attributed to contacting the windshield, five to<br />

the instrument panel, and 3 to the roof rails/pillars.<br />

(J30<br />

z<br />

:)<br />

o<br />

H20<br />

LL<br />

WDSHLD INST PNL PILLARS NON CT<br />

INJURY<br />

SOURCE<br />

(SAMPLE SIZE:21 INJURIES)<br />

OTHER<br />

'1979-87 NASS<br />

UNWTIGHTED<br />

Flgure 3. Hsstralned pss8angsrs ln frontal lmpacte. Inlury<br />

aources for head lmpacls. 197F87 NASS. Unwelghted. AI$ ll<br />

rnlur|€s.<br />

Crash test data<br />

The following analyses are based on the NCAP crash<br />

tests that are contained in NHTSA's vehicle crash test<br />

database. Each of the vehicles tested in this program was<br />

crashed into a rigid barrierat a test speed of 35 mph. This is 5<br />

mph faster than the prescribed speed for compliance with<br />

Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The crash tests are<br />

designed to indicate, for vehicles within the same size class,<br />

the relative levels ofoccupant protection and vehicle safety<br />

performance.<br />

Specific attention was directed at the association of the<br />

HIC injury criteria values with contact source. The following<br />

figures and tables are based on the passenger car tests<br />

and the restrained passenger dummy head injury criteria<br />

(HIC) and chest injury criteria (chest acceleration). As can<br />

be noted in table l, the average HIC value is approximately<br />

double (l174 vs. 602) for those dummies that contact the<br />

instrument panel compared to those receiving no contact.<br />

The chest acceleration levels for contact cases are also higher.<br />

The "other" contact category primarily consist of head<br />

to knee contacts. It can also be noted that contact with the<br />

instrument panel occurs in almost one-half of the crash<br />

tests.<br />

Table 1. Comparison ol restrained pe$$6nger lnlury crlterla by<br />

head contact bources. NCAP teet rdsulte. Faseehg6r cara only.<br />

Contact Source Sample Size l{IC Chest<br />

Acce l eratlon<br />

Instrument Panel ll9 rtf4 46<br />

None 76 602 3g<br />

Other 22 ll25 43<br />

Tsble 2. ComDarlaon of rsrtrElnsd Daassnser lllC levels dlstrF<br />

butlon by hedd contact source. NCAP test-r€sulta. Pasaenger<br />

csrs onty.<br />

HIC Level s<br />

0 to 500<br />

501 to 1000<br />

l00l to 1500<br />

l50l +<br />

Total<br />

Contact Sources<br />

Inst Pnl l{one Other<br />

3r. (4) 3614 (27) 9r( (?)<br />

38% (45) 6l* (46) 45x (10)<br />

38% (45) 4% (3) tSx (3)<br />

2r% (zs't 0y, (0) 3lx (7)<br />

100% (lre) 100% (76) t00%.(e2)<br />

Table 2 presents the distribution of different levels of<br />

HIC. The table shows thtt 59?o of the dummies that contacted<br />

the instrument panel received HIC readings equal to<br />

or greater than a HIC value of lfi)O, whereas for those<br />

dummies that did not contact any interior surface that number<br />

is only 47o.<br />

Figure 4 presents another illustration ofthis contact problem.<br />

The figure presents the HIC and chest acceleration<br />

readings for each dummy by contact source. The symbol<br />

"1"<br />

indicates instrument panel contact,<br />

"N"<br />

indicates no<br />

contact, and "O" indicates other contact. As can be seen<br />

from the figure, almost all the crashes that contain no passenger<br />

contact with the interior surface result in HIC readings<br />

lower than l0(X).<br />

Tables 3 and 4 present similar information for the light<br />

trucks tested as part of the NCAP program. The HIC and<br />

contact source trends are the same as those for passenger<br />

cars.<br />

Laboratory Testing for Head to<br />

Instrument Panel Impacts<br />

Based on the results ofthe field accident and the crash test<br />

analyses, it was decided to focus specific attention on the<br />

safety problem of head to instrument panel impacts. Head to<br />

windshield contacts appeared as a problem in the accident<br />

data but not in the full scale crash tests. This discrepancy is<br />

continuing to be investigated as part of the problem<br />

identification effort. The analytical simulation work that is<br />

presented in a subsequent section presents initial results<br />

related to this question.<br />

335


t{l cF<br />

300u<br />

o + II<br />

PUIT at HICFTC6F SYrtEd. lS VALiE OF CuillAct<br />

o l II<br />

II I<br />

l l<br />

I I<br />

I<br />

I r l<br />

I T TII<br />

t o t l<br />

0r I I ll<br />

I O I<br />

o l<br />

I 0 t r<br />

It I I<br />

t oll t I<br />

I I NI II II I<br />

I l r l<br />

I tt I o I I<br />

t{ | I I I tt I I I<br />

ir o r r I I I It I l{<br />

III I IIII O<br />

I I IIIT II N I{<br />

II I t{ I<br />

t{ tfitt{It{ Nil{t H H N<br />

l{ ril r rJ$fio H<br />

}{I tf.ll O ttf{t I l{<br />

il t{ l{tl{l{ l{ t t{ rfiril o<br />

HH ]\t{ I{T ilI<br />

t { i l H<br />

- --+- --+-+*{+r*+-----------+- +--+r-----+-..--- ------+----r ------+- ------*-*_+*- --* -_+-+-++_++<br />

o lo eo go /to 5(' a{} To Ht ett too<br />

Flgure 4. Plot of HIC v$. chGst acceleratlon for head contacl8 wlth the lnstrument psnel (l), no contact (N), and other contact (O).<br />

Table 3. Comparlaon of reatralned psssengsr Iniury critcria by<br />

head contact sourcec. NCAP t€st results. Llght trucks and vans<br />

only.<br />

Contact Source Sample Size HIC Chest<br />

Accel eratl on<br />

None 9 671 44<br />

0ther ll lt89 50<br />

Table 4. Comparlson of reetrained pageenger HIC levels<br />

dbtrlbutlon by hesd contsct tourc€. NCAP tcst results. Light<br />

trucks and vais only.<br />

HIC Level s<br />

Contact Source$<br />

0 to 500<br />

501 to 1000<br />

l00l to 1500<br />

l50l +<br />

Tota l<br />

Instrument Panel e0<br />

l25r 48<br />

Inst Pnl None Other<br />

104 (a) 22s (?') 0* (0)<br />

20* (4) 67* (61 ?7% (3)<br />

45% (e) ll% (r) 45% (5)<br />

?5% (5) o% (0)<br />

loo# (20) 100% (e)<br />

38ff (3)<br />

r00* (lr)<br />

A laboratory testing program was initiated, which had as<br />

its primary objective the simulation of passenger head<br />

injury as a result of impacts with the upper dash panel of<br />

several NCAP passenger cars and light trucks. The<br />

336<br />

simulation was accomplished by the use of static and<br />

dynamic component level head te$ts. The data collected<br />

serves as first, a baseline data base for characterizing the<br />

material properties/geometry of instrument panels, and<br />

second, input data sets for analytical simulation models.<br />

Summary of laboratory tasks<br />

MGA Research Corporation, under contract with the<br />

Transportation Systems Center (TSC), United States Department<br />

of Transportation, performed the laboratory testing<br />

program involving the component level head tests of the<br />

passenger side upper instrument panel (7). MCA has developed<br />

both the equipment and procedures to conduct static or<br />

dynamic component level tests of a vehicle interior (8). The<br />

investigation included three groups of vehicles as listed in<br />

Table 5. The damaged NCAP vehicles were the vehicles<br />

used to perform the actual NCAP tests and were acquired<br />

under the contract with TSC. The group I vehicles matched<br />

the damaged vehicles but contained undamaged interior<br />

components. The group 2 vehicles were other undamaged<br />

vehicles that matched other vehicles tested within the<br />

NCAP program. They were purchased as vehicle front ends<br />

or cowl sections and contained the same options as the<br />

original NCAP vehicle. The light trucks were vehicles used<br />

by MGA to perform other interior component level tests for<br />

TSC.


The initial task in the project wa$ to perform analysis on<br />

the NCAP crash films to determine the passenger head<br />

impact velocity, impact angle and contact point. This was<br />

then followed by a test matrix that included three dynamic<br />

test types and one static test type. The test types were designated<br />

as dynamic generic, NCAP simulation, FMVSS 201<br />

and a static generic. The dynamic generic was a 25 mph<br />

impact at a fixed 50 degree impact angle measured from<br />

horizontal, using a 6 inch diameter l5 pound hemisphere<br />

shaped headform. This impact angle was determined from<br />

the average of the nine impact angles found in the film<br />

analysis. The analog to the dynamic generic was the static<br />

generic, performed at a quasi-static rate of 2 inches/minute.<br />

Both test types were performed on the group l, group 2, and<br />

light trucks.<br />

The NCAP simulation, performed on the damaged<br />

NCAP, group I and group 2 vehicles, made use of a Parr 572<br />

anthropomorphic head ballasted to l5 pounds. The impact<br />

velocity and angle were determined by the film analysis<br />

results. The FMVSS 201 test, a l5 mph impact using a 6 inch<br />

diameter hemisphere shaped headform ballasted to l5<br />

pounds, was performed on the 1985 Dodge Colt, 1985 Ford<br />

Tempo, 1986 Hyundai Excel and the five light trucks.<br />

Test procedures<br />

and data acquisition<br />

This section will review the test procedures used to perform<br />

the film analysis and component level head tests along<br />

with the data acquisition. The purpose of the film analysis<br />

was to determine the passenger head impact velocity, impact<br />

angle and contact location, and was performed on each<br />

of the nine group I and group 2 vehicles listed in table 5.<br />

Using a film digitizer and computer, the passenger head<br />

target motion was digitized, based on time, with respect to<br />

the vehicle. By knowing the film speed, the head target x<br />

Table 5. Vehlcles tested.<br />

hged<br />

lmP<br />

t/ehlclee<br />

gtup I<br />

ard<br />

ef,p-2<br />

Vdrlclg<br />

r.t#t<br />

ItrrclrE<br />

1986 tddc ErbJElf<br />

1986 ltyrdai EGI<br />

1986 lgrzu l{.tar|q<br />

1986 l{emrry Sable<br />

1986 Saab 90OO<br />

1986 tulck e*ry<br />

1985 Cbevmlert, ftrfrit<br />

1985 Dodgr SIt<br />

1985 rud Teq'o<br />

1986 Hytndat bdl<br />

1986 Isrzu l{taik<br />

1986 ilnz(b B-2(X)O Ptclop<br />

1986 letury Sable<br />

1986 Saab 90OO<br />

1985 CtEvrrl€t G-10 Van<br />

f986 Dodge Caratrarl<br />

1985 IbLd F-150<br />

1986 IloLd RanEer<br />

1985 NLssan Ptdq'p<br />

and z motion (where x is positive forward and z is positive<br />

upward on the vehicle) versus time was recorded.<br />

The head displacement was determined from the time of<br />

vehicle contact with the barrier up to the time of head<br />

contact with the upper dash. The head x motion versus time<br />

and head z motion versus time were then manipulated to<br />

determine the head impact angle and velocity. The velocity<br />

was determined by ploning the resultant motion versus time<br />

and finding the slope of that line in a region 20 msec prior to<br />

head contact. The impact angle was determined by crossplotting<br />

the head x motion with the z motion and calculating<br />

the downward angle with respect to the horizontal in a<br />

region just prior to contact. A summary of the film analysis<br />

results are listed in table 6 and a sketch of the impact velocity<br />

and location are shown in figure 5.<br />

Table 6. Summary of the fllm analysle r€Bults.<br />

Vehicte r'T]m+ Vcfefty (rFh) q)art Atqf€ (.leg)<br />

1986 tulc* €firy 17<br />

1985 CtffiIet SFrjrt 23<br />

1985 hdge SIt t5<br />

rgSE lbtd Tryo ZF.1<br />

1986 n$rdat EeI 28<br />

1986 IsrElr IJ.hrlr 22<br />

1986 rhrda Picld+] 26<br />

1986 l{emry Sablc L7.4<br />

1986 S|rb 9000 23<br />

IMPACT \ELOCITY<br />

IMPACT ANGLE<br />

INSTRUMENT<br />

PANEL<br />

Flgure 5. Pareenger head lmpact angle and veloclty deflnltlon.<br />

Dynamic and static interior components tests were performed<br />

using MGA's dynamic/static load frame on which a<br />

vehicle cowl section is fixtured as shown in figure 6. The<br />

vehicle cowl section is that portion of the vehicle cut forward<br />

of the shock towers and through the front seat floorpan,<br />

and fixtured using a combination of welding and bolting.<br />

This methodology has been found to be a very rigid<br />

system simulating the conditions found in the full vehicle.<br />

Each vehicle cowl section was purchased with the same<br />

options as the NCAP vehicle and included all components<br />

behind the instrument panel. An undamaged instrumenl<br />

panel was replaced after each test and installed identical to<br />

the original condition. The A-frame supports either a hydraulic<br />

cylinder for static testing or an impactor for dynamic<br />

testing. The cylinder or impactor can be oriented in any<br />

direction, through lateral motion, vertical motion and rotation<br />

in two directions.<br />

The static testing was performed using a hydraulic cylinder<br />

mounted to the A-frame as shown in figure 7. Attached<br />

36<br />

49<br />

44<br />

49<br />

49<br />

70<br />

66<br />

4E<br />

54<br />

337


Flgure 6. MGA statlc/dynamlc load frame.<br />

Flgure 7. Slatlc gsnerlc test Bet-up.<br />

to the end of the cylinder was a 6 inch diameter hemisphere<br />

shaped 201 headform with a load cell mounted behind it to<br />

record the force. A displacement potentiometer attached to<br />

the cylinder was used to measure the instrument panel deflection.<br />

The cylinder operation and data acquisition was<br />

fully computercontrolled using the method of displacement<br />

feedback. Force/deflection pairs were recorded every 0.040<br />

inches as the cylinder was extended and retracted at a rate of<br />

2 inches/minute. An example static generic force/deflection<br />

result is shown figure 8. The contact point for the test was<br />

338<br />

F<br />

o<br />

R<br />

c<br />

B<br />

(<br />

P<br />

o<br />

u<br />

ll<br />

D<br />

s )<br />

ETATIC O8I{BRIC PAEEE}IGIBR EIDB UPPER Iil8TRU}IENT PAIIBL<br />

O fORCB/DEFI,ECTIOII<br />

o.oo l.oo 8.oo g.oo 4,oo E,o0 €.o0 ?.oo<br />

DEFIECTION (TNCHE$)<br />

Flgure 8. Statlc generlc force/deflectlon plot.<br />

determined by the film analysis or in the case of the light<br />

trucks was at the junction point of the upper and middle<br />

instrument panel. After the test was completed, the data was<br />

saved on a diskette, loaded to MGA's Micro VAX and converted<br />

to the NHTSA component data base format. All the<br />

data was then sent to NHTSA and is available on their VAX.<br />

As mentioned earlier, three types of dynamic te$t$ were<br />

performed, the dynamic generic, NCAP simulation, and<br />

FMVSS 201. A similar test procedure was used for each test<br />

type and only differed by the impact velocity, impact angle,<br />

contact location, and impact form. Figure 9 shows the dynamic<br />

test set-up. Strain gage type accelerometers were<br />

mounted in each headform to record the acceleration in the<br />

impacting direction. A displacement potentiometer attached<br />

to the back of the headform was used to measure the<br />

instrument panel deflection. A contact switch placed on the<br />

instrument panel recorded the time of impact.<br />

Flgure 9. Passenger slde dynamic head tBet set.up.<br />

The impactor is essentially a guided piston, with both the<br />

impacting sequence and data recording controlled through a<br />

computer. Figure l0 shows the back of the impactor and the<br />

computer, system controller, pneumatics cart and signal


Flgure 10. Dynamlc ta$tlng data acqulsltlon.<br />

conditioning used to execute the test. The impactor is fired<br />

by pressurizing nitrogen in an accumulator to a pressure<br />

corresponding to the desired velocity based on the impacting<br />

mass. Once pressurized, a safety pin is released and a<br />

fire button is pressed, discharging the nitrogen to the back of<br />

the piston.<br />

A<br />

c<br />

E<br />

L<br />

E<br />

R<br />

A<br />

I<br />

o<br />

N<br />

(<br />

o<br />

s )<br />

F<br />

o<br />

R<br />

c<br />

E<br />

(<br />

F<br />

o<br />

u<br />

N<br />

D<br />

I<br />

)<br />

ro, o<br />

o.<br />

-lo. o<br />

-ao. o<br />

-s0.0<br />

-+0. o<br />

-80. o<br />

r<br />

I<br />

"tt-<br />

VERSUS TIHE<br />

-00. o<br />

o,0000 0.o8oo 0, rooo Q, r800 0.aooo o.86(10<br />

rIMB (FEGSHDS)<br />

Flgure 11. Dynamlc lert Ecceleratlon versus tlms.<br />

rooo<br />

800<br />

soo<br />

400<br />

soo<br />

o<br />

o,ooo o.Boo r,ooo I,Eoo s.o00 s,€oo 8.ooo<br />

DI8PI.ACBHEflT ( IilCEE8 )<br />

Flgure 12. Dynsmlc force/deflectlon curya.<br />

Once the piston has stopped accelerating, the nitrogen is<br />

vented to the atmosphere, allowing the piston to travel ar a<br />

constant velocity. Immediately after venting, the data recording<br />

was triggered and velocity measured by a wand<br />

attached to the piston, passing through a light trap, The<br />

acceleration, displacement and contact were all recorded on<br />

a time basis according to the SAE J2l I standards. An example<br />

of an acceleration time curve is shown in figure I l, and<br />

through file manipulations can be reduced to the dynamic<br />

force/deflection curve as shown in figure 12. As with the<br />

static data, all the dynamic data was converted to the<br />

NHTSA component data base format and installed on the<br />

NHTSA data base.<br />

Results<br />

This section will discuss the results from the film analysis,<br />

dynamic tests, static tests and their relationship to the<br />

NCAP results. Table 7 provides a summary of the passenger<br />

side HIC based on the head resultant acceleration for each of<br />

the nine NCAP vehicles as determined by a 36 msec HIC<br />

program. These are the results used to correlate with the<br />

component level test results.<br />

Tsble 7. Summary ol NGAP passenger HtC.<br />

Tested Vehicle<br />

L985 Ford Telrpo<br />

1-986 llyundai B{ceI<br />

1986 Isuzu l+Iark<br />

l-985 l{azda Pidfl,p<br />

L986 l,Ienerry Sable<br />

1986 Saab 9OO0<br />

Hrc (t2-il)<br />

L449<br />

2662<br />

999<br />

1647<br />

597<br />

L443<br />

(24)<br />

(13)<br />

(36)<br />

(35)<br />

(35)<br />

(5)<br />

A comparison was made between the head impact velocity<br />

as determined through the film analysis and the NCAP<br />

resultant passenger HIC. A correlation plot comparing the<br />

two is shown in figure 13. The correlation coefficient, r,<br />

I<br />

o_<br />

(J<br />

O<br />

L,J<br />

F<br />

{<br />

L<br />

E<br />

O<br />

UJ<br />

r<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

10<br />

1000 2000 3000<br />

NCAP RESULTANT HIC<br />

Fasultint Hlc veraua<br />

fub""ii"]:. head lmpacl veloclty corrsla'<br />

339


determined for this plot was 0.86. These results indicate that<br />

as the passenger head velocity increases, the likelihood of<br />

an increase in head injury will result. Therefore, one approach<br />

to reducing the occupant head injury is to reduce the<br />

head velocity. This can be accomplished by modification of<br />

structural characteristics (crash pulse and intrusion), interior<br />

geometry, and restraint effectiveness. However, as discussed<br />

in the problem determination section to this paper,<br />

prevention of all contacts is not feasible and countermeasures<br />

must also focus on the properties of the instrument<br />

panel itself in mitigating contact forces.<br />

Two types of loading responses resulted from the static<br />

generic test type as shown by the overplot in figure 14. In<br />

one case, the trend shows a gradual rise in force to a peak<br />

load, which is characteristic of the softer instrument panels.<br />

This type of response was found in instrument panels that<br />

had approximately 0.54.75 inches of cushion covered by a<br />

vinyl type of material. The other trend shows a response that<br />

is much more steep and is characteristic of the stiffer instrument<br />

panels, constructed of hard plastic with little or no<br />

cushion material. The advantage of a softer instrument panel<br />

was reflected in the results obtained from the Mercury<br />

Sable. The combination of a soft, thick cushioned instrument<br />

panel and an impact velocity of l7 .4 mph resulted in<br />

the lowest NCAP HIC of the group at 597 over 36 msec.<br />

F<br />

0<br />

F<br />

E<br />

STATIC GENERIC FORCE/DEFLECTION COMPARISON<br />

O 86 ISUZU I-MABK<br />

x 8€ lilERCttRY SABLE<br />

0.00 l.oo a.o0 9.00 4.oo 5.oo<br />

DEFI,BTION<br />

(INCHES)<br />

Flgure 14. $tatlc generlc force/deflectlon reapons€a.<br />

Although the static tests can discriminate among the vari*<br />

ous types of instrument panel stiffnesses, it lacks the dynamic<br />

response, which is critical in defining the instrument<br />

panel impact properties and as input into the occupant sim*<br />

ulation models. An overplot comparison of a static generic<br />

and dynamic generic force/deflection from the same vehicle<br />

is shown in figure 15. The dynamic generic test show$ a<br />

large inertial spike occurring within the first two inches of<br />

deflection, and has a steeper initial slope as compared to the<br />

static test.<br />

Two types of responses from the dynamic tests are shown<br />

in the overplot of figure 16. In one case, the trend was a<br />

gradual rise to a peak force while the other shows an inertial<br />

340<br />

?00<br />

eo0<br />

I Eoo<br />

[<br />

fl<br />

D<br />

s<br />

)<br />

+oo<br />

soo<br />

eoo<br />

roo<br />

t.]<br />

{\, d<br />

j<br />

-# fi<br />

f<br />

F<br />

0<br />

n<br />

c E<br />

(<br />

o<br />

U N<br />

D<br />

s )<br />

Flgure<br />

F<br />

o<br />

c<br />

E<br />

(<br />

p<br />

o<br />

U<br />

N<br />

s )<br />

o<br />

IS86 SAAB 9OOO _ FORCE/DEFLECTION COHPARISON<br />

DYNAI.TIC GENERIC<br />

STATIC CENEBIC<br />

I 600<br />

leoo<br />

soo<br />

600<br />

soo<br />

o<br />

o.00 r.oo e.oo 3.oo 4.o0 6.00 6.00 7.00<br />

DEFLECTION (INCHES)<br />

15. $tatic and dynamlc force/deflectlon comperlson.<br />

DYNAMIC GENERIC FORCE/DEFLECTION<br />

1986 $AAB 9000<br />

1S85 FORD TEMPO<br />

8000<br />

4600<br />

4000<br />

I EOO<br />

I OOO<br />

600<br />

0<br />

o. oo I .00 a.00 3. oo 4. oo 3. oo 6. oo<br />

Frgure 18. Dynamic ;;"#;-l<br />

I<br />

l \ ,nhn *- \r-<br />

N {'\/ {*<br />

spike within the first few inches of deflection. The trend<br />

most often seen was that with the inertial spike.<br />

Three methods were used to correlate the dynamic generic<br />

test results to the NCAP passenger HIC results. These<br />

included comparing the peak force/deflection, loading<br />

slope, and HIC to the NCAP resultant HIC. In no case did<br />

the component level HIC's match the NCAP HIC's. This is<br />

because a complex three dimensional event was being modeled<br />

using a one dimensional test device. Also, there is some<br />

level ofacceleration on the head due to the vehicle deceleration,<br />

which is not accounted for in the component test.<br />

The force/deflection peak is the peak load that occurs<br />

within the first two inches of instrument panel deflection,<br />

also called the inenial spike. This peak load and the initial<br />

loading slope or stiffness were determined from the dynamic<br />

generic force/deflection plot. If there was no distinguishable<br />

peak load, as in the case of a gradual rising load, the<br />

force was taken at one inch of deflection. The correlation<br />

coefficient for comparison of the peak force and the NCAP<br />

resultant HIC was found to be 0.58 and the plot is shown in<br />

figure 17. The loading slope was calculated from the initial<br />

rise of the force/deflection plot and was found to have a<br />

L+d{<br />

(tfl-.- {<br />

{ *tr<br />

/<br />

t l /-w<br />

--j{<br />

HJffi<br />

5hJ<br />

n<br />

f t


a<br />

m I<br />

LI<br />

tr<br />

LL<br />

}{<br />

Ld<br />

o-<br />

2000<br />

1 000<br />

r:0.58<br />

0 1000 2000 3000<br />

NCAP RESULTANT<br />

HIC<br />

Flgure 17. Dynsmlc gcnerlc peak force yorsus NGAP HIC correlatlon<br />

plot.<br />

Z.<br />

\ (n<br />

(D<br />

J<br />

t!<br />

o_<br />

oJ<br />

n<br />

(J<br />

1<br />

O<br />

o J<br />

4000<br />

J000<br />

2000<br />

1 000<br />

0 1000 2000 J000 4000<br />

NCAP RESULTANT HIC<br />

Flgure 18. Pynanlc Aenerlc loadlng slope verua NCAP HIC correlatlon<br />

plot.<br />

O<br />

I<br />

o<br />

LL<br />

0{<br />

L.J<br />

Z<br />

|Jl<br />

=<br />

7<br />

O<br />

750<br />

500<br />

-tr.n<br />

LJ\J<br />

Fbure r9.<br />

pfol.<br />

r:o.57<br />

r=0.60<br />

0 1 000 2000 3000<br />

NCAP RESULTANT HIC<br />

Dynamlc generlc HIG varsus NCAP HIC corrolatlon<br />

correlation coefficient of 0.60 and is shown in figure 18. The<br />

correlation based on the component level HIC was found to<br />

be 0.57 and is shown in the plot in figure 19. As seen from<br />

these plots, all of the methods for correlating the component<br />

level impact results with the NCAP passenger resultant HIC<br />

are quite similar.<br />

Comparison of the NCAP simulation tests performed on<br />

the damaged NCAP vehicles showed a much bettercorrelation<br />

with the NCAP resultant HIC. A correlation coefficient<br />

of 0.96 resulted from these tests and is shown in the plot in<br />

figure ?0. Although the results correlate well, information<br />

about the crashed vehicle must be known, such as the passenger<br />

head impact angle and velocity determined from the<br />

film analysis. This presents a problem when trying to predict<br />

the passenger injury criteria for a vehicle that has not<br />

been crashed.<br />

q I<br />

z {<br />

F J<br />

f<br />

a<br />

LrJ<br />

tr<br />

o_<br />

{<br />

O<br />

z<br />

3000<br />

2000<br />

1 000<br />

o 5oo 1 ooo 1 soo<br />

NCAP SIMULATION<br />

DAMAGTD VEHICLE HIC<br />

Flgure 20. Demegod ilCAP HIG versua NCAP raaultant HIC corrslEtlon<br />

plot.<br />

=<br />

z<br />

tr<br />

{ J<br />

l<br />

=<br />

a<br />

o-<br />

O<br />

z<br />

750<br />

500<br />

250<br />

r- 0.6 0<br />

0 1000 2000 3000<br />

NCAP RESULTANT HIC<br />

Flgurr 21. NCAP slmulatlon HIC verrur ilCAP resultant HIC<br />

correlatlon plot.<br />

341


The other NCAP simulation testing was performed on the<br />

group I and group 2 vehicles. Again, there was no exact<br />

match of the component level HIC's compared to the full<br />

scale NCAP crash passenger HIC's. The correlation coefficient<br />

between these two $ets of data was 0.60 and has a<br />

correlation plot as shown in figure 21 .<br />

As for the FMVSS 201 results, each of the vehicles tested<br />

passed the criteria. The FMVSS 201 simulates a head impact<br />

utilizing a 15 pound head form and impact velocity of<br />

15 mph. The criteria $tate$ that the maximum acceleration<br />

level, for a 3 msec period, must not exceed 80 g's.<br />

As mentioned before, an exact simulation of the injury<br />

sustained by a passenger in a full scale crash was not possible<br />

in the laboratory testing program. This is because of the<br />

constraints placed upon a laboratory test procedure on a<br />

component level. These constraints include limiting the<br />

head motion to one direction, neglecting the affect of the<br />

vehicle deceleration on the HIC and not accounting for the<br />

belt loading affect on the passenger kinematics. Possible<br />

areas of an improved test procedure would be to incorporate<br />

the dummy neck response in a linear impact device. This<br />

could also be accomplished using a pendulum type device,<br />

along with simulating the belt loading. However, as will be<br />

discussed in the next section, component level test results<br />

are a very useful input to the occupant simulation models,<br />

which are used to model and predict full scale crash tests.<br />

Analytical Characterization of Baseline<br />

Vehicles<br />

The purpose of this aspect of the Restrained Passenger in<br />

Frontal Impact$ study was to develop computer simulations<br />

of selected frontal impact events. The cases are used as a<br />

tool to study the analytical aspects ofthe events in order to<br />

identify injury mechanisms and to develop mitigation<br />

concepts for passenger injury. The MVMA 2D Crash<br />

Victim Simulation model was selected for this study.<br />

The MVMA 2D model is a complex nine-mass, tensegment,<br />

spring-mass system which models total body<br />

occupant response in two-dimensions (9). It computes step<br />

by step occupant kinematic details, body part external<br />

forces and absorbed energies, injury criteria, and vehicle<br />

response. Frontal events from the National Highway Traffic<br />

Safety's (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)<br />

were chosen a$ cases to be simulated. The two initial cases<br />

discussed here involve events in which the passenger's head<br />

struck the instrument panel. Both vehicles employed<br />

3-point belt restraint systems.<br />

Modeling approach<br />

Accelerometer and load cell data from the individual<br />

NCAP tests and laboratory component data were combined<br />

to con$truct each of the NCAP cases studied. Accelerometer<br />

data obtained from the passenger compartment strucrure<br />

was used to provide the deceleration time-history for the<br />

simulated passenger compartment and dimensional data<br />

from undamaged vehicles provided the initial passenger<br />

342<br />

clearances and angular orientation of the vehicle interior<br />

impact surfaces. Laboratory component data, discussed<br />

above, provided a source for specifying the force-deflection<br />

properties of the impacted surfaces. Restraint system geometric<br />

data was also obtained from the laboratory effort.<br />

Occupant response during the NCAP frontal event was<br />

obtained from accelerometer and load cell test data and<br />

from an analysis of the NCAP te$t film. Electronic test data<br />

provided head and chest deceleration and femur load profiles<br />

and the film data provided head trajectory and head<br />

velocity information- The case models were constructed<br />

and the occupant response output was compared to the corresponding<br />

NCAP occupant response data.<br />

The MVMA ?D 3-point "advanced belt system" module<br />

requires a considerable amount of detailed restraint system<br />

data not normally reported in NCAP tests. These include<br />

belt system geometry-the location of anchor points and<br />

"D"<br />

rings, occupant attachment points, and the effective<br />

belt lengths for each segment of the 3-point belt system. In<br />

additon, belt spool-out and inertia reel characteristics as<br />

well as the friction characteristics of belt slippage through<br />

the D-rings and belt slippage over the occupant's torso is<br />

required. In cases where data was unavailable, nominal<br />

values were inserted and adjustment was made to belt elongation<br />

characteristics to obtain the required occupant-restraint<br />

system response.<br />

Baseline case deYelopment<br />

Two cases initially developed for this study were a 1985<br />

Dodge Colt (10) and a 1985 Ford Tempo (11). Both cases<br />

were similar in that both vehicles employed 3-point "activen'<br />

belt systems and involved right front $eat passenger<br />

head contact with the upper portion of the instrument panel,<br />

The Colt NCAP test resulted in a passenger Head Injury<br />

Criteria (HIC) of 738 and the Tempo test resulted in a HIC of<br />

t436.<br />

It was noted in the Colt NCAP test that the occupant's<br />

head and upper torso twisted somewhat when contacting the<br />

upper instrument panel. This was probably due to early right<br />

knee contact which occurred about 25 milliseconds before<br />

the left knee contact. The result was a significant head<br />

acceleration component in the lateral direction (y-direction)<br />

when the head hit the panel. The MVMA model is a two'<br />

dimensional model (x-y) and the panel stiffness input data<br />

obtained in the laboratory effort was also coplanar (x-z).<br />

Thus for the Colt case, model occupant head response was<br />

compared to the resultant of the x and z NCAP accelerometer<br />

traces rather than the triaxial resultant. The Tempo<br />

NCAP test on the other hand, had a more coplanar occupant<br />

head impact. (The x-z resultant HIC of the Tempo NCAP<br />

test was 997o of the triaxial resultant HIC, while the Colt x-z<br />

resultant HIC was only about EOVI of the triaxial.) Chest<br />

response for both vehicle tests was mainly coplanar (x-z).<br />

Both NCAP test reports indicated knee contact with the<br />

lower portion of the instrument panel by the right front seat<br />

pa$senger followed by head contact with the upper portion<br />

of the in$trument panel. In both cases, film analysis indi-


cated intrusion of the instrument panel into the passenger<br />

compartment. Since head contact in both cases was partial<br />

(i.e. only the "forehead" of the passenger dummy made<br />

contact), it is reasonable to assume that without intrusion<br />

contact may have been avoided. Results of the comparison<br />

between the MVMA 2D simulations and the NCAP crash<br />

tests are shown in tables I and 9 and in figures 22 thru 27.<br />

The two MVMA 2D simulations match the NCAP resulrs<br />

fairly well. Femur results forthe Colt simulation show some<br />

disparity due to the uneven contact times of the knees during<br />

thE NCAP tCSt.<br />

I<br />

Tabre E. MVMA 2D slmulsrlon of NCAP tesr #791, (1985 Cotr).<br />

Hrq .,,,<br />

rl-t2 ..<br />

3[r hird 9.r ......,,,,<br />

3!E chcat g'r ,........<br />

frnur fprco (lb.).....<br />

hrrd v.loclty (rph) ...<br />

601.1 (r-r)<br />

s?-ll0<br />

11. r<br />

tr .9<br />

l{60 ( rur)<br />

25 (fIlrl<br />

525.5<br />

70-1 35<br />

7l .0<br />

3l .5<br />

leSl<br />

Table 9. MVMA 2D eimulatlon of NCAP t6$t #E42, (1985 Tempo).<br />

a<br />

tnjury clltrrlon I|CAF ?91 t$il tD Colt<br />

tnjury crttirlon NcA?_tat tlvt|A_2D trrpd<br />

r.l<br />

I.r<br />

tl.l<br />

t.l<br />

Erc ..,, ....... l{!5.7! lt13.3r<br />

tl-t? ,,...,.,. 7{-98 75-16<br />

3rr hrrd 9'r . . .... . , ,, 110.7 115.3<br />

t[ chirt 9" ......... 15.6 5t.l<br />

frlur lorci (lbrl ,,,.. ll27 (rurl l00l<br />

h.rd vrloctty (rph) ,.. 26 lftlr) t8<br />

r.t<br />

||.r<br />

r.t<br />

r.t<br />

il.1<br />

t.l<br />

l.l<br />

Crlt itt ll ltrrl*tfi r Grlt rct trt l?Dl<br />

H h.,lt.* *..lH,tD tFp X.itt<br />

t.r<br />

.t'l<br />

t.r<br />

r'ltr.lil'ltt.a-'trr.l<br />

rlllrnr$<br />

Flgure 22. The lollowlno I$ a comparlaon ol MVMA 2D stmutatlons<br />

wlth NCAP test #791, 1985 Dbdge Colt.<br />

e3<br />

I<br />

t<br />

tl<br />

?<br />

tl<br />

f.t<br />

r.l<br />

Lr<br />

E.f<br />

r.l<br />

t;.1<br />

ta.l<br />

t.l<br />

t.l<br />

I.r<br />

fI.r<br />

I.r<br />

il,t<br />

-fI.l<br />

il.r<br />

t.r<br />

tf .t<br />

tt.i<br />

r5.l<br />

tt,t<br />

5.1<br />

l.l<br />

l.l t.l r.l<br />

r.l rD.l<br />

dlll*rrl<br />

t.l<br />

l.r<br />

;tt<br />

't/<br />

r !<br />

.t<br />

Orr+ h.rllrrt t.trr.fl6<br />

Colt llt$ E0 Srftlotro.r t| Colt mP ltl, l?ll<br />

l|ed ttt*lt1 fril Fllt tr.ttflr<br />

tt.t r.l lt.t rt.l ll.l<br />

rlllrr*r*<br />

Flgure 23. Comparlson of NGAP test lllm analyala wlth MVMA<br />

2D almulatlon-head veloclty.<br />

.E<br />

lrr htr trrrl rt Er.r<br />

t'i<br />

'l<br />

u<br />

+<br />

?<br />

ii<br />

i\<br />

I<br />

I<br />

i<br />

. a<br />

r -ra {<br />

U i '.<br />

tt<br />

343


||.r<br />

lr.r I.r<br />

t.l<br />

r.l<br />

Fl#<br />

Figure 24. Comparlson of NCAP te8t tllm analysls and MVMA<br />

2D almulation-head trslectory.<br />

I<br />

a<br />

ft.l<br />

t t.l<br />

ttt.l<br />

fr,l<br />

r.t<br />

r.l<br />

{|.r<br />

|r.l<br />

l,f<br />

t-l<br />

.|.l<br />

I.r<br />

cctt illn lD llrrldlm rlr Cclt lFll Trt l'lDl<br />

fH tr.JtcttA<br />

l.r<br />

t't<br />

t.r<br />

trF tn D lllldlrr rr TQf Fl trrt Flt<br />

lB hrltrt tt.lrrtril<br />

t.r -'- ||.r t.l - ill.r - . nl-l --<br />

l.l l-l I.l r'E.r rl.l<br />

rrllrrr*<br />

Flgure 25. The followlng le a comparison of MVMA 2D slmuletlons<br />

wlth NCAP test # 842, 1985 Ford Tempol<br />

I<br />

I<br />

ll.r<br />

344<br />

ff.1<br />

{r.l<br />

r,r<br />

I.r<br />

E.r<br />

||.r<br />

t.a<br />

tFp<br />

G|nf, hrrltfrf F..lrr3lfr<br />

t't<br />

tfi lD<br />

. t<br />

F'<br />

*.,<br />

r l l<br />

ilrt tD<br />

r'r<br />

rr,ll'.'l*.a-'t-.a<br />

illllr-rs<br />

L<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I.r<br />

tllql<br />

I.r<br />

r.f<br />

t.t<br />

-il.1<br />

il..<br />

tl.r<br />

t{.t<br />

lr,l<br />

rt.l<br />

It.l<br />

t,l<br />

a.t<br />

l.l<br />

Lr l|.l I.r rt.l rt.l<br />

l.l t.l il.1 fr.l rt.l<br />

r|lll*-f<br />

tqo fffi tD llrhtlrr rt tr4o fEf Trrt lltE<br />

lld ttlcltg frn Fllr trl1lrr<br />

t.t --tt.t<br />

{l.t<br />

s.l<br />

r.t<br />

rr.l<br />

rlt.t<br />

l{l.l<br />

tll.l _<br />

fl.l<br />

arl llaacdraa<br />

Flgure 26. Comparlson ol NCAP test fllm analyais with MVMA<br />

2D slmulatlon-head veloclty.<br />

r.l<br />

t.l<br />

|rro fllil lD lrirl.tlf,r rr TF fGil Trrt [tl€<br />

lhd tr.Jfstfirl<br />

r.l<br />

?rr hcr lrtrl * hrr<br />

r'r<br />

t.r<br />

FltFls<br />

tsF ----<br />

Figure 27. Comparlson of NCAP test fllm analysis wlth MVMA<br />

2D slmulation-head trslectory.<br />

f.l<br />

I.r


Parametric study<br />

To identify the critical factors leading to passenger<br />

injury<br />

during the frontal event, a parametric study was developed.<br />

Both events were nominally similar. At the start of the<br />

frontal impact, both dummies slide forward from theiroriginal<br />

seating position. Evidence indicates initial contact with<br />

the knees into the lower portion of the instrument panel<br />

followed by a pitching forward of the occupant's upper<br />

torso and impact of the forehead into the upperportion of the<br />

instrument panel. Several critical parameters were<br />

identified:<br />

r Restraint System Dynamic Compliance<br />

. Upper Instrument Panel Stiffness<br />

. Pflssenger Seat Position<br />

r Torso Belt Slack<br />

Parametric test results are shown in figures 28 thru 31.<br />

Restraint system dynamic compliance was identified as<br />

compliance of the restraint system during the event which<br />

included a combination of belt stretch, belt spool-out, and<br />

belt hardware distortion. Results indicate that a stiff belt<br />

system which minimizes occupant forward movement improves<br />

the passenger's injury response. The more compliant<br />

a re$traint system is, the more likely the occupant will strike<br />

the instrument panel. The severity of the impact is also a<br />

consequence of restraint compliance as the belt system can<br />

slow the forward movement of the occupant and minimize<br />

the impact. A sufficiently stiff restraint system can prevent<br />

head impact totally. As restraint sy$tem stiffness was continually<br />

increased however, an increasing trend in occupant<br />

injury was observed as the stiffer belt system absorbed less<br />

energy, transferring more of the crash energy to the<br />

occupant.<br />

When head impact with the instrument panel does occur,<br />

the stiffness characteristics ofthe panel has a direct effect on<br />

resulting head injury. In both cases it appeared that the<br />

restraint system, although allowing head contact, did mitigate<br />

the impact by slowing the occupant's forward velocity.<br />

Thus head contact was generally partially mitigated and the<br />

stiffness of the first two to four inches of the upper panel<br />

played an important role in injury response. Response was<br />

almost linear, the stiffer the panel the harder the head impact.<br />

HIC and head angular accelerations responses followed<br />

suit. The softer panels mitigated head injury but<br />

allowed deeper penetration of the head into the panel which<br />

increased the likelihood of impacting a panel structural<br />

member of localized "hard spot."<br />

Moving the passenger to a more rearward seating position<br />

helps to mitigate injury by allowing the restraint system<br />

more room to prevent passenger head impact. As noted<br />

above, head impact in both cases was partial, usually only<br />

the forehead of the occupant strikes the instrument panel.<br />

Thus, any rearward seating position from 2 to 4 inches<br />

helped to minimize head impact. Conversely, preventing<br />

panel intrusion can also accomplish the same ends. Moving<br />

the occupant forward tended to increase injury criteria in the<br />

cases studied since the closer proximity of the instrument<br />

panel allowed for a fuller head to panel contact. The Colt<br />

case showed a decrease in passenger head injury however,<br />

when in the extreme forward seating position. Thorax contact<br />

was initiated in this case and helped to dissipate the<br />

occupant's forward momentum. The Tempo case on the<br />

other hand, saw a significant increase in head injury for the<br />

extreme forward seating position (4-inches forward of the<br />

mid position). In the Tempo case the occupant struck the<br />

windshield initially, rebounded and then hit the upper instrument<br />

panel.<br />

As part of the parametric study, torso belt slack was<br />

introduced into the baseline cases. Negative slack was also<br />

introduced which had the effect of simulating initial belr<br />

tension in the system. Generally, the introduction of belt<br />

slack increased restraint system compliance and increased<br />

passenger head injury response. Initial belt ten$ion tended<br />

to improve passenger injury response somewhat. It was<br />

noted in the case of the Tempo, that with greater than 1.5<br />

inches of slack, head impact was squarely on the top of the<br />

instrument panel rather than a combination of top and middle<br />

panel impact. This reduced the head angular acceleration<br />

and neck injury response since impact with the almost<br />

horizontal middle panel had tended to force the head sharply<br />

rearward. The magnitude of the resulting head impact with<br />

the top panel however, sharply increased.<br />

Discussion of results<br />

Head injury was the major response variable in this preliminary<br />

analysis of restrained front seat passengers in frontal<br />

crashes. Throughout the parametric study, chest and<br />

femur injury response remained moderate and except for<br />

some extreme parametric variations, varied littte. Neck injury<br />

generally showed only a moderate response to parametric<br />

variations. (Differences in neck response between the<br />

Colt and Tempo cases however, were significant.) Restraint<br />

system operation was a key variable in the passenger's<br />

injury response. A sufficiently stiff restraint system can<br />

prevent head contact during the event. However, too stiff a<br />

restraint system can increase chest injury and head and neck<br />

response as more of the crash energy is transfered to the<br />

occupant. When the restraint system was too compliant,<br />

head contact with the instrument panel occurred and in<br />

some extreme cases, the head contacted the windshield. The<br />

extent of the head injury incurred by instrument panel impact<br />

is dependent on head contact velocity and panel stiffness.<br />

Head contact velocity is a function of crash pulse<br />

severity, passenger clearance, and the extent to which the<br />

restraint system slows the occupant prior to contact. In the<br />

two cases studied here, the disparity in head injury criteria<br />

between the two vehicles was largely a result of restrain<br />

system dynamic performance and crash pulse severity.<br />

The restraint system in the Colt case slowed the passenger<br />

forward travel sufficiently to mitigate head contact injury,<br />

while in the Tempo case, torso belt compliance allowed the<br />

occupant to impact the instrument panel at a significantly<br />

highercontact velocity (28 mph for the Tempo head impact<br />

and 20 mph for the Colt).<br />

Preliminary results indicate that restraint system perfor-<br />

345


tl<br />

I<br />

C<br />

I<br />

I a<br />

t I<br />

?<br />

I a3<br />

I<br />

I ?<br />

a<br />

lS Or.|| Cclt rra tG lfrl tFo ilrt tD ll3|ltrflr ftr 0rtr Cclt rr.l lttr FFt T.+o ilrt ND Srrrhttn<br />

ITil.I<br />

IS r|hill.rrl|rt llrt r CAtlrE<br />

rtll.l<br />

fllC v ||t f l||t'|frit Fil.t 8l,tttf5.<br />

m.r<br />

il.1<br />

rfl.t<br />

H|r.I<br />

tn.l<br />

rtt.l<br />

tH.l<br />

llr.r<br />

ttr,l<br />

t.l<br />

il.r<br />

n.l<br />

r.r<br />

t.l<br />

ttt.l<br />

r||!.1<br />

l.n.l<br />

iltr.r<br />

tH.l<br />

n,l<br />

t.l<br />

rf,.l<br />

H.r<br />

f.r<br />

r.lr<br />

l5.firtr<br />

tn-l<br />

*..|r*rf,r r| lrttrl|* trt- Cflfr*f<br />

ilH.l<br />

t,l<br />

n.l<br />

H.l<br />

t,l<br />

il.1<br />

t.r<br />

.I.l<br />

t.l<br />

l.tt<br />

. Tqo.<br />

'crtt<br />

l.I r,I r.rl<br />

t.l| l.I r.ll r.t<br />

llrtls t t .ld ttfr Gtlr|r*.<br />

|ld |rr*f rr frltruld lflrit Ct+llrt<br />

t.fl<br />

l'.'<br />

l...<br />

l'r<br />

t.E<br />

hl*lrr lEt .l|rt l|rl^r C;r|rr.<br />

F.r<br />

Lf<br />

lJ<br />

rJ I't<br />

l.r l'r<br />

r.r r.t<br />

Il*|n hr.rrd l*rhllc.<br />

Flgure 28. The followlng are restralnt syst€m compllance<br />

teals, iIVMA 2D craah vlctlm almulatlone:<br />

346<br />

t't<br />

t.t<br />

tl<br />

I<br />

C<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

t I<br />

a<br />

t IF<br />

t<br />

I G<br />

I<br />

I ?<br />

a<br />

rtl.l<br />

tH.i<br />

H.r<br />

tr.t<br />

aI.a<br />

lr.r<br />

lll.t<br />

t.l<br />

rn.l<br />

il.1<br />

t.l<br />

l.{ l.l t.t t,f<br />

l.t 1.3 r.r r.r r.l<br />

b|rttr tlrrl l[lfftr.<br />

l.l --- l.r t.l - l.t r.l<br />

l.t l.l l.l l.{ l.l<br />

|rlr0lr| trrrt ttllllrr<br />

H ftrlr ttrh*t; r lfrfr tltr*r* frrl ltlllrnr<br />

tn.l<br />

rrn.l<br />

ffi-l<br />

n.r<br />

t,r<br />

frt,f<br />

t.l<br />

I.l<br />

rn,r<br />

il.t<br />

t,r<br />

Itd I+*'f rlr $pr lnlrr:il' hrl ltlffil$<br />

. t<br />

i - /<br />

.t<br />

hft<br />

,i<br />

JFr<br />

i. . . r{<br />

il.t<br />

IT l'{ r'r l'l r'l t'l<br />

l.r r.t r'l t.. t.t<br />

blArr hl |lraf|nr<br />

Flgure 29. The followlng are upp€r lnatrument panel atlffneet<br />

tE8ts, MVMA 2D craeh vlctlm simulatlone:<br />

blt


L<br />

I I<br />

IID Drt||r Colt fJ lE Fr{ tqlc lllt lD lllhltrr l* Dfrr Gllt rt lG lr.r l* llt !D lrrrl*,rn<br />

tI.l<br />

lllt |,. lbrqr *cttr1 lc.ttlf,r<br />

t.l<br />

lllt rr Trro frll 3l*]<br />

fr.l<br />

I.l<br />

n,l<br />

In.t<br />

rn.l<br />

trn,l<br />

tLl<br />

ln.t<br />

I.l<br />

I.l<br />

rI.l<br />

In.l<br />

tfl.l<br />

rn.l<br />

It.f<br />

ilI.l<br />

t.l<br />

rI.r<br />

H.r<br />

I.l<br />

rt.r<br />

I<br />

I n.r<br />

3 n.r<br />

f<br />

I<br />

a<br />

t.r<br />

3<br />

t<br />

t<br />

I<br />

tr.r<br />

I.r<br />

.Ll<br />

{.1<br />

{,r l,l<br />

-l.l l.l<br />

Ld bltlr| (trr.tal,<br />

t.l<br />

lt=ln<br />

lh- IfGt ||;rrrar t.ttrrf frtttolr<br />

.Crrtl.*f.<br />

. a<br />

I<br />

{,t<br />

-l.l t.l<br />

t.t<br />

t.l<br />

l* hltlr| (|}r dt, lr*ln<br />

lH t;rlr *..lrr*rrl n rhrrir fr*|if htttrr<br />

trfi,l<br />

r l<br />

. a<br />

r a<br />

'brrl<br />

lF<br />

r-r<br />

t.l<br />

{t r.r<br />

l'l<br />

rr<br />

'rl<br />

H hrltrr tftr r|at, l*<br />

Flg_urg qq. The followlng ano pqrsongor roatlng poslilon te$ts,<br />

iIVMA 2D crsah vlcllm almulatlone:<br />

I<br />

Y<br />

f.l<br />

tl<br />

I<br />

C<br />

L<br />

I<br />

I<br />

tI.l<br />

I.l<br />

rt.l<br />

rI.l<br />

trD.l<br />

rtl.r<br />

t.l<br />

I.t<br />

Ll<br />

il.1<br />

It.l<br />

rt.l<br />

It.l<br />

ril.l<br />

ft.l<br />

t<br />

r I.l<br />

a<br />

rrt.l<br />

fr.f<br />

t.t<br />

I D.l<br />

a<br />

t<br />

r.l<br />

I<br />

. t.l<br />

I r.t<br />

t ?<br />

a I.l<br />

In.l<br />

r.l<br />

Crlt,<br />

r.l<br />

l.i t.t<br />

l|lt ll-r, |'*lr.<br />

lH t|!ff rr trrc l|lt tl-*<br />

. t.<br />

rqo j<br />

' !<br />

t<br />

i<br />

-i<br />

Grlt<br />

r.a<br />

l.r t.t<br />

hll ll*lr, tr*ln<br />

hl l|rr; IGatH3th E rr* ErI ..m<br />

,ts'- t<br />

ih.<br />

r .i '.<br />

t<br />

. .1.<br />

t i r<br />

1 / r<br />

t. r-.1<br />

v ,y"<br />

-- r<br />

c.tL.f<br />

-l.l<br />

{.r<br />

l.l l.l<br />

l.r<br />

lrn lld,<br />

t.!<br />

frln<br />

t.l<br />

1.3<br />

Flgure 31. The followlng ar6 torso bett $teck tests, ilVilA 2d<br />

crash vlctlm slmulatlon$:


mance is a complex event: restraint system compliance,<br />

crash pulse severity, passenger clearances, instrument panel<br />

stiffness, and panel intrusion are all key elements affecting<br />

occupant injury. The two NCAP cases show that in addition<br />

to these apparent event variables, performance of key elements<br />

of the restraint system is also an important consideration<br />

in assessing the potential for mitigating passenger injury.<br />

Future work will focus on analyzing additional frontal<br />

crash events including light duty trucks, and on identifying<br />

and analyzing critical restraint system elements.<br />

Summary<br />

The objective of the frontal crashworthiness research<br />

program at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<br />

is to assess the safety problems associated with<br />

occupants of vehicles involved in frontal impacts and to<br />

identify potential remedies for the problem. The focus of the<br />

analyses presented in this paper is the identification of the<br />

safety problem for restrained, right, front, seat passengers.<br />

Analyses of accident data and crash test data indicate the<br />

pas$engers can still make contact with interior vehicle<br />

surfaces even why they are restrained. Head contact with the<br />

upper part of the instrument panel appears to be a serious<br />

safety problem, and research efforts were initiated through<br />

both laboratory and analytical studies to better characterize<br />

the injury mechanism. Initial results of the studies are<br />

presented in this paper.<br />

The laboratory effofis included the collection of both<br />

dynamic and static force-deflection characteristics of the<br />

upper instrument panels for a wide range of passenger cars<br />

and light trucks that had been tested as part of NHTSA's<br />

New Car Assessment Program. Test data was collected<br />

utilizing a component level head test which consists of a<br />

hemisphere shaped headform mounted on an impactor<br />

which is essentially a guided piston. The component level<br />

laboratory results were compared to the NCAP results and a<br />

fair degree of conelation was obtained. Exact simulation of<br />

the injury sustained by a passenger in a full scale crash test is<br />

not po$sible utilizing the present test devices and<br />

procedures. Constraints of the present system include<br />

limiting the head motion to one direction, neglecting the<br />

affect of the vehicle deceleration and belt loading on head<br />

accelerations, and a fixed effective mass. Future research<br />

will examine alternative component level test procedures to<br />

better simulate full scale crash tests.<br />

The analytical effort utilized the MVMA 2D occupant<br />

simulation model. Initial simulations focused on the<br />

validation of two NCAP tests, and the results of the<br />

validation and parametric studies are presented. The<br />

laboratory study ptovided input data on the material<br />

properties of the instrument panels and geometry of the<br />

vehicle interiors. The parametric study indicates the effect<br />

that crash pulse, intnrsion, seat position, restrain system<br />

compliance, and instrument panel stiffness have on head<br />

injury criteria. The extent ofthe head injury criteria incurred<br />

348<br />

by instrument panel contact is dependent on head contact<br />

velocity and instrument panel stiffness. Head contact<br />

velocity is a function of crash pulse severity, passenger<br />

clearance, and the extent to which the restraint sy$tem slows<br />

the occupant prior to contact. While the first priority in<br />

developing mitigation concepts should be aimed at<br />

eliminating or reducing head contact velocity, it will not be<br />

possible to eliminate all head contacts. For those situations,<br />

the instrument panel and other interior components need to<br />

be modified to mitigate head contact forces.<br />

References<br />

(1) National Accident Sampling System, 1986. A Repon<br />

on Traffic Crashes in the United States, National Highway<br />

Traffic Safety Administration, July, 1988.<br />

(2) Crashworthiness State Database, Reference Manual.<br />

To be published, National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration.<br />

(3) NHTSA Data Tap Reference Guide, <strong>Volume</strong> I:<br />

Vehicle Crash Tests, National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration, August 1985.<br />

(4) Malliari, Hitchcock, and Hedlund, "A Search for<br />

Priorities in Crash Protection," SAE <strong>Int</strong>ernational Congress<br />

& Exposition, SAE 820242, Detroit, Michigan, Feb. 1982.<br />

(5) Malliaris, Hitchcock, and Hansen,<br />

"Harm Causation<br />

and Ranking in Car Crashes," SAE lnternational Congress<br />

& Exposition, SAE 850090, Detroit, Michigan, Feb. 1985.<br />

(6) Luchter, Faigin, Cohen, and Lombardo, "Status of<br />

Costs of Injury Research in the United States," to be<br />

presented at the <strong>Twelfth</strong> <strong>Int</strong>ernational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence<br />

on Experimental Safety Vehicles, National Highway Traffic<br />

Safety Administration, June, 1989.<br />

(7) Crane, D., "Restrained Passenger Head Testing,"<br />

<strong>Volume</strong> l, MGA Research Corporation, under contract to<br />

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the<br />

Transportation Systems Center DTRS-57-87-C-0046,<br />

MGA Draft Report No. G88R{2, February 1989.<br />

(8) Segal, D., Kamholz, L., and Griffith, D., "Vehicle<br />

Component Characterization" <strong>Volume</strong>s I and 2, MGA<br />

Research Corporation under contract to the National<br />

Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the<br />

Transportation Systems Center, DOT HS 807 054 and DOT<br />

HS 807 055, January 1987.<br />

(9) Bowman, 8.M., Bennett, R.O., Robbins, D.H.,<br />

MVMA Two-Dimensional Crash Victim. Simulation<br />

Version 5, Vols I, Il, lII. Transportation Research Institute,<br />

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Rpt. No.<br />

UMTRI-85-?4-?, October, 1986.<br />

(10) Carlson, L.E. and Leonard, P., New Car Assessment<br />

Program, Frontal Barrier Impact Test, 1985 Ford Tempo GL<br />

Z-Door. Mobility Systems and Equipment Company, Los<br />

Angeles, CA 90301 (Prepared for U.S. Dept. of<br />

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration, Office of Market Incentives, Rpt. No.<br />

MSE-85-No. 4), July, 1985.<br />

(ll) Levan, W.E. and Alianello, D.A., New Car


Assessment Program, Frontal Barrier Impact Test, 1985<br />

Dodge Colt 4-Door Hatchback. Calspan Corporation,<br />

Buffalo, NY 14225 (Prepared for U.S. Dept. of<br />

Computational Crash Analysis at the Saah Car Division<br />

Larsgunnar Nilsson,<br />

Saab Car Division<br />

Saab Scania AB<br />

Abstract<br />

In the development of Saab cars, passenger safety is of<br />

the greatest concem. To verify the safety level achieved a<br />

large number of destructive crash tests are carried out. Each<br />

of the$e te$tri is time-consuming and costly. It is of interest to<br />

Saab, as well as the whole community of cflr manufacturers,<br />

to reduce the number of crash tests, and yet to achieve the<br />

target level of passenger safety. Computational mechanics<br />

has turned into a powerful tool which can complement crash<br />

tests and, furthermore, reduce the number of tests needed.<br />

Recently, Saab has developed a finite element model of<br />

the Saab 9000 T | 6 CS car. The calculated results show good<br />

agreement with available test data and also reveal crash<br />

phenomena which are hard to observe in the standard destructive<br />

physical tests.<br />

Computational analysis of crash problems is the new<br />

method of developing cars with higher passenger safety.<br />

Once developed and validated, the finite element crash<br />

model can be utilized for design studies or parametric studies<br />

and needs only a very short time to produce useful<br />

results. Thus, within a given time a larger number of design<br />

altematives can be evaluated and a final design with higher<br />

passenger safety can be obtained.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

Safety has always been of great concern in the<br />

development of Saab cars. During the I 950s to I 970s safety<br />

developments mainly concerned active safety. The success<br />

of Saab in rally competitions during that time was partly a<br />

result of high active safety. Passive safety has since then<br />

been given lncreased attention to meet customers' needs<br />

and government regulations.<br />

The engineering considerations in regard to<br />

crashworthiness are extensive, Many experiments are<br />

carried out as design studies or verification tests on both<br />

prototypes and cars taken from the production line. Both<br />

complete car structures and components are tested.<br />

Although possible, development of structural<br />

crashworthiness by testing alone is a much too costly and<br />

time-consuming process.<br />

It is of great interest to Saab to shorten the development<br />

phase and yet achieve the target level of passenger safety.<br />

During recent years, computer analysis of nonlinear<br />

contact-impact problems has developed remarkably. Today,<br />

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration, Office of Market lncentives, Rpt. No.<br />

CAL-8-5-No. ?), February, 1985.<br />

it is possible to preform analysis of complex structures,<br />

which just a couple of years ago was considered to be<br />

science fiction. The rapid evolution in this field is a<br />

consequence of developments of more theoretically sound<br />

and efficient algorithms for the numerical solution of<br />

nonlinear structural dynamics, as well as the rapid growth in<br />

speed and availability of supercomputers. Computer<br />

analysis of crashworthiness is on the threshold of emerging<br />

as a tool that can substantially reduce the cost and time<br />

required for the development and certification of a new car<br />

design.<br />

Numerical Analysis of Vehicle<br />

Crashworthiness<br />

Review<br />

Computers have been used in the analysis of<br />

crashworthiness since the 1960s. In the first generation of<br />

analysis the vehicle was modelled as a lumped system<br />

consisting of mass and spring elements. The main problem<br />

with these models was to assign appropriate stiffness to the<br />

spring elements. These data must be found from<br />

experiments on structural components similar to those<br />

which are to be analysed. The resulting system constitutes a<br />

set o[ coupled ordinary differential equations, which must<br />

be integrated in the time domain. Because of the difficulties<br />

mentioned and the limited capacity of the mainframe<br />

computers available at that time (comparable with that of<br />

personal computers today), the number of mass and spring<br />

elements wari very limited. In general, the results from<br />

physical tests on the same structure or its components must<br />

be available in order to calibrate the model. As a<br />

consequence, the applicability of the lumped system was<br />

limited to analysis of structure$ very similar to the one<br />

tested. Thus, the lumped models could not be used to make<br />

predictions regarding new car designs without the existence<br />

of a physical prototype. A typical lumped mass system used<br />

at Saab in the 1970s is shown in figure I.<br />

The finite element method<br />

The finite element method (FEM) was developed during<br />

the 1950s and the 1960s mainly for the analysis of static<br />

problems. The first attempts to use FEM in the analysis of<br />

crashworthiness were made at the beginning of the 1970s. In<br />

these analyses, beam and rod elements were used along with<br />

discrete mass and spring elements. Although reflecting the<br />

real structure to a larger extent than the lumped models, the<br />

properties of the structural elements were still mainly found<br />

349


Flgure 1 . Mass'sprlng model of s Ssab 9fi1 vehlcle (1979).<br />

from physical tests. Thus, the criticism of the lumped massspring<br />

models is also valid for the first generation of FEM<br />

crash analysis models. A widely used computer program of<br />

the first generation type is KRASH (Wittlin and Gamon<br />

( I )*).<br />

With FEM first-principle analysis became possible, i.e.<br />

the structural properties are derived from the basic continuum<br />

mechanical relations. Thus, it became possible to make<br />

crashworthiness predictions of a vehicle structure simply by<br />

knowing the relevant material properties, the geometry, and<br />

the boundary and initial conditions.<br />

The equations of motion resulting from the FE-discretised<br />

system must be integrated in time, starting from<br />

known initial conditions. This is carried out as a step-bystep<br />

integration, either with an implicit or an explicit<br />

method.<br />

When an implicit method is used, a non-linear equation<br />

system must be iteratively solved in each time-step, which<br />

makes it a very time-consuming step. In crash problems the<br />

loads vary extremely rapidly. In order not to truncate these<br />

loads, very short time-steps must be used. Thus, implicit<br />

methods demand very large computer resources to integrate<br />

the response time of interest. Also, due to the severe nonlinearities<br />

involved, the iterative equation solver often fails<br />

to converge. Consequently, implicit methods have not been<br />

successful in the analysis of crash problems, although many<br />

ofthe general purpose FE code developers still do not seem<br />

to have given up hope.<br />

The generally used explicit method is the central difference<br />

method. Unlike the implicit methods, it does not require<br />

the assembly of system matrices and the solution of<br />

each time-step is trivial. However, the central difference<br />

method is only conditionally stable, i.e. the time-step must<br />

be less than a critical value proportional to the shortest time<br />

it takes a sound wave to travel between two adjacent nodes.<br />

It follows from the previous discussion that the time-step<br />

limitation is not too severe in the analysis of crash problems.<br />

* Numbers in parentheses designate references at end of paper.<br />

350<br />

Today, all the popular codes in crash analysis u$e the central<br />

difference method.<br />

Car body structures mainly consist of connected sheet<br />

metal paft$. To make an accurate FE model of the car body,<br />

shell elements are essential. Also solid, beam and rod elements<br />

are required in a complete vehicle structural model.<br />

The first FE-analysis, which used shell elements and<br />

explicit time integration, of a vehicle collision was carried<br />

out in 1975 by Welch, Bruce and Belytschko (?). It was also<br />

the first attempt to use FEM as a first-principle analysis of<br />

vehicle crashworthiness. At that time, the computers were<br />

not powerful enough to perform the analysis successfully.<br />

During a crash, the vehicle structure is severely deformed<br />

and the structural parts may be exposed to multiple contactimpacts.<br />

The first FE program, with an explicit time integration,<br />

that seriously addressed the contact-impact problem<br />

and that took full advantage of the supercomputer (Cray)<br />

was DYNA3D, developed by Dr. John O. Hallquist (3), (4)<br />

The first version of DYNA3D became available in 1976.<br />

DYNA3D has since developed remarkably, and is today<br />

probably the most well-known and widely used FE code in<br />

crash analysis. Most of the other commercial crash analysis<br />

codes, e.g. MSC/DYNA, PAMCRASH, and RADIOSS,<br />

have their origin in DYNA3D.<br />

DYNA3D originally lacked shell and beam elements.<br />

During that time, vehicle components such as a front beam<br />

were modelled by the use of solid elements. To account for<br />

bending effects in the metal sheets, at least two elements<br />

were required across the thickness. As previously mentioned,<br />

this resulted in a very small time-step, due to the<br />

short distance between nodal points in the thickness<br />

direction.<br />

Shell elements became available in PAMCRASH 1984<br />

and in DYNA3D 1985, see hallquist et al (5). The first shell<br />

element implemented in DYNA3D was the Hughes-Liu<br />

element (Hughes and Liu (6)) which is derived from a continuum<br />

formulation and allows very large deformations.<br />

Later, also the Belytschko-Tsay element (Belytschko and<br />

Tsay (7)) was implemented in DYNA3D, see Hallquist and<br />

Benson (8). The Belytschko-Tsay element is based on the<br />

Mindlin plate theory and thus only allows moderate shell<br />

deformations. On the other hand, the Belytschko-Tsay element<br />

requires fewer operations and makes the analysis<br />

faster.<br />

The above-mentioned developments resulted in a tre*<br />

mendous increase in computer analysis of vehicle crashwofihiness:<br />

The first complete vehicle (Citroen BX) frontal<br />

30 mph crash analysis was carried out 1985/1986 at Peugot<br />

S.A., see Chedmail et al (9), and since then most car manu*<br />

facturers have performed similar analyses.<br />

Saab started to use DYNA3D in the analysis of front<br />

beams, and front frame structures in 1984. DYNA3D has<br />

since then been used extensively, see Nilsson and Larsson<br />

( l0). Saab has also actively supported new developments in<br />

DYNA3D through Dr. Hallquist and through research programmes<br />

carried out by the author at Linkdping Institute of<br />

Technology, e.g. Zhong (l l) and Oldenburg (12).


Examples<br />

At Saab, computational crash analysis is considered to be<br />

an engineering activity of high priority and its importance is<br />

rapidly increasing. Since 1985, Saab has continuously<br />

aimed at developing qualified in-house resources, i.e.<br />

personnel, methodology, software and hardware, for<br />

advanced crash simulations.<br />

The following crash simulations have been carried out at<br />

the Saab Car Division using DYNA3D. All simulations,<br />

except the full frontal car crash, have been run in-house<br />

using a Cray 1A supercomputer. The full frontal car crash<br />

simulation was run on a Cray X-MP/28 supercomputer at<br />

SINTEF, Trondheim. A new Cray X-MP/48 supercomputer<br />

has recently been installed at Saab, and all current crash<br />

simulations are run on that computer.<br />

The following examples have been chosen to give a brief<br />

overview ofthe crash analysis carried out at Saab during the<br />

last couple of years.<br />

Structural Parts and Components<br />

Front beam<br />

The boxed beam is often used as a front structure member.<br />

It has been analysed extensively at Saab as a standard test<br />

example to debug new methods or new computer code<br />

versions and facilities. The finite element model of one half<br />

of the beam is shown in figure 2. Only one quarter of the<br />

beam is analysed with symmetric boundary conditions<br />

taken into account. At the right end of the beam, a rigid mass<br />

is attached. A total of 1280 4-node shell elements are used.<br />

The beam and the rigid mass have an initial velocity of 35<br />

mph leftwards along the length axis of the beam. The<br />

motion of the beam is constrained by a rigid wall, which is<br />

hit bv the left end of the beam at time zero.<br />

Flgure 2. Inltlal conllguratlon of ths lront baam. Ons qusrter of<br />

the b€am la analyaad wlth symmstrlc boundary condltlons.<br />

Figure 3 illustrates the deformation of the beam at<br />

different time states. It is observed that the folding<br />

mechanism is described in details by the model. This has<br />

been made possible by the single-surface-contact<br />

algorithms in DYNA3D, i.e. all contacts are automatically<br />

notified and analysed. Obviously, this facility is of the<br />

outmo$t necessity when a full car structure is considered.<br />

Figure 4 illustrates the typical time graph of the normal<br />

force on the rigid wall. Each drop in acceleration is caused<br />

by the formation of a new fold.<br />

Flgure 3. Ilelormatlonr of the fronl beam after 0, 4, 8, 1 2, 1 6 snd<br />

20 m$.<br />

a<br />

J<br />

J<br />

(I<br />

=<br />

LJ<br />

z<br />

o<br />

F<br />

(n<br />

z<br />

o<br />

IJ<br />

U<br />

at<br />

o<br />

L<br />

J<br />

(I E<br />

tr<br />

o z<br />

6,<br />

3,8<br />

3,s<br />

t,(xE<br />

{.508<br />

4,ffi<br />

r,Sft<br />

3.TIE<br />

E, !fi<br />

t.ffi<br />

t.5{E<br />

i.fff<br />

o<br />

H H H E<br />

d i d d<br />

ilhlu . o. (xxt(E*{b<br />

Hrtffi ' o.ctt!E.o. TII'lE<br />

Flgure 4.<br />

wall.<br />

H I<br />

Normal torce bstween tho lront beem and the rlgld<br />

Typically, 2 hours of Cray lA CPU time is required to<br />

obtain 20 ms of response time.<br />

Front frame structure<br />

The finite element model of aconceptual frontal structure<br />

is shown in figure 5. A total of 3500 shell elements were<br />

used to model the symmetrical part of the structure. The<br />

inefiia proper"tie$ of the rear part of the car body are represented<br />

by a discrete mass attached with rigid links to the rear<br />

parts ofthe front. Initially all nodal points have a velocity of<br />

35 mph in the forward direction, and the bumper hits a rigid<br />

wall extending perpendicular to the direction of motion.<br />

Figure 6 shows the deformed structure at selected time<br />

states. From these figures, together with a video animation<br />

produced from the detailed solution sequence, it is possible<br />

to acquire an understanding of the mechanical behaviour of<br />

the structure during impact.<br />

351


FIoure 5. Inltlal conllourstlon of the front lrame struclurs. Ons<br />

ha-lf ol the lrsme 15 analy*d wlth symmelrlc boundary<br />

condltlons.<br />

A total of 7 hours CPU time on the Cray 1A was required<br />

to obtain 40 ms of response time.<br />

Steering column<br />

In figure 7 the geometry and various deformed configurations<br />

of a Saab 9fi) steering*column system are shown. The<br />

model consists of 2l00shell elements. A rigid wall (mass 30<br />

kg) hits the steering-wheel with an initial velocity of 9 mph<br />

in the direction of the steering-column.<br />

The FE-model of the steering-column irtcludes details of<br />

the energy-absorbing sliding mechanism between the column<br />

segments as well as contact interfaces between all<br />

parts.<br />

Flguls 7. Inltlal conflguratlon of th€ lt€€rlng whssl'column<br />

syst€m.<br />

Figure 8 shows the deformed geometry at various time<br />

states. Details of the deformation process can be revealed by<br />

making the exterior parts invisible, as shown in figure 9.<br />

The typical force-time relation of the rigid wall is shown in<br />

figure 10.<br />

The steering-column model has been used for the purpose<br />

of design studies.<br />

A 20 ms response analysis requires approximately l0<br />

CPU hours on the Cray lA.<br />

352<br />

Flgure 6. Deformatlons of the front lrame slructure sfter 0, 10,<br />

20 and 30 ms.


t=5ms<br />

t=10ms<br />

t=15ms<br />

Flgure L Deformatlona of the steerlng wheeFcolumn syslem<br />

after 5, l0 and 15 mg.<br />

Flgure 9. Datalls ol thr strsrlng column sy$tem. Erterlor vlew<br />

after 0 and 15 mr. Sllcad-up vlcw aftrr 0, 10 and 15 mr.<br />

353


t<br />

f<br />

tr<br />

3<br />

U<br />

z<br />

o<br />

F<br />

o<br />

7<br />

o<br />

U<br />

tr<br />

J<br />

c<br />

E<br />

tts<br />

z<br />

c i ^ i i { i d i , ; i i i r N N<br />

T IFIE<br />

Flsurt 10. Normal lorco on thc rlgld wall (dummy) |mplnglng<br />

the ateerlng wheel-column syttom.<br />

Complete Car Structure<br />

Model preparation<br />

In a frontal car crash, extensive folding (figure 3), and<br />

bending collapses take place in the front structure, contactimpacts<br />

occurbetween engine/gearbox and radiatorffan and<br />

between enginelgearbox and firewall etc, and many<br />

structural members are highly deformed and distorted. It is<br />

an advanced task to develop a FE-model which, within<br />

acceptable tolerances, gives the required results' The<br />

modelling of the frontal crash in the case of the Saab 9000<br />

T16 CS (figure I I ) was an extensive iob, taking almost one<br />

year. This complete vehicle model has, however, since then<br />

also been used for many other purposes' e.g. side impact<br />

analysis, load distribution analysis, idle shake vibration<br />

analysis etc.<br />

Owing to time considerations, it was decided to model<br />

only one half of the body, assuming symmetry along the<br />

body centre line (i.e. the x-axis, y = 0). The engine/gearbox,<br />

the AC and some other systems were, however, fully<br />

described. From similar crash test$, we know that the<br />

wheels/tyres take part only to a minor extent in the<br />

deformation process. Thus, they have been omitted from the<br />

analysis model. Because of these arrangements, the results<br />

obtained were valid for up to about 80 ms response time.<br />

The FE-model (figure 12) consists of 7500 shell<br />

elements. In addition, beam elements are used as door<br />

substitutes. The total weight and weight distribution of the<br />

FE-model were chosen to correspond to the real vehicle.<br />

Initially, the vehicle has 35 mph velocity forward (xdirection)<br />

and hits the rigid wall, which has its extension in<br />

the yz-plane, at time zero.<br />

354<br />

Fioure 11. lnltlal conflouration$ ol the SEEb 9000 vehlcle FE'<br />

m6dei snd detalled vle* of the engine/gearbox/Ac sy8tem.<br />

Analysis<br />

Because of the primary memory restrictions of the Cray<br />

1A (l MW), the fuII frontal car crash analysis was run on a<br />

Cray X-MP/28 at SINTEF, Trondheim. To make this possible.<br />

we first installed our versions of DYNA3D and TAU-<br />

RUS (postprocessor of DYNA3D, see Hallquist and Brown<br />

(13) there. In total, four days were needed to produce a tape<br />

with the results database. The total CPU time needed for one<br />

run covering up to 80 ms respon$e time was 22 hours.<br />

A video animation of the full set of deformed states, with<br />

or without overlaid stress, energy or strain functions, was<br />

also produced by using MOVIE.BYU (Christiansen (14)<br />

on-line on the Cray at SINTEF.<br />

Results<br />

From the analysis, a very large results database was obtained.<br />

The following selected results are mainly chosen to<br />

illustrate the versatility, validity and accuracy ofthis type of<br />

study.


t=60<br />

FIgure 11. Soqucnco ol tho dolormed Saab 90(Xl vehlcls FE-modcl Et O, 20, 40 snd 60 ms after lmpect.<br />

Figure 12 shows a set of deformed states. When compared<br />

with high-speed films captured in similar tests, a very<br />

close agreement in the global deformations is observed.<br />

Figure 13 gives a close-up view of the engine compartment<br />

before impact and at one deformed state. The deformations<br />

obtained in the analysis are very close to those found in<br />

a real crash.<br />

355


I 40fls<br />

E rp{trirn.4ntc<br />

Flours 13. Glo*e-up vlew ol thc Saab 9000 vehlcle front struc'<br />

tuie and the correbpondlng FE-model' Undcformsd and de'<br />

lormed (40 me) configuratlons.<br />

Figure 14 gives close-up views of the front beam structure<br />

before impact and at one deformed state. The close<br />

agreement of the analysis results to the test is again<br />

illustrated.<br />

Figure 15 shows the measured and calculated acceleration<br />

signal (x-direction) from an accelerometer mounted on<br />

top of the sill. The measured signal has been integrated<br />

twice to find the velocity and the displacement' Furthermore,<br />

it has been filtered (60 Hz) before it was plotted<br />

together with the velocity, the displacement and the corresponding<br />

data from the computer analysis. As noted, a very<br />

close agreement of the analysis results with the tests has<br />

been obtained.<br />

The video animation of the analysis results gives a very<br />

detailed understanding of the mechanics taking place during<br />

the deformation process. On the deformed geometries also<br />

fringes of stress, strain or intemal energy intensities are<br />

shown as further help in understanding the proces$.<br />

With some exceptions, very good agreement has been<br />

achieved between the analysis results and the tests. After<br />

$ome minor corrections. this full vehicle model can be used<br />

with confidence in future analysis. The possibilities of conducting<br />

parametric studies or design studies are extensive.<br />

356<br />

ll<br />

/l<br />

,'t<br />

Flgure 14. Slde vlew of the Saab 9000 vehlcle front structure<br />

snd ths correspondlng FE'model. Undeformed and delormed<br />

(70 me) conflgurstlon$.<br />

Finally, this study shows that prediction analysis is possible<br />

today. The input data for this analysis are simply material<br />

parameters, geometry data, and boundary and initial<br />

conditions. Thus, it is a true first-principle analysis.<br />

Conclusions<br />

Experience at Saab in using advanced computer analysis<br />

of crash problems has increased quickly since 1984. This<br />

has been made possible by the breakthrough in<br />

computational crash mechanics (new theories, algorithms<br />

and codings in DYNA3D), fast access to supercomputer$,<br />

and the continuous and consistent build-up of in-house<br />

personnel resources and know-how,<br />

Computational mechanics is the new methods of<br />

developing cars with higher passenger safety. Once<br />

developed and validated, the finite element crash model can<br />

be utilized for design studies or parametric studies, and<br />

needs only a very short time to produce useful results. Thus,<br />

within a given time a larger number of design alternatives<br />

can be evaluated and a final design with higher quality and<br />

passenger safety can be obtained.


flgqrg 15. Eottom vlew ol tlq $aeb 9fi10 vehlcte FE-modet.<br />

Undoformed and delormed (20 ms) conflguratlons.<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

The close cooperation of Dr John O. Hallquist in various<br />

aspects of DYNA3D is greatly appreciated.<br />

Mats Larsson and Roger Malkusson in the Stress<br />

Analysis Group at the Saab Car Division have assisted in<br />

most of the computer runs.<br />

References<br />

(l) Wittlin, G. and Gamon, M.A.: Experimental Program<br />

for the Development of Improved Helicopter Structural<br />

Crashworthiness Analytical and Design Techniques,<br />

USAAMRDL Technical Reporr, 72-72, 197 3.<br />

(2) Welch, R.E., Bruce, R.W. and Belytschko, T.: Finite<br />

Element Analysis of Automotive Structures under Crash<br />

Loadings, Report DOT-HS-105-3-697, IIT Research<br />

Institute, Chicago 1975.<br />

(3) Hallquist, J.O.: Preliminary User's Manuals for<br />

DYNA3D and DYNAP, University of California, Lawrence<br />

Livermore National Laboratory, Report UCID*17268,<br />

Livermore 1976.<br />

v<br />

(m,/=)<br />

16<br />

L?, .B<br />

I<br />

4<br />

0<br />

S<br />

(*)<br />

.4<br />

,2<br />

Experiment<br />

t (ms)<br />

100<br />

Flgure 16. Experlmenlsl snd cslculated accsl€ratlons,<br />

velocltles and dlrplaccments of the Saab 9000 sltl (clos6 t6<br />

B-po$t).<br />

(4) Hallquist, J.O.: DYNA3D, User's Manual, University<br />

of Califomia, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,<br />

Report UCID-19592, Rev 4, Livermore 1988.<br />

(5) Benson, D. Hallquist, J.O., Igarashi, M., Shimomaki,<br />

K., and Mizuno, M.: The Application of DYNA3D in Large<br />

Scale Crashworthiness Calculations, University of<br />

California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,<br />

Report UCRI-94028, Livermore 1986.<br />

(6) Hughes, T.J.R. and Liu, W.K.: Nonlinear Finite<br />

Element Analysis of Shells: Part I. Three-Dimensional<br />

Shells, J. Comp. Meths. Appl" Mechs. Eng,, 27, 1981.<br />

(7) Belytschko, T. and Tsay, C.S.: Explicit Algorithms for<br />

Nonlinear Dynamics of Shells, in ASME AMD-48, 198I.<br />

(8) Hallquist, J.O. and Benson, D.: DYNASD, a<br />

Computer Code for Crashworthiness Engineering, ASKA<br />

user's conference, Baden-Baden 1986.<br />

(9) Chedmail, J.F., Du Bois, P., Pickett, A.K., Haug, E.,<br />

Dagba, B., and Winkelm-itler, G.: Numerical Techniques,<br />

Experimental Validation and Industrial Applications of<br />

Structural Impact and Crashworthiness Analysis with<br />

Supercomputers for the Automotive Industries, in<br />

Supercomputer Applications in Automotive Research and<br />

Engineering Development (Ed. Marino, C.), Computational<br />

Mechanics Publications, Southampton 1986.<br />

(10) Nilsson, L. and Larsson, M.: Saab Crash programe<br />

Route to Customer Safety, The Saab-Scania Griffin,<br />

Linkiiping 1987.<br />

(ll) Zhong, Z.: On Contact-lmpact Problems, Thesis<br />

178, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linkiiping<br />

University, Linktiping I 988.<br />

(12) Oldenburg, M.: Finite Element Analysis of Thin-<br />

Walled Structures Subjected to lmpact Loadings,<br />

357


Thesis 1988:69D, Department of Mechanical Engineering,<br />

LuleA University of Technology, Lulefr 1989.<br />

(13) Brown, B.E. and Hallquist, J.O.: TAURUS-An<br />

<strong>Int</strong>eractive Post-Processor for the Analysis Codes NIKE3D,<br />

DYNA3D, TACO3D, and GEMINI, University of<br />

California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,<br />

Report UCID-19392, Rev. l, Livermore 1984.<br />

(14) Christiansen, H.: MOVIE.BYU-a General Purpose<br />

Computer Graphics System, Civil Engineering Department,<br />

Brigham Young University, Salt Lake Cily 1984.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>rusion Effects on Steering Assembly Performance in Frontal Crash Testing<br />

Written Only Paper<br />

Carl Raglando<br />

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,<br />

U.S. Department of Transportf,tion<br />

Gayle Klemer,<br />

Research and Special Programs Administration,<br />

U.S. Department of Transportation<br />

Abstract<br />

Dynamic intrusion of the steering assembly into the occupant<br />

compartment of a car has a significant effect on the<br />

injuries sustained by the driver. In an effort to quantify the<br />

injuries caused by this component, two subcompact vehicle<br />

models were tested at 25 and 35 miles per hour in full frontal<br />

and half offset barrier impacts. The two models were chosen<br />

from those tested under the New Car Assessment Program<br />

(35 mile per hour barrier tests) because they have very<br />

similar crash pulses but dissimilar steering assembly intrusion.<br />

This paper compares the differences between the two<br />

models in physical characteristics, $teering assembly design,<br />

occupant injury data and occupant kinematics in a<br />

program of eight tests using production vehicles and a 50th<br />

percentile unrestrained male Hybrid III driverdummy. Data<br />

from electronic tran$ducers and high speed film analyses<br />

are presented. Conclusions are drawn about the design of<br />

the steering assembly for mitigation of harm to the driver.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The objective of Steering Assembly/Frontal<br />

Structure test program wart to as$ess the crash<br />

characteristic$ of the steering assembly and its effect on<br />

unrestrained drivers in frontal impacts. New Car<br />

Assessment Program (NCAP) 35 mph frontal barrier test<br />

data were used to $elect two vehicles which have similar<br />

crash pulses, but dissimilar steering column performance in<br />

terms of dynamic intrusion. The '87 Hyundai Excel and the<br />

'87<br />

Toyota Celica were selected on this basis. The crash<br />

pulses of both cars were similar, but the horizontal<br />

component of steering column dynamic intrusion was<br />

greater in the Hyundai than in the Toyota.<br />

The purpose of these tests was to determine the steering<br />

column behavior within a range of crash conditions using an<br />

unre$trained Hybrid III driver dummy. Additionally,<br />

mechanisms of intrusion were investigated to gain insights<br />

358<br />

into means of lowering the potential for occupant injuries<br />

caused by intrusion of the steering assembly into the<br />

occupant compartment. A test program of eight standard<br />

production '87 Hyundai Excel and '87 Toyota Celica<br />

vehicles was conducted. The matrix consisted of 35 mph<br />

and 25 mph full barrier and half barrier tests, as outlined in<br />

table 1.<br />

Table 1. Summary of test condltlons.<br />

Tart , HoCal GFAth H6dt<br />

2<br />

3<br />

E<br />

;<br />

I<br />

a<br />

Hyunoar Excr r<br />

Toyot! cGlrca<br />

Toyotr Crllcr<br />

Hycfrddl<br />

Eic+l<br />

Tdyota CGI I cr<br />

Hyundrl Excrl<br />

Yotett Crltct<br />

hyundrl Excrl<br />

Vehicle Characteristics<br />

To completely understand the steering assembly behavior<br />

of the vehicles, their crash characteristics are examined and<br />

compared. The information given in table 2 describes the<br />

physical characteristics of the vehicle and the test<br />

conditions for each test. The first column gives the test<br />

number in chronological order. The second column<br />

describes the vehicle make tested and the crash mode: FF for<br />

full frontal and HO for half offset frontal. The wheelbase is<br />

in the third column, with the fourth column giving the<br />

distance between the centerline of the front axle and the<br />

front bumper which is intended to approximate the available<br />

crush of the front structure. These two characteristics are<br />

given only once for each make since all cars of the same<br />

make were identical. The test weight, given in column four,<br />

includes the vehicle. vehicle instrumentation and the<br />

Table 2. Vehlcle chsracterlgtlcs.<br />

e5 nph<br />

55 mph<br />

36 mph<br />

23 nph<br />

23 mph<br />

35 nFh<br />

35 nih<br />

Ful I fFontrr<br />

Ful I lFqnttl<br />

Ful I lFont.l<br />

Ful I fFontgl<br />

Hal a ollict<br />

HrI I ollret<br />

Hsrt offrrt<br />

Hal t dllset<br />

l|odel/ tfheel Fr,Axle- Tcst Test<br />

l{o, Crash }lode be3e BunDer It, SDeed<br />

I nchcs I nches I bs ftbh<br />

I<br />

z<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

I<br />

Hyundal /FF<br />

Toyota/ FF<br />

Toyotil/FF<br />

Hyundr'l /FF<br />

Toyotr/H0<br />

Hyundel /H0<br />

Toyota/H0<br />

Hyundel /H0<br />

93,7<br />

99. I<br />

33. 3<br />

38. r<br />

e,660<br />

2 ,700<br />

?,750<br />

?,650<br />

2,780<br />

2.650<br />

?,760<br />

2.6?0<br />

24,7<br />

25.0<br />

ss,4<br />

34.8<br />

24,6<br />

24.5<br />

34,7<br />

34,7


dummy and its instrumentation. The test speed was required<br />

to remain within i0.5 mph of the nominal 25 and 35 mph.<br />

Table 3 contains the data describing the performance of<br />

the frontal structure of the vehicle used in each tesf. This<br />

table is arranged so that one can readily compare Hyundai/<br />

Toyota pairs at each speed in each crash mode. The<br />

following abbreviations are used to identify the tests: 25 or<br />

35 for the nominal test speed in mph, FF for full frontal<br />

crash mode, HO for half offset frontal crash mode, H for<br />

Hyundai and T for Toyota. Maximum passenger<br />

compafiment acceleration in g's, maximum frontal dynamic<br />

crush, peak load cell barrier force, and the time (in<br />

milliseconds) at which each occurred are given. The<br />

passenger compartment acceleration was recorded by an<br />

accelerometer mounted On the rear seat $upport structure.<br />

The acceleration pulse was filtered through a Bufierworth<br />

double pass filter to -3db at 30 HZ curoff frequency, with a<br />

15 HZ corner and a 75 HZ stop frequency. The crush was<br />

then computed by double integration of the acceleration<br />

curve. The load cell barrier (LCB) force is the sum of the<br />

force histories of each of the 28 load cells used on the<br />

banier, 20 cells in the case of the half offset tests. The force<br />

summation was filtered through a Bufterworth double pass<br />

filter to -3db at 100 HZ cutoff frequency, with a 5O HZ<br />

corner and a 250 HZ stop frequency. This frequency wa$<br />

chosen for the load cells due to their inherently lower<br />

frequency content (as compared to accelerometers in the<br />

vehicle) and due to the filtering effect of summing the<br />

channels of data (tending to cancel out random noise).<br />

Given last is the crush at the time peak LCB force occurred.<br />

Table 4 shows variables calculated from the data in table 3.<br />

Crush and the peak force from table 3 were used to compute<br />

frontal stiffness, the first variable in table 4- Frontal<br />

Table 3. Msasured crash date.<br />

FF35 H<br />

It Fr<br />

EF33 f<br />

Dt ht<br />

EOti H<br />

O+ mr<br />

EO?s T<br />

It mt<br />

HO'3 H<br />

ot mi<br />

t|oSE T<br />

3! mr<br />

unr * i<br />

f+;EE,1n-+TTFEEllgr,<br />

Tabh 4. Calculsted crash datB.<br />

FFzf H<br />

FFE3 T<br />

FFf3 H<br />

FFI3 T<br />

of23 H<br />

OFZE T<br />

OFI: H<br />

6F3E T<br />

* Ati<br />

EllIEg'TI l+*tll'g-1s66'-.<br />

14. t{<br />

r6re6<br />

ae-1a<br />

zo-ro<br />

2o.27<br />

16.04<br />

2L-11<br />

stiffness, given in thousands of pounds per inch of crush, is<br />

followed by the maximum crush as a percentage of the total<br />

frontal distance available forcrush. The last column in table<br />

4 is the maximum energy absorbed by the frontal structure<br />

calculated by integrating the force displacement curae.<br />

In addition to the data presented in tables 3 and 4, plots of<br />

the passsenger compartment acceleration (crash pulse),<br />

velocity and displacement over time are helpful in<br />

comparing the two vehicles. Figure I compares the 25 and<br />

35 mph full frontal pulses of the Hyundai and Toyota, while<br />

figures 2 and 3 compare velocity and displacement,<br />

respectively, obtained by integrating the crash pulse.<br />

Figures 4, 5 and 6 make the same comparisons for the half<br />

offset crash mode. From these curves we can see that these<br />

two vehicles have reasonably similar crash pulses, with the<br />

largest variation occurring in the 35 mph tests. The effect of<br />

these variances will be further discussed<br />

in the section on<br />

Occupant Kinematics.<br />

It is important also to look at the vehicles' energy<br />

absorption capabilities. Figure 7 shows the comparison of<br />

Hyundai and Toyota force-deflection curves for 25 and 35<br />

mph full frontal tests. Figure 8 shows the integrals of these<br />

force-deflections. It is clear at 25 mph that the frontal<br />

structure of the Toyota absorbs more energy than does the<br />

Hyundai in this crash mode. These 25 mph curves also<br />

indicate that the Toyota has the potential to absorb more<br />

energy at higher crush. Energy absorption is the same up to<br />

approximately 3 inches of crush. After that point the Toyota<br />

absorbs more energy for every increment of increased<br />

crush.<br />

Figures 9 and l0 help to explain the above differences.<br />

Figure 9 is a pretest under,body view of the engine<br />

compartflent of a Celica; figure l0 is the same view of an<br />

Excel. Notice the T-shaped assembly (front suspension<br />

crossmember and center engine support member) in the<br />

Toyota. The Toyota lower control arms also provide added<br />

structural rigidity, at least from the wheels aft, due to their<br />

trailing longitudinal orientation and their attachment to the<br />

floorpan, This construction indicates that the Toyota may be<br />

structurally stronger in the latterpart of the crush. However,<br />

at 35 mph, the peak LCB force is essentially the same forthe<br />

two cars, but the peak force occurs slightly earlier in the<br />

Hyundai at approximately 16 inches of crush. This peak in<br />

the Hyundai did not occur at the lower speed, even though<br />

the crush exceeded 16 inches. This indicates that engine<br />

impulse or some other factor, rather than structural strength,<br />

influenced the Hyundai peak force. The reasons will be<br />

investigated in later discussions comparing crash speeds<br />

and crash modes.<br />

Comparison of structural performance in the half offset<br />

crash mode shows less difference tretween the two makes.<br />

Figure I I contains plots of the force-deflection curves<br />

resulting from the 25 and 35 mph half offset batrier tests.<br />

Figure 12 shows the corresponding energy absorption<br />

curve$. Again the Toyota frontal structure absorbs more<br />

energy at 25 mph than does the Hyundai, but the difference<br />

is less pronounced. In the 35 mph case the energy absorption<br />

359


tt rr* Ftll lm;nl H1r'ld,ti Ercel w. tqon C.UH lf rpt Frlll lrclittl Hyr'l,&ll E*d rlt. folo|r Ctl|r'r.<br />

0 25 SO t} 100<br />

Ilmr (mr)<br />

Figure 1. Crash pulse lor full lrontal tests.<br />

2t l;h PilI ltratd Hyr:drl Errrll ot Toyot: HE tt r;t Ftll ftot|rt Hystdtl Excrl pr. ttlotr Ctltcr'<br />

eg<br />

i<br />

t<br />

t'r (c)<br />

Flgure 2. Veloclty curves for full frontal tests'<br />

360<br />

- l{yurdd Ercd<br />

- lopto Cr$co<br />

- H|.Era<br />

||l rdCt<br />

+a-a.----l--tt'lr'<br />

r ro t t a t t rr i f'drsfrf.rrfrf,.f<br />

a<br />

it<br />

c<br />

o -<br />

oL<br />

! t( l -<br />

{t<br />

3 t<br />

I<br />

- llWndoi Excal<br />

- Toyuto Crrlico<br />

a<br />

a<br />

a/<br />

IT<br />

r.-r----g:<br />

o ro f t 4 tP f rt f +*d..t.f*f.f.frf,rf<br />

tr<br />

(m)


-n<br />

u<br />

rt rFt ?:ll l'|f,td ''lllr.&j tsd rr. Tq'li. c'Glfu tll| ft* Fsll lto:td llystt/,tl Err:ll rr. ?qo]. C.zillc.<br />

{<br />

-FFt hrr<br />

--<br />

-<br />

c&<br />

1r.r.._._.t<br />

.t<br />

T-<br />

I<br />

l5 ;pt Htll clftct Hyr,tthl Ercrl or. Tqctn Ctl/rct Jll npl Hdl cflfi HyarJnl Ercrtr ot. toyolt Crrlkr.<br />

6 -to<br />

o<br />

! a!f -20<br />

g<br />

{<br />

-J0<br />

r f t t a a a rr a ilt'rfrildrtrtfril | + + f a ] a r| t tf.|.rtdrl|rlrf1*<br />

rm (al<br />

- Hygn{oi Erccl<br />

r loyoto Crl'co<br />

_,10<br />

0 23 50 lJ r00<br />

Tlmr (nr)<br />

Figure 4. Crash pulsea lor hall off8et tests.<br />

- Xyg6Ooi Ercrl<br />

- tof.sto Cafco<br />

il<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I t


2E rll I{r.V aUlE, IlytstuI E,rcel o* Toyrclt Cdlu tt r;r Hrll Oooootl.4 Hytr'sd.tl E-ctl sr' liottot. c.lle..<br />

ttrr (ml<br />

Flgure 5. Velocity surves lor half offsst te$ts.<br />

-<br />

* a rr a adr{rtrt$19afrf<br />

|tr. (+)<br />

ttl nplr I|l.If Ofilr Hyr*ttltt Ercrl lr, Ilqn|n Ccllgr l$ erpl llrlf Ofittl Hltathl Excel ot, fqol. e3rlfl<br />

lh. lrbl<br />

Flgure 6. Dlsplacement curvss for hall oflsst tssts.<br />

362<br />

r rl t t a I t rr a Jdrsrt+lrr.t.tri<br />

t rr + t e f t f f {rlr$rfri+l.tta*+<br />

o + il t {r |t, f f ft'rfrfrt+F1*rtrrn<br />

ttm (tl


t<br />

! ctocg<br />

J<br />

I<br />

o<br />

o<br />

l-<br />

E5 nph lull froatrl llyrndrl lrcrl rr. Toyotr Grllcr 3$ mgh full lrontel ltnlbdrt lrcrl rr. totot| crllcr<br />

rr0<br />

r00<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

4<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

t0<br />

o<br />

70000<br />

60m0<br />

30000<br />

$<br />

!<br />

I {0000<br />

}r<br />

PJm00<br />

o<br />

c<br />

lr,<br />

E Htu,illol ErCd<br />

r loyoto Cdlr6<br />

ii<br />

a,<br />

a-<br />

a I<br />

, I<br />

,tA<br />

. l<br />

\;<br />

tt<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

t<br />

to to Jo<br />

Olrphcrrnrnl (ln)<br />

Flgure 7. Forco vs. cruth plotr for full lrontal tssts,<br />

- flgrl<br />

I crlco<br />

t<br />

0.<br />

o<br />

...../<br />

,'/<br />

t<br />

0<br />

l t<br />

,<br />

t<br />

a<br />

a<br />

rt<br />

a<br />

E ctoo.g<br />

J<br />

a<br />

u<br />

o<br />

il0<br />

t00<br />

90<br />

EO<br />

fo<br />

s<br />

50<br />

rO<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

to<br />

o<br />

:/<br />

I<br />

]<br />

ir)<br />

- f,1s61<br />

7 i<br />

t,<br />

l<br />

t l<br />

I<br />

]<br />

tr<br />

i'.<br />

l r , t<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I<br />

f0 20 JO<br />

Dlpbcrmrnt<br />

(ln)<br />

r Cetico t ttf<br />

0<br />

t0 15 20 25<br />

Displocrmrnf (in)<br />

- lltsndoi Erccl<br />

r Isyota Cclcc<br />

25 mph Full Ftontel Exccl oe, Cclica 35 mph Full Frontal ErceI oa, Ccllcs<br />

Olrplommrnl (in)<br />

Flgure 8. Energy ab8orptlon In full frontEl tests.<br />

..-P<br />

'rdf<br />

.,df<br />

fle<br />

;d<br />

g<br />

.i.dP<br />

-d<br />

c


Figure 9. Toyota lront underbody.<br />

Figure 1 0. Hyundal front undGrbody.<br />

is essentially equal for the two vehicles until about 23 inches<br />

ofcrush has occurred. From that point on the Toyota is again<br />

dissipating more energy than the Hyundai. Also note that<br />

the Hyundai uses 98.2% of its available frontal length at<br />

maximum crush at this speed. lt is no coincidence that the<br />

greatest intrusion is also observed during this test: 4.5<br />

inches rearward and 3.6 inches upward. (See table 7<br />

discussed in section IV).<br />

Figures l3 and 14 show the crash pulse comparison, by<br />

crash mode, for the Hyundai and Toyota, respectively. Both<br />

the low speed Hyundai test and the high speed Toyota tests<br />

had higher crash pulse peaks in the half offset tests. To<br />

explain this the corresponding set of force-deflection<br />

curves, figures I 5 and I 6, and energy/displacement curves,<br />

figures 17 and 18, are examined. The first conspicuous<br />

difference is that both vehicles are less stiff in the half offset<br />

crash, as might be expected, but this stiffness difference is<br />

364<br />

more pronounced at 25 mph than at 35, and more<br />

pronounced at 25 in the Toyota than in the Hyundai. The<br />

second salient feature of the curves is that the peak load cell<br />

force values generally correlate with peak acceleration (also<br />

see table 4). One can also see from figures I 5 and I 6 that the<br />

pairs of force-crush curves fbr the 35 mph Toyota and the 25<br />

mph Hyundai have very similar shapes as would be<br />

expected. However the 25 mph Toyota curves and the 35<br />

mph Hyundai curves do not show this similarity. This<br />

exception in both cases is that the peak force and<br />

acceleration in the offset tests were unexpectedly high<br />

values and occurred late in the event. This shows that<br />

"bottoming-out" or stiffening occurred when the crush<br />

exceeded a certain limit available in the front structure,<br />

causing a high but late crash pulse peak (consistent with the<br />

force peaks). Since the high speed Hyundai tests did not<br />

display this phenomenon, it is probable that the energy<br />

absorbed in both high speed tests as well as the offset 25<br />

mph test was of sufficient energy to bottom out the<br />

structure. Referring to table 4 shows that in the low speed<br />

tests this bottoming out phenomenon occurred somewhere<br />

between 55*68Va of the reported available crush. ln the high<br />

speed tests this occurred between 7V98Vo.In the low speed<br />

tests and the high speed full frontal test, the Toyota showed<br />

no signs of bottoming out. However in the high speed offset<br />

test, the structure apparently did bottom out. This indicates<br />

that the Toyota bottoms outatT0-80Vo of the available crush<br />

as repofted in table 4. This can perhaps be explained by two<br />

unique design features of the Toyota. One of these is the<br />

longitudinal engine support member which also serves to<br />

absorb frontal crush energy in a frontal impact. In the offset<br />

impact used in this testing this member was not fully<br />

engaged, thus softening the structure. The other difference<br />

is that the Toyota has trailing lower A-arms which add<br />

considerable stiffness to the structure at about 23 inches of<br />

collapse distance. Since the Toyota does not collapse this far<br />

in the half offset 25 mph test and the longitudinal member is<br />

not resisting collapse, stiffening is not seen at the lower<br />

speed. These diff'erences further indicate that the Toyota has<br />

a more effective collapsible structure.<br />

Comparisons similar to the ones made for crash mode are<br />

made by crash speed in figures 19 through 24. By<br />

comparison of force-crush curves at 25 and 35 mph the<br />

extent ofvelocity rate dependence can be examined. From<br />

the previous discussion it was discovered that the Hyundai<br />

structure bottomed-out in three of the four tests, yet the<br />

Toyota bottomed-out in only the 35 mph offset. Since<br />

structural forces are unpredictable when the structure is<br />

fully collapsed, the Toyota full-frontal tests more reliably<br />

explain the effect ofvelocity on crash pulse and force-crush.<br />

It can be seen from comparing the Toyota full frontal tests in<br />

figure 20, that the crash pulses are very similar in shape' the<br />

peak in the 35 mph test is higher, and the duration longer<br />

than in the 25 mph test. By looking at figure 22, it can be<br />

seen that the force-crush curves are also very similar, until<br />

the load drops off in the 25 mph test.


8i rlpb lhll olht Hyundri lrcel rr. Toyol.r Cdtcr lS nph llell olf*t Hyrodri Ercrl vr. Toyotr Ccller<br />

Ir0<br />

too<br />

90<br />

eo<br />

t<br />

Eto<br />

t<br />

o<br />

50<br />

:t<br />

Jto<br />

t<br />

g.o<br />

o<br />

t-<br />

J{r<br />

20<br />

l0<br />

0<br />

r llWlrdoi Ererl<br />

- tqsra Cdica<br />

,_rj<br />

,<br />

a,<br />

a<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

0frphcrmrnl (ln)<br />

Flgure 11. Crash pulses lor Hyundal Excel full frontsl vs, hslf offact teete.<br />

10<br />

Dllplocrmrni (ln)<br />

25 mph HeA Offtct Exccl oe, C,clica 35 mph HaA Qffsct Ercel os. Celica<br />

50000<br />

t<br />

4 | 40ffi<br />

h<br />

gJ000o<br />

o<br />

g<br />

trJ<br />

?0000<br />

- f41l<br />

t C.Ico<br />

t<br />

,fr<br />

,<br />

ll<br />

0<br />

t,<br />

f t<br />

)<br />

o<br />

f7<br />

0 5 t 0 t 5 2 0<br />

Dhpfocrrrrnf (ln)<br />

Flgure 18. Energy abaorptlon In half off$Gt tc$ts.<br />

,<br />

2J<br />

|r<br />

il0<br />

t00<br />

90<br />

EO<br />

Erc<br />

t<br />

o<br />

o. 60<br />

o<br />

.=<br />

Sso<br />

E.o<br />

o<br />

lr<br />

'df<br />

Jo<br />

20<br />

t0<br />

0<br />

'dP<br />

.rdf<br />

fr-<br />

:'-e<br />

P<br />

,i -dFP<br />

d<br />

c 0<br />

- l+nrndoi frGd<br />

- IoFtq Cetico<br />

o<br />

a,<br />

r EICCI<br />

r Crlho<br />

to<br />

t<br />

, r<br />

f + t<br />

l r<br />

y r<br />

^A. I<br />

, I \ l<br />

l r<br />

,<br />

,,<br />

l r<br />

tr,<br />

\./i I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I ,<br />

t0 t5 20 ?s<br />

Displocrmrnt (in)<br />

o<br />

,?<br />

J5<br />

365


i<br />

o<br />

C<br />

o<br />

I<br />

t I<br />

tl<br />

(t<br />

{<br />

HFn&t Erorl l, *fh Fr/ll fmll.ttl ct' Hr,/f ofrrlt Hytntst Brrrll l8 lilh F:ll ftoilrd<br />

n Fsll lrutlol<br />

- lloll ollrrt<br />

r{ir.r-<br />

I.<br />

, ra<br />

fr.t^ -r<br />

\<br />

I ]<br />

tt<br />

\. r t'<br />

\ r I ;<br />

\L /;<br />

5rt<br />

- Fdl lrsrtC<br />

r lHf oltrt<br />

ir t's ro is lm | 25 ls, I ts 25 r5 t00<br />

Iimr (rnr)<br />

llmr (mr)<br />

,*ta<br />

Figurel3.Grashpu|sestorHyundalExcellu|||rontalvs.haliolfsettests.<br />

6<br />

i)<br />

c o<br />

o<br />

o<br />

o<br />

rt<br />

g<br />

t0<br />

-t0<br />

-J)<br />

Toyott Ccllcc 2tl ;lph Frll ftonttl w' HrJf offr,l To1ot. Ctllct 35 ;plr Ftlt ftonttl<br />

timr (mr)<br />

Flgure 14. Crash pulaes for TOyOta Gelica tull frontal v3. half offset te$ts.<br />

366<br />

- Full frontol<br />

r Hdf oflrrt<br />

It<br />

' l<br />

l<br />

t<br />

t:<br />

t<br />

(,<br />

E<br />

-9*<br />

E I<br />

t r +<br />

(,<br />

{<br />

I<br />

it<br />

C<br />

t t<br />

, l<br />

a u<br />

rit' Htf ollttl<br />

.ff.<br />

ot Htlf olltct<br />

ti 100<br />

i ts io 7s loo l?5 l5o l?5 25 rt0 r73<br />

l0<br />

0<br />

o -t0<br />

o<br />

L<br />

t<br />

t<br />

o -<br />

o<br />

{<br />

r Full lrontsl<br />

- Holf offt.t<br />

I<br />

Iimr (mr)<br />

t75


t<br />

! ctooo<br />

J<br />

t<br />

|,<br />

o<br />

lr<br />

Hyuodrl kcrl 2$ rnph Full lrontrl vr. llrll olhrt Hyundrl Ercrl 35 mph hrll frontrl rr. Hrll otfrct<br />

tt0<br />

t00<br />

90<br />

8{t<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

{O<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

I Fuill fruntol<br />

- tlcll oftrrt<br />

!t<br />

tr<br />

i<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

a<br />

I<br />

a TI<br />

a<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

a<br />

Ohplecrmrnl (ln)<br />

il0<br />

r00<br />

90<br />

^8o<br />

I<br />

E c 7 0<br />

I<br />

o<br />

s" 60<br />

350<br />

o<br />

g + 0<br />

o<br />

E J o<br />

Flgure 1 5. Force ve. crush plots for Hyundal Excel full frontrl vs. half ofl$et terts.<br />

t<br />

! EI0oo<br />

J<br />

I<br />

u<br />

o<br />

Toyolr Cellcr 86 mph lull frootd vr. Hrll olfrct<br />

il0<br />

90<br />

80<br />

to<br />

60<br />

20<br />

t0<br />

0<br />

- Full lrq.rtql<br />

r Holl ott3rt<br />

0lrphornrnf (ln)<br />

Figure 16. Forcc ys- crush plota for Toyota cellca full lrontal vs. h8lf ofl'tt tssts.<br />

t<br />

v Etotro<br />

I<br />

I<br />

u<br />

o<br />

20<br />

t0<br />

o<br />

ro Jo<br />

Dhplocrmrnt (ln)<br />

ToyotrCcllcr<br />

35 mph Full frontrl vr. Hdl offret<br />

it<br />

,tt<br />

o<br />

o<br />

a<br />

p frrll frcnlol<br />

r llolf offtcl<br />

[ ;<br />

o<br />

a<br />

I<br />

t l<br />

t l<br />

/ t<br />

,<br />

a<br />

I<br />

a<br />

tt<br />

t<br />

I<br />

m<br />

Obplocrmrnl (ln)<br />

t<br />

- Full t|Untdl<br />

- itoll ctttrt<br />

IL<br />

t I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

a<br />

I<br />

a<br />

at t I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

a<br />

.0<br />

\


7<br />

romo<br />

6mo<br />

?0000<br />

tmo<br />

0 0 5 t o t 5 2 0 2 5<br />

Olgbcrmrnf (in)<br />

Flgure 1 7. Energy absorptlon by craeh mode lor the Hyundal Excel.<br />

368<br />

25 mph FuIl Frcntil os. Half Off*t 35 mph F14II Frcntal ot. Half olfwt<br />

I<br />

a<br />

lmmo<br />

fo 15 20 25<br />

Dirplocrmrnl (ln)<br />

25 mph Full Frontal os, HaA Off*t 35 mph FUII Frontal oe. HtU Oflset<br />

70000<br />

60ffi<br />

i0000<br />

I<br />

e<br />

I 10000<br />

t<br />

9J0000<br />

t<br />

C<br />

lr,<br />

2m00<br />

s Full Froatol<br />

tr Holl Oflrt<br />

t'<br />

rrf<br />

t<br />

t<br />

a<br />

t<br />

,<br />

0<br />

0<br />

,<br />

t<br />

0<br />

,<br />

o<br />

,<br />

o<br />

r0000 /rr<br />

t<br />

,<br />

0<br />

0 i 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5<br />

ltirpfommrnf (ln)<br />

Flgure 18. Energy absorptlon by craeh mode for thc Toyota Gellca.<br />

.d<br />

.df<br />

t'r-f<br />

Re<br />

:p tr<br />

;+e<br />

"dfP<br />

"dtr<br />

..*p<br />

'*d<br />

,r-P<br />

F.e<br />

:#r<br />

o<br />

ioP<br />

.sP<br />

,d<br />

- Futt Fronlol<br />

- ndl Offr.t<br />

{,"<br />

- Full Frontol<br />

r rhtl O{lut<br />

{,*<br />

,<br />

O<br />

f o<br />

T '<br />

7 a<br />

t<br />

o<br />

,<br />

,<br />

I<br />

t<br />

,<br />

I<br />

I<br />

,<br />

r0 15 20 z5<br />

Dirplommrnt (ln)<br />

i,<br />

o<br />

o<br />

,o<br />

rqt<br />

o<br />

o<br />

a<br />

';t<br />

J5


Hyrndrl Ercd Frll frortrl tS r7t ur. 15 ;pt Hyr;drl E.rcd ttr,$ olftril 25 sph ur. t.f rrplr<br />

- ZJ rriptr<br />

rt J5 ffiph<br />

0 25 50 73 r00 t25 t5o l7S<br />

Iimr (mr)<br />

Figure 1L Crarh pulaea lor Hyundal ExcBl 25 mph vs. gE mph t6st$.<br />

.r<br />

C|<br />

C o<br />

g<br />

.l<br />

It,<br />

o<br />

{<br />

t5 tm<br />

fimr (mr)<br />

Toyott Cclicr Fill ftoaul 28 lllph ot, 35 lllllh Tuyotn Ccllct Helf offtc| 28 nyh or. 35 ;p[<br />

r ?S r?rph<br />

r J$ mpn<br />

It<br />

lr a<br />

f<br />

li<br />

t;<br />

I<br />

l<br />

,<br />

TT<br />

I.<br />

E<br />

o -r0<br />

7t t00 r75 25 t5 t00<br />

finr (mr)<br />

Flgure 20. Crash pulses for Toyota Cellca 25 mph vs. 35 mph t$ts.<br />

tirnc (mr)<br />

t<br />

o<br />

o<br />

t<br />

I<br />

()<br />

u -<br />

{<br />

- 25 trph<br />

I JJ nptr<br />

i\<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

t t<br />

/l t<br />

/;<br />

I<br />

a<br />

I<br />

,<br />

I<br />

r25<br />

aallrt<br />

t25 t50 r15<br />

\


7<br />

llyundri frcrl lrll frenlrl Ei lpb rr, $S ntph Hyrndri Exccl llrll olfrct Ei rnph vr. 35 mph<br />

'ilo<br />

Dlrplocrmrnl (h)<br />

Flgurc 21. Forcc vc. crush plot$ lor Hyundal Excel 25 mph Yt. 35 mph le8t$.<br />

t0 J0<br />

Dlrplocrmrnl (ln)<br />

Toyotr Cclicr Full frontrl 25 mph w' S$ mph Toptr Cclicr Hrlf olbct ?5 mph vr. 35 mph<br />

Olrplocrmrnf (ln)<br />

Flgurc 22. Forcc vr. crush plots tor Toyot! Cellca 25 mPh vs. 35 mph tt8ts.<br />

370<br />

r00<br />

t0<br />

0<br />

r lt 6jrft<br />

r ,Lmdr<br />

I<br />

90<br />

a<br />

t<br />

t0<br />

f<br />

t<br />

l<br />

Ero<br />

I<br />

I<br />

o<br />

I<br />

s60<br />

350 o .'n<br />

,<br />

E.o<br />

o<br />

rr ir<br />

J{)<br />

it 20<br />

il0<br />

t00<br />

90<br />

t0<br />

a<br />

lro<br />

f<br />

o<br />

F60<br />

*io<br />

t<br />

g { 0<br />

o<br />

lr<br />

Jo<br />

20<br />

t0<br />

0<br />

- 25 flUh<br />

r Ji rilfh<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I t<br />

rll<br />

a l<br />

I<br />

t ;<br />

t ;<br />

t :<br />

\ \ ;<br />

l1<br />

t l<br />

t l<br />

trt<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

f<br />

I<br />

I<br />

a<br />

I<br />

a<br />

I<br />

E CIoco<br />

= J<br />

a<br />

It<br />

o<br />

b<br />

t<br />

r0<br />

00<br />

90<br />

80<br />

r0<br />

€o<br />

ll0<br />

t00<br />

90<br />

80<br />

E n<br />

J<br />

o o 6 0<br />

g<br />

gio<br />

! o<br />

d<br />

l* Jo<br />

20<br />

* 25 mplr<br />

r Jg lrtph<br />

- !$ mph<br />

r J5 mptt<br />

t<br />

It<br />

l r<br />

1 1 -<br />

I t l r<br />

f t t<br />

! n<br />

,'Fl \<br />

20<br />

t<br />

I<br />

I I r<br />

'aatt<br />

a<br />

; r<br />

I t t<br />

t l<br />

t r<br />

: i<br />

c ; t<br />

l,^4<br />

0lrplomrnrnf (ln)<br />

i<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I<br />

a<br />

,<br />

l r<br />

l i<br />

t ; l_ _ __ _^.


.d<br />

{'"*<br />

.'Ff<br />

.-*f<br />

;--"<br />

I<br />

Jd<br />

E*cd FUII Frontd 15 lrph u.1, ZE nph Exccl Hr,$ Offtct 35 mph u,t. 25 mph<br />

"Sf<br />

-dtt<br />

0<br />

H tr$ rvrfh<br />

r 25 fieft<br />

r<br />

,rir,<br />

0 5 r 0 r $ 2 0 e 5 J 0 I J r0 t3 20 25<br />

Olrplommral (ln)<br />

Dlrplocrmrnt (ln)<br />

Flgure 23. Energy Abmrptlon by lmpact yrloclty for the Hyundal Ercel.<br />

rd<br />

rtdf<br />

Cclice Fu/l Erontd tE mph ot, 25 mph EcIIca Half Offrct 35 mph ot, 25 mph<br />

t-df<br />

He<br />

;"df<br />

e<br />

Jd<br />

.df<br />

-df<br />

- Jg 6pl<br />

- 23 ttplr<br />

tt<br />

0 5 t o r 5 ? o 2 t t J 0 J 5 r0 15 20 25<br />

Dlrplocrmrnl (la)<br />

Flgurc 84. Encrgy rbrorptlon by lmprct veloclty for thr Toyotr Gellcr.<br />

r--P<br />

.tof<br />

tt-f<br />

f,"-*<br />

:df<br />

g<br />

;d<br />

"dtr<br />

"df<br />

.df<br />

..dP<br />

'"-f<br />

f,,e<br />

:*P<br />

E<br />

;d<br />

.dtr<br />

"*F<br />

- JS mfrlr<br />

-t 2i nplr<br />

- J$ ;6p1<br />

r ?5 nrpfr<br />

7o<br />

a<br />

o<br />

rl<br />

I<br />

Olrplmrnrnt (ln)<br />

J5


Having discussed and compared the frontal structure, we<br />

will go on to explore the differences in occupant injury<br />

between the Hyundai Excel and the Toyota Celica in these<br />

eight tests.<br />

Occupant Injury Data<br />

An unrestrained 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy<br />

was used in the driver position in all eight tests. To facilitate<br />

better camera coverage of the driver dummy's interaction<br />

with the steering assembly, no dummy was used in the right<br />

front seat position. Table 5 $ummarizes the occupant injury<br />

data recorded by electronic instrumentation and the<br />

laceration index (LI). Analysis of data from test films is<br />

presented in Section IV.<br />

Table 5. Occupant lnlury data.<br />

rest H,c EEll' i8?tl'li8f,i [FEl EEg: Lr<br />

FFES H<br />

ot-<br />

FFAS T<br />

ot<br />

FF35 H<br />

ot<br />

FF3 6oT<br />

HOES H<br />

9t<br />

HO25 T<br />

ot<br />

HO35 H<br />

ot<br />

HO35or<br />

r tl dnd te rFG dlven for I<br />

unltE: Loadr lF DouEdt<br />

DlcDIrccfrint ln lnchar<br />

Tlnb (t) ln nlltlrecgnds<br />

Lrccrdtlon IndGx (LI, lt unltliil<br />

The Head Injury Criterion (HIC) was calculated from the<br />

resultant of the three central accelerometers in a nineaccelerometer<br />

array. The maximum chest g's is the<br />

maximum acceleration of the torso which has duration<br />

greater than three milliseconds. Maximum femur load,<br />

shown in table 4, is the maximum axial compressive forcu in<br />

pounds measured by the femur load cell. The maximum<br />

abdominal displacement is calculated from data measured<br />

by a pressure transducer in the Hybrid III. The conversion<br />

formula between pressure in pounds per square inch (x) and<br />

displacement in inches (D) for the abdominal insert used in<br />

this dummy is:<br />

D = (0.00047288x5 - 0.02616x4 + 0.53471x3<br />

- 5.0362x2 + 26.981x + 5.31)125.4.<br />

Positive chest displacement is recorded by a<br />

potentiometer when a plate at the front of the chest is<br />

displaced toward the spine. The maximum displacement is<br />

shown in table 4 in inches.<br />

The laceration index is a comparative measure of<br />

laceration and abrasion of the face and scalp of the<br />

occupant. It is based on the number, length and depth ofcuts<br />

made, during the crash, in two layers of chamois fitted over<br />

the face and the top of the head of the dummy. An LI of I<br />

indicates that there were abra$ions to the outer chamois, but<br />

no penetrating lacerations.<br />

312<br />

1451<br />

BE: tE<br />

,111,<br />

66.25<br />

I 424<br />

74. r8<br />

a9-9?<br />

ll?2"'<br />

65 .47<br />

9lo<br />

?[i16"<br />

469<br />

t3.47<br />

toz, oo<br />

IB55<br />

t3:i6<br />

18llo<br />

92.77<br />

54.5<br />

49.1<br />

78.2<br />

lo5. a<br />

44. O<br />

45. O<br />

6+. O<br />

69. O<br />

r67 r<br />

r 039<br />

e5a3<br />

e3 t6<br />

l5l I<br />

103r<br />

2920<br />

1550<br />

l20a<br />

1463<br />

1676<br />

1409<br />

l20t<br />

I 65i<br />

I 796<br />

z.za<br />

90. o<br />

Eolt<br />

1 .69<br />

s3.77<br />

b16'<br />

1.93 Er?8. at.7e<br />

ioSlaz<br />

1.74<br />

97.72<br />

2.45<br />

79.27<br />

2.05<br />

95-25<br />

t.7l<br />

79 .95<br />

&r?tu<br />

ti?B'<br />

I .45<br />

99.07<br />

r.12<br />

65.97<br />

1 .17<br />

7J.tZ,<br />

1.00<br />

8, 29<br />

1. OO<br />

7.78<br />

r.oo<br />

4. 59<br />

l. oo<br />

3. 90<br />

The parts of the body most affected by the steering<br />

assembly are the head and chest. We begin the discussion of<br />

occupant data with those indicating head injury. From table<br />

5 one can see that, in general, the driver of the Toyota<br />

experiences a considerably lower HIC than the driver of the<br />

Hyundai. Also note that the laceration index for the Toyota<br />

driver is always quite high, while the LI for the Hyundai<br />

driver is never greater than I (abrasions only). This would<br />

seem to indicate that head injury to the Toyota driver results<br />

primarily from contact with the windshield while the<br />

Hyundai driver seldom hits the windshield; his injuries are<br />

caused by hitting something harder, the instrument panel, or<br />

steering wheel hub. The one exception to this is the HIC of<br />

1586 for the Toyota driver in the 35 mph full frontal test'<br />

This is borne out in the film analysis and the exception<br />

explained in the next section.<br />

Two observations predominate when looking at the<br />

maximum chest accelerations reported in table 5. With such<br />

similar crash pulses we could expect that since the Hyundai<br />

driver had a higher chest acceleration that the Toyota driver<br />

at 25 mph, the same would be true at 35 mph. However,<br />

quite the oppo$ite was recorded. In fact, the increase in three<br />

millisecond clip chest acceleration for the Toyota driver<br />

from the ?5 mph test to the 35 mph test is extremely out of<br />

line with the increase for the Hyundai driver. This points to a<br />

difference in the function of some part of the Toyota interior<br />

at the higher speed. The second oddity is that while the chest<br />

acceleration decreases in the half offset mode in both cars at<br />

25 mph, at 35 mph the chest g's for the Hyundai driver are<br />

greater than in the full frontal mode but the Toyota driver's<br />

chest acceleration is greatly reduced from the full frontal<br />

case. To adequately explain these seemingly incongruous<br />

data we must rely on analysis of high speed films of the tests<br />

to detail the kinematics of the dummy and vehicle interior<br />

surfaces and supplement what is known from electronic<br />

instrumentation.<br />

Occupant Kinematics<br />

Film motion analysis was conducted to determine<br />

kinematics of the dummy and its interaction with the<br />

steering assembly, instrument panel, windshield and other<br />

interior components. Figures 25 through 32 show the<br />

relative positions of the dummy and steering wheel/interior<br />

for the drivers at important times throughout the eYent. A<br />

summary of the dummy kinematics is presented in table 6.<br />

Relative velocities between the dummy and struck<br />

surface at contact time (known as "contact velocity") were<br />

evaluated as one of the parameters affecting occupant<br />

injury. Contact velocity was determined by adding the<br />

Table 6. Summary of drlver dummy klnematlcs.<br />

chcrt/iub<br />

H.rd/rln<br />

Hc.d/I. P.<br />

6'l<br />

8a<br />

Evint Tlffi - ill ll lracondr<br />

-H FFti-fl FF25-T FF35-T HO25-[ Ho3r-f, rcUr-T XOrt-T<br />

58<br />

50<br />

,1<br />

64<br />

69<br />

al<br />

at<br />

5l<br />

6l<br />

t1<br />

77<br />

73<br />

89<br />

67<br />

undctchlnad<br />

58<br />

57<br />

la<br />

f4<br />

73<br />

t3<br />

66<br />

55


ftdcrrn sontrott rlt 0 EBr? rr<br />

r l r e c S l<br />

Flgure 25. Dummy klnematlc plote of llyundal 2$ mph lull frontal.<br />

chln oantrotr rln rt t3.6 rr<br />

chmt cmtrctr hub rt E{.9 nr l,lorr controtr inrtrunrnt prrrl rt !t.G rr<br />

ec<br />

gl<br />

373


*aolrt cqrtrotr rir rt El.E n<br />

Elrtn ccrt*tr tcp of *rrl rt E8,t r<br />

I r r i l i l l { l<br />

Flgure 26. Dummy klnematlc plota ol Hyundal 35 mph full frontal.<br />

374<br />

Ehrrt cqrtrtr lrrb rt E.l.E rr<br />

Hrn ntrtr lrrtrurrrt prml rt ?4.1 rr


Sdorn contetr nln rt 68,e rl<br />

chln cont.rotr rh rt GrrB r.<br />

/q<br />

r r r t t S r a c<br />

FlgurcZ7. Dummy lrlnomstlc plots of Toyots ZS mph full frontal.<br />

cll|rt srtrctr lrJb rt f,l.E rr<br />

Ehir hltr upprr IPz h.rd cFrekd tt 6r.i


c<br />

RFdiln ca*,str rlr rt El.E m<br />

Figure 28. Dummy klnematic plots ot Toyota 35 mph full frontal'<br />

376<br />

Ohrrt/chln srrtrot rlr rt Gc.t rr<br />

ee !t<br />

H,rck controtr rln rt ??.a ilr


Hilr| srtrtr rl&fird art|ctr r/r rt n.l il. chln eentrotr rlr rt ?t.t rr<br />

Clrt cantmtr lrrE rt tt.l r mr contttr lnrtnnat Frtl rt Cg.O il<br />

r l r l l a r<br />

Flgure 29. Dummy klnematlc plot$ ot Hyundal 25 mph half offrst.


fSdoffi c*rtrcEr rir rt tlf.l rr<br />

Chrrt eoatrctr hub rt F?.t rr<br />

Flgure 30. Dummy klnematic plots of Hyundal 35 mPh half oflsot.<br />

378<br />

Chin oontrctr rir rt EG,E rr<br />

)hrd cmtrotr lnrtnrrnt prrrl rt ?4.1 rr


t<br />

filtln cflrtstr rir rt CC. l rr Ehin eontrstr rh rt ?t.i rr<br />

chrrt eqrtrtr lr.S rt ?tt.t rr l|rd srt*tr lnrtnnnt Frrrl, rt Bi!.9 rrr<br />

Flgure 31. Dummy klnematlc plots ot Toyote 25 mph hall oftsct.<br />

379


Sdsm lartrotr rh rt EB.? rr Hrrd Edrtrctr rln rt EE.l r.<br />

b)<br />

-{-d {<br />

jv<br />

*/,"<br />

0hrrt ccrtrctr hrb rt ll.t rr<br />

./,,<br />

Flgure 32. Dummy klnematlc plots of Toyota 3$ mph half otfeet.<br />

380<br />

lhrd rtrlku rlndrtrirld rt ll.3 rr


velocity, at the time of chest contact, of an unrestrained one<br />

mass object (relative to the compartment) to the film<br />

determined velocity of the column. Figures 33 through 36<br />

are the contact velocity curves derived from the crash pulses<br />

of the eight crash tests and table 7 summarizes the steering<br />

column film analysis results. The resulting total contact<br />

velocities are shown in table 8. This method of determining<br />

contact velocity wa$ chosen since film analysis distortion<br />

effor was unavoidable with a wide angle lens used on the onboard<br />

camera. Additionally, the dummy's shoulder or chest<br />

target was not always clearly visible in the views of the offboard<br />

camera$, precluding their use for all tests.<br />

Comparisons are also shown in table 8 between contact<br />

velocities obtained using this method and contact velocities<br />

from film analysis only for the full frontal tests. There is<br />

generally very good agreement. Another use of the contact<br />

velocity derived from the crash pulse is to quantify the crash<br />

pulse differences for the specific contact times observed for<br />

the drivers in this test series.<br />

The first set of tests analyzed are the full frontal te$ts at<br />

the 25 mph crash speed. Figures 25 and ?7 show the dummy<br />

kinematics in these tests. For the Hyundai full frontal test at<br />

25 mph, the che$t to hub contact velocity, from table 8, is<br />

24.5 mph (including 2.4 mph rearward velocity of the<br />

steering assembly) at 65 milliseconds. There was 2.0 inches<br />

of rearward dynamic intrusion before the dummy contacted<br />

the wheel and the column/wheel began absorbing energy by<br />

stroking. ln the Toyota, contact velocity was 25.8 mph at 64<br />

milliseconds. There was a very small horizontal velocity<br />

component of intrusion of 0.2 mph and a correspondingly<br />

small horizontal intrusion component of 0.2 inches. Contact<br />

velocity fpr the Toyota compares reasonably well, though<br />

slightly higher, with that calculated for the Hyundai, despite<br />

Hytrl.dtl Erccl 25 tsph Ftll ftanltl<br />

f EJO<br />

lr<br />

E<br />

!ro<br />

|t<br />

t Goro<br />

fl -.rlfl lilr iliH dr lhl h<br />

1$<br />

1$<br />

f rP + 0 ro f, frdrrorf<br />

Gantoc,t tlmr (rnrl<br />

? a<br />

g E<br />

s ;<br />

C E<br />

s 3<br />

€ E<br />

f t ,<br />

E €<br />

F O<br />

Flgure 33. Contact veloclty snd tr8vsl cuiyaa lor ?5 mph lull frontal teslE'<br />

t0<br />

the intrusion difference, since the intrusion in the Hyundai<br />

caused earlier contact than would have been expected<br />

otherwise.<br />

In the Toyota the three millisecond clipped chest<br />

acceleration was 49.1 g's, compared to 54.5 g's in the<br />

Hyundai at 25 mph. This shows that one should not<br />

conclude from the Hyundai and Toyota 25 mph tests that<br />

lower contact velocity caused by intrusion is desirable for<br />

improved occupant re$pon$e. Though the response<br />

difference is not large, it is especially significant in light of<br />

the fact that the Hyundai column stroked more than the<br />

Toyota's, see summary of post-test column measureflents<br />

in tabl€ 9. Therefore, steering assembly intrusion may<br />

adversely affect dummy response during dummy ride down<br />

and after the initial impulse is imparted to the dummy<br />

through the wheel.<br />

The next set oftests analyzed are the full frontal tests at 35<br />

mph. Figures 26 and 28 show the dummy kinematics in<br />

these tests. For the Hyundai test, the contact velocity is 30.7<br />

mph (including 3.6 mph horizontal velocity of the steering<br />

column and 3.0 inches dynamic intrusion). Chest contact<br />

occurred in the Hyundai crash test at 58 milliseconds.<br />

Contact velocity for the Toyota was 30.1 mph at 6l<br />

milliseconds. There was a very small horizontal velocity<br />

component of intrusion of 1.3 mph for the Toyota. These<br />

velocities, like the 25 mph test also compare reasonably<br />

well with one another. Part of the reason for the similarity in<br />

total contact velocity, from table 8, despite much higher<br />

intrusion velocity in the Hyundai is that contact occurred<br />

slightly earlier in the Hyundai due to the intrusion, as<br />

compared to the Toyota. Therefore, contact velocity was<br />

unchanged in this case by intrusion, but the column may<br />

have still been accelerating toward the dummy afterconlact.<br />

Toyota Cclica 25 mph Full fiontal<br />

rhd a|.iad llil ilr.lrt rl; lflrlE ltr<br />

o 1$ 1o f 1p + f to f, frfr.orf<br />

Gonloct ltmr (mr)<br />

c<br />

a0 ii<br />

I |,Eo<br />

E<br />

a<br />

2 0 i<br />

381


Hynndoi Exccl 35 mph FulI ftontnl Tulota Cclica 35 mph Full ftontal<br />

E oE,lo<br />

:=<br />

! !zo<br />

r,<br />

o<br />

C<br />

o<br />

oto<br />

acHl flril$f llftf miltfl rlllt 4fltd lia<br />

i /<br />

t /<br />

V I<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

? f<br />

g E<br />

a *<br />

9 F<br />

! 8<br />

# !<br />

EE<br />

(J<br />

s rs +o f P f p 0<br />

10 f f .d+c.+s<br />

I0<br />

10 1o f ls + S ro f frdrr0rf<br />

Gonlocl llmr (mr)<br />

Flgure 34. Contact veloclty and travel cury€a for 35 mph full frontal tests.<br />

Gonlocl ttmr (mr)<br />

Hyundel Excal 25 mph Helf offtcl Tuyote Cclicn 25 mph Half offrct<br />

E o'<br />

Ero<br />

tr<br />

ii<br />

g<br />

t20<br />

(r<br />

o<br />

C<br />

o(Jro<br />

0<br />

$ r$ r0 f P + S r0 f Srd.,r0.1s I0<br />

rs 10 f S f $'t0 f eplqp.rogo<br />

Contoct tlmr (mr)<br />

Flgure 35. Contact velocity f,nd travol curve$ lor 25 mph half offset teste.<br />

382<br />

ro<br />

s3<br />

! r<br />

! E<br />

f;E<br />

f o<br />

E €<br />

F o<br />

o<br />

st!ill railoal tn rnartaa r|l -dHrl h<br />

rtfl Glild lfr frtfl rllr rHail hr cltd rd.rlfif llta [tt- rl] rlodrd hr<br />

| , /<br />

Conlocl llmc (ma)<br />

VI<br />

60<br />

50<br />

+0<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

r0<br />

0<br />

60<br />

50<br />

+0<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

t0<br />

5<br />

a()<br />

E<br />

o<br />

t<br />

E<br />

a '<br />

o<br />

F<br />

C<br />

o<br />

t,<br />

c ol'<br />

E<br />

a t<br />

0


I cE<br />

= t|o<br />

t<br />

u<br />

E Co<br />

(J<br />

Hyandd Excel tE nph Half offttt Toyote Ccllca 35 mph Helf olfsct<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

t0<br />

ilH *rhd lh fifta dti rH|d h<br />

oroffPfC$f,drdtrorf<br />

Gonl'oci lfmr (mr)<br />

{0<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

t0<br />

0<br />

s 3"<br />

E +<br />

€-E<br />

€ ieo<br />

a Llr<br />

E €<br />

F o<br />

0ro<br />

Flgure 36. Contact veloclty and travsl currra for 35 mph half offeet tests.<br />

60<br />

lCtil ailhfl tna tiadt.. rll a|.hd tr<br />

0 1o 1o f tp f 1p 10 f f .d+o*f<br />

Gonlocf ttmr (rnr)<br />

50<br />

C<br />

.o+<br />

I<br />

r,<br />

C<br />

1 6 g<br />

E<br />

-<br />

2 0 8<br />

t0<br />

0<br />

383


Table 7. Steering column <strong>Int</strong>rusion measurements from fllm<br />

analysls.<br />

t'1E3. '<br />

FF'E<br />

HO2E<br />

boS6<br />

.l,r#-e; .:ssl *<br />

z -o<br />

,2<br />

3-'<br />

65<br />

o.a<br />

70<br />

li5<br />

l.a<br />

,2<br />

t.,<br />

63<br />

8;'<br />

le6<br />

to'<br />

6.6<br />

4A<br />

1.5<br />

loro<br />

ts'<br />

le"<br />

-9t'*<br />

E.2l<br />

36 -3<br />

(ln)<br />

iHF<br />

(ln)<br />

'-<br />

(roh)<br />

vcon<br />

(ilDh)<br />

60 I+' Er'<br />

167 8ot lr3<br />

9f 8tt"<br />

9re<br />

l.l<br />

6l<br />

2.1<br />

65<br />

o.6<br />

66<br />

Ir rtForrnc<br />

Tsble 8. Che$t contact and velocity summary'<br />

T?'<br />

frt"<br />

9ta$<br />

o.f<br />

65<br />

:- t8fillTllSf,l"s, not utid to c@putc totrl<br />

Table 9. Summary of steerlng column pre' and post'tsst<br />

measuremsnt$.<br />

TEAT<br />

FfiB:T t8 tt lo<br />

FFIE-T<br />

FFIE-r i8 t8 l:l<br />

tsoaE-H<br />

xo35-H N8 t3 it<br />

HOEE-T<br />

totE-T t8<br />

Etl.EiE r ' "r<br />

21<br />

z9 9 t:ts<br />

As previously pointed out, one should not use this to<br />

conclude that it is better to contact the wheel early to reduce<br />

the contact velocity because the effects of the wheel motion<br />

can still affect the dummy after initial contact.<br />

In looking at dummy response for the 35 mph Toyota test'<br />

parameters other than intrusion and contact velocity appear<br />

to dominate. The chest acceleration in the Toyota was<br />

unexpectedly high at 105.8 g's. Not only was this much<br />

higher than the 78.2 g's in the Hyundai test, but it was also<br />

disproportionately higher than the 49.1 g value seen in the<br />

lower speed Toyota test. Examination of the post-test<br />

measurements reveals that the Toyota steering assembly<br />

$rroked 2.4" at ?5 mph but only stroked 1.9" at 35 mph and<br />

the Toyota column stroked less than the Hyundai at both<br />

speeds, see table 9. This difference in stroke between the<br />

two Toyota tests is percentage-wise higher than that for the<br />

two Hyundai tests, which measurcd 2.7 inches and 2.2<br />

inches for the 25 and 35 mph tests, respectively. The posttest<br />

measurement of the steering column angle also shows a<br />

significant difference in the Toyota and Hyundai column<br />

behavior. The column angle for the Toyota did not change at<br />

all at 25 mph, but changed 14 degrees toward the vertical at<br />

35 mph. This large angle change creates the additional<br />

problem ofreducing the horizontal component ofthe stroke,<br />

making the column less effective in absorbing the<br />

horizontal component of the occupant's motion.<br />

Additionally, as the column angle changes the lower rim of<br />

the wheel comes in contact with the dummy's chest or<br />

abdomen at an increased velocity and force. Since no<br />

significant increase in abdominal displacement was noted,<br />

see table 5, it can be deduced that the relatively stiffToyota<br />

384<br />

IEST ilO, FF25H FFI6H FFZsI FF35I f,dzsH HO35H HOZ6T HO35T<br />

ch$t Contrct<br />

Tlna (hr)<br />

chart TFavcl<br />

Dl rtrnca (l nt<br />

[!ftEtt'$il . t.onr<br />

FllI lhtly6lt<br />

Contrct Vil. (Dph)<br />

illP"li!l'i't"or,r<br />

Totrl Contact<br />

Vrloc{ty (mphl<br />

65 5A<br />

lo. I lt<br />

2e. I E7 -L<br />

22.4 2.1.2<br />

2.4 3.5<br />

e{.8 to.7<br />

64 6l<br />

lr,9 12. r<br />

2s.6 2A.A<br />

26,6 29<br />

0.e 1,3<br />

e5.8 30, r<br />

77 sA<br />

t0,6 6, f<br />

z2,u rE.9<br />

-0.5*r 5,f<br />

22.9 21.L<br />

?4 66<br />

r t.4 10,8<br />

e3.0 27.1<br />

0.2 0.6<br />

?i.2 27.9<br />

three-spoke wheel significantly loaded the chest in this test'<br />

It is also important to note in this test that there is very little,<br />

0.8 inches, vertical intrusion in the Toyota at 35 mph' The<br />

large change in the angle of the Toyota column appears to be<br />

due to a non-axial load applied at the base of the steering<br />

column by the steering rack, which was forced rearward by<br />

the engine and structural supports intruding the floorpan'<br />

Additional film analysis was used to detemline that the total<br />

dummy motion (including stroke of the dummy's chest) was<br />

only 9.2 inches at 35 mph compared to ll.8 inches at 25<br />

mph. It was concluded that the large change in the column<br />

angle precluded axial stroke and did not allow for energy<br />

absorption in the non-axial loading direction. Also the front<br />

end of the column shaft was rigidly fixed or possibly moved<br />

by an intruding steering rack. This phenomenon explains<br />

the excessively high chest acceleration.<br />

Behavior of the Hyundai column was also investigated'<br />

The stroke of the column in the 35 mph test was 2.? inches<br />

and the stroke in the 25 mph test was 2.7 inches. This<br />

indicates that the column did not perform as well at 35 mph'<br />

The cause of this reduced column stroke appears to be<br />

inversely related to the angle change of the steering column<br />

during the test. The post-test measurements of column angle<br />

change along with the stroke distance of the column is<br />

summarized in table 9. The finding that stroke distance and<br />

angle change are inversely related is quite logical since<br />

dummy inertial loads are predominantly horizontal and any<br />

angle change of the column away from the horizontal will<br />

naturally reduce the applied force component along the axis<br />

of the column. Additionally, increasing the angle of the<br />

column with respect to the horizontal creates a larger<br />

component of force perpendicular to the column axis,<br />

resulting in proportionally higher f'riction forces along the<br />

column axis which further resist column stroke.<br />

Another aspect of the intrusion, which had a significant<br />

effect on head acceleration, was the vertical component of<br />

intrusion in the Hyundai (table 7).In the 35 mph impact, the<br />

instrument panel moved approximately 4.5 inches upward<br />

at 74 milliseconds. At 25 mph, the instrument panel moved<br />

1.7 inches upward at 82 milliseconds. These motions were<br />

significant to note because the dummy's nose squarely<br />

struck the instrument panel at these times. Had the intrusion<br />

not occurred, the dummy's head may have struck the<br />

windshield, receiving a lower HIC (due to the lower<br />

breaking force of the windshield) and probably lacerated the<br />

face chamois. In the 25 mph impact the HIC measured l45l<br />

compared to 1424 in the 35 mph impact. The proximity of<br />

these two measurements, in spite of different crash speeds,<br />

can be accounted for by the fact that the instrument panel in<br />

the higher speed test broke up before the dummy's head<br />

struck it, thus limiting the concussive force to the head.<br />

This vertical intrusion may have also affected the dummy<br />

chest response. When the wheel and column are thrust<br />

upward, the forces between the dummy and the wheel are<br />

transmitted in a more axial direction along the column.<br />

Furthermore, if the column is loaded at the bottom of the<br />

shaft from the intruding firewall, engine, steering rack, etc.,


then these intruding forces may be absorbed from the<br />

column stroke rather than being tran$mitted directly to the<br />

driver. It should be noted that this phenomenon is beneflrcial<br />

for absorbing intrusion forces only if the column is not fully<br />

stroked.<br />

Occupant kinematics were next evaluated for the offset<br />

tests by film analysis and by using the crash pulse to obtain<br />

the contact velocities. The first comparison is between the<br />

Hyundai and Toyota in the 25 mph test. Film analysis of the<br />

Hyundai (see figures 29 and 30) shows that the dummy's<br />

first torso contact with the wheel is the abdomen to the lower<br />

rim at approximately 67 milliseconds. Next, the chest<br />

contacts the hub at 77 milliseconds. Analysis from the<br />

overhead camera shows that no significant rotation (less<br />

than I.5 degrees counterclockwise) of the occupant<br />

compartment and very little lateral motion (about 2.0 inches<br />

to the right) have occurred by this time. The effect of the<br />

lateral motion is significant because the dummy hits the<br />

wheel a similar distance to the left of the wheel's center axis.<br />

This causes the chest to load the column non-axially, which<br />

causer; the stroking mechanism to perform poorly and the<br />

rim to act as a principal energy absorber for the thorax. This<br />

motion was observed to be similar for all half barrier tests<br />

conducted in this series as well as for previously conducted<br />

car-to-car offset tests.<br />

From the Hyundai crash pulse, the contact velocity was<br />

calculated to be 22.9 mph (see table 8) between the chest<br />

and hub. There was no additional intrusion velocity in this<br />

test and apparently the column had already started to stroke<br />

since the column velocity was measured to be -0,5 mph<br />

(away from the occupant). The chest 3 millisecond clipped<br />

acceleration was 44 g's. This acceleration is lower than the<br />

25 mph full frontal Hyundai acceleration, because of the<br />

non-axial loading of the hub. Therefore, the softer wheel<br />

provides a better stroking force at 25 mph than the column.<br />

In the Toyota crash test, the contact velocity was<br />

calculated to be 23 mph at the measured contact time of 74<br />

milliseconds. A very small intrusion velocity of 0,2 mph<br />

was recorded from film analysis, making the total contact<br />

velocity 23.2 mph. The three millisecond clipped chest<br />

acceleration is 45 g's. This figure is consistent with that<br />

obtained in the Hyundai test. It also appears to be in<br />

agreement with the dummy acceleration of 49.1 g's<br />

measured in the Toyota full ftontal test which, though<br />

slightly higher, can be explained by a slightly higher contact<br />

velocity of 25.8 mph. It appears that even though this<br />

vehicle also translated to the right like the Hyundai, its<br />

movement was slightly less at 74 milliseconds, measuring<br />

only 1.3 inches by overhead film analysis. This combined<br />

with a wider diameter steering wheel hub in the Toyota, see<br />

photographs of wheels in figure 37, allowed the column<br />

rather than the wheel rim to effectively restrain the<br />

dummy's torso. Comparison of the dummy's abdominal<br />

deflection showed remarkable similarity; L75" for the<br />

Hyundai and l.l4'for the Toyota, see table 5.<br />

Next, the 35 mph half offset tests were compared for chest<br />

response. Dummy kinematic plots for these te$t$ are shown<br />

Hwndd Sl€.rlng Wh€€l<br />

Toyob $tr.r|ng Who.l<br />

Flgure 37. Photographs of tteerlng wheels removed from both<br />

test v€hlcle8,<br />

in figures 30 and 32. The Hyundai driver dummy had an 84 g<br />

chest acceleration clipped value while the Toyota dummy<br />

had only a 69 g's, 3 millisecond clipped acceleration value.<br />

Examination of the contact velocity shows that the Toyota<br />

driver contacted the steering wheel at 27.9 mph (including<br />

.6 mph intrusion velocity), while the Hyundai driver<br />

contacted the wheel hub at only 24.1 mph (including 5.2<br />

mph intrusion velocity). The cause of the large difference in<br />

contact velocity can only partially be explained by crash<br />

pulse differences. Examination of contact velocity curves,<br />

figure 36, shows that contact velocity difference would only<br />

be 2 mph or less at the same contact time or spacing. Since<br />

the spacing was decreased by the intrusion in the Hyundai,<br />

contact occurred l6 milliseconds sooner. This fact accounts<br />

for the greatest difference in contact velocity, causing the<br />

Hyundai driver to make contact before the relative speed<br />

between the car and the dummy was allowed to increase to<br />

its maximum potential. However, since these relative<br />

motions are still occurring between the dummy and the car<br />

after the initial contact, forces and resulting accelerations<br />

are still being imparted to the dummy. Therefore, it must be<br />

concluded that the only explanation for the dummy<br />

response difference is intrusion while the dummy is in<br />

contact with the wheel. Further evidence to support this<br />

conclusion is the post-test measurements of steering column<br />

stroke which show that the Hvundai stroked more than the<br />

385


Toyota (1.9" versus 0.9" from table 9), apparently due to the<br />

intrusion rather than steering column performance<br />

differences.<br />

Head response comparisons are next discussed by car<br />

type since HIC appears to be a strong function of object<br />

struck and car design as well as crash severity. First the<br />

Hyundai was examined to explain the reason for relatively<br />

high HICs and the reason the head did not break the<br />

windshield in most cases. By film analysis it was<br />

determined that three out of four tests with the Hyundai had<br />

high HICs (142,t-1855) due to contact with the instrument<br />

panel lip. One exception was the case of the 25 mph offset<br />

test in which the HIC was only 910. The difference in this<br />

test was that no significant vertical intrusion of the<br />

instrument panel, only 0.1 inches, occurred. This allowed<br />

the dummy to engage the relatively soft windshield before<br />

hitting the less forgiving instrument panel. It is also<br />

interesting to note that, this is the only Hyundai windshield<br />

which cracked as a result of dummy head contact. In the<br />

other tests the vertical intrusion ranged from 1.4" to 3.7".<br />

Next the HICs of the Toyota driver dummies were<br />

investigated. The value from these tests ranged from 469 to<br />

1586. These values were consistent with crash severity,<br />

since the two low speed tests had a 664 and a 469 HIC value<br />

for the full frontal and the offset frontal, respectively. The<br />

corresponding values for the high speed tests were 1586 and<br />

1375, respectively. It was also noted that both dummies in<br />

the full frontal tests had higher HICs than those of dummies<br />

in matching offset tests. This is readily explainable since the<br />

full frontal crash pulses were of shorter duration, see figure<br />

14, and the dummy kinematics in the offset tests were such<br />

that the dummy struck the windshield/instrument panel<br />

away from the longitudinal centerline of the dummy's<br />

original position. This resulted in the dummy's head<br />

striking the instrument panel off-center where the distance<br />

from the instrument panel lip to the windshield is smaller<br />

allowing the dummy's head to strike the windshield before<br />

hitting the less forgiving instrument panel.<br />

The reason for the higher HICs in the higher speed Toyota<br />

te$ts was not just crash severity, but as previously<br />

mentioned, was more related to the object struck. At the<br />

lower energy levels, apparently the windshield was<br />

sufficient to attenuate the motion of the dummy. At the<br />

higher energy level of the 35 mph tests this was not the case.<br />

In this test the dummy's head slid down the relatively steep<br />

raked windshield and the chin struck the stiffer instrument<br />

panel.<br />

Steering Assemblies<br />

This section compares the steering assemblies for the two<br />

cars, including their mounting, intrusion protection and<br />

energy absorption design concepts. Each of the steering<br />

assemblies were unique in some way, each having some<br />

characteristics that would produce good occupant responses.<br />

No tear down was performed on the column$, so<br />

that specific energy absorbing mechanisms are unknown.<br />

For the high speed tests, the columns, mounting brackets,<br />

386<br />

etc. were removed from the vehicle after the post-test measurements<br />

were taken and were photographed.<br />

The first column investigated is the Toyota Celicacolumn<br />

shown in figure 38. These photographs show the wheel and<br />

column detached and a Toyota wheel/column from another<br />

Toyota which is attached to the mounting bracket. The design<br />

of the bracket appears to be very good for decoupling<br />

the intrusion for the column. It is designed to span the width<br />

of the car from A-post to A-post, such that the firewall may<br />

intrude some distance before contacting the column mount.<br />

Also, the lower column mount is relatively stiff so that when<br />

intrusion exceeds this value, which was not determinant due<br />

to complex geometry and uncertainties, it further resists<br />

intruding forces. The attachment of the column to the mount<br />

is fairly conventional with the bottom part of the column<br />

rigidly attached and a shear capsule mount at the upper end<br />

of the colurnn. The telescoping energy absorbing device is<br />

located between the two mounts. The steering rack is<br />

mounted directly to the firewall. One concern with this<br />

design is that the steering column mounting bracket has<br />

relatively low torsional stiffness, allowing large angle<br />

changes in the column when firewall intrusion forces the<br />

lower end of the column rearward. Another potential concern<br />

is that there is about a 5 inch portion of rigid column<br />

below the bottom mount and a shaft connected to the column<br />

by a U-joint. If this shaft were $horter or the coupling<br />

St66rlng Column Henrov6d from T€$t Vohlcl€<br />

$t6€dng Golufin Atlach6d to Moudtlng BreckEta<br />

Flgure 38. Toyota steerlng and mounting hardwale removed<br />

from teet vchlcle.


were flexible, there would probably be less chance of in-<br />

truding the lower end of this column.<br />

The othercolumn looked at is the Hyundai Excel column<br />

which is quite different in design. Figure 39 shows one view<br />

of the Hyundai steering column and wheel isolated and<br />

another view with the mount bracket. Upon close examina-<br />

tion it can be seen that both upper and lower mounts are<br />

shear type mounts with the shaft portion of the shear capsule<br />

attached to the column. It is also readily observed that the<br />

telescoping energy absorbing mechanism is at the boilom<br />

end of the column. The practical difference between this<br />

design and the Toyota's is that the column will absorb some<br />

energy, albeit a very small amount, proportionally, of the<br />

engine intruding as well as the dummy's forward energy.<br />

Thercfore we have two very differcnt design concepts. The<br />

Toyota resists intruding forces and the Hyundai attenuates<br />

the intrusion by limiting the forces that can be transmitted to<br />

the dummy. The other flspect of the Hyundai design is its<br />

mounting. This system of mounting fixes the mounting<br />

bracket directly to the upper firewall. The only other addi-<br />

St€erlng Column F€mov€d from Teft V€hlclc<br />

$rrarlng Column wtth ltoundftg Brfttrtt<br />

Flgura 39. Hyundal rteerlng End mountlng htrdwara rtmoved<br />

from tart yehlcle.<br />

tion to this mount is an angled support bar going from the<br />

A-pillar to the mounting bracket. It can only be speculated<br />

that the function of this bar is to prevent side intrusion since<br />

it does not appear to serve any function for frontal impact<br />

protection.<br />

The potential problem with the Hyundai design is that<br />

attenuation of intrusion is accomplished only by the one<br />

method just discussed. By mounting the column bracket<br />

directly to the firewall, motion of the column occurs even at<br />

low crash sevedty as $hown by this test series. Another<br />

concem with this type of design is that when the available<br />

stroke of the column is used, about 3 inches in the Hyundai,<br />

there is a direct link between the intruding component and<br />

the occupant. Another disadvantage in this steering system<br />

type is that the inertial weight of the moving part or srroking<br />

pofrion of the steering column could potentially be very<br />

high. However this was probably nonhe cflse as the weight<br />

of the Hyundai steering column and wheel was only ll.2<br />

pounds (4.06 pound wheel and 7.14 pound column) compared<br />

to the Toyota assembly which weighed 15.75 pounds<br />

(4.25 pound wheel and I1.5 pound column).<br />

The designs of the two wheels were also compared. The<br />

photographs<br />

in figure 37 show the Hyundai Z-spoke design<br />

and the Toyota 3-spoke design. Judging from occupant response<br />

and wheel deformation, the wheel of the Hyundai<br />

was apparently softer than that of the Toyota. The softer rim<br />

was advantageous for abdominal protection but was, in<br />

general, not useful for chest protection. One exception was<br />

the 35 mph Toyota full frontal test in which a sofr lower rim<br />

would have lihely reduced chest acceleration.<br />

Summary<br />

These tests provide a better understanding of the behavior<br />

of wheels and columns when subjected to a limited number<br />

of real-world type crashes in which intrusion and offset<br />

Ioading play a major role. It was observed that, as it affects<br />

occupant response, the difference in structural response<br />

between crash mode$ wa$ minor compared to the<br />

differences in intrusion and loading direction of the steering<br />

assembly. It was also determined from this test series that<br />

interior design, shape, material properties and intrusion of a<br />

specific car all work together, synergistically,<br />

to determine<br />

the occupant protection potential. Furthermore these<br />

parameters are dependent on crash pulse since it governs the<br />

contact times and point of impact. Contact time$ are very<br />

important since the relative velocity between the occupant<br />

and interior component changes as a function of time and<br />

the interior components may be moving due to intrusion<br />

thus changing the velocity or the component struck.<br />

387


Influence of Corrosion on the Passive Safety of Private Cars<br />

Written Only Paper<br />

Wolfgang Sievert, Ernst A. Pullwitt'<br />

Bundesanstalt Fiir Strassenwesen (BASI)<br />

(Federal Highway Research Institute)<br />

Dieter Wobben, Helmut Pfisterer'<br />

Rhein i sch-We stfiili scher Ti.iv Es sen (RWTUV )<br />

Abstract<br />

The objective of this study was to determine significant<br />

differences in the degree of initial damage resulting from<br />

corrosion and to assess the relevant influence of corrosion<br />

using vehicle-occupant loading criteria and test-vehicle<br />

damage and loading.<br />

The BASI and RWTUV Essen conducted a joint $tudy of<br />

three different vehicle types to determine the pattems of<br />

impact behaviour resulting from corrosion. An older vehicle<br />

with corrosion damage and a younger vehicle with as<br />

little damage as possible were examined and tested in the<br />

impact test.<br />

The frontal collision type was selected for the study. The<br />

vehicles with their different levels of upkeep revealed significant<br />

differences in both the corrosion level and in the<br />

results of the impact test.<br />

A comparison of the results obtained from the impact<br />

tests revealed that initial corrosion damage had resulted in<br />

an unacceptable reduction in occupant safety levels in a<br />

number of aspects. One aspect which is particularly worrying<br />

is the fact that many weak spots contributing to a reduction<br />

in occupant protection were discovered for those vehicles<br />

which had only suffered low levels of corrosion and<br />

which would therefore have been expected to react a$ new<br />

vehicles.<br />

One aspect of even graver consequence than the corrosion-related<br />

failure of vehicle components was the failure of<br />

the seat belts in two tests.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The passive safety of passenger cars which is aimed to<br />

protect vehicle occupants in the event of an accident is<br />

demonstrated by a series of tests conducted when obtaining<br />

approval for a new model. However, new vehicles make up<br />

only a small proportion of total vehicles on the road. The<br />

service life of a passenger car is currently over 10 years<br />

(Zl.l%a of the passenger cars on the road in the Federal<br />

Republic of Cermany in 1987 were more than l0 years old),<br />

while the average age for 1987 was 6.17 years. Age and<br />

performance can be assumed to bring about changes in<br />

vehicles which lead to their modified behaviour in<br />

accidents. Failure mechanisms and corrosion damage were<br />

observed in impact tests conducted at the BASI in another<br />

context and gave rise to this current project.<br />

During the course of its studies, the RWTUV determined<br />

a number of points with severe corrosion damage and<br />

388<br />

therefore considered it necessary to conduct an appropriate<br />

study. A newly developed test unit was used for this<br />

purpose.<br />

The two institutes selected the following types of<br />

vehicles, based on their experience: VW Golf I, type l7;<br />

Ford Fiesta: Daimler Benz W 123.<br />

For each of the vehicle types mentioned, one vehicle<br />

approx. l0 years old showing average corrosion damage for<br />

a vehicle of this age and a 6-year-old vehicle with as little<br />

corrosion damage as possible were examined and then<br />

subjected to impact testing.<br />

Objective of the Study<br />

The studies conducted were performed so as to allow<br />

significant differences resulting from differing degrees of<br />

initial corrosion damage on the basis of vehicle'occupant<br />

loading criteria and test-vehicle damage and loads.<br />

For this purpose, a corrosion test unit was first used to<br />

measure the corrosion damage of the vehicles employed in<br />

the study.<br />

The occupant loading criteria used for the assessment<br />

comply with ECE draft regulation 237 (Economic<br />

Commission of Europe) and take into account the headload<br />

(limit value HIC < 1000), the thoracic acceleration (limit<br />

value a.** E 60g) and the forces acting in the thighs (limit<br />

value F*"* < l0 kN). The pelvic acceleration (limit value<br />

ar*, { 80g) also served as an assessment variable in addition<br />

to the criteria laid down in this draft regulation. Relevant<br />

criteria for vehicle loading were drawn from ECE<br />

regulations Rl2, Rl4, R2l, R33 and R.237.<br />

Following evaluation of the corrosion results, the results<br />

of the impact test$ and the differences between vehicles<br />

with heavy corrosion and those with low corrosion levels, a<br />

test was to be performed to determine whether suitable<br />

measures needed to be introduced to improve the long-term<br />

effect ofpassive vehicle safety.<br />

Corrosion Study<br />

Selection of vehicles and test points<br />

Six passenger cars were selected for the project. Two<br />

vehicles were selected in each case from the same model<br />

(smaller modifications were possible) of manufacturers<br />

VW FORD and DAIMLER BENZ and formed a study pair.<br />

One vehicle of each pair showed only low levels of<br />

corrosion, if at all, and will be referred to below as having<br />

"low<br />

initial damage" (slightly conoded vehicle). The other<br />

vehicle, on the other hand, already showed clear signs of<br />

corrosion damage and will therefore be referred to as<br />

demonstrating "high initial damage" (heavily corroded<br />

vehicle).<br />

At least 50 test points were marked on each of the six<br />

vehicles. These points corresponded to the vehicle-specific<br />

weakpoints and to the body structures important for the<br />

introduction of forces into the vehicle in the event of a


frontal impact. A number of additional areas revealing signs<br />

of corrosion during the vehicle examinations were also<br />

included in the test.<br />

Studies conducted<br />

In order to obtain objective data on the extent of the<br />

corrosion, non-destructive testing was performed with a<br />

new test unit developed by RWTUV. This test instrument is<br />

a compact manual unit which functions on the inductive test<br />

principle. It makes use of the fact that the various conditions<br />

ofthe sheet steel ofthe car, e.g. intact steel sheet, corrosion,<br />

filler, thick coatings ofsurface-protection paint, have different<br />

electromagnetic properties. The test signal recorded<br />

with the probe is evaluated in a microcomputer on the basis<br />

of this "material effect", is allocated to a status class and is<br />

presented on a monitor in the form of a colour display.<br />

The following five colour allocations were used:<br />

I green; No or only very slight corrosion which is<br />

insufficient to impair ritability. The thickness of<br />

the paintwork or underseal protection is less than<br />

3mm.<br />

r green/red: Low to extensive corrosion.<br />

r red: Heavy to very heavy corrosion. Standard<br />

sheet can be easily destroyed by tools when this<br />

indication applies.<br />

r greenL/orange: Steel sheet intact, with an underseal<br />

coating of 3 to 6 mm.<br />

I orange: Steel sheet intact, with an underseal coating<br />

thicker than 6 mm er with corrosion holes<br />

repaired using filler (e.9. polyester).<br />

The test area was examined by positioning the probe of the<br />

test instrument at points in a l0 x l0 mm grid; the colour<br />

indication was transferred to a corresponding printed form.<br />

Results on vehicles with no or very slight<br />

corrosion<br />

These three newer vehicles revealed no visible signs of<br />

corrosion during the thorough visual inspection. The nondestructive<br />

test produced "green" indications almost exclusively.<br />

One exception was the DB W 123 where "red"<br />

indications indicated considerable corrosion in the area of<br />

the belt mounting point on the left-hand inside sill (despite<br />

no external sign of corrosion). This was also confirmed by<br />

mechanical means.<br />

In order to attain the conditions of a non-corroded vehicle<br />

for the pulpose of the comparative studies, a section was<br />

welded onto the vehicle before the crash test in order to<br />

make the mechanical stabilitv similar to that of a new<br />

vehicle.<br />

Results with heavily corroded vehicles<br />

The older vehicles revealed clear signs of corrosion over<br />

various areas during the visual inspection. These were examined<br />

and documented in greater detail during the subsequent<br />

non-destructive test.<br />

In order to allow a quick overview of the corrosion situation<br />

for each vehicle, a simplified classification into three<br />

categories was performed after the data had been recorded;<br />

r No or only very slight rusting (e.g. rust film).<br />

r Surface corrosion, also penetrating the sheet at<br />

individual points.<br />

. Very heavy corrosion, partially with cracks and<br />

holes.<br />

These findings were transferred to sketches of the relevant<br />

vehicle sections.<br />

Results on the Golf, 1977 model<br />

The following visible signs of corrosion were discovered:<br />

. Rusting in the engine chamber, A-pillar rusted<br />

through in places.<br />

r Slight rusting on one door.<br />

r Driver and front-passenger access areas rusted<br />

through in places.<br />

r Right-hand belt securing point rusted through.<br />

r Very heavy corrosion, including holes, in the passenger<br />

compartment at the seam between the floor<br />

panel and the inside sill.<br />

r Areas of corrosion on both sills.<br />

. Very heavy corrosion with underbody rusted<br />

through over a very large area behind the lefthand<br />

transverse link securing point.<br />

Results on the Fiesta, 1978 model<br />

The following visible signs of corrosion were discovered;<br />

. Engine chamber, left-hand side: heavy surface<br />

corrosion.<br />

r Slight rusting of the front-passenger door.<br />

r Relatively heavy surface corrosion in the area of<br />

the door sill.<br />

r Surface corrosion on both seat mounts,<br />

. Very heavy corrosion in the area of the door sill.<br />

. Very heavy corrosion on the underfloornext to the<br />

sill; very heavy corrosion at the jacking point,<br />

including holes in pans.<br />

Results on the Daimler Benz 200, 1976 model<br />

The following visible signs of corrosion were discovered:<br />

. Slight corrosion in the engine chamber.<br />

. Heavy corrosion on the driver's door.<br />

. Severe corrosion on the front-passenger's door,<br />

r Heavy corrosion in the area of the belt securing<br />

point.<br />

r Extensive surface corrosion of the seat mount in<br />

the passenger compartment.<br />

r Heavy surface corrosion with holes in the wheel<br />

house.<br />

r Slight corrosion of the sill in the floor area.<br />

389


Impaqt Tests<br />

The collision type selected for the test was a 0" frontal<br />

collision with an impact velocity of 50 km/h, figure 1. This<br />

collision type accounts for over 607o of accidents involving<br />

passenger cars. Due to its frequency and the high risk of<br />

injury with frontal impacts, this type of impact has more test<br />

specifications and criteria than any other and is a vital aspect<br />

of the type approval procedure (e.g. behaviour of steering<br />

system).<br />

Test configurfltion<br />

The vehicles were each equipped with a Hybrid ll50Vo<br />

male dummy in the front seats. Dummy positioning and<br />

recording of the test data were performed primarily in accordance<br />

with ECE draft regulation R.237. An exception<br />

was made with the DB W123, where the seat position selected<br />

was not the rearTnost position, but instead corresponded<br />

to the dummy's body size. Further test parameters<br />

were also taken from this draft or from regulation R33. The<br />

impact forces were measured with a dynamometric measuring<br />

wall in order to determine the changes in the front<br />

rigidity of the test vehicles. Figure I shows the individual<br />

elements of this measuring wall.<br />

Results of the impact tests<br />

The test results are $hown below so that, for each vehicle<br />

type examined, beginning with the VWColf, it is possible to<br />

draw a comparison between the two vehicles of the vehicle<br />

pair (vehicle with slight initial damage and vehicle with<br />

heavy initial damage). The results were also compared with<br />

criteria from the above-mentioned ECE regulations. The<br />

load on the vehicles is described first, followed by the load<br />

on the durnmies.<br />

Tests with the VW Golf TVpe 17<br />

The accelerations and forces measured on the test vehicles<br />

are much lower on the heavily conoded vehicle. The<br />

high acceleration measured at the transmission tunnel can<br />

be attributed to the interaction of the sensor with parts of the<br />

passenger compartment. The deformations measured on the<br />

vehicle with heavy initial damage are much higherthan with<br />

the slightly corroded vehicle. Table I summarises the vehicle<br />

load values.<br />

The test requirements which are demanded in the various<br />

regulations and guidelines and which were taken into account<br />

accordingly in these tests related to:<br />

390<br />

t Displacement of the steering.tyJtern.-This test<br />

must normally be performed without dummies'<br />

The information provided by the measurements in<br />

the tests discussed here are therefore not fully<br />

comparable with the type approval tests per'<br />

formed on new vehicle models. In tests performed<br />

with the vw Golf, the steering column displacement<br />

in the heavily conoded Golf is larger than in<br />

the slightly corroded vehicle.<br />

Table 1. Vehlcle load vrluG$ In test$ wlth the VW Golf, Type 17.<br />

Dttuatat<br />

rccEllFrTloll at<br />

truB[LBELon tunnGl<br />

6r* tSllttBl<br />

ai" [sllttu]<br />

riiee [s]/ttEl<br />

IEl<br />

aarr tgl ,/ t ltrEl<br />

gill<br />

li* lsl ir[#]<br />

H.avlly<br />

Cotrodcd<br />

llT Golf<br />

dilTllil*".rffil<br />

Tcst vi rluEa lor<br />

I sltqhtly<br />

I corroddd<br />

(KoR r) I v* corf (RoR 2)<br />

ll. 9<br />

36 / 47aa<br />

L7 / 72fri<br />

t7 ,/ 37ia<br />

2L,9 / L3<br />

ltHIiHl,llH<br />

zz,$ / 23<br />

--*<br />

2L,2 / 12<br />

ro.3 / 1r4<br />

36.9 / 11<br />

8L,9 / t2<br />

47,7 / 45<br />

8.8 / 25<br />

s{5<br />

657<br />

r Failure of the DerluElng 86flEor<br />

39 / 34ua<br />

20 / 38fra<br />

{l ,/ 35rs<br />

16. 7<br />

72/ 35[6<br />

36 / 37\B<br />

33 / 50Da<br />

ea.a / L{<br />

30.s / 48<br />

--t<br />

26.2 / L4<br />

9,4 / L6<br />

{o. 5 ,/ lx<br />

eo.6 / 5L<br />

58.7 / 2A<br />

s.s / 27<br />

636<br />

554<br />

The dynamic displacement could not be measured in its<br />

entirety since the marking points required for the measurement<br />

did not remain in camera on the film recording due<br />

to the fact that the front deformation was considerably higher<br />

than expected. The steering column displacement was<br />

203 mm even for the slightly corroded Golf and was therefore<br />

considerably above the criterion limit value (127 mm)<br />

for new vehicles.<br />

t Change in the size of the passenger compartment.---This<br />

requirement also has to be determined<br />

without dummies in a type approval test.<br />

The test values are nevertheless also interesting<br />

for tests with dummies, eyen if the presence of a<br />

dummy may prevent excessive change. The criterion<br />

limit value was not complied with for the<br />

right-hand seat of the heavily corroded VW Golf.<br />

t Door opening behaviour.--:lha two Golfs did not<br />

differ considerably in this point. The doors ofboth<br />

vehicles could be opened without the use of tools,<br />

although only with difficulty and not to their full<br />

opening angles. The changes in the door opening<br />

dimensions (measured longitudinally and diagonally)<br />

lay over the range 5-66 mm. They did not<br />

reveal any clear relationship with the level of initial<br />

damage, the highest value being measured on<br />

the vehicle with low corrosion level.<br />

t Fuel leakage /osses.-These were not discovered<br />

in any project test and are therefore not dealt with<br />

here in any greater detail.<br />

The occupant loads measured on the dummies indicate a<br />

relationship between initial damage and dummy loading<br />

which would tend to demonstrate that higher levels of initial<br />

damage result in higher levels of deformation, that the$e


esulted in lower vehicle decelerations and, consequently,<br />

lower loads on the occupants. However, this relationship<br />

only applied when no steering-wheel or knee impacts occurred.<br />

Force measurements in the belts revealed e.g. such a<br />

tendency. The dummy values are reproduced in tables 2 and<br />

In both tests, the dummy in the driver's seat suffered a<br />

head impact against the steering wheel and the criterion<br />

limit value was exceeded, this being particularly true in the<br />

case of the heavily corroded VW Golf due to the greater<br />

displacement of the steering column and the change in the<br />

seat position.<br />

Thoracic loads corresponded to the various passenger<br />

compartment decelerations and were found to be higher for<br />

the slightly corroded vehicle. This fact is also reflected in<br />

the high€r belt forces.<br />

Pelvic loading was also higher for the slightly corroded<br />

vehicle. No significant forces were introduced into the pelvis<br />

by a knee impact.<br />

In addition to these loads, which could be measured by<br />

means ofphysical values, the occupants ofthe heavily corroded<br />

vehicle were found to be subject to additional risks.<br />

The positions of the belts and the behaviour of the dummies<br />

in the two front seats would also suggest '*submarining".<br />

The faulty behaviourof the seats and the restraining systems<br />

resulted from the considerable change in the position ofthe<br />

seats due to the inadequate rigidity of the floor panel. It<br />

should be mentioned here that the underbody of the two<br />

vehicles examined was not of identical design, the younger<br />

Golf being fitted with a standard reinforcement in the seat<br />

area in the form of a wedge-like section (series<br />

modification).<br />

The load situation for the passenger dummies is virtually<br />

the same as for the driver. Head loading in the Golf tests<br />

with the more severely corroded vehicle produced low values,<br />

however, despite the light impact against the dashboard.<br />

No contact occurred in the comparative test, although<br />

the positional change of the head resulting from the<br />

high passenger compartment acceleration occurred so<br />

quickly that accelerations of more than 40g were measured<br />

for a period of 55 ms. This resulted in the head-load limit<br />

value being exceeded slightly by a value of HIC = 1023. A<br />

knee impact was determined for the passenger dummy in the<br />

heavily corroded Golf, although the loads remained uncritical<br />

here, too, see the summary shown in table 3.<br />

Tests with the Ford Fiesta<br />

These tests were characterised by a seat belt failing in<br />

each impact. The test values are shown in table 4.<br />

The test values show the same tendency as the tests involving<br />

the Colf-the slightly corroded vehicle was more<br />

rigid.<br />

t Displacement of the steering calnnn.-Up to the<br />

dummy impact, the steering-column displacement<br />

in the tests differed considerably; the displacement<br />

of 260 mm for the heavily corroded<br />

vehicle was well above the limit value ( l?7 mm);<br />

Table 2. Vsluea ol the dummy load (drlver) ln the VW Golf, Tlpe<br />

17.<br />

TeBt Point<br />

(Prrt of Bddy)<br />

Heavily<br />

TrBt ValuGE fof<br />

I stightty<br />

Corrod.d I corro*d<br />

192t127<br />

1177<br />

'<br />

\tr/51<br />

162<br />

Linit V8IGE<br />

of<br />

Lold<br />

I I W Golf ((01 l) | vu Gotf (Km ?)l crltffir I<br />

xErp<br />

emr/rrfiE tgJ<br />

Hrc (Htc 36*)<br />

ITIORAX<br />

amx/r3dB lgl<br />

slfi<br />

SEAT BELT<br />

tlmx lklll/t tnEl<br />

F2mx tku/t Iffil<br />

tlmx tklll/t trEl<br />

F4mx tkfll/t I|EI<br />

FEtV I S<br />

rfitsx/83m [g]<br />

FEruR<br />

F trux tkII<br />

8.2<br />

5,4<br />

5.2<br />

7-2<br />

65<br />

6t<br />

65<br />

71<br />

52t51<br />

0.u<br />

0.1.<br />

1000 il000)<br />

66e3me<br />

fl0001<br />

80s3ffi<br />

r0 k[ /8 kxSs<br />

10 kx /E kx3c<br />

r HlC56=(HeEd<br />

Injury Crltlfiffi) cstcutatiol.r lnteryail. = 16ffi<br />

r* sl ($everity trdcx) todd Griteriofl, is m lohglr erFtoyed<br />

'<br />

in current reguldtiffis<br />

t.r6,*<br />

Table 3. Values of lhe dummy load (paeaenger) In the VW Golf.<br />

Tct Point<br />

(Part df Body)<br />

IIEID<br />

emx/tm tgl<br />

Hrc (Hrc 36*)<br />

THMIT<br />

rEr/rlffi I9I<br />

slfi<br />

SEAI BETI<br />

rro tru/t trll<br />

hrx rku/r rffiIl<br />

FImx [kxl/t tftBIl<br />

ro** rkrt/t Imll<br />

PErVt $<br />

rmr/rlc tCI<br />

FENN<br />

Flm (ku<br />

Frmx IkXI<br />

Ifit v.lEr in<br />

HGrvtty I Silghtty<br />

corfodid<br />

I Corro*d<br />

w Gotf (xm r) | Yv colt (xfl a)<br />

16167<br />

371 (et8)<br />

,ot?9<br />

212<br />

4,5<br />

0.8<br />

e.1<br />

t.5<br />

74t44<br />

6l<br />

60<br />

6E<br />

97<br />

7.0<br />

1.6<br />

94151<br />

roel (6el)<br />

51t49<br />

196<br />

8,2 I 63<br />

J-?, t 59<br />

1-?t&<br />

6.8 I 7a<br />

49t47<br />

1.7<br />

0.6<br />

Lirlt Yrlrt<br />

of<br />

Lo.d<br />

crltfflr<br />

1000 (1000)<br />

e0gf*<br />

t1000t<br />

80t*<br />

10 kI /8kxrG<br />

10 kr /8krr#<br />

HIC lt6 r (llcd Injury Cf lt$im) crlculatlon intcrvEl . I6n6<br />

r* SI (SGvrrity ln(|6xt lold critrrlon. lr m longrr 64|to)Gd<br />

In currerit rcf,ulrtiffi<br />

?44t92<br />

taiz *<br />

44t11<br />

305<br />

4,0t68<br />

1.0t&<br />

2,Tt&<br />

4,4 I 92<br />

35/55<br />

0.9<br />

l.l<br />

the comparative vehicle had a displacement of<br />

I l0 mm and thus remained within the limit value.<br />

. Door opening behaviour.-The door opening<br />

behaviour was critical for both vehicles. Tools<br />

391


Table 4. Test values of the vehicle load lor ths Ford Flests.<br />

VEHICI.E<br />

ISAD<br />

PAR,AI.IETER<br />

lcclljlRlTlof, at<br />

tranBfrlBdlon tunnrl<br />

!r* tqll t ldsl<br />

ai" tsllttffil<br />

6ii." tgllttEll<br />

azx tsllttnsl<br />

tsl<br />

ICCII.InIIIOI at slll<br />

!r*r tql ,/ t tusl<br />

";;; lsllttb81<br />

DEtOnXtTrof, rof,clE<br />

iiiii iHi ii iil:i<br />

T6Bt Val<br />

HeavLIy<br />

CoErodEd<br />

FIEATTA (I(OR 3)<br />

uea for<br />

stlghtly<br />

corroddd<br />

FIESTA<br />

(I(OR 4)<br />

16.0 /<br />

iimiiniiiini<br />

ililTlill r*l<br />

t3.2 / 49<br />

L3.A / 77<br />

37.9 / Ic<br />

15, ?<br />

33,4 / 6r<br />

3O.4 / 7,6<br />

2L.7 / 83<br />

L4,7 / 2r<br />

I<br />

46.9 / 24<br />

3O,7 / z2<br />

r7.9 / LL<br />

L3.7 / 67<br />

5O,5 / 16<br />

LA[.a / 23<br />

81.6 / 19<br />

9,7 / LO<br />

655<br />

591<br />

44.5 / 2E<br />

24,4 / 76<br />

45,3 / za<br />

17.7<br />

36,L / za<br />

4L.6 / 28<br />

35.3 / 29<br />

23,7 / r2<br />

16.3 / 9<br />

54.9 / 23<br />

25,7 / Zr<br />

z6.e / 23<br />

f3,3 ,/ 10<br />

49.2 / L6<br />

L7a.7 / 22<br />

ag,t / LA<br />

Lz,O / 33<br />

560<br />

50{<br />

had to be used to open both doors of the heavily<br />

corroded vehicle and the driver's door of the newer<br />

vehicle. The function of the tail door was not<br />

impaired in these tests, however, so that the criterion<br />

stipulated by ECE-R33 is thus satisfied in<br />

full.<br />

. Chang,e in the size of the passenger compart'<br />

rnent.-This was critical for the heavily corroded<br />

vehicle with regard to two aspects-the distances<br />

from the front seats to the dashboard and the distance<br />

from the right-hand seat to the front face of<br />

the footwell. The considerable reduction in the<br />

fiee distances between the test points-the distance<br />

from the seat to the dashboard was approx'<br />

150 mm-resulted both from the seats being displaced<br />

and from a deformation in the face wall.<br />

The load on the dummy in the driver's seat (measured<br />

with regard to the load criteria) was not critical in the test<br />

with the heavily corroded Ford Fiesta, see table 5.<br />

The failure of a seat belt in each impact means that the<br />

tests can only be evaluated to a limited extent, since the<br />

various dummy values cannot be compared with each other.<br />

The assessment of the effect of the corrosion damage therefore<br />

has to rely more heavily on the comparison of the<br />

results obtained for the load criteria of the dummy held<br />

correctly by the belt.<br />

The faults in the seat belts were as foll ows: Opening of the<br />

seat helt buckle Jttr the passenger dummv in the test with the<br />

heavily t:ttrroded vehit:le and tearing away of the lap helt<br />

from the seat fitting o/ the driver's danrn-y in the test with the<br />

slightly conttded vehicle. No signs of unusually heavy wear<br />

to this belt were determined prior to the test' The belt tore<br />

only after the belt-restraint fieams were tom open.<br />

392<br />

Table 5. Test values ol the dummy load (driver) In the Ford<br />

Flests.<br />

I+st Polht<br />

(Port of Body)<br />

lEts<br />

mx/a3m lgl<br />

Htc ililc 36r)<br />

I!!8A[<br />

mx/sJc<br />

sl *r<br />

EEAI-!E.tI,<br />

Flmx IkII/t<br />

FZmx tkill/t<br />

F3mx tkll/t<br />

F4mx IkII/t<br />

e$yls<br />

ffix/dlm lgl<br />

ft!u8<br />

Itfiox tkill<br />

Frux IkII<br />

TffiI<br />

TIIBT<br />

TEI<br />

tBI<br />

N;tvl ly<br />

corrodfd<br />

FIESTA ((M<br />

9ZlE1<br />

6E9 (664)<br />

66t55<br />

4tl<br />

4,1 | 71<br />

o-9 I 76<br />

7,-9 I 58<br />

4.t I t6<br />

76t71<br />

2.0<br />

2-1<br />

valEB for<br />

I srishtty<br />

I corrodcd<br />

l) | FrEsrA fl(oR 4)<br />

146/1 0l+<br />

Tv (572r+<br />

4,E<br />

?,0<br />

5.1<br />

/'.E<br />

48147+<br />

397 +<br />

49+<br />

6gl<br />

5l+<br />

51+<br />

98191 +<br />

1-T +<br />

5.9 +<br />

Llillt VrtEB<br />

of<br />

tod<br />

crl tcr i r<br />

r000 (1000)<br />

609!ffi<br />

tl000t<br />

aohm<br />

10 kx /Eklrlffi<br />

t0 kx /8kx3G<br />

r HIC 56. (Hced Injufy Criteriffi) crtculttlon <strong>Int</strong>.rvrL | 36m<br />

*r SI (sivirlty lndex) told crit$im, is no lo.igor rytopd<br />

In currfilt regutEtiffi<br />

+ tsp bett tear at thc hcight of th! Eert flttlhe<br />

The driver dummy in the heavily corroded Fiesta is decelerated<br />

well by the belt, his thorax hitting the steering<br />

wheel as the latter is displaced into the Passenger compartment.<br />

This is followed by a slight head impact in which the<br />

lower cranium facial strikes the upper section of the steering-wheel<br />

rim.<br />

With the slightly conoded Fiesta, the kinematics of the<br />

driver dummy were uniform for the first 50 ms, after which<br />

the dummy, without additional restraint by the torn belt, was<br />

thrust onto the steering wheel and suffered an impact involving<br />

the abdomen, the thorax and, somewhat later, the<br />

head. Despite the belt tear, the head loads remained small<br />

and were comparable with those experienced in the heavily<br />

corroded vehicle, though this was not the case with the<br />

pelvic loads.<br />

The passenger dummy values allow even less comparison<br />

since the dummy in the heavily corroded vehicle cannot be<br />

evaluated due to the fact that it was nst restrained by the<br />

belt. With the exception of the very high head load resulting<br />

from a double impact against the windscreen frame, loading<br />

tended to be low, however, see table 6, since the dummy was<br />

still decelerated by the belt for approx. 60 ms.<br />

Tests with the DB W 123<br />

As already mentioned before, the belt mounting points in<br />

the door sill of the slightly corroded vehicle had to be<br />

reinforced by steel sections since an unusually high level of


Tablc 6. Paaaenger dummy lofd$ In thr Ford Flesta.<br />

T6t Folnt<br />

(Piit of Body)<br />

rH/t_ tgl<br />

Eln<br />

SEAT BEIT<br />

Fl*<br />

Feaa*<br />

F!-*<br />

Fl*<br />

EEWIE<br />

r hl(/'t; tcl<br />

[Eta<br />

I F16* Ikn I<br />

I Fffi tkxr<br />

!<br />

eo9leol +<br />

I5E4 (1t57) +<br />

Tilt Valul| for<br />

llrtrity ltttghllt<br />

Corfod.d I ctr?o.|rd<br />

FlEttA (rn 3) | FrErrA ((fl t)<br />

6015E +<br />

4tt +<br />

.v#<br />

6E<br />

55<br />

57<br />

6tt<br />

tlrlt Vrl'Jii<br />

of<br />

Lord<br />

crl tGrir<br />

lnEAp | | | |<br />

Lx/tr<br />

Isl<br />

||lc (|ilc 16r)<br />

$S8AI<br />

tHI/t t*l<br />

(kxl/t IFI<br />

(txl/t tBl<br />

(ku/t tBI<br />

t.9<br />

r,t<br />

:|E<br />

2.4<br />

59+<br />

60+<br />

60+<br />

59+<br />

41/Il +<br />

e,E +<br />

5.6 +<br />

6il6i2<br />

9et (Et4)<br />

t7t','<br />

5$<br />

1.9<br />

?,(<br />

5.3<br />

5.6<br />

2,4<br />

2-6<br />

1000 (t000)<br />

6ott0001<br />

8o"J*<br />

r0 tI /EtrI;<br />

l0 kr /Ekrlr<br />

r fllC 36 r (l|nrd lnjury Critcrlffi) c.lcut.tim intcrvrt . !6rr<br />

** 9l (Ssrity ldir) tord criteim, tr ho ln|f,r Wloyed<br />

+ Brtt hEklc oF.ild ilflie th6 t;Et<br />

corrosion (in relation to the overall condition) was ascertained<br />

in this area and this vehicle was intended to represent<br />

a vehicle with little or no corrosion.<br />

For the same reason, the front belt systems were completely<br />

renewed in order to avoid similar faults as in the tests<br />

with the Ford Fiesta (original DB spare pans).<br />

Vehicle loads also corresponded to the above-mentioned<br />

expectations in these tests. Thble 7 shows the vehicle load<br />

values. The deformation behaviour of the vehicles was very<br />

similar although the deformation with the heavily corroded<br />

vehicle was some 70 mm greater.<br />

t Steering systemdisplacement---:lhesteeringsystem<br />

displacement in the$e tests was very low and<br />

was only 16 mm for the heavily corroded vehicle.<br />

As with the comparable values in the tests with the<br />

other vehicle types, this value was also measured<br />

with dummy occupants.<br />

. Door opening behaviour.--The door opening behaviour<br />

in both tests was virtually faultless, although<br />

the opening mechanism of the slightly corroded<br />

vehicle was difficult to operate.<br />

t Passenger compartment size.-The minimum<br />

test point dimensions were complied with in both<br />

tests (uncritical in both tests).<br />

The behaviour of the belt mounts. refer to what mentioned<br />

before, wa$ not as it should have been in the case of<br />

the heavily corroded vehicle since the areas around the<br />

securing nuts were torn out of the sill. The left-hand belt<br />

Table 7. vohlcl€ load vElus8 In the tests wlth the DB w 123.<br />

Y.IfICItt<br />

INAD<br />

PARAI{RTER<br />

tilnrrlfilon tunn l<br />

l* [Ei ir[#i<br />

rt3js tftlltlltl<br />

I<br />

tcl<br />

r?x tql ,/ t [!rJ<br />

lCciLlnrTIOI ft<br />

!IIl<br />

:i* [Ei lilH]<br />

L4,L / 2L<br />

intffii<br />

L7,2<br />

ffi<br />

/ L4<br />

L94,2 / 34<br />

Ln,3 / 15<br />

77,9 / 2A<br />

L7.9 / r1<br />

79.6 / 13<br />

L54.7 / 5A<br />

7L.2 / 28<br />

r3.9 ,/ 68<br />

Dttonllrror<br />

{rr* ,1y.. tml<br />

699<br />

q.* peffi. tml<br />

6et<br />

T€rt Vrlues for<br />

tlravlly I sttgrrtry<br />

corrodtd I CoEroaled<br />

DB n 1e3 (XOR 6) | DB tf 123 (XOR S)<br />

la. e<br />

29.9 / 4L<br />

3O.O / rO<br />

3L.5 / t?<br />

tF,f, / 4L<br />

18, 6 ,/ 61<br />

47.O / 4L<br />

16. I<br />

38.7 / 4l<br />

42.2 / 50<br />

17,6 / 50<br />

27.7 / 26<br />

34.O / 33<br />

r8tl.9 / 3{<br />

L?.Q / L6<br />

26.7 / 35<br />

zz.a / 46<br />

94,5 / L7<br />

LA4,L / 5r<br />

7L.6 / 3L<br />

r8.e / 55<br />

622<br />

551<br />

mounting point was thereby displaced 8 cm to the front. lf<br />

the belt forces measured during the impact are taken as a<br />

basis, the tensile force with which the securing nuts were<br />

tom out of the left-hand mounting point was 4.5 kN. The test<br />

force for the individual mounting points as stipulated in<br />

ECE-Rl4 is 6.8 kN for the sill point.<br />

Thefront seatr were pressed out oftheir original position<br />

towards the doors due to the manner in which the belt forces<br />

were introduced into the seats and the transmission tunnel<br />

section. This was accompanied by a positional change in the<br />

seats in longitudinal direction of around 30 mm. This seat<br />

behaviour probably resulted in the passengers suffering<br />

head impacts against the dashboard in both cases. A further<br />

result of this positional change was that the passenger dummy<br />

was clearly swung out of the shoulder belt. This was not<br />

so evident with the driver dummies due to their impact with<br />

the steering wheel.<br />

The loads on the driver dummies do not allow complete<br />

comparison with each other due to a measuring defect on the<br />

dummy in the slightly corroded vehicle. The loads on the<br />

driver dummies are shown in table 8. Whereas the dummy in<br />

the slightly corroded vehicle suffers only abrief impact with<br />

its forehead against the hub of the steering wheel at the end<br />

of the forward displacement, the driver in the heavily corroded<br />

vehicle hits the cover of the hub with his full face due<br />

to the larger forward displacement resulting from the belt<br />

coming away from the mounting point. The limit value of<br />

the HIC is clearly exceeded. The remaining dummy loads in<br />

the heavily corroded vehicle are low. The load on the thorax<br />

in the newer vehicle is considerably higher than the limit<br />

value, and the pelvic load is also in the region of the limit<br />

value. The form of belt mounting and the forward displacement<br />

of the seat probably laid behind the passenger dum-<br />

393


Table 8. Vslues mea$ured lor the drlver dummy loads in the DB<br />

w 123.<br />

Tcat Point<br />

(PErt of Body)<br />

IIEAD<br />

amex/Eror' tcl<br />

Hlc (Hlc 16r)<br />

THORAX<br />

amEx./E3ffi [gl<br />

sl **<br />

SSAI BEI.T<br />

Ftmx lkill/t tftEll<br />

FziEx tkxl/t tffill<br />

F36sx tkl{l/t tmtl<br />

f4mx tk||l/t trrBll<br />

PELVIS<br />

ailsx/'rfl* tsl<br />

FEIfJR<br />

tlm6x tkrl<br />

Frm'x [k|l<br />

Tcet Vetuoe for Itlrlt vetr,reg<br />

HeEvily lstlghtly lof<br />

corroded lcoffodcd lLosd<br />

DE u 1a3 (KoR 6)l DB H l?5 (Kon 5)l Critcria<br />

'161<br />

/ 154<br />

1598( 1599)<br />

57t52<br />

576<br />

7.tt&<br />

1.1 I 69<br />

t.E | 69<br />

5,1 I 76<br />

58t56<br />

2.7<br />

2.7<br />

1.<br />

8nt73<br />

116<br />

9.1 t8<br />

0,6 | 19<br />

5,1 / 67<br />

5.EtE4<br />

100/80<br />

Lq<br />

7,1<br />

't000 (1000)<br />

60BI*<br />

tl000l<br />

E0S3iG<br />

10 k[ /8krbffi<br />

r0 kil /8krLffi<br />

* HIc 56= (Hc!d lnjury critrriffi) c8tculdtlffi lnterval = 3&m<br />

** sl (severity lrdEx) toEd criterim, is m lmg€r optoyed<br />

+ cEbte of the heEd scceterstlon Ednaor fl+tured aftcr E7m<br />

mies suffering head impact on the dashboard and to the limit<br />

value being exceeded. (table 9).<br />

The pelvic load of the dummy in the newer vehicle lay<br />

close to the limit value.<br />

Table 9. values mea8ured for the passcngcr dummy load In the<br />

DB W 123.<br />

TeBt Polht<br />

(Pirt of Body)<br />

HEAI)<br />

rmx/|'tm tll<br />

Htc (Htc 116*)<br />

TttoR^x<br />

rmx/r5|E tcl<br />

stfi<br />

BEAI EELT<br />

Ftmx fldl/t IEI<br />

Fhrx tklll/t tffiI<br />

flmx tklll/t Iml<br />

F{,n6x [krl/t ttr8l<br />

PELYIS<br />

ribx/hr* tgl<br />

FEI.TJR<br />

Ftmx tkxl<br />

ftilx [ku<br />

394<br />

I<br />

I<br />

I IIII<br />

Hsvl ly<br />

corrodrd<br />

DE U|a (rff 6)<br />

?s7m<br />

lo!8 *<br />

37ttl<br />

319<br />

r,a<br />

1.9<br />

?.7<br />

5,6<br />

Idt VrlH f6r<br />

tl<br />

7t<br />

6E<br />

73<br />

41tW<br />

1.5<br />

1,1<br />

sl lsht ty<br />

corrodrd<br />

Ds uul (ril 5)<br />

1i|4.t90<br />

1&9'<br />

58t77<br />

It5<br />

E.Zl&<br />

4.9 | 65<br />

4.6 I 6?<br />

5.5t&<br />

56t54<br />

0.4<br />

0<br />

Llrl t vrlH<br />

of<br />

Lord<br />

Crl t.rlr<br />

1000 (1m0)<br />

60TJ*<br />

10001<br />

E0TJ*<br />

l0 kx /8lx!E<br />

l0 kx /Elxts<br />

r illC !6 . (HeEd<br />

lnjury Crltrrlo|r) crlcutrtlorr <strong>Int</strong>rrvot ' 56m<br />

fi sI (scvefity lrdrx) tord critffim. ir m longer rrytoyrd<br />

*<br />

t< 36m<br />

The risk of occupants striking sharp edges in the tests<br />

with the DB W I ?3 is limited to the area of the dashboard or<br />

centre console,<br />

Relationship between the results of the corrosion test and<br />

the impact behaviour.<br />

The following sections compare the results obtained for<br />

non-destructive corrosion testing with the damage and results<br />

determined in the impact tests.<br />

VW Golf<br />

The 6 points marked inthe engine chamber all indicated<br />

corrosion damage in the areas of the welded and flanged<br />

seams. The damage suffered in the impact consisted of<br />

considerable deformation to the front section of the vehicle,<br />

with a number of components (fender and door plate) showing<br />

signs of fracturing.<br />

In the area of thewindscreen both A-pillars were found to<br />

have rust blistering and were rusted through at points. The<br />

impact test caused the A-pillars to $tart to tear at these points<br />

and resulted in a high level of deformation (A-pillar bent in<br />

roof section). The high level of corrosion damage in the area<br />

of the A-pillar at the level of the windscreen frame and the<br />

unsatisfactory securing of the door plates resulted in the<br />

upper doar secrian being bent out of the door plane and thus<br />

served as a source ofdanger to the occupants ofthe vehicle.<br />

It should nevertheless be remembered that the side windows<br />

had been wound down to allow better filming and that this<br />

may have influenced the strength of the door frame.<br />

The fact that both sills (inside and outside) showed heavy<br />

signs of corrosion and were rusted through in parts and that<br />

the floor panel had partially come away meant that the si/l<br />

was bent in the area of the right-hand door.<br />

In the area of the right-hand belt mounting point the<br />

corrosion test revealed high Ievels of surface and throughrusting<br />

on the inside sill. However, the belt mounting points<br />

had been strengthened by attaching measuring equipment,<br />

thus preventing the points being torn out in the test. The<br />

effect of fitting the test equipment was avoided in subsequent<br />

tests; it is therefore not possible to evaluate these<br />

areas in the Golf tests.<br />

Heavy corrosion was ascertained at several points in the<br />

areas linking the floor panel to the inside sill. This caused<br />

the underbody to crumple in the impact test, which in turn<br />

resulted in changes in the position of the/ront seats.<br />

The damage determined in the passenger compartment of<br />

the heavily damaged Golf by means of corrosion test equipment<br />

caused sections of the floor panel to come away from<br />

the inside sill in the impact. The sharp, rusty edges of the<br />

sheeting projecting into the passenqer compartment thrs<br />

represented a considerable source of danger for the vehicle<br />

occupants. Sharp edges or dangerous areas of unevenness in<br />

the area which parts of the body may strike are unacceptable<br />

according to the criteria of the ECE regulations. Figure I<br />

shows one example of such sources of danger after impact in<br />

the heavily corroded Golf.<br />

Ford Fiesta<br />

The differences described in the level of corro$ion<br />

resulted in differences in the deformation depth and differ-


Atsa ol tho ddvsfs 8oel.<br />

Ar€a of lhs front-passor1gofs<br />

S€st,<br />

Flgure 1., Defonlatlon of th€ lloor pan€l<br />

In tests wlth the heavlly<br />

corrodod VW Golf<br />

ent behavio;rr of the individual parts, e.g. in the areas of the<br />

lower windscreen frame including the A-pillars, the connection<br />

between the fenders and the side walls of the engine<br />

chamber with the parts functioning as side members. The<br />

areas of interest in the underbody area are the transitions<br />

from the A-pillar to the door sills and the sections of the<br />

underbody connected to the transverse links.<br />

The deformation and damage suffered by the underbody,<br />

the right-hand windscreen frame and the dashboard in the<br />

passenEer compartment of the heavily corroded Ford Fiesta<br />

represented sources of injury for the occupants.<br />

The floor panel in the area of the two sills was found to be<br />

particularly severely damaged even during the corrosion<br />

examination stage.<br />

Daimler Benz W 123<br />

The corrosion damage ascertained on supporting elements<br />

in the front section of the vehicle produced only<br />

slightly greater deformation in the case of the heavily corroded<br />

DB W 123. The transirion point from rhe A-pillar ro<br />

the door sill revealed high levels of corrosion damage, including<br />

rusting-through of the parts, even though the areas<br />

examined showed no external signs of rusting, as just<br />

mentioned before. Despite the high levels of corrosion damage<br />

measured at these points, the slightly corroded and<br />

heavily corroded vehicles behaved in more or less the same<br />

way during the impact; the slightly greater deformation<br />

depth can be seen from the distance between the wheels and<br />

the wheel house.<br />

The corrosion measurements revealed particularly interesting<br />

results for the belt mounting points of the inside sill<br />

for both the slightly corroded and heavily corroded vehicles<br />

of this vehicle type. This corrosion resulted in one of the belt<br />

mounting points being torn out during impact.<br />

Evaluation of the results<br />

The vehicles classified as "slightly corroded" or "heavily<br />

corroded" showed very significant differences in both<br />

the corrosion examination and impact te$ts.<br />

The corrosion damage was determined successfully for<br />

the purposes of the project. For the vehicles categorised as<br />

"slightly corroded", it was possible to demonstrate<br />

that the<br />

absence of corrosion predicted by the measurement did<br />

actually exist. This was demonstrated by the more "re-<br />

silient" behaviour in the crash and by the absence of rust on<br />

the fractured metal parts revealed after the crash. Furthermore,<br />

the results obtained with the corrosion test unit were<br />

found to be very good since they were able to reveal the<br />

important and unusually heavily corroded points in the<br />

Daimler Benz's inside sill.<br />

In many cases, the corrosion damage determined on the<br />

"heavily corroded" vehicles could be attributed directly to<br />

failure of vehicle components.<br />

The comparison of re sults obtained from the impact tests<br />

revealed that, in many points, the level of protection<br />

afforded to the occupant$ was reduced by an unacceptable<br />

degree by the corrosion damage. The limit values demanded<br />

by the various regulations governing the behaviour ofvehicle<br />

components were clearly exceeded in a number of cases.<br />

Particularly alarming is the fact that the slightly corroded<br />

vehicles, which were expected to behave similar to new<br />

vehicles, were found to exhibit a number of weak points in<br />

the field of occupant prorecrion (see rable l0). The following<br />

failure mechanisms were found to be the main causes of<br />

failure for the heavily corroded vehicles:<br />

The displacement of the steering rolumn into the passenger<br />

compartment in the case of the Golf and Fiesta was<br />

found to be considerably higher rhan the legal limit of 127<br />

mm.<br />

The criteria for cftanges in the size of the passen7er compartmeil<br />

were complied with apart from one exception.<br />

This exception related to one passenger compartment dimension<br />

in the te$t with the VW Golf.<br />

The door opening behaviour was only critical in the test<br />

with the Ford Fiesta. The corrosion damage aggravates what<br />

is obviously a design weakness of this vehicle type; the door<br />

opening behaviour was also less than perfect in the comparative<br />

test.<br />

The hehaviour of parts of the passenger comparlment<br />

with respect to the danger of injury they represent for the<br />

395


Table 10. Overvi6w ol the malor te8t results.<br />

vehicle<br />

typB<br />

wl GOI,F<br />

Type 17<br />

FORD FIESTA<br />

DB w l?3<br />

V€hicla Danag€<br />

Heavily Corrod;d I Sliqhtly corrod€d<br />

- crltlcal dlsplaceucnt<br />

of stddring Eyst€D<br />

- DeteffilnatLon of paa-<br />

Eenger conpartfient<br />

Eiz€ rfter inpact,<br />

1 valuG failGal thc<br />

critsrion<br />

- ilrc exceeded for<br />

drlver dumy<br />

- Probabl€ rr8ubEariningn<br />

of driver dumy<br />

- Fallure 6f belt buckl€<br />

right-hand aeEt<br />

- Critical di8plac€nsnt<br />

of at€Gring Ey6teD<br />

- crltlcal d6or openlng<br />

behaviout<br />

- Dat€mimtion of paa-<br />

EEngcr colpartnant<br />

sLz€ aftBr irpact, 3<br />

valu€a faif€d th€<br />

criteria<br />

- Belt nount toEn out of<br />

driver seat<br />

- Hrc dxcdrdBd f6r bdth<br />

driv€r and ffont-seat<br />

paaEenger<br />

- critlcal diaplacenent<br />

of stecrlng Byrtch<br />

- Hrc exceeded fdr<br />

drlver and front-aeat<br />

paF6qng€r<br />

- Iap bdlt of driv€r<br />

duMy torn<br />

- PGlvic load crit€rion<br />

excecdGd<br />

- crltlcal door opening<br />

bchavLour<br />

Heavy corroEion at<br />

belt nountlng polnt in<br />

EIIIt lnproved f,or the<br />

tcst<br />

HIC exceeded for<br />

drlver duMy<br />

critlcal pelvic load<br />

for driver duffiy<br />

occupants was critical in all vehicle types. A direct risk of<br />

injury through corroded body parts was particularly high in<br />

the VW Golf test. While such a risk was also present in tests<br />

involving the Ford Fiesta, this risk was lower. The risks<br />

determined with the Daimler Benz were less grave and<br />

related to a number of the control elements and the<br />

dashboard.<br />

The dummy load limit values, the criteria which most<br />

clearly illustrate the risk of injury to vehicle occupants,<br />

were exceeded, particularly as regards the head load. The<br />

occupant loads in the DB W 123 were unexpectedly high<br />

when measured against the positive results obtained for the<br />

vehicle-specific characteristics.<br />

The assessrzent of the procedure for determining corro'<br />

sion and performing tests must take into account the following<br />

points for an envisaged continuation of the project:<br />

'Ihe<br />

determination of corrosion was primarily schematic<br />

in form and was only in part related to vehicle type and<br />

corrosion damage. This meant a very high number of test<br />

points. It would appear advisable for the future to perform<br />

only a few initial measurements with the corrosion test unit<br />

at the relevant areas of the vehicle type concemed and to<br />

perform exhaustive measurements of only the most pronounced<br />

areas. Such relevant areas are e.g. the belt mounting<br />

points, the seat mounts, the sills and similar frame<br />

components.<br />

'fhe<br />

impact teJtJ were chiefly conducted with the seat<br />

belts and seats already fitted in the vehicles at the time of<br />

purchase.<br />

Irrespective of their existing corrosion damage, the failure<br />

of these component$ can result in high dummy loads, as<br />

396<br />

was also demonstrated in the tests involving the Ford Fiesta.<br />

Future tests must therefore bear this in mind and exchange<br />

the old seat belt system$ for new ones. The used systems<br />

must be examined and evaluated in a separate test (component<br />

test) in addition to the impact test involving the vehicle.<br />

Due to the importance of how the vehicle seats behave in<br />

frontal impacts, these should also be examined thoroughly<br />

prior to the test and, ifnecessary, exchanged and examined<br />

separately.<br />

As shown by the tests with the VW Golf in which the<br />

manner used to fit the acceleration sensor may have prevented<br />

the belt mounting point being tom out of its fitting<br />

location, it is particularly important to ensure that any<br />

measuring instruments fitted are taken into account when<br />

evaluating the results.<br />

The consequences of an accident of comparable severity<br />

as the crash tests conducted here would result in injuries to<br />

occupant$ of "heavily corroded" vehicles ranging from<br />

very severe to fatal. The tests outlined here allow this conclusion<br />

to be drawn, although the low number of tests conducted<br />

to date, the small range of models covered and the<br />

little experience gained in preparing tests, means that it has<br />

not yet been possible to determine corrosion-related damage-and<br />

consequent reductions in safety-which cover<br />

several vehicle types and which can be precisely quantified.<br />

The failure of the seat belts in two tests is of equal if not<br />

greater importance than the conosion-related failure of vehicle<br />

components.<br />

The results of the "slightly corroded" vehicles in the<br />

crash test were also unsatisfactory in a number of points'<br />

Although the german regulation for car approval (STVZO)<br />

does not stipulate any dummy load values, global tests using<br />

dummies are essential for assessing the complex interaction<br />

of the various vehicle components in a frontal impact.<br />

Summary and Conclusions<br />

The examination of three different vehicle types (VW<br />

Golf. Ford Fiesta and DB W 123) to determine their<br />

corrosion-related behaviour in impacts was performed<br />

jointly between the BASI and the RWTUV Essen. The<br />

RWTUV Essen was responsible for selecting the vehicles<br />

and determining the degree of initial damage resulting from<br />

corrosion. A corrosion test instrument newly developed by<br />

the RWTUV Essen was used for determining the level of<br />

corrosion. The BASt conducted the impact te$t$ and test<br />

evaluation.<br />

Significant differences were ascertained between the<br />

"slightly<br />

corroded" and<br />

"heavily<br />

conoded" vehicles. The<br />

differences related to test values for and damage to the test<br />

vehicles, and to test values for the dummies.<br />

The most grave events for the occupant$ resulting from<br />

corrosion-related initial damage were as follows:<br />

r The belt mount was tom out.<br />

r The behaviour of the $teering system.<br />

r The behaviour ofthe vehicle seats in conjunction<br />

with the vehicle's underbodv or seat mount$.


The behaviour of body parts or parts of the<br />

controls with regard to the risk of injury they<br />

represent for the occupants.<br />

Even the tests with the '-slightly corroded" vehicles<br />

yielded results which were also unsati$factory when<br />

measured against the regulations used for assessment<br />

purposes.<br />

The following conclusions can be drawn about the faulty<br />

behaviour ofolder vehicles and, in particular, those vehicles<br />

which are not yet so old:<br />

The resistance of vehicles to corrosion-related and userelated<br />

damage must be enhanced, particularly in the light<br />

of the problems highlighted here relating to the insufficient<br />

stability of the floor assembly, the significant displacement<br />

of the steering system into the passenger compartment, and<br />

The Breed All-Mechanical Driver Air Bag Evaluation<br />

Wrinen Only Paper<br />

Jerome M. Kossar,<br />

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<br />

Abstract<br />

Results of a program evaluating a potentially lower cost<br />

driver air bag system are presented. The nonelectrical, air<br />

bag retrofit system integrates the complete air bag, crash<br />

sensing, and inflation functions within a single module<br />

mounted over the steering wheel hub. The Nationat<br />

Highway Traffic Safety Administration contracted Breed<br />

Corporation to develop police car retrofit driver protection<br />

systems. Predictive analytics compared favorably with<br />

results measured in tests. Test dummy injury measures<br />

indicate good protection for the range of driver sizes, both<br />

with and without supplementary belt restraints.<br />

Environmental testing indicated that long term elevated<br />

temperature exposure be limited to temperatures no higher<br />

than 90oC (194"F) in order to insure high operational<br />

reliability.<br />

This paper presents the views of the author, and not<br />

necessarily those of the National Highway Traffic<br />

Administration (NHTSA). The numbers in parentheses are<br />

references, listed at the end ofthe paper.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The all mechanical Breed Corporation retrofit driver air<br />

bag system was the subject of a National Highway Traffic<br />

Safety Administration program. The program concerned a<br />

nonelectrical air bag system with its crash sensor and<br />

initiating subsystem as an integral part of the inflator, which<br />

in turn is housed within the air bag module mounted over the<br />

hub of a steering wheel. The potential economies<br />

anticipated from the elimination of multiple remote crash<br />

sensors, their wiring requirements, and their electronic<br />

system on*board diagnostic and defect warning apparatus<br />

were the incentives for NHTSA interest. It is possible that<br />

the strength of the belt mounts and belt systems themselves.<br />

The inadequate safety of those vehicles with either no or<br />

only slight corrosion was demonstrated in a global test.<br />

The corrosion-related failure mechanisms of the vehicles<br />

in the frontal impact tests examined in this paper suggest<br />

that the risk to the occupants of a vehicle involved in a<br />

lateral collision (where the stability of the vehicle structure<br />

exerts a direct influence on the occupants) increases at a<br />

much higher rflte as a result of corrosion than is the case in a<br />

frontal impact.<br />

The high number of, in part, dangerous failure events<br />

resulting from a low number of impact tests and the<br />

possibilities for reducing such failures in future with a low<br />

level of effort demands a fuller examination of the problems<br />

relating to older vehicles which have suffered priordamage.<br />

the currently labor intensive production of air bag systems<br />

of this type could be highly automated, and if this<br />

automation were accomplished, the installed system costs<br />

could be approximately one third less than that of the<br />

multiple, electrically signalling, crash sensor systems<br />

prevalent today. Such automation of production would,<br />

however, be costly to develop and is not a product of this<br />

low production volume program.<br />

The simplicity of mechanical design and the presence of<br />

two independent sensing and initiating mechanisms within<br />

the Breed sensor/initiator added to the anticipated system<br />

reliability. A schematic of one half of the Breed sensor/<br />

initiator showing the intemal mechanism of one of the two<br />

identical and independent means of crash sensing and<br />

inflation intitiation is seen in figure I. At program inception<br />

there were reservations concerning the technical feasibility<br />

of a timely distinction between desirable and undesirable<br />

deployment situations based on decelerations of the<br />

steering wheel. The first efforts of the program were,<br />

therefore, directed at establishing such feasibility.<br />

After establishing technical feasibility, the next efforts<br />

involved specific car selection and further development and<br />

evaluation of the air bag system. The last program efforts<br />

involved work towards the qualification of the inflator/<br />

sensor/initiator assembly. Environmental conditioning and<br />

testing, which are representative of industry qualification<br />

practice, have indicated need for design improvement to<br />

ensure operational reliability after long time exposures to<br />

the highest temperature employed in some manufacturer's<br />

system qualification.<br />

Establishing Feasibility<br />

The unique air bag mechanical sensor/initiator to be<br />

employed and its isolated location within the pyrotechnic<br />

gas generator (inflator) mounted to the steering wheel have<br />

produced concems as to the ability of such a system to<br />

397


f<br />

ILfriil"ll:"ttr<br />

thi iinrln! r$ n b.ll lt h.ld ltr tlt rotltlil rlffi !y tlf, sFlil<br />

A dGGlFrtlon ot Fr thm 1.7 6ri 13 ru$lrud to oY6ffi tl$ 3prlfi{ lillil lffi bl$<br />

Ind cMc th. rffrlit btll td m toffiFd.<br />

(hci In r cnih xlth cntr thrtr | a.7 6 dac.lailtlon, tho fttl6 of tl* brll 13 d|laa<br />

n rlffid by $r lIfi tlrosgh th. b.ll dlfrtn clsrrffi In th cyllrrhf tdH.<br />

lf r ilr dHeleHtcs lo|l{ ffiOh rbovc 4.7 E. tlE fo$d EYHI cl ttf b.ll rtll<br />

iluBG thc s0rlm lildcd ldcr io tffi tls'F rhrft srlflclatly tE din t|| tlrl]l| pln.<br />

Flgure 1. Sensor/lnitlator.<br />

distinguish between desirable deployment and nondeployment<br />

events. If deployment was required, could initiation be<br />

produced early enough in the crash event to provide timely<br />

air bag inflation for driver protection? The criteria initially<br />

employed in this program to assess the timeliness of inflator<br />

initiation were: (a) initial air bag loading on the driver must<br />

occur before the time the driver moves forward more than<br />

five inches relative to the compartment interior; and (b) 30<br />

milliseconds must be allocated to the time between inflator<br />

initiation and accomplishment of air bag inflation to the<br />

extent required to impose initial restraining loads on the<br />

driver.<br />

As a service to this evaluation, steering wheel hub acceleration<br />

were recorded during head-on aligned crashes between<br />

a deformable moving barrier and four different 1983<br />

model yearcars: The Honda Accord; Renault Fuego, Dodge<br />

Omni; and Chevrolet Celebrity. These hub acceleration<br />

crash histories were used as inputs by the Breed Corporation<br />

to their computerized math model which predicts deployment<br />

initiation time of their mechanical sensor. Each prediction<br />

is based on the fixed physical design parameters of<br />

their sensor and the specific crash pulse under consideration.<br />

The theoretical results of the Breed modeling are<br />

shown in table l. As this table illustrates, the predicted<br />

initiations of driver air bags in these compact car test<br />

crashes appear close to the timing criteria requirements but<br />

they are generally several milliseconds later than suggested<br />

by the criteria. This infers that some adjustments of the<br />

sensor design parameters would be advisable to provide<br />

improved protection for compact cars.<br />

In tests conducted at the Ohio Transportation Research<br />

Center (TRC) in East Liberty, Ohio, rigid barrier frontal<br />

crash tests of a Ford LTD with an installed Breed steering<br />

wheel mounted sensor (reference l)* produced no sensor<br />

+Numbcrs in parentheses designate references at end of papcr<br />

398<br />

EAEEO AIF BAC<br />

cBAElt SEFOn/ntTtAIOi<br />

HffiE<br />

Table 1. Predlcted alr bag Inltlstlon time.<br />

CGIffi ELOTITI PtEDICIED IXITIAIIil TIflIIED IXITIATIfl '<br />

wfftclE (l'lFllt (sffis) (EECofOtt<br />

:Iil'r : :.:i: :.:i:<br />

rA! c[Ev. ErERrry 61 0.0et 0,0e0<br />

i ESE il EilrlEGXt tlr^f ocdFtllt/Atft 8 6 ct{Tmr cffi3 tY Tft IIE ffiilr ffE foHftb<br />

triggering in 5.1 and 7.1 MPH frontal crashes while a 9.1<br />

MPH crash did cause the sensor to trigger. Preliminary<br />

rough road driving tests were also performed. From these<br />

initial barrier crashes and driving tests it was concluded that<br />

the Breed sensor/initiator provided adequate resistance to<br />

undesirable deployment.<br />

The last feasibility evaluation test series of frontal<br />

crashes employed three Ford LTD's which had been retrofitted<br />

with developmental air bag systems. Prior to the conduction<br />

of these crash tests, NHTSA was supplied with a proprietary<br />

math model of the mechanical sensor by the Breed<br />

Corporation which allowed the user to predict initiation<br />

time based on the crash pulse experienced. Two crash tests<br />

were conducted on each of the three cars, the first at a speed<br />

below that required for air bag deployment and the second<br />

under crash conditions for which deployment was desirable<br />

for driver protection. Based on actual measured acceleration,<br />

NHTSA, using the Breed sensor math model, was able<br />

to compare predicted and actual sensor performance.<br />

The initial test of each of the three Ford LTD's was a low<br />

speed frontal banier crash. The type and severity of the<br />

second crash test of each car was varied. The first car was<br />

subjected to 30.0 mph frontal fixed rigid barrier (FRB)<br />

crash; the second a 12.2 mph FRB crash, and the third a 29.9<br />

mph frontal centerline impact against a l2 inch diameter<br />

rigid pole. The bumper was stiffened by the addition of 38<br />

pounds of steel prior to the pole test. Table 2 presents the<br />

injury measurements obtained from unbelted Part 572 50th<br />

percentile male dummies seated in the driverposition. Table<br />

3 allows comparison of actual sensor initiations with those<br />

predicted from recorded crash pulse measurements. As table<br />

2 illustrates, all the injury measures from dummy<br />

instrumentation satisfy NHTSA requirements and table 3<br />

demonstrates timely and predictable initiation of the air bag<br />

deployment.<br />

The design of the developmental air bags used in this<br />

feasibility series was varied. The first Ford employed an<br />

airbag made from two 28 inch diameter flat disks of coated<br />

nylon sewn together at their circumferences and incorporating<br />

two 1.2 inch diameter vents. The second air bag was<br />

smaller, fabricated from 26.5 inch diameter flat fabric and<br />

containing four 1.0 inch diameter vents. In a successful<br />

attempt to insure that the air bag expanded over the lower<br />

quadrant of the steering wheel before the dummy forward<br />

motion blocked this deployment path, 11 inch long tethers<br />

were added which attached internallv to the front and rear


Table 2. Dummy datE lrom Ford LTD feaalblllty teete.<br />

TES DIHIPTIdI 5{,.0 pfl frflr t<br />

ilotD Mt*lct<br />

HIG 2'F<br />

eril4 xlc FENb 6a - lll E<br />

flE3r ffi. 0 (tt8t<br />

HtrT *rGt. lbd(<br />

t x. tdtt Lm<br />

lltr<br />

ll4r<br />

a!G<br />

tt6<br />

t4t7 Lr. r ll ||<br />

tctu,taF<br />

le.e |til rffl<br />

rr0r0 $lttEf<br />

r rEtD lrrtilt tcfErEtlilil H lnr[li iil clldurril<br />

r G||Err ErTrErF rccEtEt ilil 5t ry tnt m cr|'qt'Ailor<br />

E<br />

ut.9 l+r rfrE<br />

llr 0lr. FotE<br />

t6?<br />

t5-l{tE }t.tttE<br />

AOG 4IGfr<br />

t7 ans<br />

lott Lr. r ?l B tsta Lr. d ?tt F<br />

l0l5 ll. t el E r$e u. a t7 fr<br />

Table 3. Breed Inltlator math modcl performance.<br />

il ils tESt<br />

ffltlil *fi[ IttlltTrfl<br />

r?9 LE | 4.5 Ft ff<br />

iHlll llCrD wtEr<br />

riltsa4.tffi<br />

Fffi[ IIEID 'IITIIT<br />

17? LrD D rz.r rff t4.5 E<br />

fHr[ ilGID lllllll<br />

,ilLEra.7S ff<br />

tHf[ llolb slilh<br />

il<br />

hli EEL ETFffii<br />

teft. ruilfl [EtETtil il ltltIlilfl<br />

fitrEilA<br />

Elltilfi *tEt p ftrE F ittE<br />

'.PILH F IITE<br />

r?r9<br />

tE | 10.0 pff A E (ltl! SfEtll0 ffiL rIE t a6 S E E<br />

fHI[ ttElD $mlH t.Pltu ilE I et s<br />

rstba8.9H<br />

Iffil ilIET FflI<br />

!1.1 B<br />

3fthlF rot t ft:t 5 trrt<br />

t-Pttu s rttf<br />

3ftilI$#L flEIlaB SE<br />

t-Ptln ilttsE<br />

rlutr6 541 5 iilc m filt<br />

l.'lLW E fnl<br />

IIEETIIGH4L IIE9BH SE<br />

t-FIrd ftE a ll B<br />

5ll: (*t) DEFr[t EHtnTS *lt#t tfi H*o<br />

surfaces of the air bag. These tethers sewn on the centered<br />

3.5 inch radius, arrested the air bag during its rearward<br />

deployment causing a more rapid radial expansion of the air<br />

bag into the space between the advancing dummy and the<br />

lower portion of the steering wheel. The tethered bag was<br />

provided with a single vent of L75 inch diameter.<br />

Study of the high framing rate film exposed in each of the<br />

feasibility series deployment crashes revealed deficiencies<br />

in performance not evident from the dummy instrumentation<br />

measurements. During the 30 mph FRB crash it was<br />

observed that at the time of maximum chest loading the<br />

plane of the steering wheel was almost perpendicular to the<br />

dummy chest. The steering wheel rim, thus radially loaded<br />

by the dummy, clearly constituted a significant and unsafe<br />

concentrated load input to the dummy rib cage. The steering<br />

wheel plane rotation was produced as a consequence of the<br />

steering column having rotated to a near vertical position by<br />

the time peak chest loading occuned. Thus, the normal air<br />

bag benefits of well distributed loading on the occupant<br />

were not achieved during the time of maximum driver restraint<br />

loading primarily due to the large forward and upward<br />

rotation of the steering column.<br />

Post crash inspection revealed buckling of the main<br />

bracket suppofr of the column resulting from an excessive<br />

forward pitching moment being reacted from the steering<br />

column into the firewall. This buckling allowed the forward<br />

rotation of the column observed in test. The forward pitching<br />

moment in the steering column is increased beyond that<br />

of a non-air-bagged column as a consequence of the effective<br />

moment arm of the steering column being extended by<br />

the inflated air bag. The column pitching moment is created<br />

by the driver's non-axial loading ofthe aft end ofthe steering<br />

column which produces increased bending of the column<br />

when coupled with the longer moment arm created by<br />

the interfacing air bag. The observed column rotation produced<br />

by air bag addition and the consequent threat to the<br />

driver highlights the importance of assuring adequate column<br />

stability and column mounting strength when driver air<br />

bags are introduced.<br />

The overall results obtained in the feasibility evaluation<br />

encouraged NHTSA to proceed with development of a retrofit<br />

driver air bag system that would be suitable for installations<br />

in police fleets.<br />

Car Selection<br />

Since the feasibility evaluation had uncovered steering<br />

column instability under the loads of the air bag restrained<br />

driver and no simple retrofit to attain stability was<br />

recognized, it was necessary to select another police car for<br />

use in this program. For this purpose a Chevrolet Impala and<br />

Dodge Diplomat were equipped with experimental Breed<br />

driver air bag systems and 30 mph frontal crash tests were<br />

conducted. The air bag for the Impala had a flat diameter of<br />

28 inches, employing six l3 inch long internal tethering<br />

straps arrayed on a centered 7 inch diameter circle with two<br />

1.2 inch diameter vent holes. The only difference in the air<br />

bag used in the Dodge Diplomat was that the vent holes<br />

were reduced to l.l inch diameters. Injury measured from<br />

both tests satisfied criteria as is evident from the values<br />

shown below.<br />

TEST CAR<br />

1983 Chevrolet Inpala<br />

sHESrc<br />

FEMTTR r-oAp$ (LBs)<br />

289 44 1850 1000<br />

1983 Dotlge D1plonat 46I 49 2120 t5 30<br />

Under loads ofthe knee bolster the inboard portion ofthe<br />

lmpala instrument panel collapsed. This explains the low<br />

right femur load. Post test inspection of the Diplomat<br />

revealed that the higher left femur load resulted from<br />

bearing of the deformed knee bolster upon a steering<br />

column mounting bolt. Either of these problems could be<br />

avoided through design modification. It was decided to<br />

proceed with retrofit air bag development for installation in<br />

the Impala.<br />

399


Sled test program<br />

A sled test program to demonstrate the frontal impact<br />

performance of the Breed all mechanical driver's side<br />

retrofit air bag system was conducted in the Transportation<br />

Research Center of Ohio. The Hyge sled facility was used<br />

with a reinforced Chevrolet Impala (GM "8" Body) sled<br />

buck. Various conditions of speed, dummy siee, dummy<br />

type, and air bag/seat belt combinations were tested. For<br />

comparative purposes, these tests also included drivers with<br />

no restraints as well as drivers employing only seat belts.<br />

Both straight frontal and angle fixed rigid barrier impacts<br />

were simulated with vehicle speeds of 30, 35, and 40 mph.<br />

Dummies employed were the 5th percentile female, 50th<br />

percentile male (part 572),95th percentile male, and Hybrid<br />

III (50th percentile male).<br />

The base vehicle for the buck was a 1979 Chevrolet<br />

Impala, four door sedan, equipped with a split back bench<br />

type front seat. So as to provide an unbiased comparative<br />

evaluation, the steering column, steering wheel, instrument<br />

panel, instrument panel suppofring structure, and, when<br />

required, windshield were replaced for each test.<br />

It had been determined that the steering system of the<br />

Impala provided excessive axial play between the steering<br />

wheel and steering column which could produce delay or<br />

distortion of the car crash deceleration pulse reaching the<br />

sensor. A retrofit modification within the aft end of the<br />

steering column was therefore used to reduce axial<br />

clearance. It had also been determined that the steering<br />

column resistance to axial stroking was less than ideal for<br />

application of the air bag system. To compensate,<br />

supplementary stroking resistance was provided by the<br />

application of two u-bolt type clamps to the smaller<br />

diameter tube of the two tube telescoping steering column.<br />

The added stroking resistance was produced by frictional<br />

loads between the smaller diameter column tube and the<br />

attached u-bolts a$ the u-bolts were forced by the<br />

telescoping process to slide down the smaller diameter<br />

column tube during column $troking.<br />

The airbag was a tethered circular planform bag<br />

fabricated by sewing two neoprene coated nylon cloth disks<br />

together at their periphery so as to yield a 28 inch inside<br />

diameter when flat. Tethering consisted of six l2 inch long<br />

$trap$ on a 7 inch diameter circle concentrically sewn to the<br />

air bag front and back inner surfaces. Air bag venting was<br />

provided by two 1.2 inch diameter holes through the<br />

forward air bag surface. The decorative and protective air<br />

bag cover used was standard for use on the Ford 1985<br />

Tempo/Topaz air bag equipped cars. The inflators were 90<br />

gram units containing the Breed mechanical sensor/initiator<br />

supplied by Morton Thiokol Inc. The last thirteen tests<br />

employed the final design sensor/initiator which was<br />

automatically armed upon insertion of the air bag module<br />

into the steering wheel cavity. The earlier air bag tests<br />

required manual arming through insertion of a screw prior<br />

to air bag module attachment to the steering wheel.<br />

Calibration, function and performance were identical in<br />

both sensor/initiator models used.<br />

400<br />

The steering wheels used were the standard for use in the<br />

Ford 1985 Tempo/Topaz air bag equipped cars. It measures<br />

approximately I inch deeper than the standard Impala<br />

wheel, and therefor locates the wheel rim surface plane<br />

about I inch further aft in the occupant compartment.<br />

The knee bolsters used employed a steel tubing frame<br />

around the periphery ofits base which straddled the steering<br />

column. The inboard and outboard lowest ends of the frame<br />

were bolted through the horizontal lower instrument panel<br />

support of the Impala to retain the knee restraint in place.<br />

Twenty gauge sheet steel spanned the peripheral tube frame<br />

and served a$ the mounting surface for the energy<br />

management crushable foam as well as the bearing surface<br />

for knee load transfer into the Impala lower instrument<br />

panel. The crushable energy management material was a 3<br />

inch thick composite consisting of two lrlz inch thick foams<br />

of different materials bonded together. The top material (at<br />

the knee contact) wa$ two pound per cubic foot polystyrene<br />

foam and the bottom material was 6 pound density closed<br />

cell polyethylene, The upper layer which was slotted on its<br />

knee contact surface served the dual function of energy<br />

absorption and capture of the knee for controlled<br />

penetration. A vinyl cover was $ewn over the foam<br />

composite. A light weight brace was bolted between the<br />

inboard point of bolster attachment and the accelerator<br />

bracketry on the fire wall. This brace provided an inboard<br />

load path for knee load transfer from the instrument panel so<br />

as to avoid bending failure of the lower instrument panel<br />

support as had occurred in the first crash test of the Impala.<br />

To compensate for the extra I inch depth of the air bag<br />

steering wheel as compared to the original stock Impala<br />

wheel, the seat po$itioning in these sled tests were a$<br />

follows:<br />

5th percentile female...first seat rail notch aft of<br />

forward<br />

50th percentile male...first seat rail notch aft of<br />

midpoint<br />

95th percentile male...farthest rearward seat rail notch<br />

Most importantly, it should he noted that each air bag<br />

inflation was initiated only by activation of the Breed<br />

sensor| initiaror. The Breed all mechanical sensor/initiator<br />

responded only to the acceleration ofthe steering wheel on<br />

the sled buck. exactlv as it would in a real car crash.<br />

Sled Test Program Results<br />

Some general trends observed from the sled test are:<br />

l. In each ofthe sled tests, when the retrofit air bag<br />

system was added to the three point belt (lap plus<br />

shoulder belts), large reductions of the Head Injury<br />

Criteria (HIC) and substantial reductions in measured<br />

loads in the lap belt and shoulder belt occurred while<br />

satisfying all FMVSS 208 dummy injury measures.<br />

2. The all mechanical retrofit air bag system alone,<br />

when not supplemented by belts, satisfied all FMVSS<br />

dummy injury measurement criteria in the sled tests


when applied to the 5th percentile female<br />

anthropomorphic te$t device up to at least 30 mph, for<br />

the 95th percentile male anthropomorphic te$t device<br />

up to at least 35 mph, and for the 50th percentile male<br />

dummies up to nearly 40 mph.<br />

However, it must be emphasized that sled tests may<br />

provide optimistic evaluations of restraint $y$tem<br />

performance as compared to real car crashes resulting from<br />

the failure of sled testing to produce the passenger<br />

compartment intrusion so frequently found in real crashes.<br />

Such compartment intrusion can foreshorten the occupants<br />

forward travel within the compartment and can also cause<br />

higher impact speeds between the occupant and the interior<br />

intruding surfaces. Either of these intrusion effects would<br />

increase loads on the occupant.<br />

It must also be emphasized that an airbag system by itself<br />

does not provide significant protection for side impacts,<br />

rollovers, and many ejection situations. To provide<br />

protection in these other serious conditions, the air bag<br />

svstem must be combined with some form of seat belt. Also.<br />

Tabl6 4. $led tests ol lmpala retroflt EyEtrms Psrt 572 50th percentlle msle dummler.<br />

SITI^^IE AIR BI8<br />

CICST<br />

DRIER IESTNAIIT I'|88<br />

cn f,| $cE lHTlAIlil lltc<br />

t E. CUP<br />

AIR BtrC $Y$TEI flLY<br />

AIR BIB SYSTEII ilLY<br />

AIR NTG $Y$TEI + ITF EELT<br />

AtR B C 8YS. + l.|P & flfl.fl.DEt BETTS<br />

AIN BAG SY$. + IIP T $|f,'LDET BELIE<br />

LIP & SIfiIfDER IELTS fltY<br />

LTP EELT ilLY<br />

TOTATLY UNESTRAIH<br />

AIR I|lE SY5TEI flLY<br />

AIR BIE SYSTEII + LAP ELTS<br />

ATR IIG $YS. + ITF & EflJI.OEN BELTS<br />

TTP T SIHf,DER BELT$ ilLY<br />

TOTALLY IJTRESTRAIED<br />

AIN BAB SYSTET (TLY<br />

AIN BAE EY$TEI + LTP EELT<br />

LTP & TIflI-D€R 8ELI8 ilLY<br />

-<br />

fr<br />

tro Fll<br />

5{l Ftl<br />

]N IHI<br />

g) rfrl<br />

:n l?rl<br />

:10 prl<br />

l{l rprl<br />

gl Pfl<br />

36 Ftl<br />

5E ptl<br />

T' FII<br />

:[t prl<br />

55 rPtl<br />

40 f?H<br />

40 t?H<br />

40 pr<br />

zt ts.<br />

24 E.<br />

22 rG.<br />

58 t8.r<br />

e4 E.<br />

2a 18.<br />

?5 B.<br />

24 F.<br />

23 13.<br />

25 [s.<br />

since the kinematic and biomechanic fidelities of test<br />

dummies are imperfect, protection levels indicated in<br />

testing for the range of sizes in the human population should<br />

not be interpreted as precise. Additionally, the performance<br />

observed for the various restraint conditions tested in this<br />

Impala sled test buck may not be representative of other car$<br />

with other belt systems or when other air bag sy$tems are<br />

employed. The purpose of the sled test program was to<br />

provide basis for evaluation of the potential benefits which<br />

might be appreciated by police officers according to the<br />

range of their sizes and their restraint usage practices if their<br />

vehicles were retrofitted with the Breed air bag.<br />

Table 4 shows sled test data from all Part 572, Subpart B,<br />

50th percentile male dummies tested with the final design of<br />

the Breed all mechanical driver retrofit air bag system.<br />

From this table it is clear that the crash sensor function<br />

worked consistently well with the exception of the one<br />

sensor which used an obsolete and improper component in<br />

its assembly. Generally, when the proprietary computerized<br />

math model of the sensor mechanism was used to establish<br />

the anticipated air bag initiation time based on measured<br />

t44<br />

210<br />

t6{t<br />

Sllr<br />

?91<br />

85t<br />

7v<br />

661<br />

440<br />

Ir9<br />

415<br />

t$8<br />

1?a7<br />

Itc<br />

l7E<br />

tft<br />

6lcr<br />

39G<br />

39G<br />

7B<br />

9G<br />

IEFI ffi.R<br />

(Fd.58)<br />

tgfl<br />

ttSt<br />

741<br />

714r<br />

#7<br />

t7l<br />

w<br />

2506<br />

{cl 1214<br />

ilc<br />

5t{<br />

TIGIIT FTI<br />

(Fil.ffi)<br />

LATE ITITIATIfl REf,I.TED FROI USE Of II ffiil.ETE OII?IIEIT IT TIG A$$E5|.Y oF Tl: SEXSm C USltC BllSltC lr rEcll ilsll<br />

STEEIITG GOIJII TETIOFIT CLT|pTIG MTFIED TO Pf,OYIffi TM Fq.M ADOITIilAL STNtrIXC NESI$TATCE ABIilE MilAl RETNOFIT LEYET<br />

1E<br />

tilg<br />

tzn<br />

1n<br />

tlE<br />

fi9<br />

ll87<br />

tot<br />

tztt<br />

lTZ<br />

t7a<br />

r6tt6<br />

1695 1799<br />

788 il0<br />

{Et $ 1n<br />

401


steering wheel hub acceleration records, the predicted and<br />

actual measured deployment initiation times were in<br />

agreement within 2 to 3 milliseconds.<br />

Table 4 also provides driver test data allowing<br />

comparison between the protection offered by the retrofit<br />

air bag system when used alone, when used in combination<br />

with the Impala three point belt (lap plus shoulder belt), and<br />

when used as a supplement to a lap belt. This table<br />

additionally provides data from tests of the 50th percentile<br />

male driver restrained only by his lap and shoulder belts, by<br />

a lap belt only, and without any restraint. Since tests were<br />

conducted simulating frontal barrier crash speeds of 30<br />

mph, 35 mph, and 40 mph, the table demonstrates the<br />

influence of these crash speeds.<br />

In the tests simulating 30 mph crashes it is seen that the<br />

excessive chest accelerations experienced with the lap belt<br />

only (72G) and totally unrestrained driver (90G) are<br />

reduced to 39G by the three point belt alone but the three<br />

point belt also produced an undesired increase in HIC value.<br />

When the retrofit air bag system is introduced, either alone,<br />

or in combination with belts. the chest acceleration is seen<br />

to be at the same or a lower level than the three point belt<br />

produced when used alone, but each of the air bag<br />

combinations are seen to reduce HIC to one third or less of<br />

the value produced by the three point belt.<br />

Looking at the 35 mph barrier test simulations in table 4,<br />

without use of the air bag, FMVSS 208 head injury criteria<br />

is exceeded when the dummy is unrestrained or when<br />

restraint is provided only by the lmpala three point belt. The<br />

use of the air bag system alone or supplemented by lap or<br />

three point belts reduces the HIC to low levels with all other<br />

injury measures satisfying FMVSS 208 injury criteria in<br />

these 35 mph frontal barrier crash simulations.<br />

The 40 mph testing $hown in Table 4 demonstrates that<br />

the retrofit air bag system when used alone is almost a<br />

Table 5. Sled tasts ol Inpala retroflt systems Hybrld lll SOlh psrccntlle mEle dumml6$.<br />

DRII'ER RESTRAII{T I,SED<br />

AIR BAG SY$TEI.I OI{LY<br />

AIR EAG SYStFr,l OILY<br />

AIR BAC SYSTEI{ + LAP BELT<br />

AtR 8A6 SYS. + LAP & SHSJIDER BELT9<br />

LAP & $I{ULDER BEIT$ qItY<br />

TOTAILY UIIRESTRAIIED<br />

AIR 8AG SYSTEII + LAP BELT<br />

AIR BAS SY$, + I.AP & S|n'|JER BETTS<br />

402<br />

strutArED AIR BAIi<br />

CRASI{ SPEED IIIITIATIOII<br />

f0 lftl<br />

30 lpH<br />

I0 rffi<br />

30 t?H<br />

30 r?H<br />

30 rfH<br />

55 lfl{<br />

35 rf,H<br />

22 ris.<br />

2l rs.<br />

eu rc,<br />

1{0 DATA<br />

22 l4s.<br />

20 xs,<br />

satisfactory restraint for the 50th percentile male at this<br />

relatively high speed. When the air bag $ystem wa$<br />

supplemented by a lap belt, the dummy injury measures<br />

satisfied FMVSS 208 designations for the head, chest, and<br />

femurs.<br />

Sled tests conducted using the Hybrid III 50th percentile<br />

male dummy (Pat 572, Subparr E) provide an interesting<br />

illustration of the influence of a more compliant and<br />

biofidelic chest on the chest acceleration experienced by the<br />

dummy. Table 5 shows test results using the Hybrid III<br />

dummy in the driver position. In general injury measures<br />

from the Part 572, Subpart B, dummy (the only 50th<br />

percentile male dummy referenced for use in our standards<br />

before the advent of the Hybrid III) are seen to be in<br />

reasonably good agreement with those of the Hybrid III<br />

except for the chest accelerations which are lower in the<br />

Hybrid III tests. The most extreme difference occurred in<br />

the cases of the unrestrained occupant. The Part 572,<br />

Subpart B, dummy registered a 90G chest acceleration<br />

while the Hybrid III experienced 48G in the 30 mph tests. It<br />

should also be noted that all measures shown on table 5 for<br />

the air bag system, both alone and supplemented by belts,<br />

satisfy the injury criteria, including chest deflection<br />

limitations, even at 35 mph.<br />

Tests using the 95th percentile male dummy are shown in<br />

table 6. These data demonstrate dummy injury measures<br />

satisfying FMVSS 208 requirements at 30 mph and 35 mph<br />

when the air bag system is the only restraint employed for<br />

the large driver. It also illustrates satisfaction of FMVSS<br />

208 criteria at 35 mph when the air bag system is<br />

supplemented by lap or lap plus shoulder belts. For this<br />

heavier driver in the 35 mph test$ it can be noted that the<br />

supplement of the three point Impala belts with the air bag<br />

system reduced chest acceleration to 47G from the level of<br />

5 I G that was experienced when only the air bag system was<br />

oolFREsslsl CHEST<br />

Ittc cflEsr (tlcHEs) 3 lts. GLIP<br />

104<br />

263<br />

122<br />

183<br />

793<br />

586<br />

?ffi<br />

4ttc<br />

t.3<br />

e.0<br />

1.3<br />

1.5<br />

1.9<br />

?.8<br />

1.4<br />

1.9<br />

5es<br />

34G<br />

25c<br />

37c<br />

56c<br />

48G<br />

386<br />

5ZG<br />

LEFT FENN<br />

(Pil10$)<br />

856<br />

1144<br />

IIO DATA<br />

419<br />

e86<br />

2530<br />

644<br />

922<br />

RtBllT FEI'uR<br />

(PffOS)<br />

1275<br />

t 195<br />

IIO DATA<br />

249<br />

?63<br />

14t6<br />

602<br />

426


Tabl6 6. Sled teets of lmpala rstroflt systsma 95th percentlle male dummlee.<br />

DTIYER REETIAITT I'8EO<br />

ltneG$YgtEtfltt<br />

AIR BAB EYSTEI ilLY<br />

AIN ltB gfETH + LTP BELT<br />

AtR BAG 8YS. + lJlF I 8llll,oEr ELT$<br />

LAF & E|lOJltrEN BELTS ilLY T<br />

LAP & SIfrJLDER BELTS ilLY<br />

^IR BAG SY$TEI,I flLY<br />

ATR BAG SY$TEil + LAP BELT<br />

AIR BIG SVS. + IJP & SI(UI,DER BELTS<br />

stn uTED Att 8Ac<br />

GMSII SPEED IIITIATIfl IIIC<br />

t{l FH<br />

55 Fll<br />

l5 rfrl<br />

55 Frl<br />

15 FX<br />

S Ftl<br />

25 x$.<br />

21 rs.<br />

?4 r$.<br />

24 n8.<br />

employed. Use of the three point belt without air bag is<br />

shown to ptoduce an excessive HIC level of 1590.<br />

Results of sled tests with the 5th percentile female<br />

dummy are shown in table 7. These results illustrate<br />

satisfaction of FMVSS 208 in the 30mph simulated crash of<br />

the air bag system when used alone or in combination with<br />

the three point belt or lap belt as supplernentary restraint. It<br />

is of interest to note that the 5th percentile female dummy<br />

injury measures, if compared to FMVSS 208 requirements,<br />

indicate inadequate protection from the stock three point<br />

belt system when the belts are employed as her only<br />

restraint.<br />

Table I shows sled test results obtained when the retrofit<br />

air bag system is installed on a tilt wheel. The 50th<br />

percentile male dummy was used to investigate the<br />

con$equences of a tilt wheel adjusted to its maximum<br />

forward tilt position. From these results it is seen that<br />

adequate protection was provided under conditions of<br />

maximum forward wheel tilt, however, it is of intere$t to<br />

fiz<br />

tc8<br />

$1<br />

Et7<br />

1590<br />

HrEtt<br />

I t8. cttP<br />

tEc<br />

5tG<br />

T9G<br />

47c<br />

4E6r<br />

49c<br />

LEFT fEI.I<br />

(Pf,TDS}<br />

r SlflLDER EEII Bffi AY TllE TIIG YIC ETEERIIC HlEEl. tfifn lll CDTTTCTED TllE H.nfi AEDfltIt ETEERIIG Ootltfr 8TRfiE<br />

STARTE AT TIIC OF ICPA.FFER STEERIIG IIIEET NII flTIET<br />

Tabl6 7. Sled teste of lmp8la ratroflt ryrtema Sth percentlle female dummles.<br />

sI;J(ATED AIE BAG<br />

ORI\GR RESTRAIXT I'|SED<br />

cn sH EPEED nililATlolt HrC<br />

l0 ffH<br />

l0 tfH<br />

30 pH<br />

e5 HS.<br />

E xs.<br />

24 rs.<br />

LAP ^P SIHf,.DET BETIS OILY IO I"H 1635r<br />

1476<br />

t544<br />

519<br />

5lr4<br />

trg|r<br />

t94<br />

IIGIIT FET.N<br />

(Pim$)<br />

rtr57<br />

1772<br />

258<br />

{5r<br />

2E<br />

:t2s<br />

compare these results with those shown in table 4 under the<br />

same test speed conditions but with a stock steering wheel<br />

rim plane angle. The comparison is as follows:<br />

It is seen that the tilted wheel cases produced higher HIC<br />

and chest accelerations. It is believed that the air bag<br />

deployment which is directed on a higher trajectory as a<br />

consequence of the steering wheel tilt plane causes a<br />

reduced air bag interaction with the chest while increasing<br />

head loading. A similar influence is seen in comparing the<br />

chest accelerations in the ca$e$ of the tilted wheel when the<br />

air bag system is used as sole restraint and when it is<br />

supplemented by a lap belt. The lap belt supplement raised<br />

the chest acceleration when the wheel was tilted forward.<br />

whereas, in all cases tested with the steering wheel at a<br />

standard angle the lap belt supplement consistently lowered<br />

chest acceleration. With the lower deployment angle<br />

provided by the standard wheel angle, the air bag efficiently<br />

restrains the upper torso and head so that added lower torso<br />

and upper Ieg kinetic energy absorprion provided rhrough<br />

28<br />

585<br />

* F<strong>ONE</strong>.IGTD II?ACTED I.PFER RIT OF STEERITG IJIIEEL ATD THEI TIIE HIE<br />

57c<br />

LEFT F$TN<br />

(PqJps)<br />

J41<br />

N5<br />

re3<br />

&5<br />

RTGIIT FEIIJR<br />

(FOJIDS)<br />

725<br />

81<br />

97<br />

UE


Table 8. Speclal sled teste wlth 50th percentllG Part 572 nele dummles.<br />

SI I,I,JLATED<br />

DRII/ER RESTRAI}IT USED CRASH SPEED<br />

AIR BAG SYSTEII OiILY 50 I,IPH<br />

AIR B^G SYSTEI,I + LAP BELT 30 IIPH<br />

DRIVER RESTRAI}IT USED<br />

AIR BAG SYSTEI'I OILY<br />

HIC<br />

CHEST ACCELERATION<br />

Hrc 160<br />

CHEST ACCELERATION 3OG<br />

SIl.IJLATED<br />

CRASH SPEED<br />

30 l'lPH<br />

TILT TIHEEL STEERING COLU}IN TESTS<br />

SLEO TESTS COTIDUCTEO I'ITH }IA)(IIL{I,''I FORTIARD TILT OF UPPEN RIH<br />

AIR BAG<br />

I}IITIATIO{<br />

zA tls.<br />

?? irs. w6<br />

AilGtED BARRIER SLED TESTSIruLATION<br />

AIR BAG<br />

IIIITIATIOI<br />

26 irs.<br />

ua[ruuu-Brxlu.r<br />

restraining forces of the lap belt reduce the energy<br />

absorption required from the air bag and thereby reduce<br />

head and chest loading. With the tilted wheel, however, the<br />

occupant jack-knife phenomena produced by a lap belt<br />

changes upper torso angle into an already tilted air bag<br />

inducing an early air bag penetration at the steering wheel<br />

lower rim. Once the dummy chest is bottomed against the<br />

lower rim the radial stiffnes$ of the steering wheel rim plane<br />

induces higher chest loading than exists without the<br />

supplementary lap belt.<br />

One test was conducted with the crash pulse of a<br />

perpendicular frontal barrier crash but with the sled bu"k<br />

rotated l5o to the sled motion axis conservatively<br />

simulating a 30o angled barrier impact on the front left<br />

corner (driver side) ofthe car. The results ofthat test are also<br />

presented in table L Driver dumrny injury measures<br />

satisfying FMVSS 208 were recorded in this test of the air<br />

bag system without belt supplements. As can be seen in the<br />

table, air bag initiation occurred at 26 milliseconds during<br />

this te$t where the sled axis was 15" off the axis of the Breed<br />

sensor/initiator. This initiation time which is a few<br />

milliseconds later than that which the aligned crash sled<br />

simulations produced, reflects the directional sensitivity of<br />

the sensor.<br />

The influence of the retrofit air bag system on a driver<br />

restrained by a three point belt is of great interest. Table 9<br />

shows the results of matched test set$. Each set consists of<br />

two tests in which the sarnE dummy size was employed in<br />

tests at the same speed. In the first test of each set only a<br />

three point belt (lap plus shoulder belts) was used to restrain<br />

the driver, while in the second, both the three point belt<br />

404<br />

NOR.I.IAL RII'I ANGLE<br />

144 & 210<br />

35G & 37G<br />

316<br />

43G<br />

296<br />

54G<br />

HIC<br />

516<br />

HIC<br />

CHEST<br />

5 ilS. CLIP<br />

43c<br />

54G<br />

CHEST<br />

5 lrs. CLIP<br />

37G<br />

LEFT FEiUR<br />

(PflJilDS)<br />

1425<br />

LEFT FEI.I,JR<br />

(PflJNDS)<br />

1285<br />

RIGHT FEiIUR<br />

(POUNDS)<br />

15n<br />

398<br />

RIGHT FEI{UR<br />

(FCIJNDS)<br />

1 132<br />

system and retrofit air bag system were simultaneously<br />

employed. The two most important functions of the air bag<br />

system as supplement to the three point belts are seen to be<br />

the consistent large reductions in the threat ofhead injuries,<br />

as evidenced by the head injury criteria (HIC) values<br />

obtained, and the reduction of loads in the lap and shoulder<br />

belts. The large reductions of HIC provided by the air bag<br />

system supplement to the three point belts is clearly an<br />

advantage. The torso belt load reductions produced with the<br />

air bag system are also of particular interest since some of<br />

the early research with belt sy$tems indicated strong<br />

correlation between numbers of rib fractures produced and<br />

measured torso belt load (reference 2). As is shown in this<br />

table the reduced torso belt loading provided by the air bag<br />

system supplement is substantial, averaging over 407o in<br />

these tests.<br />

Impala Car Crash Tests of Final<br />

System<br />

A series of five Impala crashes were conducted at the<br />

Transportation Research Center of Ohio utilizing the final<br />

design configuration of the Breed retrofit driver allmechanical<br />

air bag system. The tests consisted of two<br />

frontal fixed rigid barrier crash tests at 30 mph, a centered<br />

frontal pole crash at 30 mph, a 30 mph right front corner<br />

impact into a 30" fixed rigid barrier, and a 35 mph frontal<br />

fixed rigid barrier crash. Except for the car used in the first<br />

test, during test preparation the vehicles were subjected<br />

only to the Impala retrofit operations developed for<br />

installation of the Breed all mechanical retrofit driver air<br />

bag system. The test dummy in each of these crash tests was<br />

an unbelted 50th percentile male Part 572, Subpart B,<br />

placed in the driver position.<br />

The test car for the first demonstration crash of the final<br />

design air bag system was a l98l model year Chevrolet<br />

Impala. After purchase of this used car, the tilt wheel


Table 9. SIed tests of lmPsla retrollt tystomr alr bag system Influonco on performance ol thraa polnt belt.<br />

DRIVER RESTRAI}IT USEO<br />

SIIIULATED<br />

CRASH SPEED<br />

LAP & SHCIJLDER<br />

BELTS OILY 30 IiIPH<br />

AIR BAG SYS. + LAP & SHf,JLDER BELTS 30 IIPH<br />

LAP & SHCIJLDER<br />

BELTS O{LY 35 IIPH<br />

AIR BAG sYS. + LAP & SHqTLDER<br />

BELTS j5 ;.;pH<br />

LAP & SHflJLDER<br />

BELTS OILY<br />

AIR BAG sYs. + LAP & SHflTLDER<br />

BELTS<br />

LAP & SHflJLDER<br />

BELTS OILY<br />

AIR 8AG sYs. + LAP & SHf,TLDER BELTS<br />

50 HPH<br />

50 tlPH<br />

35 tiPH<br />

35 l,lPH<br />

LAP & SHCIJLDER<br />

BELTS O{LY 30 I,IPH<br />

AIR BAG SYS. + LAP & SHOJLDER BELTS 30 I,IPH<br />

steering column, which was its original equipment, was<br />

removed and replaced with a non-tilt wheel steering<br />

column. Normal air bag retrofit operations were then<br />

followed during the subsequent installation of the air bag<br />

system. The frontal barrier test was conducted at a measured<br />

impact speed of 30.0 mph. Posr rest srudy of the high<br />

framing rate camera film revealed anomalies in the function<br />

of the energy absorbing steering column which had been<br />

installed as a replacement. The column end closest to the<br />

driver was clearly shown in the test frlm during the crash<br />

eyent. The film revealed that the steering column dropped<br />

downward towards rhe dummy's lap during the initial air<br />

bag deployment sequence, prior to subsrantial loading. This<br />

observed motion indicates that the steering column broke<br />

free of the shear capsule much earlier and at lower load than<br />

had been observed in any earlier or subsequent test.<br />

Furthermore, the interval of column stroke extended over<br />

only approximately 25 ms., whereas, a 40 ms. stroke time is<br />

CHEST LAP BELT SHCIJLDER BELT<br />

HIC 3 l'ts. CLIP (PCITNDS) (FCuilDS)<br />

5OTH PERCEIITILE IIATE DI,I,I.IY . <strong>PART</strong> 572 SIJB<strong>PART</strong> B<br />

855<br />

29,|<br />

I 158<br />

415<br />

39G<br />

39c<br />

51c<br />

54G<br />

re61<br />

6?8<br />

SOTH PERCEIITILE IIALE DUIiI,IY . HYBRID III<br />

793<br />

185<br />

95TH PERCEIITILE IIALE rull|Y<br />

r590<br />

817<br />

56c<br />

38G<br />

49G<br />

47c<br />

2456 ,<br />

1452<br />

1431 249t3<br />

.|129<br />

t15Z<br />

lB09 7l,4/<br />

978 1416<br />

2272<br />

1500<br />

'TH PERCEIITTLE<br />

FEMLE DUITIIIY<br />

1635 57c 5U+<br />

585 5tG 476<br />

2240<br />

1826<br />

1920<br />

961<br />

the characteristic timc observed in other 30 mph frontal<br />

tests. It is strongly suspected that the steering column<br />

replacement performed prior to the air bag system retrofit<br />

introduced uncharacteristic column stroking response<br />

during which significantly less driver kinetic energy was<br />

absorbed within the column stroking mechanism. The<br />

dummy injury measures were therefore suspected to be non<br />

representative of the retrofit air bag system and a repeat of<br />

the test was deemed necessary.<br />

The results of this first test are shown in table 10. Also<br />

shown on this and subsequent Hbles ofcrash test results are<br />

the measured times of inflator initiation and the predicted<br />

initiation time based on the Breed proprietary mechanical<br />

sensor math model. To obtain prediction from the Breed<br />

model the steering wheel hub acceleration time history<br />

measured during the crash test was used as the input<br />

excitation to the model. Dr. David Breed had permanently<br />

encoded the design pflrameter$ of the Breed sensor used in<br />

405


the NHTSA sponsored work before the math model<br />

computerized program was supplied to the Govemment<br />

technical manager. The proprietary parameter values in the<br />

executable only program include the weight of the sensing<br />

mass sphere, the spring con$tant of the biil$ spring, the<br />

initial bias spring force and corresponding bias acceleration<br />

on the sensing mass, the travel required to trigger the firing<br />

pin, the diameter and clearance of the sphere within the<br />

interior bore of the cylinder within which the sphere must<br />

move the prescribed amount to produce triggering, and the<br />

various geometrical locations and dimensions of the "D"<br />

shaft and levers within the sensor/initiator. Based on the<br />

input acceleration history the model establishes the<br />

Reynolds number of the air flow passing thru the annular<br />

type orifice between the sensing sphere and cylinder wall in<br />

order to establish the presence of laminar or turbulent flow<br />

and the air velocity for determination of air damping<br />

retarding the sphere's motion. The math model output<br />

includes the sensor/initiator firing pin release time which it<br />

calculates based on the characteristics of the crash pulse<br />

which is input. Acceleration measurements shown for the<br />

chest are maximum 3 millisecond duration values (3 ms.<br />

clip).<br />

A second frontal rigid barrier crash test was conducted at<br />

an impact speed of 30.2 mph. The test car was a 1983<br />

Chevrolet Impala. As in the first and all subsequent car<br />

crash te$ts, no belt restraints were employed on the 50th<br />

percentile male dummy which was in the driver position.<br />

The Breed air bag $ystem performance was the same as had<br />

been demonstrated in the sled tests. In this crash test the data<br />

from the fore-aft acceleration of the head center of gravity<br />

was not recovered beyond 9l millisecond$ after crash onset.<br />

This prevented an accurate determination of the head injury<br />

l98t ll?ArA<br />

lqtfE il.fALA<br />

l98B il?ALA<br />

I9f,E IIPALA<br />

*<br />

FRilIAL FIXED RIGID SANRIER 50.? I?II<br />

CEIITERTIIIE FOTE E9.E I?R<br />

1I{I DECREE FRilTAI BARRIER 30.? }fII<br />

FROTTAT fIXED RIEIb FAIRIER !5.0 I"H<br />

criteria (HIC), but an estimate based on similarity of head<br />

acceleration in sled and crash measurements prior to<br />

channel loss in the crash test was made and is shown on table<br />

I l. Table I I also contains the test data from the center line<br />

pole crash, the 30" angled fixed rigid barrier with the initial<br />

barrier contact on the front right comer of the bumper, and<br />

the 35 mph frontal fixed rigid barrier crash. The data shown<br />

illustrates that head, chest and femurs are provided good<br />

protection in the 30 mph crashes into the front and angular<br />

rigid barriers as well as into the rigid pole impacting on the<br />

car centerline. The 35 mph frontal barrier crash dummy<br />

injury measures indicate satisfactory head and femur<br />

protection with a marginal protection of the chest. The car<br />

preparation for the pole impact did not include and<br />

additional bumper stiffening such had been added to the<br />

Ford LTD in the earlier evaluation of mechanical sensor<br />

feasibility.<br />

It should be noted that the inflator initiation times<br />

measured in these varied crashes demonstrate the Breed<br />

sensor characteristic of quicker response foi the more<br />

violent crash pulses experienced in the 30 and 35 mph<br />

frontal rigid barrier crashes with later responses in the<br />

slower onset pulses of the pole crash and the angular barrier.<br />

Inflator initiation times of 62 ms. in the pole crash and 32<br />

ms. in the 30o angled barrier crash are significantly later<br />

than occurred in the frontal fixed rigid barrier tests. Despite<br />

the later air bag deployments in these slower onset crash<br />

pulse tests, it is clear from the dummy measures that a driver<br />

would be provided good protection. This is a natural<br />

consequence of the sensor/initiator responding only to the<br />

acceleration present in the occupant compartment which,<br />

not by chance, besides producing the triggering of the<br />

inflator also produces the unrestrained driver's motion<br />

Tsble 10. Flrst demonatrrtlon crash t6$t ol Breed r€trofit drlver alr bsg Eystem with suspect ateerlng column tunctlon'<br />

CAR TESTED CNA$[ COIIDITIOI{ CSASI{ SPEED |TC CHE$T L. FEN'R R. FE]IJI II{FI^TM ITITIATIOTI IMEI PREDICTIO{<br />

19Bl II?ALA FROI{TAI FIED RrGIp BARRTER :m.0 HPll xl|* 59 G 13:t0 tB, 1m0 tB. 31 ts. :t0 lr$,<br />

r lllc cstculEtim cor.rtd rut b6 [l8d€ dJc to 1068 of vcrtlcal head exis rceclcrutlon det8 in t68t'<br />

Table 11. Reeults of tlnsl demon$tratlon crs8h t€Ets of Breed retloflt drlvsr air beg $ystem.<br />

C,AN TE$TS CRABI{ OETDITIilI CRASII SPEED IIIC CIIESI t. fEilN R. FEIi'R ItFtAt* trllTl^ttofl lfDEt PtEDtcTIill<br />

t3l<br />

E<br />

58it<br />

ilt6<br />

4eG<br />

21 c<br />

1??0 rB.<br />

1220 LB.<br />

7:t0 LB.<br />

1470 LB.<br />

1450 LB,<br />

t(60 tB.<br />

6{t G 1750 LB. 1260 LB,<br />

20 ils.<br />

25 rS. 23 lts.<br />

62 l{S. 6t tG.<br />

Foru-rft hcrd *crtlretlq'r rccord toft rfter 9l [8, th|,E pre,vEhtlng pr€ci8e ilc dotcminrtlorr. E6sid ori einiterity to<br />

hrd eccclrrrtlotB In pilor stGd tcstirE, Gxtr+otrtloh of thG drts pr8t 91 |B, prorddct r Hlc of sbot t ioo.<br />

32 t+$. l{0T cALcutATEo<br />

20 HS,


within the compartment prior to air bag deployment.<br />

Therefore, in theory and as demonstrated in these resrsr an<br />

air bag deployment which is timely for driver protection can<br />

be produced based on the accelerations present in the<br />

passenger compartment. The car crash testing conducted in<br />

this program was insufficient to confirm with great certainty<br />

that the unique sen$or response characteristics designed<br />

into this retrofit driver air bag module are indeed<br />

appropriate to a$sure timely deployment and resulting<br />

adequate driver protection under a// real world crash<br />

configurations for which air bag protection may be<br />

desirable.<br />

Off Road Car Testing<br />

A series of rough road tests were performed at the<br />

Transportation Research Center of Ohio on a l9g3<br />

Chevrolet Impala to determine under what marginal<br />

conditions a Breed air bag module would deploy. The repon<br />

of the te$ts conducted was written by the engineer who<br />

drove the test car, Mr. Robert C. Esser (reference 3). The test<br />

driving surfaces are well described in his report and include<br />

cobblestone road, staggered bumps, single bump, potholes,<br />

and a small and large earthen ditch. Progressively severe<br />

conditions were imposed on the car by conducting the<br />

passages at increasing speeds. Finally, deployment was<br />

indicated in a 20 mph impact of the front bumper into the<br />

vertical end of the large ditch which consisted mainly of<br />

hard packed clay. In addition to the severe bumper mount<br />

distortion created in the final sequence of large ditch tests<br />

other damage was also produced. A significant sheet metal<br />

crease wa$ produced on the left front fender over the wheel<br />

well and the right front fender was pushed t/z inch rearward.<br />

Subsequent inspection revealed a cracked radiator fan<br />

shroud and wrinkling of the left inner fender.<br />

The test driver who was wearing a wide web four point<br />

belt restraint offers the following opinion in his written<br />

report; --The air bag actuation threshold at any higher level<br />

could result in unacceptable discomfort or injury to the<br />

driver even with use of the production three point seat belt<br />

$ystem." This opinion, although admittedly subjective, was<br />

provided by an experienced engineer in the area of crash<br />

research and testing who is the only person known to have<br />

experienced threshold deployment conditions with the<br />

Breed air bag module installed. Since no acceleration<br />

measurements were made during this test series and movie<br />

coverage was minimal, the change of car velocity in the<br />

deployment event can only be estimated, and that estimate is<br />

approximately l0 mph with an upper limit value of l5 mph.<br />

Environmental Qualification Testing<br />

An environmental exposure and test series which was<br />

typical of qualification testing for air bag gas generators<br />

employed by car manufacturers was conducted on Breed/<br />

Thiokol inflator modules which housed the all mechanical<br />

pyrotechnic sensor/initiators in addition to the normal gas<br />

generator constituents (reference 4). After reme-<br />

dial design implementations to correct deficiencies which<br />

were discovered early thru preliminary exploratory environmental<br />

testing, and a great deal of difficulties controlling<br />

shaker test equipment outputs to insure that desired test<br />

exposure extremes were not exceeded, the qualification<br />

program was completed. The program demonstrated the<br />

Breed sensor/initiator calibrations to be unaffected by the<br />

extensive expo$ures to vibration, thermal and mechanical<br />

shock, humidity, and temperature<br />

extremes which were<br />

used in the qualification test series. The gas generating<br />

characteristics<br />

of the inflator were also shown to be satisfac-<br />

tory after these environmental qualification exposures (reference<br />

5). There was, however, a determination from a<br />

special testing program conducted by the Indian Head Naval<br />

Ordnance Station, that the originally specified maximum<br />

temperature for long term exposure jeopardized sub-<br />

$equent reliability of inflator function. It was established<br />

that 105"C (22loF) desensirized rhe stab primers which<br />

must function as the first element in the pyrotechnic chain of<br />

inflator ignition. 90"C ( 194"F) was found ro be a safe limit<br />

for the cumulative 88 hour exposure employed in qualification<br />

testing which would not degrade system reliability<br />

(reference 6).<br />

Conclusions<br />

The Breed retrofit driver protection air bag system has<br />

been evaluated in this program. The system has been refined<br />

and perfected during the course of this work. Some significant<br />

improvements in design and function were achieved as<br />

a consequence. The initial concept and design of an all<br />

mechanical sensor/initiator integrally housed within the<br />

body of an air bag inflator was shown to be feasible. It was<br />

demonstrated that timely air bag deployments could be<br />

achieved without the use of multiple crash sensors located<br />

in the front end of the car and without expense and complexity<br />

of reliance on electronics fortimely crash severity recognition<br />

and air bag deployment intitiation.<br />

This program has demonstrated that:<br />

( I ) Good frontal crash protection is provided to the<br />

driver under all of the crash conditions tested and at<br />

crash speeds<br />

in excess to those which the Impala belt<br />

system can provide adequate protection.<br />

(2) The air bag sysrem performs well with belr sys-<br />

tems and provides enhancement<br />

to the protection offered<br />

by the belts atone.<br />

(3) The retrofit system provides good accomodation<br />

and protection ro the wide range of potential driver<br />

sizes.<br />

(4) The sensor function which distinguishes need for<br />

air bag deployment is immune to the effects of environmental<br />

exposures,<br />

(5) When the inflator is tested in the configuration of<br />

a car installation, the inflator design provides adequate<br />

protection from moisture to its pyrotechnic contents.<br />

(6) The primers within the Breed sensor/initiator<br />

407


suffer a loss in reliability when exposed to<br />

temperatures above l94oF (90'C) for a period of 88<br />

hours,<br />

References<br />

(l) Stultz, J., (Transportation Research Center of Ohio)<br />

"Bumper Tests", Report Number 840608' July 1984'<br />

Vehicle Research and Test Center, East Liberty, Ohio.<br />

(2) Eppinger, R.H., (National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration)<br />

"Prediction of Thoracic Injury Using<br />

Measurable Experimental Parameters '" Report On The<br />

Sixth I nternational Technical C onference on Experimental<br />

Safety Vehicles (October 1976) DOT HS 80? 50l-<br />

(3) Esser, R.C., (National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administation)<br />

"Breed Airbag Program Rough Road<br />

Driving Tests," Report No. RD 38'H, September 1985,<br />

Vehicle Research and Test Center, East Liberty, Ohio.<br />

(4) Schneiter, F.E., (Morton Thiokol Inc.) "Test Plan For<br />

Environmental Simulation And Evaluation Testing of<br />

Inflator with Breed Sensor," Doc. No. UFR-1208(C)'<br />

Morton Thiokol Inc., Utah Division'<br />

(5) Schneiter, F.8., (Morton Thiokol Inc') "Final<br />

Report-special Test Program-Morton Thiokol Inflator<br />

with Breed Mechanical Firing Device" NHTSA Program<br />

No. DTNH22-87-P-01432, Morton Thiokol Inc', Utah<br />

Division.<br />

(6) Michienzi, M., (Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station)<br />

"special Test Report For The Breed Corp. Stab Detonator,"<br />

Report Number STR86006, April 1987, Ordnance Devices<br />

Department, Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, MD.<br />

Design of a Crash Attenuation System for a Lightweight Commuter Car<br />

Written Only Paper<br />

L. Glen Watson, P. Barry Hertz, and<br />

Dean L. Beaudry,<br />

University of Saskatchewan<br />

Abstract<br />

Nexus I is a single Passenger, three-wheeled, highly fuel<br />

efficient, lightweight vehicle which was developed with<br />

funding by the Canadian Department of Transport, at the<br />

Univeriity of Saskatchewan (1, 2,3)*' Unlike most safetyoriented<br />

vehicles Nexus was designed with high fuel<br />

transport efficiency (4) as the primary objective- Nexus<br />

was, in addition, developed to comply with the intent of the<br />

Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) for<br />

passenger cars. This design orientation has led to a very<br />

unique vehicle that tries to combine two attributes that are<br />

widely regarded as incompatible: safety and fuel<br />

conservation. This paper deals primarily with the design of<br />

an unusual feature of Nexus, the nose mounted Crash<br />

Attenuation System (CAS). This crash attenuation system is<br />

designed to protect the frame of the car and hopefully the<br />

passenger from any damage in a frontal collision.<br />

Design Considerations<br />

In the Canadian automobile crash environment the<br />

largest number of cars are subject to frontal collisions (5).<br />

This suggests that there should be a very large payoff in<br />

protecting against impacts from the front. Since only one<br />

prototype of Nexus was being built and because the<br />

designers wished to comply with the CMVSS frontal<br />

collision standards with regard to passenger protection, it<br />

was decided to add an energy absorbing device to the nose<br />

I Nexus is defined to he a connection in a linked Sroup or series.<br />

*Numbers in parentheses dcsignate reference$ at end of papcr.<br />

408<br />

of the vehicle. In the event of a frontal crash this energy<br />

absorbing device would bring the car and the passenger to a<br />

controlled stop from at least 48 kmlh, without decelerating<br />

the frame of the vehicle in excess of 30 "g's".<br />

This deceleration level was chosen since a finite element<br />

analysis of the frame of the vehicle had indicated that the<br />

frame would not yield under a 30 "g" deceleration- The<br />

aerodynamic profile of the vehicle, structural considerations<br />

and anthropometric constraints combined to limit the<br />

energy adsorption device to a length of 0.71 meters. Further,<br />

if one assumed that the device had the shape of a right<br />

parallelepiped it would have to fit in a space 0.25m by<br />

0.35m by 0.7Im. The mass of Nexus and the driver was<br />

estimated to be 410 kg and the CMVSS required that the car<br />

should be tested in a 48 km/h barrier collision. A final<br />

constraint on the design was the proposal by Rauser (6) that<br />

the ideal form of acceleration pulse is an initial peak<br />

followed by a square wave as shown in figure l -<br />

Deflection<br />

Flgure 1. A stepped square wsve responae.


Possible<br />

Crash Attenuation<br />

Mechanisms<br />

The design problem thus became one of finding some<br />

way to absorb (48 km/h)z X al0kg/2 or 472X l0e Newton<br />

meters of energy in rhe CAS 0.25m by 0.35m by 0.7Im or<br />

0.062 cubic meters in volume. As Nexus was being<br />

designed to be a lightweight vehicle, the enargy absorbing<br />

system was also required to be Iight in weight. During the<br />

design, three types of systems were considered in depth.<br />

The candidate systems were:<br />

l. a yielding -'diamond" linkage (7),<br />

2. a rigid polyurerhane foam "nose" (B), and<br />

3. an aluminum honeycomb<br />

..nose" (9).<br />

Simulations of the linkage indicared rhat it could easily<br />

absorb the required energy. However, there were suspicions<br />

thar the Iinkage might fail by buckling wirh liille or no<br />

energy absorption. In addition, the required attachment$ to<br />

the frame would have necessitated some changes to the<br />

"rigid"<br />

bulkhead at the front of the frame.<br />

The proposed foam nose was to be built from layers of a<br />

locally manufactured rigid polyurethane insulation. The<br />

foam nose CAS appeared to be an attractive choice since it<br />

would result in a low mass, economical, energy absorbing<br />

device. Many of the advantages of the foam nose were<br />

shared by the aluminum honeycomb design; however, the<br />

design team initially felt that aluminum honeycomb would<br />

be unduly expensive. Eady in the construction phase ofthe<br />

vehicle u decision to use the rigid polyurethane foam as a<br />

CAS was made.<br />

The first problem encountered in the design of the rigid<br />

foam CAS was to determine its material properties. The<br />

foam stiffness was found to be rate sensitive and temperature<br />

sensitive; further, it was found to have two disparate failure<br />

modes in compression (8).<br />

Under normal temperature conditions the marerial failed<br />

by a plastic buckling of the cell walls. For temperatures<br />

below the glass transition temperature the material failed<br />

through a brittle failure of the cell walls. Figure 2 illustrates<br />

the temperature dependence of the material, It was<br />

determined that in spite of the temperature and velocity<br />

dependencies it would srill be possible to build a CAS from<br />

the rigid polyurethane foam.<br />

The first barrier impact test$ were done on quarter scale<br />

models and these indicated the foam system was feasible, It<br />

was noted however that the force displacement curve did<br />

not have the ideal shape shown in figure L Instead, the force<br />

irtcreased very gradually. This was due to the fact that the<br />

front of the CA$ had a much smallerarea than the back since<br />

it was built to fit into the aerodynamic shell of Nexus.<br />

The next step was the full scale testing of the CAS. This<br />

testing was done at the University of Saskatchewan<br />

pendulum testing facility ( I | ). The full scale resr was only a<br />

partial success. The energy absorbed was as large as was<br />

specified in the initial design, unfonunately the car was<br />

heavier than was anticipated when the CAS was designed.<br />

a rro<br />

J<br />

;<br />

rf uo<br />

vl<br />

g l,l<br />

1t<br />

T<br />

F 200<br />

160<br />

Stndnrufe,i (/rn)<br />

fleure.2.<br />

Deelgn curygq relettng straln_ rar€ and temperature<br />

dependence of one rlgld, cloeedcell polyurethane.<br />

After the CAS had absorbed the design energy, it effectively<br />

bottomed out and the acceleration rate exceeded 30 g's. In<br />

addition, the CAS exhibited a large amount of ..spalling<br />

off " of material which was not yet loaded and hence had not<br />

absorbed a significant amount of energy.<br />

The next stage of the CAS development was to build<br />

quarter scale models of aluminum honeycomb. To avoid the<br />

problems associated with the tapering of the CAS, the<br />

aluminum honeycomb CAS was made in the form of a right<br />

parallelepiped. The one quarter scale models performed<br />

flawlessly. The scaled energy was absorbed and the CAS<br />

was deformed uniformly. Finally, full scale models of the<br />

CAS were built and tested; unfortunately, the tests were<br />

only a partial success. The quarter scale models had been<br />

made from either a single sheet of honeycomb or from two<br />

sheets bonded together. Due to cost constraints it was<br />

decided to construct the full scale CAS from four layers of<br />

honeycomb with layers of fiberglass and polyester resin<br />

between them. This arrangement proved to be barely stable<br />

and in some of our impact test$ one of the interior layers of<br />

honeycomb was extruded laterally almost intact and it<br />

absorbed almost no energy (figure 3).<br />

The remainder of the CAS did not have enough material<br />

to absorb all of the energy and once again the CAS bottomed<br />

out undcr the load. However, in other experiments the Crash<br />

Attenuation Systems which remained stable under testing<br />

Flgure 3. Fallure of an unstsble GAS.


easily absorbed all of the required energy' Figure 4 shows<br />

the acceleration deflection curve for an aluminum honeycomb<br />

CAS; as can be seen the CAS performed very well'<br />

The dip in the midpoint of the curve was probably<br />

associated with some lateral motion of one of the<br />

honeycomb layers. It is believed that the instability could be<br />

removed by using a single thicker layer of honeycomb.<br />

Drcdil{fmrutrrllmr<br />

lc tull slt dynamh trtr of r,hrminurn ltFnc:|Gsrlb<br />

ena rdid p6fu-rttfrhiit-Fim qrrrgf abmrtiry tilnrPff moddr<br />

g<br />

Floure 4. Deceleratlon veraua Time tor full scale te$ts of rlgld<br />

poTyurethane fosm and alumlnum honeycomb modele.<br />

Conclusions<br />

In this paper we have introduced the idea of a nosemounted<br />

crash energy absorber which would limit the<br />

deceleration to the frame of a vehicle in the event of a barrier<br />

collision. The work that we have presented demonstrates<br />

that such a safety feature can be added with very little<br />

increase in the mass of the vehicle. In addition to mechani<br />

cal linkage systems, rigid polyurethane foams and<br />

aluminum honeycombs show good promise of providing<br />

adequate crash protection.<br />

References<br />

(l) Eichendorf, R., Gerwing, D., Hertz, P.8., "Design of<br />

the Nexus Vehicle", <strong>Int</strong>. J. of Vehicle Design (to appear).<br />

Passenger Car Crash Worthiness in Moose/Car Collisions<br />

Written Only Papers<br />

P. Ltivsund, G. Nilson, M. Y. Svensson,<br />

Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden<br />

J. G. Terins,<br />

Volvo Car Corporation, Sweden<br />

Abstract<br />

This paper describes the development and verification of<br />

a moose-dummy for testing the crash worthiness of cars in<br />

moose-car accidents.<br />

410<br />

(2) Beaudry, D.L., Hertz, P.B', and Watson, L'G.<br />

"Construction of the Nexus Vehicle", <strong>Int</strong>. J. of Vehicle<br />

Design (to appear).<br />

(3) McEachern, R.A., Watson, L'G', Hertz' P.B"<br />

"Predicting the Strength of Welded Aluminum Structures",<br />

Transactions of the Society of Automotive Engineers 1988<br />

Paper No. 880902.<br />

(4) Hertz, P.8., "Technical Aspects of Transport Energy<br />

Efficiency" Department of Mechanical Engineering'<br />

University of Saskatchewan, July 1982.<br />

(5) Transport Canada Report TP948CR7705,<br />

"Impact<br />

<strong>Conf</strong>igurations and Severities in Canadian Passenger<br />

Vehicle Collisions".<br />

(6) Rausern M., "Energy absorbtion of passenger car<br />

body structures made of steel and aluminum", <strong>Int</strong>' J' of<br />

Vehicle Design. Special Issue on Vehicle Safety, 1986 pp.<br />

l r3-128.<br />

(7) Gerwing, D.H., Hertz, P.B., "Phase l-Report<br />

Design of 'Nexus' Vehicle Transport Canada" Contract No'<br />

osv83-00060.<br />

(8) McEachern, R.A., Sargent, C.M., and Watson, L.G',<br />

"Observations on the Material Properties of Low Density<br />

Rigid Polyurethane Foam" submitted to Materials Science<br />

and Engineering.<br />

(9) McEachern, R.A., Watson, L.C., and Hertz, P.8.,<br />

"Frontal<br />

Crashworthiness Modelling of a Lightweight<br />

Commuter Car" Presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of<br />

the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, Boston,<br />

Mass.. December 13*18, 1987. Published in Trends in<br />

Vehicle Design Research 1987, ASME DE- Vol. l l pp. 53s9.<br />

(10) Beaudry, D.L., Watson, L.G. and Hertz, P.8., "The<br />

Application of Finite Element Modeling in the design of a<br />

Crash Attenuation system for a Lightweight Commuter<br />

Car" Proceedings of the 4th <strong>Int</strong>ernational ANSYS<br />

<strong>Conf</strong>erence, May l-5, 1989, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.<br />

(ll) Ken, D., Fischer, T., Werle, S., Hertz, P.B. "Full<br />

Scale Crash Testing Facility for Lightweight Vehicles" <strong>Int</strong>.<br />

J. of Vehicle Design (to aPPear)'<br />

The dummy is based on and verified against the results of<br />

a staged collision in which a passenger car impacts a moose<br />

cadaver. The cadaver test is also described in the report.<br />

Moose-car accidents contribute to about 2 percent of the<br />

death casualties in the Nordic road traffic and the type is<br />

even more represented among slighter injuries. Since<br />

several attempts to reduce the frequency of moose-car<br />

accidents have proved to have minor effect improvements<br />

of the crash worthiness of passenger cars in this kind of<br />

impact might be desirable.


<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The Scandinavian moose, sometimes also called elk. is a<br />

huge member of the deer family. A new-born moose weighs<br />

about l0 kg and a full grown male might, in rare cases,<br />

weigh up to 1000 kg but wirh an average of between 300 and<br />

400 kg.<br />

In other words this wild animal is almost as heavy as a<br />

horse and of similar size but has longer and slimmer legs.<br />

This means that when an ordinary passenger<br />

car impacts a<br />

moose, only a negligible part of the animal's mass will be<br />

struck by the strong, frontal part of the car. Most of the<br />

animal's mass instead will be impacted by the windshietd<br />

and roof construction. Car-moose collisions occur in the<br />

countryside, on roads with speed limits in the range of 7()-<br />

I l0 km/h. Requirements on unobstructed field of view and<br />

modern styling trends have made many cars inadequate to<br />

withstand such an impact.<br />

The animals are well hidden in the vegetation and do<br />

often enter the road very swiftly and without warning.<br />

Cautiousness and driving experience thus offer poor<br />

protection against this type of accident. Passenger car-<br />

moose collisions contribute to about ZVo of the death<br />

casualties in the Nordic road traffic (l), (2).*<br />

Different attempts to prevent the accidents have been<br />

undertaken. The most important are:<br />

r Trees and bushes along the roadsides of the major<br />

roads have been cut down to give clear sight a few<br />

meters on each side of the road.<br />

Road signs have been put up in order to wam the<br />

drivers at places where the animals are known to<br />

cross frequently.<br />

r Wildlife fences have been mounted along such<br />

parts of the major roads where moose most<br />

frequently cross.<br />

The first two methods $eem to have slight effect. The<br />

third method has provcd to be efficient, but is rather<br />

expensive. The animals change habits and find new places<br />

to cros$ the roads.<br />

It has become obvious that improvement of the crash<br />

worthiness of passenger cars in this type of accident would<br />

be a better way to decrease the numbers of killed and injured<br />

road users. This has been observed by the Swedish<br />

authorities and in lg82 a working group was established<br />

with the official research institutions and the car<br />

manufacturers.<br />

A moose-dummy was assembled and crashtests were<br />

conducted (3). Although obtaining valuable dara from rhese<br />

tests the group decided in 1985 that an improved moosedummy<br />

was needed for the future work. This paper<br />

describes the development of the latter dummy.<br />

Materials and Methods<br />

This project can be divided into two sections:<br />

(l) A staged collision with a passenger<br />

car impacting a<br />

*Numtrrs in prrenthe$cs dcsignate references at cnd of paper<br />

moose cadaver in order to get insight into the mechanisms of<br />

moose-car collisions.<br />

(2) Design of a moose-dummy and validation by a staged<br />

collision similar to (l) with rhe cadaver replaced by the<br />

dummy.<br />

General test conditions<br />

The tests were made with an equivalent test set up. The<br />

mid plane of the car coincided with the center of mass of the<br />

moose-cadaver/dummy (figure l). The speed of the test cars<br />

were 79 and 76 ft6/h respectively. Each collision was high<br />

speed filmed from both sides of the vehicle and from above.<br />

W<br />

Flgure 1. TBst conflguratlon.<br />

Test cars<br />

The cars were instrumented with accelerometers (Endevco<br />

2262) and force sensor$ (Load-indicator, AB20). The<br />

accelerometer$ were placed on the roof at the b-pillars and<br />

on the floor at the side members. The roof-rails were sawn<br />

up just behind the b-pillars and force sensors were installed.<br />

The cars were equipped with high speed film cameras. The<br />

two vehicles had cameras mounted on top of the boot, covering<br />

the wind screen area from behind. In the cadaver resr two<br />

floor-mounted cameras covered the wind-screen and frontal<br />

half of the roof construction from below.<br />

In the dummy test the deformation of the roof structure<br />

and the penetration of the dummy into the passengers companment<br />

was covered by one floor-mounted camera which<br />

covered four specially designed gauge rods. Three rods<br />

were made of PVC-pipe and were fixed to the upper windshield<br />

frame, one in the middle and the other two in line with<br />

the front seat occupants positions. All three rods pointing<br />

straight backwards along the inside of the roof. The fourth<br />

rod was made of a thin aluminum pipe and was designed to<br />

measure the penetration of the dummy through the windshield<br />

opening. [t was mounted horizontally in a rig which<br />

allowed the rod to glide with friction. It was placed in the<br />

midplane of the car inside the passengers compartment at a<br />

height corresponding to the middle of the wind screen opening.<br />

At the frontal end of the rod was fixed an aluminum<br />

plate 150 X 200 mm. The fronral end had its initial position<br />

300 mm behind the upper wind screen frame.<br />

The vehicles were equipped with an automatic braking<br />

system which was pneumatically powered and electromechanically<br />

triggered. The device was connected to the<br />

original hydraulic braking system of the car.<br />

Moose cadaver<br />

The moose cadaver was of a four-year-old male, weighing<br />

260 kg. The center of mass of the moose body was at the<br />

7:th rib, 1.35 m above the ground. The cadaver hung in four<br />

4ll


steel wires that were cut off, with specially designed cutting<br />

devices (Norabel AB), at first contact between the car and<br />

the moose. The cutting device was made up by a small<br />

housing through which the wire was passing. Inside the<br />

housing, a wedge, driven by explosive agent, cut the wire<br />

when an electrical detonator was triggered. The trig-to-cut<br />

time did not exceed 2 ms.<br />

Moose dummy<br />

The design and construction of the moose dummy was<br />

based mainly on the experiences from the cadaver test' In<br />

that test the moose-body responded roughly like a water<br />

filled sack, that is no evident rigidity due to e.8. the skeletal<br />

structure could be observed, to the impact.<br />

The dummy thus mainly consisted of water. The water<br />

was divided into impermeable compaftments, twenty high<br />

pressure hoses (Heliflex, I1299) with an inner perimeter of<br />

320 mm and an outer of 340 mm. The hoses were filled with<br />

water to 5.7 dm3/m which gave a cross sectional area corresponding<br />

to a rhomboid with diagonals with the rutio 2ll.<br />

The hoses were tightened at the ends by welding and all<br />

air inside was removed. To avoid ripple inside the hoses<br />

they also contained five interlayers of a polypropylene fiber<br />

mat (ENC-TEX AB, Y065) (figure 3). The mat consisted of<br />

two sheetings separated by thin, transverse, synthetic fibers<br />

which gave a high flow resistance.<br />

Flgure 3. Gross-Eoctlon of one hoae placed lnelde lts Poclrct In<br />

thE mstrir. Lengtht In [mml.<br />

The hoses were mounted together in a material matrix.<br />

The matrix consisted of a number of sheets of a knitted<br />

fabric (ENG-TEX AB, Yl55) sewn together with a 6 mm<br />

wide flat-lock seam (figure 2). The cross section of the<br />

dummy thus got a rhomboidal pattern. Each rhomboid<br />

"pocket" had a perimeter of 390 mm. Each hose was covered<br />

with a polyethene film to allow easy glide inside its<br />

pocket, which is essential in a bending motion of the<br />

dummy.<br />

Flgure 2. s) Crosg-sectlon and b) alde vlew, of the mooss dummV.<br />

tengttrb in [mm]. Ths dummy was hung wllh lta lower edge<br />

1m above the ground.<br />

Results<br />

Cadaver test<br />

With this test setup the forelegs were hit by the car front,<br />

while the hind legs were passed. When the front hit the<br />

forelegs the hooves bent up under the bumper thu$ fixing the<br />

legs at this position during the first 50 ms after first contact'<br />

This forced the moose body downwards, towards the<br />

bonnet. Observations from the high speed films indicated<br />

Flgure 4. Drawingt from the hlgh'apeed tilm of the cgdsvcr test<br />

sh-owlng the lntru$ion ot ths moose'body lnto th6 pass€ng_€rs'<br />

compar:tment. The numbers show the tlmB past from flrtt<br />

oontact betwssn the vehlcle and the cadaver In [m$1.


that not much of the cadaver's mass was rotated in this<br />

initial sequence even though lhe supedicial parts, the skin in<br />

particular, were considerably twisted (figure 4).<br />

At approximately 80 ms after first contact the pelvis was<br />

hit by the right frontal part of the roof. This occurred at a<br />

speed of ?6 km/h and induced a force peak of about 20 kN in<br />

the right force sensor and caused an acceleration peak of<br />

about 30 g at the b-pillar (figures 5 and 6).<br />

The force then rapidly decreased at the right side and<br />

slowly increased at the left side. The force pulse on the left<br />

side was lower but with a longer duration. The maximum<br />

value was about l4 kN (figure 6). The impact had a duration<br />

of about 80 ms during which the car velocity dropped from<br />

78.9 to 65.9 kmih, in complete accordance with the law of<br />

impulse. The pulses in the floor accelerorneters never<br />

exceeded I 0 g and had an average value of about 4 g (figure<br />

5).<br />

Irl<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

0 lO t0 !20 lco 100 1.0 IErl 0 {0 80 lto 160 200 lto lm.l<br />

Flgure 5, s-1. Accelerometer signalr from ths cadsv€r t€st<br />

(a,b,c) and from the dummy tegt (ii,e,l). Flgures a) and d) shsw<br />

thedght-b-plllar slqnals, !l and c) show thb left-b:illlar ilgnals<br />

End c) and f) show lloor slgnals.<br />

The moose body proved to be very deformable and<br />

flexible. It bent around the a-pillars and the wind-screen<br />

frame and penetrated deep into the compartment. Maximum<br />

penetration occurred after 150 ms, at which tirne the moose<br />

body was as far inside as a few tenths of mm:s in fronr of the<br />

b-pillars (figure 4).<br />

The wind-screen dropped into the car at an early stage,<br />

thereby shielding the two floor-mounted cameras. Thus the<br />

penetration could only be observed from one side view and<br />

the boot-mounted camera.<br />

The residual deformations of the car roof was up to 180<br />

mm in the x-direction and 130 mm in the negative<br />

z-direction (figure 7).<br />

tkill<br />

10<br />

t5<br />

rz<br />

16<br />

t2<br />

3<br />

{<br />

0<br />

a<br />

{<br />

0<br />

0 {0 60 12C 16A 20A [mEI<br />

kNl<br />

Figure 6, a-f. Force ssnaor slgna|e from the cadaver (a,b,c) and<br />

the dummy (d,e,f). a) and d) rlght alde algnals, b) and e) left slde<br />

8lgnal3, c) and f) superposition ol the signsls from both sldes.<br />

Dummy test<br />

The dummy showed great similarities with the cadaver in<br />

the interaction with the roof construction. The penetration<br />

into the passenger's compartment was about as deep as in<br />

the cadaver test. The acceleration and force pulses also<br />

showed good correlation (figures 5 and 6).<br />

The impact speed was 76 km/h, corresponding to the<br />

windshield impact at the previous test. The residual deformations<br />

of the car roof was up to 400 mm in the x-direction<br />

and 180 mm in the negative z-direction (figure 7).<br />

Discussion<br />

Cadaver test<br />

Statistics show that moose in the first month$ of their<br />

second year of life are in majority amongst the animals<br />

involved in car-moose accidents. In this age they usually<br />

have a body mass in the range of 18f280 kg. We therefore<br />

decided to use a cadaver in this weight range. The cadaver<br />

used was a starved four-year-old male weighing 260 kg. A<br />

normal weight for this animal would have been about 350<br />

kg.<br />

The cadaver was dissected immediately after the test. The<br />

strength of the rib bones was then tested and found<br />

20<br />

16<br />

t2<br />

s<br />

0<br />

t6<br />

6<br />

2A<br />

z4<br />

20<br />

r6<br />

t2<br />

6<br />

4<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0o 110 l60 2oo<br />

t20 t60 eoo<br />

413


Flgure 7. Residual windshleld lrame deformations: a) top vl€w<br />

b) lrontal view<br />

considerably higher than of ribs of a one-year-old animal.<br />

The evidently flexible and ductile behavior of the body,<br />

shown in the high-speed films, indicated that the moose<br />

body was loading the roof construction with a pressure that<br />

was rather evenly distributed over the contact surfaces. The<br />

final deformations of the car gave the same indications. It<br />

was believed that the skeleton plays a minor role in this kind<br />

of impact.<br />

The center of mass of the cadaver used in this test is about<br />

100 mm higher than what is typical for a one-year-old<br />

animal. It was however concluded that the cadaver was an<br />

acceptable model for a one-year-old moose.<br />

Due to rotation of the moose, the spine "rested" against<br />

the upper wind-screen frame during the crash. It is difficult<br />

to tell whether the spine in another configuration would<br />

behave as a load carrying structure or not, which would give<br />

implications to the dummy development.<br />

The speed of impact was chosen in the range of 70-l l0<br />

kmTh since this is the interval where the injurious accidents<br />

appear. 80 kmlh was considered a reasonably tough speed<br />

which was expected to give moderate deformations and<br />

thereby to enable meaningful force measurements.<br />

Accidental data show that impacts where the center of mass<br />

of the animal coincides with the mid plane of the car are the<br />

414<br />

most serious (2). That is why this configuration was chosen<br />

in the two tests.<br />

The Volvo 244 was chosen as test aar since it was the most<br />

common car in the Scandinavian countries at that time. A<br />

large reference material was available in Volvo Car<br />

Corporation's accidental data, with a great number of well<br />

documented moose-car collisions.<br />

In the Volvo accident files the severity is noted by the<br />

Vehicle Deformation Index (VDI) scale (SAE J 224 B,<br />

Collision Deformation Classification).<br />

The car in the cadaver test got a VDI of 60, which places<br />

the crash among the severe in the most frequent group (VDI<br />

55-60) in Volvo's accidental data for this kind of impact.<br />

This accords quite well to previous discussions. The most<br />

severe accidents with moose have a VDI in the region 75-<br />

80. Accidents with VDI > 80 are very rare. Volvo experts<br />

found the deformations very characteristic for this type of<br />

accident (l).<br />

The moose was equipped with three pairs of<br />

accelerometers (Kyowa AS200A). That is three devices on<br />

the hit $ide and three at the reciprocal spots on the sther side.<br />

The accelerometers were meant to give baseline data for<br />

estimating the compression of the moose body. However,<br />

the rotation of the outer parts of the moose took the sensor$<br />

out of direction at an early stage and this is why the available<br />

information is of minor relevance.<br />

Dummy development<br />

The cadaver test indicated that the moose could be described<br />

mainly as a water-filled sack in this kind of impact'<br />

Thus, a strong, soft and non-elastic container with a viscous<br />

content of a density close to I000 kg/m3 was expected to be<br />

an appropriate dummy solution. Roughly, the container<br />

should have the shape of a moose body.<br />

As mentioned the crash-configuration with the center of<br />

gravity of the moose hitting the car's mid plane is considered<br />

the worst one. The moose itself is rather asymmetric in<br />

all dimensions around its center of gravity, but to increase<br />

repeatability and to simplify moose-dummy construction<br />

the dummy was made symmetric around its transversal<br />

plane through the centre of gravity.<br />

In all dimensions the mass distribution was arranged to<br />

simulate the configuration of the cadaver (from centre of<br />

gravity to head end in the asymmetric case) in the critical<br />

part of the collision, 80-160 ms after first contact when the<br />

head and the hind legs are moving at the sides of the car in a<br />

horizontal plane.<br />

To accomplish this we used hoses of different lengths<br />

(figure 2).<br />

The hoses were only filled to half their maximum volume<br />

in order not to hinder the bending. Since the sheets in the<br />

material matrix are made of a knitted fabric and thus are<br />

tensile, the matrix must have a pre-tension in the vertical<br />

direction. Pre-tension decreases the deformation of the matrix<br />

when the dummy is hung up. The cross sectional area of<br />

each pocket in the matrix will increase and the length of the<br />

matrix decrease duc to gravity when the dummy is hung


up. Each pocket was given a perimeter of 320 mm in the<br />

empty unloaded matrix and had a perimeter of 390 mm<br />

when the dummy had been put together and hung up. The<br />

length of each pocket in the empty matrix must be lSOVo of<br />

the hose length in order to get the same length as rhe hose<br />

when the dummy is hung up.<br />

Dummy test<br />

This test showed good agreement with the cadaver test.<br />

Both the signals from the accelerometers and the deformation<br />

of the car showed such good agreement that we considered<br />

the dummy to be a valuable and inexpensive test tool<br />

for this kind of impact. The dummy test was a more severe<br />

impact to the car due to the fact that the mass of the dummy<br />

was equal to the mass of the cadaver with forelegs. The mass<br />

of the forelegs of the cadaver was accelerated by the car<br />

front before the body impacted the wind-screen area and did<br />

not contribute to the wind-screen impact but did reduce the<br />

car speed prior to wind-screen impact- The speed at windscreen<br />

impact was set 3 km/h lower in the dummy test, to<br />

give the same impact speed at the wind-screen area in both<br />

tests. The mass to be accelerated by the wind-screen/roof<br />

construction wa$ however still higher in the dummy case. In<br />

this respect the 260 kg-dummy was reciprocal to a 310 kgmoose.<br />

The contact with the forelegs in the cadaver test<br />

pulled the cadaver slightly downwards" Thus the lower edge<br />

of the wind-screen frame and the top of the dashboard took a<br />

greater part of the impact energy in the cadaver test. This<br />

also adds to the fact that the dummy impact was more severe<br />

to the roof construction.<br />

The car in the dummy test got a VDI of 75, which places it<br />

among the moderate in the most severe group.<br />

Acceleration measurements were left out in the dummy<br />

test since the design of the dummy did not allow the same<br />

method for mounting the accelerometers and since no reference<br />

information from the cadaver test was available.<br />

General considerations<br />

The injury-inducing mechanisms in moose-car impacts<br />

can be divided into two major groups.<br />

( I ) Direct contact between passenger's head and moose<br />

body. Prior to this study the generally accepted theory was<br />

that contact occurred between the head and the upper<br />

wind-screen frame due to the fact that the frame is pushed<br />

backwards during the crash. This study however shows that<br />

the moose body is much deeper inside the companment than<br />

the frame through all the critical part of the crash. The<br />

occupants head will thus hit the moose body rather than the<br />

car structure. A deeper analysis of Volvo's accidental data<br />

tends to confirm this conclusion. The medical reports on<br />

head-injured pas$enger$ in all cases show diffuse, blunt<br />

trauma.<br />

The deformed wind-screen frame is however a great risk<br />

factor in the so-called secondary impacts. That is when the<br />

car after impacting the moose collides with something else,<br />

e.g. a tree or another car. Secondary impact occurs in approximately<br />

20Vo of the moose-car accidents.<br />

Volvo's accidental data also showed that the use of seat<br />

belts significantly decreases the risk for severe injuries in<br />

this kind of impact. All accidents in all Volvo models where<br />

injuries were reported over a period of five years were<br />

studied. We found 396 injured passengers, all from the front<br />

seat. Of these ,372had used their seat belt. ln this group, we<br />

found one killed (AIS 6) and two critically injured (AIS 5).<br />

In the left 24 cases where the seat belt was not used or the<br />

usage was hard to determine, four fatally and two critically<br />

injured were found.<br />

Even with restrictions and reservations to this brief study<br />

it is likely that significant differences will remain.<br />

(2) Glass pieces from the wind-screen give face and arms<br />

injuries ( I ), (2). This is a very common injury mechanism in<br />

moose-car collisions but the injuries are in general moderate.<br />

Severe cases can occur e.g. when glass lacerates the<br />

eyes, but these are very rare.<br />

Reduction of the amount of glass pieces emerging from<br />

the wind-screen would reduce the number of injuries of this<br />

kind.<br />

References<br />

(l) Lind, B. (1981) "Viltolyckor, sammanstiillning av<br />

olycksmaterial", Report from Volvo Car Corporation,<br />

Criteborg (in Swedish).<br />

(2) Thorson, J. (ed.) (1985) "Moose Collisions and<br />

Injuries to Car Occupants", Reporl from Departments of<br />

Environmental Medicine, Surgery and Forensic Medicine,<br />

University of Umei and Occupational Health and Safety for<br />

State Employees, Umefr (in Swedish).<br />

(3) Turbell, T. (1984) "Simulated Moose-Collisions, a<br />

methodology study", VTl-meddelande nr 402, Swedish<br />

Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkiiping (in<br />

Swedish).<br />

Acknowledgement<br />

We would like to thank professor Bertil Aldman, head of<br />

the Department of Injury Prevention at Chalmers University<br />

of Technology, for valuable comment and advices to our<br />

work.<br />

We would also like to thank veterinarian Bengt-Ole<br />

Rtiken forsharing with us his deep knowledge of the mooseanatomy<br />

and for help with rigging, dissection and postcrash<br />

analysis ofthe cadaver. Thanks to Swedish Road and<br />

Traffic Research<br />

Institute for practical help and to Swedish<br />

Transport Research Board for financial $upport.


Investigation, Evaluation, and Development of AdvancedConcepts in Three-Point<br />

Belt Comfort Enhancement Devices<br />

Written Only Paper<br />

David J. Biss,<br />

David James, Ltd.<br />

Abstract<br />

An investigation was conducted into the $ources of slack<br />

caused by comfort and convenience devices, which can<br />

affect the safety performance of the basic three-point belt<br />

design. Limited field observations were made to correlate<br />

$ources of slack identified from the literature and personal<br />

experience to the wearing configurations of shoulder straps<br />

on the typical American highway. From this background, a<br />

research program was carried out to investigate with $led<br />

tests in the laboratory the dynamic restraint performance of<br />

three-point belts with previously observed and documented<br />

amounts of slack. The tension relief (eliminator) "windowshade"<br />

device (TRD) was chosen as the item for laboratory<br />

scrutiny because it is the single most frequent cause of<br />

slack in American belts and because it produces a pattern of<br />

slack which mimics that from many other sources. The<br />

results of these sled tests define the expected envelope of<br />

performance of a typical TRD. From these results, design<br />

improvements to three-point belt comfort and convenience<br />

devices are suggested which will improve, in an immediate<br />

and cost effective manner, the safety performance and reliability<br />

of belts containing these devices.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The Three-Point Safety Belt<br />

It is particularly appropriate to be discussing the safety<br />

performance of the three-point belt system here in Giiteborg<br />

thirty years after Mr. Nils Bohlin, a native son of Sweden<br />

and a long time resident of Gdteborg, received a Swedish<br />

patent (l)* on this device. The foresight ofthe inventor is<br />

best demonstrated by noting that the basic configuration<br />

illustrated in his patents ( 1,2,3) of a single strap, three point<br />

belt system anchored at the B-pillar, tunnel and sill areas<br />

(figure l) is used in the majority of the worlds' automobiles<br />

today. Retractors have been added to the basic design, and<br />

certain derivative designs have appeared, some with<br />

multiple straps, dual spool retractors and other features, but<br />

the safety performance expectations for these later<br />

additions, changes and refinements, are still judged against<br />

the basic requirements for safety belt performance Bohlin<br />

laid down over three decades ago. The most basic of these<br />

performance requirements was that a properly designed<br />

three-point belt must restrain a person in a "physiologically<br />

favorable manner" (2) by interacting appropriately with the<br />

human anatomy.<br />

The subject of the present study encompasse$ the safety<br />

performance implications of adding "comfort and<br />

*Numbert in parenthescs designate rfcrences at end of paper<br />

416<br />

Deut5cfe Patente<br />

EnNnB 6<br />

. PricdttrhJifrNeil0lg87<br />

NILS TVAR BOHTIN<br />

Gotcbary (Schrvcdcn)<br />

Sicherheitsgxt ltir Fahrzeuge<br />

p4cnticd vom 21. AugEt lt59 ft<br />

t)rFDrdnunlF-5i(h.rhcit*un wrcin v*ntli.hfi Schri$ in dcr EnRirllunr dcr<br />

trnckhrhwor'rhrungcn lir Emfrfrhmge- Dic bir d$in bckrnnten Sirhcrhcirfiunc<br />

ih'm cincn shidlicltn. nrh untcn rcrichtctcn Druc! rufd* Rnrtlnr rur<br />

unrl ltxrtrusn cimn *t*ndichcnTtil dcrSprnnunp im Brurtlorb rufdhltwtohh*.<br />

&'hli;r trfin'Jlng bcrillt cimn Sichcrb.irl$.r, dcr rcwohl rlcn Obtrldrp+<br />

Ejf-Q$h .lqn LJtrrErkilru in phyriolqi*h gnnsti3cr Vci* fcthilt, Drzu dicm lc cin<br />

tkrlcntxxhlg a bcidcn Scitcn d6 Sitrc! ud eid rurmmcnhin6enrJc Sclrling+<br />

Ertildfi ilt Brutr und Hofrg!fi.<br />

Flgure 1. Bohlln's patent lllustration lor the threo-point $af6ty<br />

bslt.<br />

convenience" enhancement devices to Bohlin's basic<br />

design of the three-point belt.<br />

Safety Belt Comfort and Convenience.<br />

The history of the three-point safety belt is inseparably<br />

interwoven with the development and addition of devices to<br />

enhance the comfort and convenience of the wearer (4,5).<br />

The concept behind certain devices such as the emergency<br />

locking retractor (ELR) are so fundamental to the acceptability<br />

of the three-point belt to the average user that there<br />

has been little debate concerning the appropriateness of<br />

introducing reliable ELR designs.<br />

Other devices such as comfort clips and tension relief<br />

devices (TRD) devices-more generically known as windowshade<br />

devices) have generated much more controver$y<br />

because they introduce pre-impact wearing slack that is<br />

obvious to the trained eye might well enhance belt user<br />

injuries.<br />

The discussions and arguments overthe years concerning<br />

the safety implications of introducing these and other comfort<br />

and convenience devices have generally centered<br />

around a lack of reliability to lock when required, or the


propensity to introduce slack, either in the preimpact, or the<br />

crash environment (4,5,6,7). Fundamental in these argument$,<br />

implied or explicit, is some underlying defirnition or<br />

concept of the "comfort and convenience" gained by the<br />

addition of these devices against which the downside risks<br />

can be compared.<br />

Probably the most comprehensive attempt to formalize a<br />

definition of comfort and convenience and to quantify attributes<br />

thereof, was in the NHTSA Notice of Proposed<br />

Rulemaking, Notice 17, of December, I979 (8). This action<br />

elicited numerous comments which can be summed up as<br />

follows;<br />

. , . the relationship of comfort and convenience to<br />

wearing rates has not been established and there is<br />

evidence to the contrary (9).<br />

Comfort and convenience goal.r.-Although this attempt<br />

at quantifying and regulating the comfort and convenience<br />

of safety belts by the NHTSA met with response$ typical of<br />

that above ( 10, I I , I 2), clearly there are some basic attributes<br />

safety belt designers have been striving for over the years.<br />

The more progressive features seem to have emanated<br />

mainly from the application of fundamentally sound and<br />

ethical design practices by applying research, evolution,<br />

and simply user feedback. Some characteristics of the main<br />

comfort and convenience concepts and devices are;<br />

r Neat, safe and clean stowage; convenient to grasp,<br />

extract, buckle and unbuckle<br />

r Limited or adjustable impingement on sensitive<br />

areas:<br />

Face<br />

Neck<br />

Female breasts<br />

r Permit occupant non-crash/non-braking movements<br />

inside the vehicle<br />

t Limit webbing retraction forces (European design<br />

philosophy)<br />

t Cancel webbing retraction forces (US design<br />

philosophy)<br />

There are distinctly different perceptions in Europe and<br />

the United States concerning the relationship between the<br />

fundamental safety requirements of safety belts, and the<br />

effect comfort and convenience features might have on this<br />

safety performance. The most enlightened approaches in<br />

Europe stress an integrated approach with attention to the<br />

fundamentals of safety belt performance and comfort such<br />

as anchorage location, and reliable and smooth retractor<br />

function, including attention to webbing tension, component<br />

friction, etc. (4,13,14). This European philosophy can<br />

be summarized by the concept that a large measure of<br />

"comfort"<br />

is derived from the security of knowing rhat the<br />

safety belt system provided will protect to the best extent<br />

possible<br />

in a crash (15).<br />

The American approach has been to add extemal devices<br />

such as windowshades, guide loops and comfort clips to<br />

the belt to achieve some definition of comfort<br />

(5,7,9,10,11,12,16).In the past, the more frequent and varied<br />

styling changes in U.S. cars $omewhat precluded the<br />

European approach. This American design philosophy predetermined<br />

that there would be numerous forced tradeoffs<br />

between safety belt safety performance and comfort<br />

(17,18,19).<br />

Also, comparing pre and post mandatory belt use law<br />

(MUL) rates in both regions (20), the u$age rate in European<br />

vehicles (operatedboth in Europe and the Unired States) has<br />

been consistently and significantly higher than in American<br />

automobile$. The differing European and American philosophical<br />

approaches to three-point belt design and safety<br />

performance evaluation cannot be traced to fundamentally<br />

different medical or biomechanical considerations. By all<br />

measures, the European integrated safety approach has been<br />

more successful because, the safety belt designs which have<br />

resulted are not significantly compromised over the original<br />

Bohlin concept, and yet, are more widely accepted by the<br />

vast majority of a population spectrum not fundamentally<br />

different than that found in the United $tates.<br />

Comfort and Convenience<br />

Enhancement Devices<br />

Discussion<br />

E me r g e ncy I o c k i n g 7's I t'ss 1p t'.-The emergency locking<br />

retractor (ELR) was the first major supplemental device<br />

added to the basic three-point belt. Its development was<br />

underway in Sweden in 1962 and regulations for approval<br />

were adopted there in 1967. The ELR became standard<br />

equipment on Volvo cars in 1968 (4). It is interesting that the<br />

first Swedish regulations on ELRs required that they be<br />

sensitive to both webbing and chassis accelerations, and this<br />

requirement has carried through to the present day. Soon<br />

after ELRs were introduced into significant numbers of cars<br />

in Sweden, adjustments were made to locking sensitivities<br />

to satisfy user complaints concerning lock-up during<br />

fastening of the belt. As other countries introduced ELRs in<br />

the coming years they had the benefit of the prior Swedish<br />

experience as well as generating a learning curve of their<br />

own (19).<br />

The typical American designed ELR is vehicle<br />

acceleration sensitive (VSR) only, FMVSS 2(X) requires a<br />

locking sensitivity of 0.7 G before the webbing extends I<br />

inch. The typical European retractor is sensitive to both<br />

vehicle and webbing accelerations (mandatory in Sweden)<br />

and is required by EEC 771541to lock at 0.45 G before 2<br />

inches of strap movement. The Federal requirements are<br />

that the retractors lock when tilted over l5 deg. EEC77 /541<br />

requires that locking take place when the ELR is tilted l2<br />

deg. or more.<br />

Emergency tensioning retractor.-The next major<br />

practical advancement in ELR technology was when<br />

Daimler-Benz, in conjunction with REPA (21,22),<br />

developed the emergency ten$ioning retractor (ETR). The<br />

first generation design would, upon receiving a signal from<br />

a crash sensor, pretension the continuous loop belt webbing<br />

4t7


to 3fi)'-400 lb. Later design objectives were primarily to<br />

eliminate slack by rewinding up to l0 cm of webbing when<br />

slack was pre$ent. The ETR retained all the comfort<br />

advantages of the ELR with the added safety performance<br />

that the pretensioning during frontal collisions not only<br />

eliminated any slack from the belt, but tied the occupant<br />

tightly to the vehicle for maximum ridedown benefits. A<br />

number of patents (24,25,26) for pretensioners had been<br />

granted in the 1970's but Daimler was the first to implement<br />

the technology into a significant number of its Mercedes<br />

cars beginning in 1980. The Daimler ETR, however,<br />

initiates only upon a frontal impact within the sensitivity<br />

zone of the air bag crash sensor. Patents by Takata (23) and<br />

VW (24) pointed out accurately that intermittent locking of<br />

ELRs during rollovers and other multiple impact crash<br />

modes permitted gross amounts of spool-out in some<br />

instances, and their patents put forth pretensioning and<br />

positive locking as countermeasure for these and other crash<br />

modes.<br />

Passive belts.-Some passive belt designs have major<br />

convenience features incorporated into their designs. The<br />

shoulder strap of the Toyota/Takada motorized anchor<br />

system is extremely easy to enter-so easy in fact that even<br />

a seasoned belt wearer at times forgets to use the manual lap<br />

belt. Additional periodic chime wamings and easier access<br />

to the stowed and donned lap belt buckle should be<br />

considered for inclusion into this system so that lap belt<br />

usage is encouraged to the extent possible.<br />

Semi-passive helt features,-An example of a semipassive<br />

belt feature, as the concept is used here, is the<br />

Mercedes motorieed extension arm that hands the occupant<br />

the belt buckle from difficult stowage positions in coupes,<br />

etc.<br />

The comfort and convenience implications of other<br />

recent passive and semi-passive belt-designs will be<br />

discussed below in connection with slack they can be<br />

expected to introduce.<br />

Dual spool ELR retract4l's.-Qys1 the years various<br />

designs of dual spool ELR retractors have been used,<br />

usually in a configuration of one retractor for the lap belt<br />

and one for the shoulder belt. On some models. Volvo uses a<br />

dual spool, dual sensitivity retractor in a single strap design<br />

to minimize webbing on the reels while maintaining<br />

acceptable comfort levels. If in these multiple retractor<br />

designs, the retractors function smoothly and lock reliably,<br />

the safety performance of these systems should be<br />

equivalent to that of the basic three-point continuous loop<br />

three-point system.<br />

A system in which separate lap and shoulder belts are tied<br />

together at a latch plate is becoming more common in<br />

American passenger vehicles. This is particularly true for<br />

certain "passive" belt designs in which the two ELR<br />

retractors are mounted in the door. In the American dual<br />

spool retractor design, however, vehicle-sensitive-only<br />

retractor$ of U.S. Federal specification are being used in the<br />

lap belt. Should there be no lock-up or delayed lock-up in<br />

one of these $y$tem$, particularly during a rollover, the<br />

418<br />

occupant can face increased excursions and possible<br />

ejection from the belt.<br />

Automatic lotking retactors.-Automatic locking<br />

retractor (ALR) devices certainly earn a mention in the<br />

history of devices added to belts to increase comfort<br />

because their intended function is to stow the belt neatly and<br />

make retrieval more convenient. ALRs have been used<br />

primarily with lap-strap-only seat belts-not typically with<br />

belts incorporating shoulder harnesses. If these devices<br />

function properly and the positive locking feature locks<br />

reliably, the dynamic performance of the strap will closely<br />

emulate that of a strap (albeit with higher elongation<br />

properties) without a retractor.<br />

Comfort c/lps.-Comfort clips to prevent the webbing<br />

from rewinding fully against an occupant's shoulder/chest<br />

were introduced almost simultaneously with the<br />

introduction of ELR retractors which placed the shoulder<br />

strap under constant tension against the occupant's chest. In<br />

Europe, comfort clips were phased out as the retractor<br />

designs were refined, while in the United States, the basic<br />

concept of the comfort clip evolved into the windowshade<br />

device. In conjunction with the installation of shoulder belt<br />

retractors, comfort clips were installed as standard<br />

equipment in many American vehicles before the<br />

windowshade device came into widespread use. The<br />

fundamental problem with comfort clips was that the lay<br />

usercan, and routinely does, set an arbitrary amount ofslack<br />

in the belt without having any real biomechanical<br />

appreciation or guidance a$ to the resulting hazards<br />

(r7,r9,27).<br />

Routing guides, loops, hooks, etc.-Before 1974, the<br />

major U.S. manufacturers uniformly used a hard mounted,<br />

no retractor shoulder belt either in a four-point<br />

configuration or in a Type 2a detachable shoulder strap.<br />

After 1974, three-point belts appeared in the U.S. with the<br />

ELR and other structural anchors positioned to<br />

accommodate the more divergent styling contours of the<br />

American car. Many times supplementary routing loops,<br />

hooks, etc, were used to guide the shoulder belt strap over<br />

the occupant's shoulder and away from the face/neck area.<br />

Many of these guide loops were attached to adjustable head<br />

restraints and were designed in conjunction with an ELR<br />

located on the $ide roof rail behind the occupant.<br />

Figure 2 is a photograph of an unprompted driver on the<br />

road which shows the triangulation slack effects such<br />

routing loops and hooks routinely introduce into a belt<br />

system. These hooks and loops are usually made of plastic<br />

and, upon restraint crash loading, particularly when they are<br />

the element forming the apex of the triangle, they will break<br />

and the real slack in the belt will manifest itself as the strap<br />

snaps into direct tension. Although guide loops can be of<br />

value in certain applications, such as coupes and<br />

convertibles, their use should be closely monitored to<br />

ensure that unnecessary and excessive slack is not a<br />

consequence of this use.<br />

Te nsi on re lief' (w indow s hade ) device s.-Tension relief<br />

devices (TRD), or more appropriately called tension


Flgure 2. Trlangulatlon rlack a$socletod wlthgulde loopf.<br />

elimination devices (19), are generically called<br />

"windowshade"<br />

devices in the U.S. because this device is<br />

designed to be set and reset at different lengths of webbing<br />

slack analogous to the functioning of a roll-down<br />

windowshade. The original design concept for these<br />

devices was pioneered by General Motors (12) and was<br />

introduced shortly after the 1974 Federal requirements for<br />

the mandatory installation of rhree-point belts. The TRD<br />

was promoted as a feature which would make three-pofnt<br />

belts more acceptable to the wearers and increase belt use.<br />

The Federal Rulemaking history on rhis device has been<br />

confusing and contradictory. These devices were first<br />

addressed in Federal Rulemaking in 1976 (16) with the<br />

admonition that "the tendency for such retractors to permit<br />

introduction ofexcessive slack is an argument against their<br />

use." Nonetheless TRDs were subsequently permitted with<br />

the requirement that their proper use be explained in the<br />

associated vehicle owner's manual.<br />

When further comfort and convenience inspired Federal<br />

Rulemaking was initiated in late 1979, the (U.S.) Moror<br />

Vehicle Manufacturers Association stated in their response.<br />

"Experience<br />

shows such features as emergency locking<br />

retractors, tension-relieving devices, webbing guides and<br />

improvements in anchorage locations have not resulted in<br />

significant increased belt usage" (10). The Ceneral Motors'<br />

response to this Docket stated, ". . .we (CM) pioneered the<br />

tension-relieving device because we believe that persons<br />

disposed to use belts might be discouraged by constant belt<br />

pressure. . . ." But the information that is available is<br />

contrary to the NHTSA contention that the lack of comfort<br />

and convenience in today's belt systems is the cause of low<br />

use. . . (l?).<br />

The controversy surrounding the introduction of the<br />

windowshade was evident even inside General Motors. A<br />

1976 management evaluation (28) of the windowshade<br />

TRD reported, "On numerous occasions during the driving<br />

Frocess I glanced down to find the shoulder belt with<br />

excessive slack. . . . In all, I find the mechanism tricky and<br />

don't have confidence in what it's going to do next."<br />

In the belt supplier industry, the view concerning the<br />

widespread introduction of the TRD was ambivalently<br />

expressed in 1977 by Henderson (19):<br />

"Although<br />

the author believes the tension<br />

eliminator device represents a considerable step<br />

forward in safety belt comfort when used intelligently,<br />

he is uncertain of the wisdom of risking the excess<br />

slack which reduces the safe deceleration space for the<br />

occupant within the vehicle."<br />

This author goes onto explain the availability of a "belt<br />

tension reducer" which provides two levels of retraction<br />

force and ". . . avoids the danger of excess slack and no<br />

action by the user or complicated automatic devices are<br />

necessary to ensure colTect stowage" (19).<br />

The TRD device does make the shoulder harness more<br />

'*comfortable,"<br />

in the sense that it reduces the webbing<br />

tension forces on the shoulder to zero. This type of<br />

"comfon,"<br />

however, is the same type of comfort achieved<br />

if the belt is not on at all. In Europe another dimension is<br />

included in the concept of "comfort" which emphasizes the<br />

feeling of security obtained by having a shoulder strap snug<br />

against the body ready to protect in a collision (15). The<br />

windowshade device in its present design configuration<br />

then appeals to tho$e who are not predisposed to wear the<br />

belt in the first place. It is questionable whether the<br />

generally good performance of the basic three-point belt<br />

should be compromised for all users, in order to make a<br />

special appeal to recalcitrants.<br />

Although a number of TRD designs were refined over the<br />

years in attempts to minimize the possibilities for excess<br />

slack, many were not. Currently there are still designs on the<br />

U.S. market which will routinely introduce l8 inches of<br />

slack, or indeed any amount of available slack, during the<br />

same type of occupant movements the ELR was originally<br />

designed to permit.<br />

Tension reduction ( lowering) devices.-Tl,Ds are similar<br />

to TRDs because, within a design envelope of belt<br />

movement a few inches forward of the normally seated<br />

occupant, the tension forces are reduced by a dual level<br />

rewind spring device that can be reset to maximum<br />

retraction force with a windowshade release type<br />

movement. The main difference with the TRD<br />

windowshade, however, is that the TLD does not eliminate<br />

the tension; rather, it reduces the retraction tension force in<br />

this comfort zone to a level which will still keep the strap<br />

snug on the shoulder. Henderson (19), in his 1977 report on<br />

devices available to enhance comfort and convenienge,<br />

described in some detail the functioning of rhe TLD. Certain<br />

high-line Toyota models currently incorporate this TLD as a<br />

comfort extra. Although this device avoids the excessive<br />

slack problems of the TRD, the reduced tension can become<br />

a problem if the belt twist$ or encounters excessive friction<br />

in the hardware guides. These potential problems should be<br />

amenable to correction by careful, coordinated design of the<br />

components.<br />

Adjustable shoulder helt anchor point.-Some<br />

manufacturers have chosen to address the belt fit problem<br />

4r9


through the use of an adjustable, load carrying shoulder belt<br />

anchor point. This feature is standard on some Mercedes<br />

and Saab models, and has been an available option on<br />

Volvo. The attractiveness ofthis feature is that it can solve<br />

the belt fit problem without any degradation in optimum<br />

belt performance. However, it requires a motivated user to<br />

change the anchor position and a knowledgeable user to set<br />

the anchor in a biomechanically advantageous position. For<br />

most u$ers. and for most belts without windowshades, a<br />

comfortable anchor location with the belt on the shoulder<br />

will ensure near optimum belt safety performance as well.<br />

Even with these caveats, if this device i$ set at the opposite<br />

extreme indicated by occupant size, the effectiveness ofthe<br />

shoulder belt restraint is not grossly compromised. The<br />

adjustable shoulder anchor device is most useful for regular<br />

occupants of the same vehicle riding in the same seating<br />

positions, particularly for children.<br />

The Safety Implications of Comfort<br />

Devices<br />

The safety implications of the comfort enhancement<br />

devices discussed here are most frequently attributed to the<br />

possibility these devices will inadvertently or deliberately<br />

introduce slack into the belt system in the process of trying<br />

to achieve some sort of "comfort." An in-depth discussion<br />

of the safety effects of this slack requires consideration of<br />

how such slack originates and of what its effects are?<br />

Safety Belt Slack: A Definition and History<br />

The terms "belt slack," "occupant ride-down," and "restraint<br />

system efficiency" have been used frequently over<br />

the years in the literature, but typical use refers only to<br />

general concepts with little precision or definition. Slack as<br />

it is used here falls into two categories. First, pre-impact<br />

slack will mean a loose belt which is prone to as$ume a<br />

dangerous position on the body before the impact. Second,<br />

dynamic impact slack arises as the occupant moves forward<br />

inside the vehicle with low or no restraint forces due to preimpact<br />

slack, delayed retractor lock-up, or restraint system<br />

compliance.<br />

One early school of thought for maximizing belt restraint<br />

system performance was to simply tie the occupant as tightly<br />

as possible to the vehicle interior in an attempt to achieve<br />

the $ame chest accelerations as the vehicle's crash pulse.<br />

In 1968 Bertil Aldman and Ame Asberg of Gdteborg<br />

performed some of the earliest reported rigorous research<br />

(29) into the issue of slack effects on three-point belt restraint<br />

performance. They modeled simplified three-point<br />

belt systems with high and low strap elongation properties<br />

restraining a simplified single mass occupant, the responses<br />

of which were comparable to chest responses for an actual<br />

vehicle occupant. The modeled systems were then subjected<br />

to input crash pulses from actual vehicles of various<br />

onset rates, amplitudes and durations.<br />

Their research and a review of previous work (30) did<br />

show that for an acceleration test environment with a low<br />

4ZO<br />

rate of onset, and for tight restraint straps that resulted in<br />

negligible occupant displacement relative to the vehicle, the<br />

occupant's chest respon$es were approximately the same<br />

level as that for the vehicle. However, for actual car crash<br />

environments and practical automotive restraint characteristics<br />

they found:<br />

"The<br />

resulting peak acceleration ofthe occupant is<br />

always higher than this average deceleration ofthe car.<br />

. . . impact amplification always exists when (realistic<br />

automotive) belts are used. . . . The amplification results<br />

from the general shape ofthe input (crash) pulse,<br />

the stiffness of the restraint, and any slack present in<br />

the system. The introduction of any appreciable slack<br />

is disastrous to the protective capacity of stiff systems<br />

by producing high peak accelerations with a high rate<br />

of onset. . . . The safety obtainable in any car is wasted<br />

if it is equipped with a stiff restraint system that can be<br />

used with a slack. Therefore. it seems advisable in the<br />

future to take into consideration the deformation characteristics<br />

of the car and the restraint together. "<br />

Aldman's and Asberg's research proved to be insightful<br />

because, even though they did not directly mention the slack<br />

effects of ELR retractors on three-point belt performance,<br />

their results were directly applicable to the issue of the I 968<br />

introduction of ELRs into production cars in Sweden.<br />

ln 1977 Morris analyzed three-point belted occupant response<br />

data from full scale frontal barrier tests of 1976<br />

model year automobiles to determine the effects of slack on<br />

restraint system performance (3 l). Morris developed a useful<br />

definition of ridedown by overlaying the shoulder belt<br />

forces onto the acceleration crash pulse (figure 3) and calculated<br />

the ridedown from the overlap of these curves. His<br />

approach took into account the influences of ELR characteristics<br />

such as lock-up time, amount of film-spool, etc., as<br />

well as webbing elongations. His results showed a strong<br />

correlation between ridedown duration and peak shoulder<br />

!<br />

4<br />

c<br />

t<br />

o<br />

E<br />

Illustratlons of polnts used to detennlne<br />

duratlons of llde down.<br />

Flgure 3. A dellnltlon of rlde down (from Morrlg, reference 31).


elt loads. None of the vehicle crashes Morris analyzed had<br />

appreciable pre-impact slack set in the windowshade, so<br />

any slack time he documented was from ELR and webbing<br />

compliance influences.<br />

In 1980 Reichert and Bowden (32) of Departmenr of<br />

Transport Canada published the results of sled tests conducted<br />

to a$sess the effect of slack caused by windowshade<br />

comfort devices on the safety performance of three-point<br />

belt systems. They compared three-point belts with no retractors,<br />

fl retractor in the shoulder belt, and a retractor in the<br />

lap belt each with 2.5, 5 10, 15, and 25 cm of slack. Their<br />

results showedl<br />

. . . (The no retractor) belts produced an almost<br />

linear increase in slack time, head excursion, peak head<br />

acceleration, and HIC with increasing slack.<br />

. . . (The retractor at the shoulder harness anchor)<br />

belts showed much higher values of head excursion<br />

and HIC at low slack (settings) and (a) lesser dependence<br />

on slack. Peak acceleration ofthe chest was less<br />

than with type A belts at large slack(s).<br />

. . . (The retractor at the lap anchor) belts performed<br />

similarly to the Type A (shoulder rerracror) belts.<br />

Retractors modify the effect of slack on occupant<br />

dynamics and appear to reduce the prolection against<br />

head contact provided by seat belts.<br />

Aldman's and Ashberg's research again proved, in retrospect,<br />

insightful because, their results were later to be confirmed<br />

by Monis, and Reichert and Bowden, among others.<br />

From this research (29,31,32) and others (7, 13,24,33,<br />

34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39), the theoretical limits on three-point<br />

belt restraint system performance in a particular vehicle for<br />

the driver or passenger can be determined by analyzing the<br />

vehicle stopping distance; the vehicle deceleration crash<br />

pulse the principle direction offorce; the elastic and energy<br />

absorbing properties of the restraint system; and, the distance<br />

inside the vehicle available for occupant translation<br />

and articulation. Applying these general principles ro a specific<br />

vehicle environment will, in conjuncrion with judicious<br />

design decisions, lead to optimizing the three-point<br />

belt performance in that vehicle. This process will only<br />

succeed, however, ifthe full envelope ofpossible effects on<br />

belt performance of slack caused by devices such as ELRs,<br />

TRDs, routing loops, moving anchor points, etc. are quantified<br />

and considered.<br />

Slack Caused by Comfort and Convenience<br />

Devices<br />

Slack caused by comfort and convenience devices arises<br />

from two sources, pre-impact slack in which a loose belt is<br />

prone to assume a dangerous position on the body before<br />

impact; and, dynamic impact slack in which the occupant<br />

move$ forward inside the vehicle with low or no restraint<br />

forces due to pre-impact slack, delayed retractor lock-up, or<br />

restraint system compliance.<br />

Slack caused by ELRs.--The primary failure mode of<br />

concern for the ELR is that it may not lock or might lock late<br />

during an impact. Although one might be able ro express the<br />

probability of this happening as a small fraction, rhe consequences<br />

are nonetheless catastrophic when it does happen,<br />

indicating that special attention during an effects analysis is<br />

warranted. The function of the ELR is to permit wearers to<br />

move their upper torsos around freely inside the vehicleup<br />

to the limits of webbing available-in the non-braking,<br />

non-crash situation. This free movement capability changes<br />

from a desirable attribute in the non-crash situation to a<br />

failure mode if exhibited in the crash condition.<br />

The typical American designed ELR is vehicle acceleration<br />

sensitive only with the locking mechanism being a<br />

suspended, Iead-weighted pendulum lifting a locking bar<br />

into the path oflocking teeth on the retractor spool ends. The<br />

typical European retractor is sensitive to both vehicle and<br />

webbing accelerations. FMVSS 209 requires a vehicle acceleration<br />

locking sensitivity of 0.7 C before webbing extends<br />

I inch, while EEC77l54l requires European retractors<br />

to lock at 0.45 C before 2 inches of strap movement.<br />

Federal regulations also require that the retractors lock<br />

when tilted over 15 deg. EEC 77 l54l requires that locking<br />

take place when the ELR is titled 12 deg. or more. The<br />

American Federal ELR then is less sensitive to these two<br />

standard prescribed locking modes than is the EEC ELR and<br />

there has been some discussion that this lower sensitivity<br />

can be expected to affect the outcomes for accidents on the<br />

highway (4,6,15,23,24), particularly for multiple impacts<br />

and rollovers.<br />

Horizantal plane impacts.-The ideal conditions to promote<br />

reliable vehicle sensitive ELR pendulum locking are<br />

impacts confined principally to a horizontal plane in which<br />

the vehicles do not roll appreciably and which generate a<br />

single delta-V crash pulse which maintains a relatively constant<br />

absolute level without radical fluctuations. Such conditions<br />

are generated in the typical frontal barrier crashes<br />

but discussions have occuned concerning whether these<br />

laboratory conditions and the FMVSS 209 type test apparatus<br />

adequately evaluate ELR's in foreseeable accidents on<br />

the highway. Bohlin in l98l (4) stated:<br />

"There<br />

are no regulations today on the testing of the<br />

vehicle sensitive locking function which probably reflects<br />

the reality. . . . It is therefore proposed that the<br />

regulations regarding the emergency locking features<br />

of the retractor should be seriously reconsidered."<br />

In 1975 Mackay (6) analyzed failure modes for ELR belts<br />

and observed:<br />

"The<br />

third failure mode applies to inertia reels<br />

where complete failure to lock or locking so late as not<br />

to provide adequate occupant protection, has been recorded.<br />

Such cases are characterized by occupant trajectories<br />

and contacts similar to those observed for<br />

unrestrained occupants. . . . Subsequent examinations<br />

of such reels have not shown a cau$e, and we conclude<br />

that either preimpact braking or some dynamic characteristic<br />

of the locking mechanism is responsible."<br />

421


In the early 1970's NHTSA found that emergency locking<br />

retractors installed in some automobiles were not locking<br />

reliably when subjected to the FMVSS 209 acceleration<br />

test (40,41,42). In the case of one American style retractor<br />

subsequent investigation showed that initial tip-to-tip contact<br />

of the ratchet teeth with the lock pawl teeth could cause,<br />

in some circumstances, the retractor to delay locking or not<br />

to lock at all. In response to this investigation the manufacturer<br />

made a number of changes in the locking mechanism<br />

which apparently rectified the immediate problem. At the<br />

conclusion of this investigation (41), however, questions<br />

sunounding the actual reliability of these and similar ELRs<br />

to lock when required in real accidents were not completely<br />

resolved. The retractor$ subject to this NHTSA investigation<br />

were the same basic design as those used in most<br />

American cars up to the present.<br />

Rollover and multiple impacts.-*-{here have been instances<br />

investigated by this author where occupants ofvehicles<br />

involved in rollover accidents were found with threepoint<br />

ELR belts still around them but with excessive<br />

amounts of slack up to and including the full unwound<br />

amount. There have been other similar notations during the<br />

years of experience with the ELR concerning the possibility<br />

that the simple undamped locking mechanisms in some<br />

ELRs might not lock reliably in rollovers or multiple impacts.<br />

A number of patents address these vehicle dynamics<br />

considerations including one by Takata-Kojyo (?3) which<br />

stated:<br />

While these (typical ELR) systems possess many<br />

advantages, they are frequently unreliable since the<br />

reel braking is either of too short a duration, or is<br />

maintained for an indefinite period and they otherwise<br />

leave much to be desired. . . . Another object of the<br />

pressnt invention is to provide an improved inertia<br />

responsive safety belt locking system in which an adequate<br />

braking interval is assured independently of the<br />

sequence of events following the braking actuation.<br />

A patent by Volkswagen (24) also described the real<br />

world crash environment in which ELR retractors are called<br />

on to reliably lock.<br />

Currently known automatic (ELR) belt winders . . .<br />

release . . . the safety belts after tightening (locking)<br />

thus defeating the desired restraining action. . . . a<br />

stopping or locking device is provided for maintrining<br />

the increased safety belt tension, once applied, in order<br />

to prevent the vehicle occupants from falling free in the<br />

direction of travel in the event of continued deceleration.<br />

Such a stopping device is especially important in<br />

accidents in which the vehicle undergoes several successive<br />

impacts . . . or ovefiums.<br />

These patents as well as indications from field accident<br />

investigations, indicate that certain oscillatory dynamics<br />

are present in multiple crash modes which are strongly<br />

suspect in causing intermittent locking, or failure to lock, of<br />

ELRs (4,6). A major difficulty surrounding public discus-<br />

422<br />

sion of these possible failure modes is that if such a failure<br />

occur$, the pattern of evidence looks the same as if the<br />

occupant was unrestrained. Realistic multiple impact dynamic<br />

testing related to real world accidents should be undertaken<br />

with the specific intention of finding the intermittent<br />

and unlocking failure modes of typical ELR designs.<br />

Once these failure modes have been identified, discussions<br />

can commence onhow to evaluate different ELR designs for<br />

this type of vulnerability, and, the search for improved<br />

designs will be further stimulated.<br />

Film spool s/acft.-A major finding of the NHTSA 35<br />

mph New Car Assessment Program begun in 1979 was that<br />

the film spool effect


years and had been phased in for a number ofyears before<br />

that. Thus, over 100 million automobiles presently on the<br />

American highways are equipped with this device resulting<br />

in significant safety implications to the driving public.<br />

The typical belt tension eliminator (reducer) "windowshade"<br />

device can be readily added to almost any ELR<br />

spool shaft. The TRD introduces slack of two types into the<br />

three-point belt: pre-impact slack, which precludes the belt<br />

from automatically and completely retracting to fit the<br />

wearer; and dynamic slack which can sacrifice crash phase<br />

ridedown and increase occupant body segment excursions<br />

inside the vehicle.<br />

Concerning pre-impact, wearing slack-there have been<br />

analogies drawn between the intended slack a windowshade<br />

device introduces into a torso belt and the recommended<br />

slack (one fist's width) in the pre ELR torso belts. This<br />

analogy is misleading from a number of standpoints.<br />

Major changes in operational performance of three-point<br />

belrs occurred wirh the addirion of rhe ELR (32). The most<br />

major of these was that the conventional ELR introduced a<br />

certain amount of unavoidable dynamic slack into the system<br />

from, at minimum, film-spool and the elongation of the<br />

associated extra webbing. Even though this dynamic ELR<br />

slack has been minimized in many recent designs, it still is<br />

the ca'te that any slack introduced by the windowshade<br />

device is cumulative to normal ELR associated slack.<br />

In addition to slack effects which permit additional forward<br />

motion of the occupant with little or no restraint<br />

forces, there are slack effects which permit the shoulder<br />

strap to assume, pre-impact, a dangerous configuration on<br />

the body. This occurs, for example, when the strap lies off<br />

the corner of the shoulder. This study has demonstrated that<br />

this configuration can occur with as little as 1.3 inches of<br />

pre-impact slack and this study further confirms dangerous<br />

abdominal loading as an expected consequence in both<br />

frontal and frontal oblique impacts.<br />

Further contradictions to the assertion that the present<br />

designs of the TRD will introduce only a prescribed amount<br />

of slack, are observations as well as personal experience<br />

showing the windowshade can, and often does, introduce<br />

gross amounts of slack (4 to 24 inches) during normal driving<br />

movements ( 17, 18, 19,27). These are movements of the<br />

type the ELR was originally designed ro permir, but the<br />

intent of the basic non-TRD ELR design is that the belt<br />

webbing must unwind and rewind to follow the wearer at all<br />

times.<br />

Typically how the TRD causes excess slack can best be<br />

explained using the schematic graph shown in figure 4 in<br />

which belt length unwound from the reel is plotted against<br />

time periods of arbitrary duration. The first time interval<br />

represents the occupant pulling out extra belt webbing to get<br />

it around himself for buckling and then the belt rewinding<br />

snug back onto the shoulder. The second interval includes<br />

the limited movements of the shoulder/torso with the belt<br />

snug. The third event is the occupant leaning forward within<br />

the windowshade cam setting distance, then leaning back<br />

with the windowshade still set. This prescribed amount of<br />

l<br />

f<br />

5<br />

!<br />

)<br />

I<br />

o<br />

.J<br />

I<br />

5tsdlrdr. u'Eiltotron r". r."r^o pqst --f--<br />

rne<br />

Figure 4. A human factors analyria of the operatlon of the tenslon<br />

reliel "windowshade" devlce.<br />

slack has been in the range of2 to 5 inches for various TRD<br />

designs, but in recent years is typically around 2 inches. The<br />

next interval depicts the wearer's motion to reset the windowshade<br />

to the snug configuration.<br />

The next two intervals show what typically happens when<br />

a driver, for instance, leans forward to look for cross traffic<br />

or to manipulate the radio controls. If the shoulder of the<br />

wearer oscillates slightly while the belt is in rhe extended<br />

position, the entire sequence mimics the motion of the occu-<br />

pant putting on the sear belt in the first place. The TRD is<br />

capable of setting all the way out to the end of the spooled<br />

webbing, and being a simple mechanical cam device, it<br />

cannot discriminate many times between the motions of<br />

putting the belt on and just leaning forward with a slight<br />

rocking motion. Of course, one can stress that TRD users<br />

should closely monitor their belts for no more than the<br />

prescribed amount of slack, but this does not answer the<br />

question of what the hazards are during the periods the belt<br />

strap is away from the body in its TRD set, or process of<br />

being reset, condition.<br />

An interesting insight comes to light when one reviews<br />

the history of the windowshade TRD in conjunction with an<br />

analysis of the operating characteristics of the combined<br />

TRD-ELR system. Figure 5 shows webbing tension forces<br />

ploned against forward extension of the belt for two makes<br />

of American cars equipped with the TRD and for a European<br />

car without the TRD. The starting point was with the<br />

strap snug on the occupant's shoulder. Two competing<br />

makes of American cars exhibited essentially the same webbing<br />

tension versus webbing extension characteristic and<br />

these forces are about 50d/o higher than those exhibited by<br />

the European ELR. Also, in the critical area where the belt is<br />

snug against the normally seated wearer, the American tension-extension<br />

characteristic rises much faster than that for<br />

the European ELR.<br />

The present TRD design then has been used in somewhat<br />

of a self-fulfilling prophecy role-thar of eliminating retraction<br />

fbrces which are in the first place higher than for<br />

belt systems which do not contain the device. This dichotomy<br />

is understandable when considering one of the main<br />

design requirements of the TRD. The tension elimination<br />

condition must be immediately cancelled when the door is<br />

-<br />

.


n<br />

c<br />

'{J<br />

-<br />

U<br />

c<br />

30<br />

c E 0<br />

ut<br />

0J<br />

0,<br />

tr ia<br />

E<br />

-a 0,<br />

><br />

r 6<br />

J<br />

c<br />

rI<br />

c<br />

ol 4<br />

c<br />

_a<br />

0 4 S<br />

Shoulder Forword<br />

Movennent (tn,)<br />

r l l<br />

0 1 0 e 0 3 0 4 0<br />

Shoutder Forword Movenrent (crr,)<br />

Floure 5. Webblnq tengion versua lonrard extenslon for TRD<br />

an? non-TRD thre-e-point belta.<br />

unlatched because, in turn, there must be an immediate and<br />

strong spool torque applied to overcome the inertia from a<br />

stationary belt, and thus avoid having a non-retracting belt<br />

fall out the door to be damaged or to trip an exiting occupant.<br />

A door-operated plunger is used with TRDs to cancel<br />

the windowshade setting and permit this retraction when the<br />

door is opened.<br />

Although many concerns have been raised over the years<br />

about the use ofa device to deliberately introduce slack into<br />

the three-point belt ( 19,28,32); it was not until 1987 that the<br />

first comprehensive study on how belts equipped with the<br />

TRD were being worn on the highway was carried out and<br />

published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety<br />

(?7). Observations for this IIHS study were taken of suburban<br />

Maryland drivers and they showed that for restrained<br />

drivers ofTRD equipped cars, 27 percent had I to 2 inches<br />

of slack in their belts while 8 percent had 3 inches or more.<br />

As a direct comparison, foreign cars without the TRD were<br />

monitored and only 5 percent of the belted drivers in those<br />

had I to 2 inches of slack while none were observed to have<br />

over 3 inches of slack.<br />

This author has performed a brief audit of the IIHS study,<br />

again for suburban Maryland drivers, and has found it to be<br />

a representative sample of the slack visible through the side<br />

window from a distance. A difference in procedures with<br />

the IIHS study was followed in this audit in that drivers were<br />

approached and asked to have the position of their threepoint<br />

belt photographed from next to the car where the<br />

photographer could get a picture of the entire shoulder strap<br />

and parts of the lap strap. If these drivers moved their belts<br />

in any way before the photo, they were not included in the<br />

study.<br />

The photographic results of this study showed that in<br />

many instances where the IIHS probably would have quan-<br />

424<br />

LrEanql<br />

A<br />

x<br />

o<br />

{<br />

1985 Chevy Cavqlltr<br />

1986' l{.rcrebs lsE<br />

1985 t'lercury Horqus<br />

,rt<br />

l<br />

tified 0 to 2 inches ofslack, from an obserrration point close<br />

to, and looking down into, the car; there was observed an<br />

additional I to I inches of slack lying in the occupant's lap<br />

next to the latch plate (see figure 6). The findings from the<br />

IIHS study are valuable considering the observation viewpoint<br />

they had; however, the amount and frequency of slack<br />

they reported is probably understated because they could<br />

not $ee the latch plate area where a significant portion of<br />

slack webbing slack typically accumulates.<br />

It was also noted in the present observations that about 5<br />

percent of the occupants were using the windowshade device<br />

as a facilitator for wearing the shoulder harness under<br />

the arm without the normal discomfort caused by retractor<br />

tension (see figure 7). This photographic based study is<br />

continuing and additional results will be published<br />

elsewhere.<br />

The TRD can inadvertently introduce slack from occupant<br />

dynamics during pre-impact vehicle dynamics such as<br />

braking maneuvers and running over rough ground. During<br />

such occupant jostling, the TRD can set itself resulting in a<br />

slack belt at impact. It is appropriate to also add here that in a<br />

number of the sled tests reported in the next section, the<br />

windowshade slack did not reset to zero in the belt even after<br />

a 30 mph impact. Thus, the implications for the present<br />

design of the TRD is that it reduces the protection of the<br />

3-point safety belt in multiple impacts in yet another way'<br />

The EEC regulations 77l54l give a good overview of the<br />

concems which should be considered in conjunction with<br />

TRDs.<br />

3.2.2.1. the straps are not liable to assume a dangerous<br />

configuration.<br />

3.2.2.2. that the danger of a correctly positioned<br />

belt slipping from the shoulder of a wearer<br />

as a result of his/her forward movement is<br />

reduced to a minimum.<br />

Again the findings from the sled test portion of this study<br />

confirm the significant probability of the belt straps slipping<br />

from the proper areas of the body to dangerous areas because<br />

of the dynamic influences of slack during frontal or<br />

frontal oblique impacts (e.g. shoulder to the abdomen).<br />

The implications on belt performance of TRDs as they are<br />

presently designed sometimes lead to biearre results. Observations<br />

by the author, which are exceptionally difficult to<br />

record via photography, are that with the TRD set, and the<br />

near window open, excess slack ends up in a wind blown<br />

loop behind the occupant. The shoulder strap is snug on the<br />

user but the wearer many times does not realize there is a big<br />

Ioop of excess belt strap behind him, and apparently from<br />

the number of times this has been observed, does not realize<br />

the hazard of the situation.<br />

During the history of the TRD windowshade in American<br />

vehicles there has been until recently a notable absence of<br />

publicly released data from U.S. researchers both on the<br />

effects on belt wearing patterns on the highway, and on the<br />

biomechanical implications for impact protection. There


Flgure 6a<br />

Flgure 6s<br />

Fl$urla 6a41. Ilplcal slack In TRD-wlndowshade balts.<br />

has been no comparable study to that of the 1980 Reichert<br />

Canadian study (32) in the United States and this has impeded<br />

both public debate and Rulemaking on this subject. In<br />

198 I , Culver and Viano (38), reported results for slack belt<br />

tests in far side oblique impacts but did not report the effects<br />

of shoulder strap aMominal loading. In 1982 NHTSA conducted<br />

four sled tests (43) to demonstrare the potential effects<br />

of slack caused by the TRD windowshade on threepoint<br />

belt performance.<br />

Flgure 6d<br />

Flgure 6b Flgure 6e<br />

Flgure 6l<br />

Although the presently reported sled tests certainly do not<br />

represent a full qualification test program a particular TRD<br />

device; this test program and associated analysis is presented<br />

here as a $uggested outline of the types of tests which<br />

should be run to assess the effects of the types and amount$<br />

of slack caused by comfort devices as typically found with<br />

users on the highway. Because the TRD is the most frequent<br />

source of this user slack (27), it was chosen as the device for<br />

an indepth sled test research program to as$ess the affects of<br />

425


Flgure 7d<br />

Flgure 7c<br />

Flgure 7l<br />

Figures 7a-71. $lsck shoulder belts under arm in THD equlpped vehicles.<br />

slack on three-point belt performance. Many of the findings<br />

are applicable to other comfort enhancement devices as<br />

well.<br />

Slack effects,from<br />

"passive" belts.-Some passive shoulder<br />

belts can be considered convenience enhancement devices<br />

while others will have to be judged on their individual<br />

merits. Figures 8a-8c show one design for a three-point<br />

"passive"<br />

belt which uses dual spool retractors mounted in<br />

426<br />

Figure 7e<br />

the door, and even though this system contains a normal<br />

buckle, theoretically at least, one can get into and out ofthis<br />

car without unbuckling the belt. This design has qualified<br />

for NHTSA approval, but surveys have shown (44) that the<br />

usage rate is lower for this "passive" system than for the<br />

manual three-point belt system it replaced in the same mod-<br />

el car.


Flgure 8a<br />

Flgure 8b<br />

Flgure Ec<br />

Flgure 8. Slack In thre€-polnt,.passlve"<br />

belt daelgne.<br />

There has been a misconception that the TRD device<br />

would be phased out with the introduction of passive belts.<br />

The "passive" systems shown in figures 8a-8c are in the<br />

cars which make up a significant portion of the U.S. market<br />

share and they do contain the TRD windowshade device.<br />

When looking at figures 8b-8c it is difficult to determine<br />

why a TRD is included in these systems because, when the<br />

belt is taut, the strap is two inches forward of the average<br />

size occupant's shoulder and at least one inch forward of the<br />

sterDum.<br />

From the field observations mentioned earlier. for this<br />

design of "passive" belt in a four-door sedan, the only way<br />

for the belt strap to make contact with the shoulder is by<br />

introducing slack via the TRD. This is, however, not a safety<br />

feature because this type of strap positioning is unpredictable<br />

and simply adds more dynamic slack into the system.<br />

Slack efficts of other "comfort" devices.-A number of<br />

references to slack caused by other comfort and convenience<br />

enhancement devices have been included in this<br />

paper such as routing loops breaking and so on. A number of<br />

the tests discussed below contained slack, albeit from the<br />

TRD, which would be typical of these other situations and<br />

the results should be applicable accordingly.<br />

A Sled Test Program to Evaluate the<br />

Effects of Slack-as <strong>Int</strong>roduced bv the<br />

Windowshade Device<br />

A laboratory sled test program was undertaken to study<br />

the effects of belt slack on the $afety performance of a<br />

typical American-made single retractor, continuous loop,<br />

three-point seat belt system (VSR/ELR equipped with a<br />

TRD) using the Hybrid III dummy as rhe resr device. The<br />

TRD feature was chosen for attention because it is the<br />

leading cause of slack in seat belts in the U.S. (27). Many<br />

observations and findings of this study are, however,<br />

independent of the TRD-the TRD just being the cause of<br />

the $lack which can occur by other means. For instance, the<br />

findings from the oblique impact tests apply to slack related<br />

issues such as jammed webbing, guide loop, triangulation,<br />

anchor point location, etc.<br />

General Test Protocol<br />

Test Environment.-Table I summarizes the test protocol<br />

and the results for the slack belt tests. Twenty-eight sled<br />

tests were run in a recent model Ford LTD/Crown Victoria<br />

front seat sled buck as representing<br />

the average full-sized<br />

American car interior layout. For economy of testing and<br />

repeatability, all occupants were tested in the left front seat<br />

position. The steering system was installed or removed to<br />

create a driver or mirrored passenger<br />

environment.<br />

H'f i;Jil' o",n;"':lio':*"0_:i::*"01,""1".<br />

*, ffi<br />

SH/SLT IIF<br />

to<br />

I<br />

I<br />

ll<br />

rB<br />

r9<br />

r4<br />

26<br />

z1<br />

m<br />

b<br />

26<br />

22<br />

t6<br />

l2<br />

r{<br />

!q.l 9<br />

-1.0 0 468 tlj 30. I<br />

)q I o o.o o 525 {oq ,7.7<br />

19 | d 0.5 o 675 58? j6.o<br />

n / o Lq 0 6{4 486 38.4<br />

to / 0 r.6 d ?:0 605 4o.o<br />

30 / o 2.3 0 02r 730 44.d<br />

10 / O 3.o 0 1026 88o 4r.9<br />

Jo / o 5.o 0 910 69E 46,6<br />

p / 9 t.3 o rd23 986 43.9<br />

N / 6 q.o 0 !359 1359 rB.i<br />

30 / o 18,0 0 715 126 37.6<br />

10 / o r8,o o i98 ?98 {2-6<br />

10 / 38<br />

-r.o<br />

10 / 18 o,o<br />

30 / 38 0.0<br />

l0 / 3E r,l<br />

30 / 1E 2,5<br />

30 / 36 3,0<br />

3d / 16 3,0<br />

10 / 3E 1,D<br />

36 / 18 3.0<br />

3d / l8 2.3<br />

15'/ o o.o<br />

J5 / O 3.o<br />

10 / O o.o<br />

JO / O 3.0<br />

fi/n -1.0<br />

10 / o l.o<br />

422 ts 4,2<br />

352 228 31,6<br />

616 {1t 38,2<br />

379 l0l 29.9<br />

587 485 37,6<br />

t96 ?83 3o.t<br />

F4? 4r4 42.8<br />

{rJ 325 37,1<br />

256 16? 34.7<br />

W 351 J7.9<br />

ll92 1161 {9-r<br />

149r r37o ,2.1<br />

q52 852 32,7<br />

b97 Ei7 l?,8<br />

rlr0 1rl0 17,4<br />

1165 1165 t9-0<br />

15fr<br />

l407<br />

1302<br />

r4d3<br />

rl97<br />

rcrS<br />

1{2?<br />

l6r6<br />

14to<br />

1292<br />

ETE<br />

16fl<br />

2059<br />

u36<br />

18?6<br />

14C9<br />

1"95<br />

1836<br />

r50l<br />

r.26<br />

1,?t<br />

1 -Zt<br />

1,19<br />

l,66<br />

1.ff<br />

l.0l<br />

o.B<br />

o-s<br />

- Tssts ss Jo +h B,B,V,, Acruar hlh V. 3t.5 rph.<br />

- T€8tr EE 15 lph LE,v,, Acrud hlr. v. 37,5 !ph,<br />

- In t$ts l0 s 11. rhr hlr es 6ff s. shmld;r,<br />

- q/d dsnotss qu6ttlongtr chsst d6r6tkitm drrr tn Tssrs t? d t8<br />

. n/t denot€8 ihsF rs no rFmsducsr lof thlr r.rr.<br />

L19 P SS<br />

r,54 Piss<br />

1.70 PA53<br />

r.45 Prss/m ffi<br />

1.38 FtSs<br />

0.?0 F^gs/of s|M<br />

r,75 FS<br />

3.2t q,/d' Ptgs/ffi w<br />

z,E? q/d PAf4/|ff m<br />

r,16 P^$s<br />

1.{{ PrES<br />

1.37 Pr.$s<br />

FS<br />

PASS<br />

PS<br />

PS<br />

PH<br />

Pffi<br />

Pls<br />

PAS/oF SLffi<br />

PASS<br />

PAS<br />

PS/OF ruR<br />

PH<br />

1,30 Dn<br />

Ll[ DR<br />

1.66 Dn<br />

1,37 DR/RPqT ' 13


The three-point belts used were the stock LTD belts obtained<br />

through the dealer. These belts were single spool,<br />

vehicle sensitive/emergency locking retractor (VSR/ELR),<br />

three-point continuous loop systems with a cinch lock latch<br />

plate such that when the belt was on, webbing could move<br />

from the lap strap into the shoulder strap, but as designed,<br />

not the other way. These belts were equipped with a tension<br />

relief '-windowshade" device (TRD).<br />

The sled pin chosen for the Transportation Research Center<br />

of Ohio (TRC) HYGE sled provided a reasonable analog<br />

to the 30 and 35 mph barrier crash pulses for this vehicle<br />

yielding 32.5 and 37.5 delta-V's respectively for these two<br />

test conditions.<br />

Data reutrded.-Table I shows the data collected. In<br />

addition to the data shown, three 1000 frame-per-second<br />

cine cameras were stationed for front and side orthogonal<br />

views. The normal components of head and chest accelerations,<br />

along with chest deflections, were recorded on the<br />

Hybrid III which was calibrated immediately prior to the<br />

test series. Belt loads and neck forces were also recorded<br />

while femur loads were not.<br />

Specific test protocol.-These sled tests were conducted<br />

in two primary phases: With a head-on, 0 deg. orientation,<br />

and, with the sled buck rotated 38 deg. to the left. This sled<br />

rotation simulated far side oblique impacts with occupant<br />

PDOF angles to the inside of the car for both the normally<br />

oriented driver and the mirrored passenger. Thirty-eight<br />

degrees was chosen because this is approximately the angle<br />

at which the shoulder belt traverses across the car from the<br />

B-pillar D-ring to the latch plate. If the belt works properly,<br />

one might expect the shoulder strap to provide effective<br />

restraint of the upper torso in a direction approximating the<br />

belt loop orientation in the car. Another rationale for choosing<br />

the 38 deg. angle was that given practical resource<br />

limitations, this one sled angle is a reasonable simulation of<br />

impact orientation angles on the highway up to approximately<br />

twice the sled angle, or 76 degrees.<br />

For the 0 deg. frontal sled impacts, repeat tests were<br />

performed and data trends plotted to permit identification of<br />

outlier points beyond the predictable or explainable envelope<br />

of conditional relationships. Results for these tests<br />

confirmed that the test conditions had been well controlled,<br />

and that the Hybrid III dummy had performed in a repeatable<br />

and predictable manner. Reference 45 describes the<br />

specific details of the Hybrid III performance in these tests.<br />

ForTests I through I I and 18, slack in the passenger shoulder<br />

belt was gradually increased from -1.0 in. to 18.0 in.<br />

Tests I 2, I 3 and I 5 were of the driver at 30 mph with 0.0 and<br />

3.0 in. of slack. Test l4 was of the driver at 35 mph with -l.0<br />

in. of slack, while Tests l6 and I 7 were of the passenger at<br />

35 mph with 0.0 and 3.0 in, of slack, respectively.<br />

The three independent variables evaluated during the<br />

oblique tests were shoulder belt slack (defined as the extra<br />

webbing through the shoulder belt D-ring at the beginning<br />

of the test), the position of the belt with respect to the arm/<br />

shoulder joint, and lap belt slack etrtablished by measuring<br />

between the center lower abdomen and a corresponding<br />

428<br />

point on the taut belt. Upon detailed analysis of the results,<br />

the effect of 0 to 3.0 in. of lap belt slack was not strongly<br />

significant in the type belt tested using an ATD.<br />

Frontal0 Degree Sled Tests<br />

Data analysis and results.-For the 0 deg. tests, the outcome<br />

variables most sensitive to the slack independent variable<br />

were head speed and displacement relative to the interior.<br />

Figure 9 shows the head excursion envelopes for<br />

passengerTests I through ll,16,lTand lS,whilefigure l0<br />

shows the head excursion envelope for the driver occupant<br />

at 30 and 35 mph, Tests l2 through 15. Figure I I shows head<br />

speeds relative to the interior versus time and displacement<br />

for Tests I and 9. Figures l2 through l8 show individual<br />

cine frames for selected 0 deg. frontal tests showing key<br />

kinematic times during each event such as maximum head<br />

velocity, impact head speed, and head maximum forward<br />

displacement.<br />

I'lote Heod Stortinq Poliltioni Hove Been Adlusted ior Cqmer0 Pordllor<br />

Figure 9. Head excurslon trslectories lor passenger te8t8.<br />

Noter Heod Stortinq Positions Hove Been Adjusteci for Cdmero Porollox<br />

Flgure 10. Head ercursion traiectorles for driver tssts.<br />

Chest results.-The shoulder belt strap forces (along<br />

with transfer forces from the head/neck when contact ocr<br />

curred) were the restraint forces on the chest during these<br />

tests. The present condition of -1.0 in. of slack in Test I was<br />

achieved by tightening and locking the belt at 40-50 lb<br />

preload. From Table l, this modest preload did not increase


0, ,^<br />

L'] IU<br />

E<br />

a<br />

'11<br />

o .<br />

tu<br />

E +<br />

OJ<br />

T<br />

l4<br />

e<br />

Flgure 12a<br />

-C o_<br />

H<br />

_r:<br />

o<br />

0l<br />

_ 1 0<br />

o<br />

U<br />

T<br />

5<br />

TEST *01<br />

30 mph,/0'Possenge.<br />

- 1.0 in Elqck<br />

Its I $09<br />

30 nph/O'Possengsr<br />

8.0 in sldak<br />

5 1 0 1 5 a 0 e 5<br />

Heod Excursion (in)<br />

l l l r l r<br />

0 1 0 e 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0<br />

Heod Excursion (cn)<br />

Flgure 11. Felative hesd speeds versus hsad excurslons for<br />

-1 .0 in. slack (teat #1) and 8.0 in. stack (te8t #g).<br />

Flgure 12b<br />

Flgure.I2. .Test #l-pasarngel wlth -1.0 In. slack. Speed: 30<br />

mph; dlrectioni 0 dogr€€8.<br />

Figure 13a<br />

Floure 13b<br />

Flfiure..l3..Test+Z-psea€nger wlth 0.0 in. stack. Speed: i0<br />

mph; directioni 0 degr€e8.<br />

Flgure 14a<br />

Flgure 14b<br />

Flgure..14. .Test #O8-paslsnger wlth 5.3 ln. slack. Speed: 30<br />

mphi direction: 0 d6grcas.<br />

429


.-l<br />

Figure 15b<br />

Flgure 15. Test #09-pase€nger with 8.0 in. slack. Speed: 30<br />

mph; direction: 0 degrees,<br />

Figure 16a<br />

Flgure 16b<br />

Flgure 16. Test #l2drlver wlth 0.0 ln slack. Speed: 30 mph;<br />

dlrectlon: 0 degrees.<br />

430<br />

Flgure 17b<br />

Flgure 17. Test #1S-driver with 3.0 In. slack. Speedr 30 mph;<br />

dlrectlon:0 degreea.<br />

Flgure 18a<br />

Fioure 18b<br />

Fi[ure 18. Test #14+]lver with *1.0 in. slack. Speed: 35 mph;<br />

direction: 0 degrees.


chest deflections while it reduced the chest accelerations<br />

from 37.7 to 30.1 G's. The shoulder strap load increased<br />

from 1407 to 1504 pounds with this amount of preload. For<br />

belt slacks up to 3 inches, chest accelerations were directly<br />

proportional to slack while belt loads and chest deflections<br />

were generally inversely proportional to slack. For slack<br />

conditions greater than 5 inches, the effects on chest responses<br />

of head/neck impacts to the instrument panel began<br />

to dominate.<br />

The highest chest deflection for the 0 deg. test series was<br />

I.86 in. for the 35 mph driver with a moderately pretightened<br />

belt. The highest chest acceleration of 52.3 G<br />

resulted for the 35 mph passenger with 3.0 in. belt slack. For<br />

the 30 mph passenger tests, there were no chest accelerations<br />

or deflections approaching the corridor limits established<br />

for this ATD (less than 60 G-3 ms clip and 2.0 in.<br />

chest deflection). These results are most probably attributable<br />

to the combined factors of vehicle crash pulse, retractor<br />

spool-off, and webbing stretch properties having to some<br />

extent been tuned to the dynamic loading characteristics of<br />

the Hybrid III chest response corridors. This is also consistent<br />

to some extent with the findings of Reichert (32) discussed<br />

above.<br />

Effects on chest responses of the belt initially off the<br />

shoulder against the basic condition of the belt strap on the<br />

shoulder were as$es$ed in two frontal tests. For a slack of 5<br />

in. with the strap off the shoulder (Test l0), the belt loaded<br />

into the right lower abdomen below the rib cage, and across<br />

the lower left rib cage structure. This concentrated loading<br />

on the Hybrid III chest structure, with reduced restraint<br />

contribution from the shoulder, caused both chest accelerations<br />

and deflections to increase.<br />

With l8 in. slack and the belt strap initially off the shoulder<br />

(Test I I ), the chest accelerations were below those for<br />

the l8 in. on-shoulder slack condition (Test l8), while chest<br />

deflections were the same. Belt loads were recorded in Test<br />

I I but not Test 18, so a direct comparison is not possible.<br />

The belt loads for Test I I were somewhat below peak onshoulder<br />

values because of influences from the head/neck<br />

impacting the instrument panel.<br />

Head results"-Head (center of) speeds relative to the<br />

interior of the compartment ver$us time and versus head<br />

excursion were plotted for each of the eighteen 0 deg. frontal<br />

tests in which varying amounts of torso belt slack was<br />

set. These head kinematic plots have been published recently<br />

elsewhere (45) and the remaining results from this study<br />

will be summarized here. Figure I I shows an overplot of the<br />

head speed versus excursion data for the passenger occupants<br />

in Tests I and 9. The head speed versus time and head<br />

speed versus forward excursion plots were con$tructed for<br />

each frontal test by detailed kinematic analyses of the high<br />

speed cine films. Cross checks indicated that the data was<br />

consistent and the Hybrid III's performance was repeatable.<br />

The head speed increased uniformly and predictably as the<br />

amount of slack in the shoulder belt is increased. Predictable<br />

exceptions occurred in Tests l0 and I I where the belt<br />

strap started off the shoulder and those results will be dis-<br />

cussed in more detail below. The kinematics plots of head<br />

motions of Figure 9 and l0 have been adjusted for parallax<br />

so that these plots look like the cine film frames and the<br />

time-based event$ match. The basic trajectory data were not<br />

corrected for parallax and thus the derivative results of<br />

relative head speeds and excursions inside the compartment<br />

are somewhat understated, but uniformly so.<br />

Results from this sled test program show the peak head<br />

velocities and excursions within the compartment are sensitive<br />

and repeatable outcome variables when plotted against<br />

the control variable of shoulder belt slack. In this series of<br />

tests, and indeed in any similar belt restraint tests conducted<br />

in a realistic compartment interior, head response variables,<br />

such as accelerations and the derived Head Injury Criteria<br />

(HIC), are strongly influenced by the energy absorption<br />

characteristics of what surface the head impacts and the<br />

relative orientation during that impact.<br />

These considerations were explored to some extent by<br />

TarriEre in 1982 (46), when he quantified the component<br />

forces acting on a three-point belted driver's head impacting<br />

a vehicle's steering wheel. TarriEre's argument, however,<br />

that the HIC limits can be safely increased to 1500 for belted<br />

drivers, gives insufficient attention to the fact that for this<br />

occupant, many impacts of the steering system with the<br />

head occur into the delicate facial area. The relatively weak<br />

facial bones are easily fractured causing serious cosmetic<br />

injuries, and these structures can also be driven rearward<br />

into the brain area. TarriBre's other argument, that no head<br />

injury is expected to occur if there is no head contact, is<br />

somewhat confirmed by the presently reported 30 mph 0<br />

deg. frontal results. When no impact occurred, the HIC36<br />

was below 1000. In the 35 mph 0 deg. tests, however, the<br />

HIC36 was over 1000 even for the no contact situation (Test<br />

l6).<br />

A 1986 study by Grdsch, et al. (47) confirms these concems<br />

regarding the insensitivity of the HIC to predict facial<br />

injuries and develops a Facial lnjury Criteria (FIC) as a<br />

basis for evaluating injuries to belted occupants. The results<br />

from his analysis indicate when comparing different energy<br />

absorbing steering wheel treatments, including air bags,<br />

some will exhibit higher HICs, but lower FICs. These authors<br />

$tate, with considerable substantiation, that in such<br />

instances, the FIC should be the controlling factor.<br />

These concepts can be related to the results of the present<br />

study by reviewing plots of maximum head velocity against<br />

the head forward excursion for the -1.0 (Test I ) and the 8.0<br />

(Test 9) in slack conditions. The envelope of head kinematics<br />

traced out for these conditions show the vulnerability of<br />

the head to impact injury is related not only to the head<br />

velocity (kinetic energy) at any given point, but is also<br />

related to how far forward in the compartment (how close to<br />

interior surfaces) the head is positioned when going that<br />

speed. For Test l, with the moderately pretightened shoulder<br />

belt, the maximum relative head speed was 17.4 mph<br />

which occurred after the center ofthe head had traveled l2<br />

inches-not near to striking any interior surfaces or objects.<br />

431


For Test 9, with 8 inches of slack in the shoulder belt, the<br />

maximum head speed was 29.4 mph which occurred after<br />

the center of the head had traveled 22 inches. This maximum<br />

head speed point was just one inch short of the 23 inch<br />

mark where the head impacted the instrument panel at a<br />

speed of 27.9 mph.<br />

The present approach to analyzing the effect on head<br />

re$ponse$ of increasing belt slack uses the rationale that the<br />

relationship of higher relative head speed and greater forward<br />

excursion inside the compartment is a good predictor<br />

ofthe potential for serious head and facial injuries. Substantiation<br />

for such an approach is given in terms of the kinetic<br />

energy dissipated in stopping the head from various relative<br />

interior velocities. For instance, the kinetic energy of the<br />

head (using Grdsch's effective mass of 16 pounds) at a<br />

relative head speed of 17.4 mph (which is the head speed for<br />

the best performing belt test of this series) is 162 ft-lb,<br />

whereas the kinetic energy for the head with 8 in. of slack in<br />

the belt and a head speed of 29.4 mph is 462 ft-lb, a factor of<br />

2.85 increase. As a comparison, the kinetic energy asso-<br />

l6<br />

)to<br />

x<br />

E<br />

o<br />

E.-<br />

>rc<br />

E<br />

U<br />

5ro<br />

.E<br />

E<br />

I<br />

u70<br />

u<br />

-60<br />

0<br />

r<br />

30 mph,zO'Possenger<br />

I<br />

I<br />

o/<br />

^o /o<br />

o /<br />

I<br />

5 1 0<br />

ShoutdeF Bett Stock (h,)<br />

l0 a0 30<br />

Shoul.der Bett Stock (cm,)<br />

-"-*<br />

Flgure 19. Maxlmum h6ad velocltle$ veraus ehoulder belt<br />

elack.<br />

n<br />

o<br />

Totat Herd TFavet<br />

ForraFd Axls Travet<br />

I<br />

j<br />

I<br />

T<br />

/<br />

{<br />

J-<br />

,t<br />

)6<br />

ry<br />

IFtr<br />

5 t 0<br />

Bett Stlck (hches)<br />

-10 0 r0 20 30 40 50<br />

Shoulden Bett Slqck (cm,)<br />

Flgure 20. llsxlmum head cxcurslona vsrsut ehoulder belt<br />

slack.<br />

432<br />

T<br />

t<br />

E - -<br />

6<br />

)a:<br />

E<br />

I<br />

f<br />

.E<br />

t<br />

tu<br />

I<br />

U<br />

30<br />

9as<br />

F<br />

b<br />

20<br />

--E<br />

ciated with the maximum relative head speed of 34.2 mph in<br />

these te$ts, is 625 ft-lb, a factor of 3.86 increase.<br />

Figure l9 summarizes the maximum relative head-tointerior<br />

velocity versus shoulder belt slack for the 30 mph<br />

frontal pa$senger tests in which the strap was on the shoulder.<br />

Figure 20 summarizes the maximum head excursion<br />

inside the compartment versus shoulder belt slack for these<br />

same conditions. For ten of the l8 frontal 0 deg. sled tests in<br />

this program, the test conditions were closely controlled,<br />

and the results for these ten tests can be directly compared in<br />

Figures 19 and 20. A perceptible break or knee in these<br />

curves occurs between five and eight inches slack, reflecting<br />

the onset of head impacts with the instrument panel for<br />

slack setting over 5 inches. In future testing it would be<br />

interesting to investigate possible influence of the Hybrid<br />

III head/neck/torso dynamics on these findings.<br />

To consider the effect of the torso strap being off the<br />

shoulder before impact, Figures 2l and 22 werc prepared<br />

which include Tests ll and 18. A simple normalization<br />

proce$$ was used by plotting the actual head speed and<br />

displacements for these off-shoulder tests, and then considering<br />

what additional apparent slacks might be introduced<br />

to have the off-shoulder data points fall on the on-shoulder<br />

l6<br />

0<br />

ir.<br />

=<br />

9'"<br />

t<br />

f,<br />

5ro<br />

Should€r Bclt $tqck (h,)<br />

| | | _.. _l .__-___ _._-<br />

-lt 0 l0 e0 30 40<br />

Shoutder Belt S(ack (cF)<br />

Flgure ?1. Msrlmum head vslocitles versus shoulder belt<br />

slack wlth ofl-shoulder condltions included.<br />

c70<br />

' 6 0<br />

t<br />

s<br />

t<br />

F30<br />

=<br />

6<br />

>ei<br />

E<br />

! a<br />

E<br />

30<br />

te5<br />

Note, The Bett off-Shoutdrr Increases the Effectlve StaEk Byl<br />

- Test 10, Fron 5 h, to / h = e h<br />

- feEt U, Fron 18 h. to 24 h, = 6 h,<br />

30 nph 0'Fdssenoer<br />

I<br />

/<br />

.v<br />

I<br />

fr<br />

lo<br />

F-dI<br />

/<br />

5 1 0 1 5<br />

ShoeLder Bett St0ck (h,)<br />

q--<br />

---F<br />

. 1 0 0 t 0 d 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0<br />

ShoqldfF Bett $tock kE,)<br />

Flgure 22. Msxlmum hesd excureions vsrsus ehouldsr belt<br />

slack with ofl-shoulder condltions lncluded.


curves. The results of this analysis indicate$ that with the<br />

belt off the shoulder, a slack of 5 inches looks kinematically<br />

like a slack of 7 inches. With l8 inches of slack. the belt off<br />

the shoulder looks kinematically like a slack of 24 inches.<br />

The 5 to 7 inch slack analogy for the on and off-shoulder<br />

conditions is reasonable to describe this effect quantitatively.<br />

However, at the l8 inch slack setting the head<br />

impacts to the instrument panel were so heavy that this kind<br />

of comparison is presented here as descriptive only. It is<br />

interesting to compare the responses for the off-shoulder<br />

conditions in Figure 2l and 22 with those in table I . For the<br />

5 inch off-shoulder condition, the chest acceleration, shoulder<br />

belt load, and chest deflection was the highest for any of<br />

the 30 mph frontal 0 deg. passenger tests, whereas the head<br />

respon$eri were not the highest in this series.<br />

Figure 23 compares the peak head speed versus shoulder<br />

belt slack for the previously discussed 30 mph frontal 0 deg.<br />

pa$$enger tests with these same variables for the 30 mph<br />

frontal 0 deg. driver tests and the 35 mph frontal 0 deg.<br />

driver/passenger tests. This last comparison can be made<br />

because the peak head speed occurs before impact. Even so,<br />

when comparing the 30 mph driver with the 30 mph passenger,<br />

the driver peak head velocities are slightly and consistently<br />

higher. This effect has not as yet been totally explained<br />

but it is probably due in part to the positioning of the<br />

hands and arms holding the steering wheel.<br />

dt+<br />

u<br />

t u 12<br />

o ' -<br />

oj<br />

-b<br />

o<br />

0r .^<br />

I T U<br />

E<br />

f,<br />

X<br />

E ^ 6<br />

_c<br />

r<br />

1i<br />

H.=<br />

tu<br />

d<br />

0J<br />

I<br />

Ea0<br />

f<br />

T<br />

d<br />

E<br />

3C Eph/o' +<br />

Drtver<br />

/<br />

'A<br />

6<br />

0 5<br />

Shoutder Bett Stock (inches)<br />

0 1 0<br />

Shoutder Bett SIock (cm,,r<br />

Figure ?3. Itlgxlmum head veloclty veraua shoulder belt alack<br />

for trontal drlvers and passengers<br />

at 30 and 35 mph.<br />

Shoulder belt slack in the range of0 to 5 inches is found<br />

most frequently in American cars because the automobile<br />

and belt manufacturers designed the U.S. type windowshade<br />

tension relief devices to introduce slack amounts<br />

in this range. These devices will however, introduce any<br />

amount of slack up to the total amount of webbing available<br />

under certain circumstances. The results of these tests, as<br />

presented in figure 23, show that the effects ofintroducing 5<br />

inches of slack into a shoulder belt is approximately equiva-<br />

/o<br />

' 30 Aph/o'<br />

ParrtngaF<br />

lent to raising the barrier equivalent impact severity from 30<br />

to 35 mph, a severe result when kinetic energies are considered.<br />

At a given slack, going from 30 to 35 mph B.E,V.<br />

raises the maximum head speed about 6.5 mph.<br />

Figure 24 relates both HIC and HIC36 to the shoulder belt<br />

slack for Tests I through 9 and I 8, all of the pa$senger tests<br />

at 30 mph. The HICs rise predictably for slacks of - I .0 to 8<br />

in., but then fall significantly from 8 to l8 in. More data<br />

points would be desirable in this range to fully explain this<br />

drop at the higher slack levels, but in the absence of such<br />

additional data points, the following observations can be<br />

made here. First, the top and brow of the instrument panel in<br />

the late model Ford LTD is constructed of a plastic substructure<br />

which is a reasonably good energy absorber if impacted<br />

in an advantageous direction. With the l8 in. of slack in<br />

these tests the Hybrid III's head hit more of the flat upper<br />

yielding surface of this instrument panel, and in two tests<br />

yielded HIC's between 700 and 800.<br />

Leeendr<br />

O Btss Possenger HIC<br />

tr Blss Passenoea HIC36<br />

# Esser HIC<br />

P Roneo HIC<br />

O Blss 3-poht Ilnrver HIC<br />

1 6<br />

Shoutder<br />

E l0 le l,t 16 l8<br />

Bett Stock (lnches)<br />

t0 a0 30 r0<br />

Shoutder Bett Stqck (cft.)<br />

Figure 24. Comparlsons of HIC vs, Shoulder Belt Slack trom<br />

Vsrlous Research Programr.<br />

Figure 24 also compares the HIC values from this study<br />

with those previously reported by Esser and Romeo (43,48)<br />

of three-point belt sled tests performed by TRC in Ford<br />

sedan sled bucks with the $ame Ford belts. For the Esser<br />

passenger tests at 30 mph, the HIC values match the present<br />

data closely up to 2 inches. He then has no data to report<br />

until a forth test at 163/+ inches slack. In his tests, the instrument<br />

panel was constructed of a sheet metal substruature<br />

which probably explains the large difference in the HIC<br />

values for his I 63/+ in. slack test and the results for the I 8 in<br />

slack tests reported here. These results again demonstrate<br />

the significance of not only of the head speed at impact, but<br />

433


Test fl2, Driver: J0 mph<br />

Test #15, Driver<br />

Projection of Test #1 PoEs6nger Results to q 30 mph, -1.0 in slock Teet for Driv€r<br />

Figure 25a-25c: Head Tralectorles lor 0 deg. 30 mph Drlver Wlth<br />

-i-o, o.o and 3.0 inches Slack.<br />

the energy absorbing characteristics of the surface<br />

impacted.<br />

Romeo conducted a 30 mph three-point belted driver sled<br />

te$t with a Hybrid II in the same body buck used for this<br />

study and his test produced a HIC of 865, essentially the<br />

same a$ obtained in this study. In his study, Romeo also<br />

tested a lap belted only driver with the same design of<br />

steering wheel and column used in this study and recorded a<br />

HIC of 2584, considerably more than the peaks recorded in<br />

either the present tests, or in Esser's tests.<br />

Figures 25a and 25b compare the head kinematics for the<br />

driver occupant with 0.0 and 3.0 inches of slack for the 30<br />

434<br />

mph test condition. As the results discussed above showed,<br />

the steering wheel is well within the head swing trajectory<br />

of the driver even with zero slack. However, the location of<br />

the dummy's face/head impacts into the steering wheel<br />

changes with the amount of slack as does the impact speed.<br />

The steering wheel used in this test series would be classified<br />

by Glyons (49) as a non-energy absorbing type in which<br />

the plastic molding is primarily for cosmetic purposes. Although<br />

the highest HICs for the driver tests at 30 mph was<br />

1165, l2o/o over the 1000 limit FMVSS 208 uses to predict<br />

brain injury, analyses similar to Grdsch (47) and Gloyns<br />

(49) would most probably predict serious facial injuries for<br />

all the driver tests at 30 mph with slacks of zero or more.<br />

The results of the present study have been structured in<br />

such a way as to permit interpolation of the results to related<br />

test conditions which were not actually run on the sled. For<br />

instance, figure 25c shows the predicted results of a driver<br />

test at 30 mph 0 deg. frontal with a pretightened belt.<br />

Whereas the head impact speeds for the zero and 3.0 inch<br />

slack conditions were in the 20 mph range, pretightening the<br />

belt to between 40 and 50 pounds drops the head impact<br />

speed below 8 mph. This again emphasizes the usefulness of<br />

the head speed envelope ("how far-how fast") analysis<br />

developed in this study.<br />

The influences of the force-deflection characteristics of<br />

the various surfaces impacted by the head during the presently<br />

reported tests have been considered, but the mean'r to<br />

rigorously control these impact conditions were not immediately<br />

at hand. It was found during these tests that the initial<br />

head impact point for both the driver and passenger test$<br />

could be repeated predictably. It was, however, more difficult<br />

to control the mutual head-to-surface force-deflection<br />

characteristics of these impacts which determine variations<br />

in head acceleration, and thus HIC levels (and with extended<br />

capability, facial injury indices). The presently reported<br />

results show that this may be possible using the Hybrid III<br />

dummy and with considerably more resources than were<br />

expended here-for instance purchasing new steering columnrl<br />

and wheels for each test and instrumenting the faces<br />

per Grrisch. Short of this, using the maximum relative head<br />

velocities as a predictor of head/face injury potential is an<br />

intermediate, but useful tool in studying the effects of shoulder<br />

belt slack.<br />

Oblique $led Test Results<br />

The 38 deg. orientation of the sled body buck for Tests I 9<br />

through 28 was approximately the angle at which the shoulder<br />

harness defines a plane cutting across the car. If the strap<br />

stays on the rib cage structure during oblique impacts in this<br />

range of severity, one would expect that the belt should<br />

provide effective restraint.<br />

Figures 26a through 26e show two high speed movie<br />

views of the kinematics of the Hybrid III in the 30 mph, 38<br />

deg. oblique sled test in which the belt was pretightened to<br />

40*50 lb (approximately-1.0 in. slack). This pretightening<br />

pocketed the belt into the dummy's clothing and skin, and as<br />

the impact progressed, it became obvious that this pre-


pocketing contributed to the belt effectively staying on the<br />

shoulder and chest structure (clearly across the stemum)<br />

throughout the test. The frame in this figure shows the<br />

Hybrid III at its maximum forward excursion (before rebound)<br />

to the front and right.<br />

Figure 26a<br />

Figure 26b<br />

Figure 26c<br />

Flgure 26d<br />

Flgure 26e<br />

Flgures 26a-26e: Test #1g-Passeng€r wlth -1.0 ln. slack.<br />

Sp-eed: 30 mph; obllque 38 degreee.<br />

Figures 27a through 27e show two high speed movie<br />

views of the kinematics of the Hybrid III for these same test<br />

conditions but with the belt slack set at 0 in. In this condition,<br />

when the belt is initially positioned on the shoulder, it<br />

seats or pockets itself into the occupant's clothing and flesh<br />

early in the impact sequence and the strap stays on the<br />

shoulder/chest structure-well up on the sternumthroughout<br />

the impact.<br />

The effect of slack on Hybrid III responses in frontal sled<br />

tests has been discussed above and is a good starting point to<br />

discuss the effects of slack in the oblique sled tests reported<br />

here. In these tests, added to the forward motions are the<br />

lateral motions caused by the 38 deg. sled orientation. When<br />

the torso strap is off the shoulder, 1.3 to 3.0 inches of slack is<br />

enough to permit the belt to hang low on the chest/sternum<br />

area pre-test. During the impact the belt changes position<br />

coming off the right rib cage and is barely on the left rib cage<br />

structure, if at all. This amount of slack also allows the belt<br />

to hang over the corner of the shoulder, but in the Hybrid III,<br />

that is still within the range of the notch in the shoulderjoint<br />

flesh at that point. As the impact progre.ese$ the belt catches<br />

in the shoulder notch, but this is still not enough to keep the<br />

belt from assuming a dangerous biomechanical position<br />

across the lower thorax and abdomen during loading.<br />

43s


Flgure 27a<br />

Figure 27b<br />

Figure 27c<br />

Figure 27d<br />

Floure 27e<br />

Fllurea 27a-27e: TsEt #26-pa$sanger with 0.0 in. slack.<br />

Speed: 30 mph; oblique 3E degrees.<br />

With 3 inches of slack in the belt, but initially positioned<br />

on the shoulder, the belt strap initially pocketed itself into<br />

the occupant's clothing and chest flesh at the beginning of<br />

the impact sequence. As the sequence progressed, the shoulder<br />

strap stayed on the rib cage long enough to effectively<br />

restrain the forward and lateral motions of the thorax without<br />

the belt slipping into the abdominal area. Similar results<br />

were obtained in Tests 20 and 22 where the belt was initially<br />

on the shoulder but with 2.5 and 2.3 inches of slack, respectively.<br />

Again the belt stayed on the rib cage long enough to<br />

arrest the forward and lateral motions without the strap<br />

slipping off into the abdominal area. In both these tests the<br />

shoulder belt strap passed over the notch in the shoulder<br />

flesh of the Hybrid III without snagging, as frequently happened<br />

in terrts where the belt was initially off the shoulder.<br />

Figures 28a through 28g show that with as little as l.3<br />

inches of slack, the belt can be positioned off the shoulder,<br />

permitting the occupant's rib cage/shoulder structure to<br />

come out of the belt early and cause severe abdominal<br />

loading. The initial position of the shoulder strap is near the<br />

top of the shoulder flesh notch of the Hybrid III. During this


Flgure 28d<br />

Flgure 28f<br />

Flgure 289<br />

Figure 2Bc<br />

Fllures 28a-289: Test #zFpas$enger with 1.3 in. slack. $peed: 30 mph; oblique 38 degrcee. Belt Inltlally poaltloned otl-ahoulder.<br />

437


impact the belt partially snags in this notch, but despite this,<br />

the dummy still twisted out of the belt as the impact progressed<br />

and the strap loaded heavily into the lower chest/<br />

abdomen area. Again, this test emphasizes the importance<br />

of the initial position of the shoulder strap on an occupant<br />

just before an impact.<br />

On this point, it is interesting to draw the reader's attention<br />

back to one of the significant claims in the original<br />

Bohlin patent for the three-point belt (1,2,3). The threepoint<br />

belt, when positioned on the body properly, should<br />

apply restraint forces to the body in a "physiologically<br />

correct" manner to engage the strong skeletal structures of<br />

the body. Clearly, the results of these sled tests demonstrate<br />

non-compliance with this fundamental principle when the<br />

belt is positioned off the shoulder or even on the corner of<br />

the shoulder before the impact.<br />

The initial position of the belt at the beginning of the<br />

impact is a strong determinant of where the belt will physiologically<br />

load the anatomy during the impact. As little as<br />

1.3 inches of slack allows the belt to drop 6 to 8 inches<br />

vertically on the chest/sternums, and this initial orientation<br />

seems to be a dominant factor in the configuration of the belt<br />

loading during impact. In this case, again, loading dangerously<br />

into the lower chest/abdominal area.<br />

A sled test was conducted in which the occupant was<br />

leaned forward with the belt strap on the shoulder/thorax<br />

with 3 inches of webbing unwound from the retractor (Test<br />

?8). In this test the occupant's forward and lateral motions<br />

were effectively restrained while the strap stayed on the rib<br />

cage shoulder structure. Thus, even with the occupant leaning<br />

forward to take advantage of the freedom of movement<br />

provided by the ELR, and with the shoulder strap snug and<br />

positioned properly, the slack effects are minimal if the<br />

occupant does not strike anything. The findings of this<br />

study, that where the belt starts out on the anatomy is critical<br />

to safety belt performance, was confirmed again in this test.<br />

There is no analog in the human for a notch in the flesh at<br />

the shoulder. It is doubtful that the human shoulder would<br />

act like the Hybrid III shoulder in impacts such as these<br />

tests, catching the belt during oblique tests. As such, it is<br />

probable that the belt would end up even lower on the<br />

human or cadaver than on the Hybrid III as photographed<br />

here. Accordingly, oblique occupant retention tests on<br />

three-point belts which have a tendency to introduce slack<br />

during use should be re$ted not only with the Hybrid III, but<br />

with surrogates in which the shoulder simulates the human<br />

both in the pre-test and test conditions. Altematively, an<br />

improved Hybrid III shoulder should be produced so that<br />

the range of biofidelity of this ATD can be extended to<br />

frontal oblique impacts.<br />

These results strongly suggest that public information<br />

campaigns are needed to better educate belt users about the<br />

biomechanical implications both of wearing shoulder belts<br />

slack and of not having them positioned on the clavicle area<br />

before any potential collision.<br />

438<br />

An Assessment of the Safety Effects of<br />

Slack on the Safety Performance of the<br />

Three-Point Belt<br />

Summary of sled test findings,-The results of this sled<br />

test program lead to an overview of the safety effects on<br />

three-point safety belt performance of the TRD<br />

windowshade which can be summarized as follows:<br />

r Biomechanically, where the shoulder strap is<br />

initially positioned on a person before an impact<br />

has just as significant an effect on crash<br />

perforrnance as does the amount of slack.<br />

r For the three-point belt tested, the most sensitive<br />

outcome variables were the head speeds and<br />

excursions inside the compartment versus<br />

shoulder belt slack.<br />

r Modest levels of pretightening, 40-50 pounds,<br />

significantly reduce first the probability, and<br />

second the severity oflhe occupant's head striking<br />

the interior; and, also significantly reduces the<br />

likelihood that the occupant's torso will come out<br />

of the belt in oblique impacts.<br />

r Forthe passengeroccupant in the three-point belt/<br />

interior system tested, there was only a slight<br />

degradation of occupant injury measures with one<br />

inch of slack and the belt on the shoulder as<br />

compared to the zero slack setting. However,<br />

r As little as 1.3 inches of slack permits the belt to<br />

lie over the corner of the shoulder resulting in<br />

poor belt placement and a dangerous<br />

configuration of belt loading during the impact.<br />

r Thus, for the passenger occupant, there is a<br />

narrow range of slacks, one inch or less, which<br />

might be permitted for comfort reasons under<br />

certain circumstances.<br />

r For driver occupant$, the steering wheel is in the<br />

head swing zone for all slacks greater than zero.<br />

The speed at which the head impacts the steering<br />

wheel changes modestly from 19.7 to ?2.3 mph<br />

when the slack is increased from 0 to 3.0 inches<br />

but as the slack is increased, the face is more likely<br />

to be directly impacted versus the forehead/skull.<br />

With modest pretightening of the shoulder belt<br />

4G-50lb, the head impact speed drops to 7.8 mph<br />

and the head contact point moves even further<br />

away from the face.<br />

r The driver obtains all the same benefits of modest<br />

pretightening ofthe belt as the passenger, plus the<br />

benefit that the severity of his head impact with<br />

the steering wheel significantly reduced.<br />

r These results indicate clearly the immediate need<br />

for either air bags or energy absorbing steering<br />

wheel treatments for drivers of all three-point belt<br />

equipped cars to protect the face during impacts as<br />

many of the works referenced herein have pointed<br />

out before.


The Emergency<br />

Locking Retractor<br />

Reconsidered<br />

ELRts as crash sensors<br />

Over the past twenty years intense efforts have gone into<br />

the analysis of air bag crash sensors. Such efforts have<br />

routinely included many non-standard tests to determine the<br />

sensitivity of the sensor to initiate reliably in a wide variety<br />

of crash modes. At least in the public arena there has been no<br />

reponed comparably intense analysis designed to determine<br />

the limits of reliable operation and failure modes of the<br />

emergency locking retractor. As mentioned above there has<br />

been some discussion (4,6,23,24) about the possibilities for<br />

the ELR to not lock in certain circum$tances. but when these<br />

types of situations have reached the public discussion stage<br />

(41,42), the resolution involved rhe rarionale that possible<br />

failure to lock or delayed lock would only occur in a few<br />

isolated instances. Such a rationale has neverbeen accepted<br />

in the development and evaluation of air bag crash sensors.<br />

Based even on the limited public record, it seems<br />

warranted to initiate programs to evaluate the reliability of<br />

various ELR designs to lock reliably. The first area to<br />

consider is the rollover mode where there are multiple<br />

impacts from many different directions on the vehicle<br />

chassis, where the occupant motion is probably not in phase<br />

with these vehicle dynamics, and where the ELR<br />

requirement to maintain its locked position-that the<br />

occupant maintain constant tension on the webbing-is<br />

likely to be violated a number of times during the impact. A<br />

dynamic version of the FMVSS 301 rollover test in which a<br />

balanced body buck with a three-point belted occupant is<br />

rotated at a speed of, for instance, one revolution per second<br />

for a sustained period of time would be a reasonable staning<br />

point. Funher investigative steps should include preimpact<br />

shake dynamics to simulate rough ground or partial fall<br />

conditions just prior to impact.<br />

Design Concepts Growing Out of This<br />

Study<br />

Rethinking the Tension Relief Device<br />

r The present design of the TRD is unsatisfactory<br />

because, even within its prescribed operation<br />

envelope, it introduces slack which can be<br />

hazardous in oblique impacts, and it routinely<br />

introduces even more than the recommended<br />

amount. The root of the problem isthat the present<br />

TRD is a negative option devirc as shown in<br />

Figure 29a, and gives the wearer the above<br />

described amounts of slack whether or not he<br />

wants it, knows what to do with it. or knows the<br />

biomechanical implications of it. There are better<br />

alternatives as discussed below.<br />

r Although the European approach to safety belt<br />

performance effectively precludes the TRD<br />

I<br />

E<br />

J<br />

o<br />

l<br />

.E<br />

s<br />

!<br />

l<br />

I<br />

o<br />

I<br />

E<br />

l<br />

o<br />

l<br />

E<br />

t<br />

!<br />

)<br />

o<br />

T<br />

o<br />

J<br />

O<br />

E<br />

tr<br />

Posrtrve actron, e.S" Ou5hing button,<br />

setE on€ the controlted slock, bst<br />

only Ffoh ofrgindl bett-on posilon.<br />

AAy for{o/d notton beyond<br />

E In. rf5ati bstt to Enug,<br />

TRn connot be ret *ben leq^hg<br />

lo.wq.d. fhere ls oniy one TRD<br />

setthg per belt *eo.Lhg.<br />

B<br />

---f--<br />

l<br />

I<br />

;<br />

6<br />

j<br />

t : l<br />

t t<br />

Figure$ 29s-29b: Operatlonal comparison of present TRD<br />

wlndowshada with controlled elack zone device.-<br />

device, $ome type of slack eliminator with a<br />

strictly controlled limit to the amount of slack<br />

possible might be indicated for obese persons and<br />

other "special conditions." However, based on<br />

the European experience with comfort designs<br />

and wearing rates, and the industry'$ own<br />

assessment of the impact of the TRD on usage<br />

rates, it appears unnecessary to expose all users to<br />

the downside risks associated wilh the pre$ent<br />

operational characteristics of these devices. Thus,<br />

the windowshade should be sold only as an option<br />

for special cases and only in a highly modified<br />

form.<br />

An all new concept is shown in Figure 29b.<br />

Comparing with the present negative option<br />

device in Figure 29a, the new concept is a positive<br />

option device that will only introduce a strictly<br />

controlled amount of slack (one inch or less as<br />

indicated by the results of this study) and only sets<br />

one "comfort zone" per belt application. Such a<br />

device would appropriately be called a<br />

"Controlled<br />

Tension Zone Device (CTZ)." This<br />

concept eliminates the grossly excessive slack<br />

that the TRD can introduce, and restores the best<br />

functional attributes of the ELR, that of keeping<br />

the belt strap near the che$t. One concept is to<br />

have a positive action "push button" or some<br />

other actuator available to the occupant to only<br />

439


introduce the controlled zone slack ifthe occupant<br />

actually feels enough discomfort to positively<br />

take action. Otherwise the ELR works as normal.<br />

Another version of the concept is that the forward<br />

motion of the shoulder, much like the present<br />

TRD, would set the one time limited slack into the<br />

CTZ, but if there was any forward motion at all<br />

beyond the stop, the device would reset the<br />

webbing to snug.<br />

Pretighteners vs. Pretensioners vs,<br />

Positive Locking Devices-a Proposed<br />

Definition<br />

The results of this study confirmed the many benefits<br />

reported elsewhere ofpretightening a belt in the early stages<br />

of a crash event. Although it would at first seem to be a<br />

solution to the TRD slack problem to install such<br />

pretensioners in conjunction with the TRD, special<br />

considerations are in order. Pretensioners (ala Daimler-<br />

Benz) are not indicated for use with TRD belts because the<br />

relatively high pretensioning force (300-400 lbs) could<br />

snap the belt tight from a slack position creating a dangerous<br />

cabling action. An alternative to the high level pretensioners<br />

is one suggested by this study, that of a pretightener capable<br />

of modest tension in the 4f50 lb range.<br />

When considering these more modest levels of<br />

pretightening many new possibilities open up for improving<br />

the safety performance and reliability of typical three-point<br />

belt designs. This modest pretightening should accomplish<br />

the same positive locking task discussed above (in which<br />

damping was used) to prevent intermittent locking and<br />

unlocking of the retractor spool. With the pretightening<br />

forces low, pre-impact anticipatory initiation can be<br />

considered in which the belts would tighten and positively<br />

lock during emergency braking, tripping actions, rolling<br />

motions, etc. Because the pretightening forces are low, and<br />

thus the energy requirements are low, the units can be<br />

designed to be easily resetable by the user in either the<br />

preimpact, or impact initiation scenario. The initiation<br />

sensing mechanism of the pretightener can take consider*<br />

able advantage from the extensive pool of analysis<br />

techniques developed for air bag crash sensing and other<br />

shock type sensing tasks.<br />

In short, an easily resetable pretightener/positive locking<br />

device can be triggered which would:<br />

r Eliminate the slack from tension eliminators and<br />

other causes. In the process of eliminating this<br />

slack, the easily resettable pretightener will<br />

position the torso strap properly on the shoulder<br />

which was shown in this study to be critical to the<br />

safety performance of the three-point belt'<br />

r Positively lock (damp) the ELR retractor and<br />

prevent unlocking and reel-out during multiple<br />

impacts and rollovers.<br />

r A continually renewable energy source would<br />

recharge the pretightening device while the<br />

vehicle is in normal use, examples:<br />

Normal occupant movements of putting on and<br />

wearing the belt could store energy in springs for<br />

the pretightener function.<br />

Electrical energy from the vehicle could be used<br />

at low rates to recharge the pretightener energy<br />

source.<br />

r Alternatively, for higher set crash levels of<br />

initiation, but yet lower than the damage point of<br />

the retractor hardware, easily serviced replaceable<br />

energy sources are a possibilitY.<br />

r The attractiveness of these concepts are that they<br />

can be incorporated in an incremental fashion and<br />

each one will improve the performance of the<br />

present TRD belt system. A coordinated program<br />

to incorporate these measures as a system will, of<br />

course, lead to the optimal pay-off.<br />

Conclusion<br />

The present design of the TRD windowshade is<br />

hazardous in a number of ways and urgently needs<br />

rethinking in order to conform to the original safety goals of<br />

the three-point belt patent. To the extent that tension<br />

elimination devices will continue to be sold to the general<br />

public, major redesigns are necessary to meet these goals.<br />

Some concepts are presented here, based on considerable<br />

first-hand analysis experience, which would go a long way<br />

towards meeting these goals. Additionally, the types of<br />

concepts, designs and devices which will improve the<br />

tension elimination/reduction devices will, in most<br />

circumstances, greatly improve the performance and<br />

reliability of other three-point belt hardware components<br />

such as the emergency locking retractor.<br />

References<br />

(l) Sverige Patent227 568, "Siikerbetssele<br />

vid fordon,"<br />

Uppfinnare; N.I. Bohlin, AB Volvo, G0tenborg, Patenttid<br />

Frfln Den 29 Augusti 1958.<br />

'(2) "Safety<br />

United States Patent 3,043,625, Belt," Nils<br />

Ivar Bohlin, Gdteborg, Sweden, assignor to Aktiebolaget<br />

Volvo, Gciteborg, Sweden, filed August 17, 1959, Serial No'<br />

834,258.<br />

(3) German Patent No. 1101987, (Award presented as<br />

Most Important Patent No. 8) "Safety Belt for Vehicles,"<br />

Nils Ivar Bohlin, Giiteborg, Sweden, patented from August<br />

?4, 1959 on.<br />

(4) Bohlin, N.1., "Refinements of Restraint System<br />

Design-A Primary Contribution to Seat Belt Effectiveness<br />

in Sweden," Proceedings, <strong>Int</strong>ernational Symposium on<br />

Occupant Restraint, American Association for Automotive<br />

Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June l-3, 198 I.<br />

(5) Johannessen, H. George, "Historical Perspective on<br />

Seat Belt Restraint Systems," SAE Paper 840392,<br />

<strong>Int</strong>ernational Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan,<br />

February 27-March 2, 1984, pp.217-225.


(6) MacKay, G.M., P.F. Gloyns, H.R.M. Hayes and D.K.<br />

Criffiths, "Europcan Vehicle Safety Standards and Their<br />

Effectiveness," University of Birmingham, U.K., Proceedings,<br />

4th <strong>Int</strong>emational Congress on Automotive Safety,<br />

NHTSA, Washington, D.C., July, 1975, pp. 431454.<br />

(7) Bohlin, N.L, "Srudies of Three-Poinr Restrainr<br />

Hamess Systems in Full Scale Barrier and Sled Runs," AB<br />

Volvo, Giiteborg, Sweden, 8th Stapp Car Crash and Field<br />

Demonstration <strong>Conf</strong>erence, Wayne State University,<br />

Detroit, Michigan, October, 2l-2?, 196/..<br />

(8) Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 251, Monday,<br />

December 31, 1979,49 CFR Part 571, (Docket No.7zl-14:<br />

Notice l7), "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards:<br />

Improvement of Seat Belt Assemblies."<br />

(9) Ford Motor Company, Reply to DocketT4-14; Notice<br />

17, NPRM, Letter to Joan Claybrook, Adminisrraror,<br />

NHTSA, April I, 1980.<br />

(10) Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associarion, Reply to<br />

Docket 74-14, NPRM, Letter ro Joan Claybrook,<br />

Administrator, NHTSA, April l, 1980.<br />

(ll) Chrysler Corporation, Reply ro Docket 74-14,<br />

NPRM, Letter to Joan Claybrook, Administrator, NHTSA,<br />

March 28. 1980.<br />

(12) General Motors Corporarion, Reply to Docket 74-<br />

14, NPRM, Letter to Joan Claybrook, Administrator,<br />

NHTSA, April l, 1980.<br />

(13) Danner, M., K. Langwieder, and Th. Hummel,<br />

"The<br />

Effect of Restraint Systems and Possibilities of Furure<br />

Improvements Derived from Real-Life Accidents," SAE<br />

Paper 840394, Society of Auromotive Engineers,<br />

Warrendale, PA, 1984.<br />

(14) Kendall, D.L., M. Fowkes, I. Gazeley, and C.M.<br />

Haslegrave, "Comfort<br />

and Convenience of Safety Belts in<br />

Everyday Use," Report No. l98l/2, The Moror Indusrry<br />

Research Association, Warwickshire, England.<br />

(15) Personal Comrnunicarion with N.I. Bohlin.<br />

(16) Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 243, Thursday,<br />

December 16, 1976,49 CFR Part 571, (Docket No. 7zt-14:<br />

Notice 7), "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."<br />

(17) Moffan, Charles, A., Edward A. Moffatt. and Ted R.<br />

Weiman,<br />

"Diagnosis of Seat Belt Usage in Accidents,"<br />

SAE Paper 840396, Warrendale, PA 15096.<br />

(18) Bedard, P., "Slack Thinking in Detroit," Car and<br />

Driver, Vol.32, No. 12, June 1987, pp. 190-191.<br />

(19) Henderson, C., "Comfort and Convenience<br />

Improvements to Increase Safety Bett Utilization," SAE<br />

Paper 770187, <strong>Int</strong>ernfltional Automotive Engineering<br />

Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 28-<br />

March 4. 1977.<br />

(20) Grimm, A.C., "<strong>Int</strong>ernational<br />

Restraint Use Laws."<br />

University of Michigan, UMTRI, Research Review, Vol.<br />

18, No.4, Jan.-Feb. 1988.<br />

(21) Mitzkus, J.E. and H. Eyrainer,<br />

--Three-Poinr<br />

Belr<br />

Improvements for Increased Occupant Protection," SAE<br />

Paper 840395, Society of Automotive Engineers,<br />

Warrendale. PA. 1984.<br />

(22) Grtisch, L., H. Kaiser, and W. Schmid,<br />

"Mathematical<br />

Movement and Load Simulation for<br />

Persons Involved in an Automobile Accident," SAE Paper<br />

871 109, Governmentflndustry Meeting and Exposition,<br />

Washington, DC, May l8-21, 1987.<br />

(23) United States Parent 3,825,205,<br />

"Moror<br />

Vehicle<br />

Safety Devices," T. Takada, Takata Kojyo Co. Ltd., filed<br />

June 8. 1972.<br />

(24) United States Patent 3,87l,47O,<br />

"Safety Belt<br />

Tensioning Device," Schwanz et al., Volkswagenwerk<br />

Aktiengesellschafr, fi led October 21, 1972.<br />

(25) United States Patent 3,871,683,<br />

"Vehicle<br />

Safety Belt<br />

Tightener," S. Otani, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., filed<br />

January 23, 1974.<br />

(26) United States Patent 3,929,2O3,<br />

"Mounting<br />

Device<br />

for Shoulder Harness Type Safety Belt," Y. Nagazumi,<br />

Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., filed January 17, 1974.<br />

(27) Ciccone, Michael A. and JoAnn K. Wells,<br />

"Improper<br />

Shoulder Belt Use by Maryland Drivers,"<br />

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Washington, DC,<br />

June 1987.<br />

(28) Emshwiller, J. R., "Seat-Belt<br />

Slack: Comfort Device<br />

in U.S. Car Raises Safety Concern," The Wall Street<br />

Journal, July 31, 1987.<br />

(29) Aldman, Bertil and Arne Asberg, "Impact<br />

Amplification in European Compacts," Laboratory for<br />

Traffic Medicine, Swedish Council on Road Safety<br />

Research, SAE Paper 680790, Society of Auromotive<br />

Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1968.<br />

(30) Stapp, J.P., "Human Exposure ro Linear<br />

Deceleration," Parts I arrd 2, AF Technical Report 5915,<br />

I 949-19s l.<br />

(31) Monis, J.8., "Seat Belt Performance in 30 MpH<br />

Barrier Impacts," U.S. Department of Transportation,<br />

NHTSA, Report No. DOT HS-802 480, April 27, t977,<br />

National Technical Information Service, Accession No.<br />

PB-269 962.<br />

(32) Reichert, J.K. and T.J. Bowden, "A Study to<br />

Determine the Quantitative Effects of Seat Belt Slack,"<br />

DCIEM Report No. 8fR-64, Prepared for Deparrment of<br />

Transport Canada, Defence and Civil Institute of<br />

Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, November<br />

1980.<br />

(33) Horsch, J.D., "Occupant<br />

Dynamics as a Function of<br />

Impact Angle and Belt Restraint," General Motors<br />

Research Lab., SAE Paper 801310, Society of Auromorive<br />

Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1980.<br />

(34) Backaitis, S.H., L. Delarm, and D.H. Robbins,<br />

"Occupant<br />

Kinematics in Motor Vehicle Crashes," SAE<br />

Paper 820247, Society of Automotive Engineers,<br />

Wanendale, PA. 1982.<br />

(35) Rattenbury, $.J., P.F. Golyns, H.R.M. Hayes, D.K.<br />

Griffiths, "The Biomechanical Limits of Seat Belt<br />

Protection," Proceedings, American Association for<br />

Automotive Medicine, Louisville, KY, October 34, 1919.<br />

(36) Shanks, J.E. and A.L. Thompson,<br />

"Injury<br />

Mechanisms to Fully Restrained Occupants," McGill<br />

MI


University, Montreal, SAE Paper 791003, Society of Automotive<br />

Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1979.<br />

(37) Niedener, P., F. Waltz, and U. Zollinger, "Adverse<br />

Effects of Seat Belts and Causes of Belt Failures in Severe<br />

Car Accidents in Switzerland During 1976," Twenty-First<br />

Stapp Car Crash <strong>Conf</strong>erence, SAE Paper 770916, Society of<br />

Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 197'7.<br />

(38) Culvea Clyde C., and David C. Viano, "Influences<br />

of Lateral Restraint on Occupant <strong>Int</strong>eraction With a Shoulder<br />

Belt or Preinflated Air Bag in Oblique Impacts*," SAE<br />

Paper 810370, <strong>Int</strong>emational Congress and Exposition, Detroit,<br />

Michigan, February, 1981.<br />

(39) Dance, M. and B. Enserink,<br />

"Safety Performance<br />

Evaluation of Seat Belt Retractor$, SAE" Paper 790680,<br />

Passenger Car Meeting, Dearbom, MI, June I l-15, 1979.<br />

(40) 49 CFR, Ch. V (10-l-86 Edition), National Highway<br />

Safety Traffic Administration, DOT.<br />

(41) CIR 1419, 1436, U.S. Department of Transportation,<br />

NHTSA, t976*r977.<br />

(42) CIR 1424, U.S. Department of Transportation,<br />

NHTSA, 1970-75.<br />

(43) Esser, R.C., "Restraint Model Validation Tests<br />

(Phase l)," Report No. SRL-51, U.S. DOT/NHTSA, Vehicle<br />

Research and Test Center, February 1983.<br />

(44) "NHTSA To Check Showrooms To See If Belts Are<br />

Attached," IIHS Status Report, Vol. 24, No. 4, April 2?'<br />

1989.<br />

Investigation of Fire in Cars<br />

Written Only Paper<br />

Eva Johansson,<br />

Saab Car Division<br />

Abstract<br />

With the purpose to test how an engine compartment fire<br />

develops toxic gases and fire in the passenger compartment<br />

five full-scale tests have been performed by Saab Car Division<br />

together with the National Testing Institute of Sweden'<br />

This is a description of the test method, performed tests<br />

and the conclusions from the tests.<br />

The firewall was videorecorded during the tests to see<br />

where, when and how the fire passed though the wall into<br />

the passenger compartment.<br />

A heat sensing camera and thermocouples attached to the<br />

bulkhead were used to measure the differences in temperature<br />

during the tests.<br />

To achieve data about the smoke CO and CO2 concentrations<br />

were sampled during the test.<br />

The conclusion is that this method is useful for testing the<br />

fire spread through the bulkhead and the development of<br />

toxic gases in the passenger compartment.<br />

The materials that are used to seal around the passages for<br />

electrical wiring, flexible tubings etc. are extremely important<br />

for the fire spread in cars.<br />

442<br />

(45) Biss, D.J., "Safety Performance Evaluation of Slack<br />

Effects in Three-Point Belts Using the Hybrid III Dummy in<br />

Frontal and Frontal Oblique Sled Tests," Presented at the<br />

l6th Annual <strong>Int</strong>emational Workshop on Human Subjects<br />

for Biomechanical Research, Atlanta, Georgia, October 16,<br />

1988.<br />

(46) TaniEre, C., D. Lestrelin, G' Walfisch, and A. Fayon,<br />

"The<br />

Proper Use of HIC Under Different Typical Collision<br />

Environments,<br />

"<br />

Ninth <strong>Int</strong>emational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence<br />

on Experimental Safety Vehicles, U.S. Department of<br />

Transportation, NHTSA, Kyoto, Japan, November l-4,<br />

1982, pp. 321-336.<br />

(47) Grtisch, L, et al., "New Measurement Methods to<br />

Assess the Improved Protection of Airbag Systems," Daimler-Benz<br />

AG, 30th Annual Proceedings, American Association<br />

for Automotive Medicine, October 6-8, 1986, Montreal,<br />

Quehec.<br />

(48) Romeo, D., and R.C. Esser,<br />

"Airbag Demonstration<br />

Program (<strong>Volume</strong> I)," Report No. RD 583-2, U.S' DOT/<br />

NHTSA, Vehicle Research and Test Center, January 1984.<br />

(49) Gloyns, P.F., S.J. Rattenbury, A.Z. Rivlin, et al.'<br />

"steering<br />

Wheel Induced Head and Facial lnjuries<br />

Amongst Drivers Restrained by Seat Belts," Accident Research<br />

Unit, University of Birmingham, U.K., VIth, <strong>Int</strong>ernational<br />

IRCOBI <strong>Conf</strong>erence on The Biomechanics of Impacts,<br />

Salon de Provence, France, September 8,9,10, l98l'<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

Fire is something that man has leamt to use for different<br />

purposes. But we are well aware of the risks if the fire gets<br />

out of control. Statistics about deaths caused by fire in<br />

Sweden during 1986 shows a total number of 105 deaths of<br />

these fires most of them were caused by fires in houses and<br />

only four of them were fires in cars. Although fire in cars is<br />

not so common it is very important to investigate this<br />

question to avoid unnecessary risks.<br />

To start a fire you need three things heat, oxygen and a<br />

material that can bum.<br />

There are many hot areas in a car, exhaust systems with<br />

catalytic converter, engine parts etc. Flammable materials<br />

and flammable liquids, fuel and different oils are also<br />

available. All around there is oxygen in the air, so all the<br />

necessary ingredients to get a fire started are available in a<br />

car, primarily in the engine comPartment.<br />

A fire consists of three different phases flammability<br />

phase, burning phase and the last phase when all the<br />

flammable material is burnt and the fire ceases (see figure<br />

l).<br />

The important thing in the flammability phase is to<br />

increase the time before ignition. This could be done in two<br />

ways, either you can choose different materials that are<br />

difficult to ignite or you can add different chemicals to


Flgure 1. The dltferent phases<br />

In a flre,<br />

d.veloped fire<br />

plastics but unfortunately most of these chemicals also<br />

increase the toxicity of the smoke.<br />

In the second phase, the burning phase the temperature i$<br />

so high that all organic materials bum. Then the important<br />

thing is to prevent or at least delay the time for fire spread<br />

into the passenger compartment. For that a car body is<br />

needed, especially bulkhead and floor, that is designed to do<br />

so.<br />

The test method used as described below is aimed for<br />

studying the second phase in a car fire.<br />

Test method<br />

The tests were conducted at the Swedish National Tbsting<br />

Institute in Boras. In a big hall ( l8 X 34 m) called fire church<br />

it is possible to perform full scale fire tests indoors. The<br />

reason for this is that parameters such as wind and<br />

temperature can be eliminated. Before testing the vehicle<br />

was prepared and instrumented as follows.<br />

Preparation of the Yehicle<br />

l. The car body was cut off just behind the B-pillars.<br />

2. The front ofthe car body was supported at the rear end<br />

to get an horizontal floor.<br />

3. A board of 20 mm thick plastic glass was mounted at<br />

the back to allow sampling of CO and CO, concentrations in<br />

a closed passenger compartment.<br />

4. The front seats, most of the instrument panel and the<br />

carpets were removed for full vision of the passages in the<br />

bulkhead.<br />

5. The engine compartment was left in running order with<br />

all equipment in$talled, including liquids. The engine was<br />

not running before or during the test.<br />

Trm<br />

6. The length of the fuelpipes wa$ increased and the pipes<br />

were bent up along the side structure and filled with fuel to<br />

get some pressure in the system.<br />

Instrumentation<br />

l. Thermocouples were attached close to all the different<br />

pa$sages<br />

through the bulkhead and in the motor compartment.<br />

In each test about twenty thermocouples were used.<br />

2. Concentration of CO and CO, in the smoke was sampled<br />

inside the vehicle where the drivers head would have<br />

been located.<br />

Other test equipment<br />

L Videocamera to record the bulkhead area during the<br />

test.<br />

2. Heat sensing camera as a complement to the thermocouples<br />

to see the temperature distribution of the bulkhead.<br />

3. Cameras to take pictures of special events.<br />

4. A digital timer.<br />

Description of the test<br />

r Four small cubes (dimension 50 X 50 X 50 mm)<br />

filled with 200 ml heptan (in each cube) was placed just<br />

in front of the bulkhead in the same height as the floor,<br />

two on the left hand side and two on the right hand side<br />

(see Fig. 3). The reason to ignite there is to test the<br />

worst case. If the fire start$ in the front this would<br />

increase the time for the fire to enter the pa$senger<br />

compartment.<br />

r The cubes with heptan were ignited and the hood<br />

was closed.<br />

r During the test the bulkhead was recorded with a<br />

videocamera, a heatsensing lR-camera,* temperatures<br />

were measured and the firesmoke sampled.<br />

r When the passenger compartment was filled with<br />

smoke the plastic glass at the rear was removed.<br />

r The test continued until the fire entered the passenger<br />

compartment. Then the fire was extinguished.<br />

*IR = the camera works with infrared technology.<br />

Flgure 2. The car aftor preparailon. Flgure 3. lgnltlon at polnt 1 and 2.


Performed tests<br />

Altogether five tests were perfbrmed. Three of them with<br />

Saab 9000 and two with Saab 900. The following is a<br />

description of the differences in the tests and the results'<br />

Test No. l-Saab 9000<br />

As a special investigation the fuelpipes (normally metal)<br />

were changed to plastic pipes in this test. The reason for this<br />

was to see whether the fire followed the pipes backwards<br />

under the floor to the fuel tank. The ventilation fan was not<br />

running.<br />

The temperatures close to all passengers and in the engine<br />

compartment was measured.<br />

Results:<br />

The temperatures on the bulkhead was about 20G-300"C<br />

when the seals around the passages staned to melt away'<br />

The concentrations of CO and CO2 increased slowly according<br />

to figure 4 and 5.<br />

slEffia<br />

I(OLOXIDI(OISENTRATIff{<br />

zsn<br />

TPPIT]<br />

- e s e { B<br />

rilfoflil<br />

Flgure 4. CO concentratlon.<br />

5 AB Cmg 8790t7<br />

r(otDlo)irH(or.cEt{TFAufti tPHrl<br />

69ffi<br />

- 2 8 2 '<br />

Flgure 5. CO" concantratlon.<br />

444<br />

l?<br />

t4<br />

ta t{<br />

tht|PEnlflf, cc)<br />

rEtfER nn (c)<br />

ffi.e<br />

$ArE ffiV Bli<br />

6.s l0,o<br />

TID (lfil{}<br />

EAAB @EDII EIE<br />

rrD fl{s{)<br />

$lr| ffif,tfV Bl8<br />

TtD fl{D{)<br />

rE.e<br />

rE.e


Er?ERAnn (c) tAtt ffi+f,f,Y EtB<br />

TErfEtAnn (G) lAll ffifff EIE<br />

s.s 6.e le .8<br />

TD (l0l)<br />

FIgure 6. Temperaturcr mcsrursd st the bulkhead.<br />

Special observations after ignition (minutes;seconds);<br />

8:fiF-Smoke started to enter the passenger compartment.<br />

In this test the ventilation fan was not running.<br />

A question rose, would there have been<br />

more smoke earlier in the passenger compartment<br />

if the ventilation fan had been running?<br />

8:45-Seals around passages started to melt. Flames in<br />

the engine compartment were visible through the<br />

bulkhead.<br />

l0:05-Fire entered the passenger compartment.<br />

l2:20-The test was stopped and the frre extinguished.<br />

The fuelpipes in the engine companment were bumt to<br />

the point where they were bent in under the floor.<br />

Test No.2*--Saab 900<br />

The ventilation fan was not running. The temperatures<br />

close to all passages and in the engine compartment were<br />

measured.<br />

Test results:<br />

The temperatures on the bulkhead ranged from 50"C up to<br />

325" C. The lowest temperature was measured in the area<br />

where the bulkhead is made of two metal sheets attached to<br />

each other. The air between the metal sheets works as an<br />

insulation.<br />

Smoke started to enter the passenger compartment earlier<br />

in this test. The concentration of CO and COr were higher in<br />

this test according to figure 7 and 8.<br />

(The toxicity of the smoke is a difficult area. The time to<br />

get hurt by it depends on different parameters for instance,<br />

how fast you breathe, the size of the person, an adult can<br />

manage more, etc.)<br />

Special observations after ignition (minutes:seconds):<br />

Z;fi)'--Smoke started to enter the passenger compartment.<br />

6:(XI--Some seals around passages melted and we could<br />

see flames in the engine compartment through<br />

the bulkhead.<br />

8: l4-Flames entered the passenger compartment.<br />

l0:5fThe test was stopped and the fire extinguished.<br />

ff13*iffi*"r*t*^rrm tP'nl<br />

Flgure 7. CO concentratlon.<br />

SAAB ggg<br />

KOLDIOXTH(O}ICEHTRATT(}{ EPFIIl<br />

- 2 9 2 . 1<br />

Flgurc 8. COz concentratlon.<br />

11<br />

ll<br />

n ,l<br />

r<br />

A<br />

t MJ<br />

tg<br />

I<br />

Il<br />

V<br />

\<br />

t2<br />

t,t<br />

445


IEI?ERANN C$T iAAD F+NOY fi!<br />

IEIfENANN CG)<br />

TD flrDll<br />

r8.0<br />

8 rt gHnfi' &t<br />

e.o 6.8<br />

r0.8 tE.t<br />

TD 00{}<br />

Test No.3-Saab 90fi|<br />

In this test the fire was ignited in a different way. The<br />

Saab 9000 is constructed with a "box" in front of the bulkhead<br />

(see figure l0). In this test only one cube filled with<br />

100 ml heptan was used and placed in the center and at the<br />

bottom of "the box " (see figure I 0). The purpose was to test<br />

the innerwall of the "the box"<br />

The ventilation fan was not running. The temperatures<br />

close to all passages and in the engine compartment was<br />

measures as in test no; l.<br />

Test results:<br />

The fire spread into the engine compartment earlier than<br />

into the passenger compartment. The fire spread into the<br />

passenger compartment 2-3 minutes faster than in test no: I<br />

(Saab 9000, ventilation fan not running). Temperatures and<br />

concentrations of CO and COr during the test according to<br />

figure ll and 12.<br />

Special observations after ignition (minutes;seconds);<br />

5;00-The fire entered the engine companment.<br />

446<br />

TETfER^IIR CC) $Arc ffif,olr Et<br />

gn.<br />

8.0 6.e 18.8<br />

TID CIIDO<br />

Flgure 9. Temperatures at lhe bulkhesd.<br />

Flgure 10. "Box" ln the lront of the bulkhead Saab 9000. lgnl.<br />

tlon at polnt l.<br />

7:26-The fire entered the passenger compartment.<br />

9:00-The temperatures on the bulkhead are 100-<br />

150"c.<br />

l0;45-The te$t was stopped and the fire extinguished.<br />

Test No.4-Saab 9000<br />

This test was exactly the same as test no: I except for one


I(OLOXIDXOHCEHTFATIfl{ TPHT] sAlE s99 - 83 rEnPE*rnn rcf,|o cl stl! sc<br />

eSss<br />

eE6S<br />

I E6S<br />

IBBP'<br />

sg9<br />

4 3 6<br />

nMEUtN)<br />

Flgure 1 1. CO concentrstlon.<br />

XOLOIOXIDKONCENTRATTON<br />

IPPH] SAAB SS0S B3<br />

I essg<br />

I BEE6<br />

a66B<br />

6EEE<br />

4gog<br />

2006<br />

s<br />

Figure 1?. CO? concentrEtlon.<br />

IE|fENITLR tCN^O CJ 6A t tfll - lfiov lit<br />

56s<br />

eEc<br />

250<br />

t5t<br />

tee<br />

so<br />

e<br />

't*l-,-1<br />

ffi<br />

'i l\<br />

,/,-*<br />

I<br />

A<br />

*/1"J !<br />

te t5<br />

TtD EnD{r<br />

t5<br />

rID [HIN]<br />

ftl<br />

h t<br />

D 1<br />

s<br />

e6a<br />

fl<br />

l5r<br />

ls<br />

6a<br />

e<br />

TE|fER^Itft TGfi^O CJ<br />

rHe<br />

ffi<br />

leG<br />

,|e6<br />

fl<br />

ist<br />

e<br />

6ae<br />

{le<br />

43S<br />

c<br />

sAA! Sa - 811<br />

6<br />

SA/IE ffi<br />

TEIfERAITJfi TEF^D C] 5lA6 ffie<br />

lss<br />

t<br />

- llt<br />

re<br />

./i<br />

A ,fq<br />

+r<br />

! i<br />

/ r"i<br />

r.' | | r14<br />

I<br />

) \ -<br />

Flgure 13. Temprratured<br />

at the bulkhead.<br />

I<br />

/l/\<br />

I u<br />

T<br />

--/^ i!::--'-<br />

i<br />

t5<br />

rID EITII{]<br />

rrp tnitxl<br />

TrD l|uf{l<br />

t6<br />

h l<br />

lra<br />

rra<br />

h t<br />

to ll<br />

tc l?<br />

Tr ll<br />

ft la<br />

lu 15<br />

fr 16<br />

tc l{<br />

Tr 19


KOLOXIPXOTIGEHTRATI't{ CPHIT SAAB ST6 - PROV 84<br />

e500<br />

3ffi9<br />

r60s<br />

tsso<br />

540<br />

o<br />

Flgure 14. CO concentratlon.<br />

KOLDIOXIDXOHCEHIRATT(I{ TPFI{]<br />

eE66<br />

ts€6<br />

6<br />

Flgure 15. CO2 concenlratlon.<br />

TE}fEFAT(h EGEAD CJ SllE ffiO - Ffiry !,1<br />

o6d<br />

EE'<br />

,165<br />

t66<br />

zeo<br />

tee<br />

5<br />

448<br />

sAlB gggE - PROV 84<br />

TID (HINI<br />

h l<br />

lrl<br />

es<br />

sAlS afre - PHw F.<br />

rr, rE ao<br />

s^l! s€66 ' PFOV 84<br />

salB 9666 - PFOV F4<br />

rID [HIt{'<br />

s E t6 15 ea<br />

Flgure 16. Temperatures at the bulkhead.<br />

rID ETIIH]<br />

Ta5<br />

-,-.- .To I<br />

Tr9<br />

te l0<br />

To ll<br />

Tp l7<br />

fs la<br />

re 2d


parameter. The ventilation fan was running. The purpose of<br />

this was to investigate whether the concentration of CO and<br />

CO, increased and if fire spread eadier into the passenger<br />

compartment. The temperatures close to all passages and in<br />

the engine companment was measured as in test no: I.<br />

Flgure 17. GO concsntrstlon.<br />

XOLDIOXIDI(OHCEHIRATIOT.I<br />

TPPTI]<br />

| 2S€g<br />

Flgure 18. CO? concentrstlon.<br />

rE|fecAtr,* t6FAo cl<br />

5EE<br />

sAts5 Ffilry !5<br />

SAAA 9gS - PRov Bs<br />

saJlB s66<br />

ta lE<br />

PROV 85<br />

t5<br />

ITD T'dIH)<br />

TID TI{IN]<br />

TID IItINl<br />

trl<br />

tE<br />

?+2<br />

toJ<br />

S^AB DO6 - tsLov Bs<br />

SllBs - PRovBS<br />

ILFI,tP^TUR TBftrD c,I SAAB 9{TS _ PROY BS<br />

5AS<br />

u5s<br />

asq<br />

lsB<br />

t60<br />

sg<br />

g<br />

6 e te 16<br />

sAlB sB - PROV ES<br />

Flgure 19. TemBeratures at tha bufkherd.<br />

TID THIH]<br />

t2 t5<br />

IID IHIHI<br />

r5<br />

TIO THTN]<br />

-'--<br />

lo 6<br />

-.+ Tc t<br />

- -.- t{ |<br />

-- Ts I<br />

1c I0<br />

tr ll<br />

Iu t5


Test results:<br />

Compared to test no: I (Saab 90(X), ventilation fan not<br />

runrring) a small increase of CO and a large increase of the<br />

CO2 concentrations were measured according to figure 14<br />

and 15.<br />

The smoke entered the passenger compartment a little<br />

earlier than in test no:1.<br />

When comparing the temperatures from this test with<br />

those from test no: l, a delay for about 3 minutes was found.<br />

This delay was found also in the time for fire entering the<br />

passenger compartment. The shape of the temperature<br />

curves was almost identical with the ones from test no:l<br />

except for the delay.<br />

Main observations after ignition (minutes:seconds):<br />

l0:05-The wiring to the ventilation fan was short-circuited,<br />

the fan stopped.<br />

l3:25-Some seals around passages has melted away.<br />

The flames in the engine compartment were<br />

visible.<br />

I 3 :55-Fire entered the passenger compartment.<br />

l5:45-The test wa$ stopped and the fire extinguished.<br />

Test No.S-Saab 900<br />

This test was exactly the same as test no:2 except for one<br />

parameter. The ventilation fan was running. The purpose of<br />

this was to investigate whether the concentration of CO and<br />

CO2 increased and if fire spread earlier into the passenger<br />

compaftment. The temperatures close to all passages and in<br />

the engine compartment was measured as in test no:2.<br />

Test results:<br />

The temperatures measured in this test were almost identical<br />

with those from test no:2. Also the time when the fire<br />

entered the passenger compartment was almost exactly the<br />

same (minutes;seconds test no:1 time 8:14 and test no:5<br />

time 8:00).<br />

The concentrations of CO and CO2 did not increase compared<br />

with test no:2 (Saab 900 ventilation fan not running).<br />

Main observations after ignition (minutes:seconds):<br />

5;30-The wiring to the ventilation fan was short-circuited,<br />

the fan stopped.<br />

6:45-Some seals around passages had melted away.<br />

7:Z5-Flames were visible through the bulkhead.<br />

8:00-Fire entered the passenger compartment.<br />

l0:19-The test was stopped and the fire extinguished.<br />

Conclusions<br />

The repeatability of the test method is good.<br />

The test flethod is useful for testing firespread through<br />

the bulkhead and development of CO and CO2<br />

concentrations in the Passenger compartment.<br />

450<br />

HOTOFRUHSTEHPTRAIURENrffiaD Cl sAE SH6<br />

I oos<br />

6 6 l o 1 6 m<br />

TlD thll{l<br />

Flgure 20. Temperaturea In the englne compartment Sssb<br />

9000.<br />

e I s I te t6<br />

TIO IIIIH]<br />

Flgure 21. Temperatures In the engine compartment Saab 900.<br />

If and when the fire spreads into the passenger compartment<br />

the concentration of CO increases rapidly. The<br />

concentration is highest when the passenger compartment is<br />

completely closed.<br />

If the ventilation system continues to run when a fire is<br />

beginning in the engine compartment the amount of smoke<br />

in the passenger compartment increases.<br />

The bulkheads fire resistance could be increased by<br />

design. Important for the bulkhead fire resistance are the<br />

following design features:<br />

r Temperature insulation of the bulkhead, for<br />

instance two sheets of metal with an insulating material<br />

in between.<br />

r Seals used around passages for wires, flexible<br />

tubes etc. Use seals that are difficult to ignite.<br />

. Protect passage$ and holes from flames and heat.<br />

Locate them as low as possible, use glass fibre or<br />

metal-foil to reflect the heat.<br />

r Avoid large holes.<br />

. Keep the number of holes as low as possible.


The Effect of Restraint Design and Seat Position on the Crash Tlajectory of the<br />

Hybrid III Dummy<br />

Written Only Paper<br />

D G C Bacon.<br />

Motor Industry Research Association,<br />

Crash Protection Centre<br />

Ahstract<br />

In a series of HyGe sled tests on the Hybrid III dummy,<br />

the effects of seat belt and seat geometry on dummy trajectory<br />

were examined. A three dimensional spatial measurement<br />

system was used to evaluate the dummy behaviour<br />

alongside the standard instrumentation results.<br />

The first part of the test series compared dummy size and<br />

then went on to examine the effect of the influence of belt<br />

parameters. These included belt length, stiffness and effects<br />

of weblocks and pre-tensioners. An under$tanding was<br />

gained of the effects of these parameter changes and the<br />

degree to which a car with poor occupant protection performance<br />

in a crash may be improved without re-developing<br />

the vehicle structure. The second part assessed dummy behaviour<br />

when the seat was out of the standard position.<br />

These tests involved changing seat back angle, cushion<br />

angle and cushion friction. The results show the effect on<br />

injury levels of changes from the settings used in compliance<br />

testing. The results in this paper provide guidance to<br />

improved occupant protection through changes in restraint<br />

system design.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The aim of this Industry and Government sponsored<br />

project, coordinated by MIRA, was to develop a reliable<br />

method of determining the trajectory of a dummy in a crash<br />

situation and thus to provide vehicle manufacturers with a<br />

means of correlating dummy movement with variations in<br />

seat and belt parameters. Changes in crashworthiness<br />

performance could then be assessed more accurately by the<br />

techniques developed in this study.<br />

Initial studies of repeatability in measuring trajectory<br />

showed that variations were less than lOmm in the dummy<br />

movement up to a position where impact with a steering<br />

wheel would occur. Test conditions could be sufficiently<br />

controlled to enable the small effects of some parameter<br />

changes to be determined.<br />

The project was considered in four overlapping phases:<br />

A Literature Search.-Relevant papers to assist the<br />

test and analysis prograrnme.<br />

Development of a Spatial Measurement System.-<br />

This phase covered the adaptation of a proprietary but<br />

relatively undeveloped $patial tracking system to<br />

perform the task of recording the dummy trajectory in<br />

three dimensions. This included the writing of<br />

computer programs for analysing and presenting these<br />

trajectories.<br />

Test Series.-A programme of dynamic sled tests<br />

performed on the MIRA HyGe facility. Restraint<br />

$yrrtem parameters were varied and the effect<br />

determined on dummy trajectory and injury criteria. A<br />

total of about 50 tests were planned covering a matrix<br />

of test configurations.<br />

Analysis.-Instrumentation data from the dummies<br />

were analysed by the appropriate routines to generate<br />

the injury criteria. The trajectories were analysed for<br />

peak excursions, velocities and other characteristic<br />

dimensions.<br />

Changes in restraint sy$tem parameters were evaluated<br />

against the generated data and conclusions drawn about<br />

their effectiveness. The topics of Hybrid III repeatability,<br />

Hybird II/III comparison, seat belt anchorage locations and<br />

dummy submarining have been covered in another paper<br />

(l).* This paper presents part of the project work<br />

investigating the effect of dummy size, seat belt type and<br />

seat configuration on the crash trajectories.<br />

Development of a Spatial Measurement<br />

System<br />

One of the initial phases of the project wa$ to ascertain<br />

which of the available measuring systems would be suitable<br />

for data collection in a HyGe test environment. Three<br />

systems were evaluated at MIRA under test conditions and<br />

the selected system is described here.<br />

VICON is a three-dimensional measurement system<br />

using photogrammetric techniques, interfaced to a PDP-<br />

I 1fl3 computer system for data capture and presentation. A<br />

cine film digitisation $y$tem can also be interfaced with the<br />

analysis software. VICON records the po$ition of retroreflecting<br />

markers in the camera's field of view and the<br />

markers are illuminated by lights clo$e to the camera lens<br />

axis (figure l).<br />

rNumbers in puentheses designtrte rcfercnces f,t end of paper<br />

Flgure 1. Traloctory mof,sursmsnt $ystem.<br />

451


The standard system uses high stability, 625 line, 2:l<br />

interlaced TV cameras to produce 50 fields of data per<br />

second. Each camera in the system produces a wide band<br />

( l2 MHz) video signal, which contains over a quarter of a<br />

million pixels in each TV frame. The interface extracts the<br />

relevant co-ordinate information from the signals from each<br />

camera and passes it to the system computer.<br />

For the applications which require a higher sampling rate<br />

than 50 frames/second, high speed cameras are used. These<br />

cameras offer sampling rates of up to 200 Hz, and use a<br />

rotating shutter to freeze the movement.<br />

Any bright points in the picture are seen as shoft pulses in<br />

the video signal, typically of lfi) nanosecond duration' A<br />

Marker Detector module connected to each camera picks<br />

out these pulses and converts them to accurate, digital<br />

timing signals. A Co-ordinate Generator transforms the<br />

timing pulses into crystal controlled counts of the position<br />

of each point resolving the horizontal position to l;1Ofi) and<br />

the vertical position to l;3fi) at 60 Hz. For 2fi) Hz frame<br />

rates the horizontal resolution is l:400.<br />

These data are transferred via FIFO buffers onto<br />

computer disc together with any other data that may have<br />

been recorded at the same time. The resulting disc file is<br />

limited only by disc capacity and may run to several million<br />

co-ordinates.<br />

Once the data capture is complete, the software begins to<br />

process this vast amount of data. First, a data reduction<br />

algorithm calculates the centroid of each marker to provide<br />

a file of co-ordinates representing the position of each<br />

marker in each TV frame. Next, the data is sorted<br />

interactively, labelling every marker in every frame for all<br />

the cameras. Sorting algorithms aid this process, tracking<br />

the markers through the data field under the operator's<br />

control. This produces a two-dimensional trajectory file.<br />

Finally, a three-dimensional mathematical model of the<br />

motion is created from the two-dimensional trajectory file<br />

using the principles of close range photogrammetry and<br />

camera parameter calibration.<br />

Structured programming techniques have been used to<br />

provide a modular system of over 20 separate programs in<br />

an integrated set which runs under the host operating system<br />

with multi-user capability.<br />

The applications software package processes the threedimensional<br />

data available to give a wide range of graphical<br />

output.<br />

The following table gives the main specification$ of<br />

VICON $patial measurement sy$tem.<br />

Test Equipment and Procedure<br />

HyGe Test<br />

A rig was constructed to mount on the HyGe sled which<br />

was equipped with a right hand production seat. The seat<br />

itself had the runners removed and was bolted to a rigid<br />

bracket. Several brackets were manufactured to suit the<br />

different seat types and configurations required for the test<br />

programme.<br />

452<br />

Table 1. VICON Speclflcstlon<br />

Accuracy SD ; Zmm with 2m field of vlew<br />

Preclelon 5D ( Zmm with ?n fleld of view<br />

Sample Hate t00 Hz<br />

Number of Cameras 2 - 7<br />

Number of Matkers t-t0<br />

SD = Stenderd Deviation<br />

The acceleration pulse (figure ?) wari chosen to simulate a<br />

48 km/h (13.4 m/s, 30 mile/h) car impact. This provided<br />

representative test conditions which would have relevance<br />

to a range of vehicles. This pulse gave a sustained<br />

acceleration level of20-249 and delta-V in the region of52<br />

km/h (14.4 mls.32 mile/h).<br />

Flgure 2. llyGe eled pulse.<br />

Anthropometric Dummies<br />

Unless otherwise specified the Hybrid III (reference 2)<br />

50th percentile male dummy was used. The 5th percentile<br />

female dummy and the 95th percentile male dummy were<br />

used in two tests.<br />

Before each test series, the dummies were fully calibrated<br />

to part 572 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations in accordance<br />

with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. For each test the<br />

dummy was positioned as specified in Section l0 of this<br />

regulation. The position of the dummy was measured prior<br />

to the test. The dummies were also inspected after each run<br />

and the joint torques checked.<br />

Restraint Systems<br />

Anrhorag,es.-The initial anchorage positions used were<br />

based on the manufacturers' drawings of anchorage location<br />

relative to H-point. Variations were made from these


positions to determine an optimum restraint position. All<br />

seat belt anchorage positions were measured relative to the<br />

dummy H-point position as determined using a reference<br />

manikin. The standard seat belt position was as fitted in a<br />

production vehicle with the seat at mid position.<br />

Seat belts.-The standard production belts used for the<br />

tests were of lZVo elongation webbing and 3m in length<br />

(unless otherwise stated). The length of belt stored on the<br />

reel before each test was in the region of 625 mm.<br />

Seats<br />

Three types of seat were used for the tests. The two<br />

prinicpal models (Type A and Type B) were producrion<br />

seats supplied by vehicle manufacturers. The third was a<br />

leather covered version of Type A seat. This was used to<br />

investigate the effects of seat friction.<br />

For the standard configuration the seat$ were installed<br />

with the standard cushion angle as fitted in production and<br />

the back angle set to 25 degrees unless otherwise specified.<br />

Some tests were performed using one seat with a range of<br />

back and cusion angles. New seats were used for the majority<br />

of the tests.<br />

Photography and Spatial Measurement<br />

High reflectivity markers were fixed to the dummy in the<br />

positions shown in figure 3. When illuminated by a high<br />

inten$ity light source, on the same optical axis as the viewing<br />

camera, these markers show up as bright spots. The<br />

markers themselves were in the shape of spheres, hemispheres<br />

or discs which had been covered with retro-reflective<br />

tape. The positions of the viewing cameras were similar<br />

to those shown in the sketch of the VICON system in figure<br />

l.<br />

z<br />

,*J<br />

Flgure 3. VICON marksr po8ltlons and axls convrnllon8.<br />

Three l6mm high speed cameras running at 1000 pps<br />

were also used to provide a visual record of the tests.<br />

To assess the contact velocities and contact angles ofboth<br />

the head hitting the steering wheel and the knee hitting a<br />

knee bolster pad, the planes of a fictitious steering wheel<br />

and bolster pad were added to the trajectory plots. These<br />

planes were defined using standard EEC data measured<br />

from acutal production vehicles.<br />

Test Instrumentation<br />

For all the tests the dummy was instrumented with triaxial<br />

accelerometers in the head, chest and pelvis. The Hybrid III<br />

dummy also contained a chest displacement transducer and<br />

instrumented neck. Load cells were fined to the lap and<br />

diagonal belts and a wire potentiometer was used to measure<br />

the amount of seat belt reel-out.<br />

For all the test$ the instrumentation results were analysed<br />

ro the requirements of FMVSS 208.<br />

The accelerometer outputs from the head were analysed<br />

to produce the Head Injury Criterion (HtC). Even though<br />

the dummy head did not strike any structure in these rests<br />

and HIC without impact is not widely accepted, the HIC was<br />

used to rank the severity ofthe head accelerations.<br />

Co-ordinate Sign Convention<br />

For all tests the coordinate system used was as follows:<br />

X-longitudinal, positive rearwards<br />

Y-lateral, positive to dummy right hand side<br />

Z-vertical, positive upwards<br />

These coordinates are funher described in figure 3.<br />

Test Programme<br />

The test programme was divided into several sessions<br />

where the tests were grouped conveniently according to the<br />

parameters<br />

being studied and also to provide a logicat progression<br />

to the project. In outline, the subject matter for this<br />

paper was as folJows;<br />

r Comparison of 5th percentile female and 95th<br />

percentile male dummies<br />

r Effect of seat belt webbing stiffness<br />

r Effect of seat belt length<br />

. Pre-tensioners and Weblocker investigation<br />

r Effect of seat back angle<br />

r Effect of seat cushion angle<br />

r Effect of seat cusion friction<br />

Table 2 summari$es the relevant tests. To aid comprehension<br />

of the programme which involves several variables,<br />

some sub-matrices of the table are given in the discussion of<br />

the results.<br />

Results<br />

Where possible graphical data were prepared foreach test<br />

as follows:<br />

. Top of Head, forehead, chest, pelvis, knee<br />

Trajectory (X-Z plane)<br />

X Displacement and velocity/time<br />

Z Displacement and velocity/tirne<br />

Resultant velocity/X displacement<br />

Change in angle/time (X-Z plane)<br />

r Shoulder forward rwist/time (X-y plane)<br />

In addition summary data from the instrumentation results<br />

and trajectory analysis were provided as follows:<br />

r Head<br />

HIC 36 ms.250 ms<br />

Resultant acceleration (3 ms)<br />

Forehead peak resultant velocity<br />

453


Table 2. Testa carrled out In parametrlc study.<br />

Rm No T6Et spBciflcettm Comonts<br />

l6<br />

2l<br />

22<br />

2'<br />

24<br />

2'<br />

26<br />

27<br />

28<br />

z?<br />

l0<br />

il<br />

12<br />

11<br />

I4<br />

,5<br />

t6<br />

t7<br />

]8<br />

19<br />

40<br />

4l<br />

42<br />

41<br />

44<br />

46<br />

47<br />

,2<br />

5J<br />

54<br />

56at BA CA lclt<br />

B<br />

B<br />

B<br />

B<br />

B<br />

A<br />

A<br />

5U<br />

A<br />

su<br />

5U<br />

LF<br />

5U<br />

su<br />

SU<br />

SU<br />

A<br />

5U<br />

5U<br />

LF<br />

5U<br />

A<br />

LF<br />

A<br />

B<br />

B<br />

B<br />

I<br />

B<br />

5td<br />

std<br />

std<br />

5td<br />

std<br />

std<br />

100<br />

100<br />

400<br />

400<br />

std<br />

5td<br />

srd<br />

5td<br />

5td<br />

5td<br />

std<br />

400<br />

400<br />

400<br />

400<br />

400<br />

400<br />

400<br />

25F<br />

5td<br />

std<br />

std<br />

5td<br />

std<br />

std l2c<br />

std l7s<br />

5td 8*<br />

std 5r<br />

std Ltl<br />

std t2$<br />

std uc<br />

std tz$<br />

std tzn<br />

5td t?x<br />

5td FA<br />

5td l2c<br />

5td l?f,<br />

std RA<br />

std FF<br />

14.50 LzZ<br />

14.5c l2x<br />

14.50 r2r<br />

14.50 r2x<br />

-5.50 lzx<br />

-5,50 l?s<br />

-5.50 FA<br />

-5.50 FA<br />

-5.50 r2s<br />

-5.50 r2x<br />

std r2s<br />

std r2s<br />

std l2r<br />

Sttl l?r<br />

std l2c<br />

B -TypaBueat<br />

A - Typc A saet ln dtendrrd ffidltlon<br />

stj - Typs A aart, anti-aubfEflnlng pen<br />

remvrd<br />

LF - Lddthdr ecat (low frlction) Type A<br />

RA - Lorsr anchorEgrs mvad hlghar end to<br />

tha fedf<br />

FA - Ldwer enchorEgca mvod lowar end fofrerd<br />

FF - Foot r66t mv6d foEHard<br />

454<br />

Bad6lln6 t66t<br />

EffBct of H6bblng stlffruBs<br />

Effact of wabblnq atlffmaa<br />

Effact of bclt langth<br />

Effgct of balt lanqth<br />

Standard Typa A aaata<br />

Slgnlflcent Bubrarinlnq<br />

Stghtftcant Buboarlnlng<br />

5th oarcantlb famlp<br />

95th pilccntlls mls<br />

{ablockar uscd<br />

HEblock6r u$d<br />

Hl16 pr6-trnalonrr<br />

BA - Beck Angle<br />

CA - Cu8hlon Angl6<br />

tH - lzf wcbblng 50ftn<br />

longar than atandard<br />

stl - lzs xebblnq 500m<br />

slbrtsr than standard<br />

Forehead resultant'impact' velocity at steering<br />

wheel plane<br />

Max. change in head angle<br />

Head angle at 'impact'<br />

Max. angular velocity<br />

Max. forward displacement<br />

Chest<br />

Resultant acceleration (3 ms)<br />

Deflection (Hybrid III only)<br />

Max. Forward displacement<br />

Max. Vertical displacement<br />

Max. Change in angle (X-Z plane)<br />

Shoulder forward twist (X-Y plane)<br />

Pelvis<br />

Max. Forward displacement<br />

Max. Vertical displacement<br />

Max. Change in angle<br />

Knee<br />

Max. Forward displacement<br />

Max. Vertical displacement<br />

'Impact'<br />

velocity with knee bolster plane<br />

Seat Belt<br />

Lap load<br />

Diagonal load<br />

Reel-out<br />

Dummy Size<br />

Tests were made with a 5th percentile female (Run 46)<br />

and 95th percentile male (Run 47) to compare their performances<br />

with the 50th percentile Hybrid III (Run 16). The<br />

restraint systems and seats for the three tests were the same.<br />

The comparative trajectories for the head, chest, pelvis and<br />

knees are shown in figure 4. Summarized te$t data for the<br />

tests are given in table 3.<br />

Flgure 4. Dummy slze comparlson. Head, chest and pelvla<br />

trsl€ctorles.<br />

Table 3. Dummy motlon comparlson r€sults-<br />

Rh<br />

No<br />

I6<br />

46<br />

47<br />

- stlmRD sth ftEt[tnu<br />

I XXEE ilOI AVAITABLT I<br />

)my Typrl5izr HIC<br />

( I6'ns)<br />

HIII 50th<br />

prre;ntib nilc<br />

5th psrc6ntl16<br />

fenele<br />

95th prrcrntllB<br />

m16<br />

194<br />

I094<br />

1t2<br />

tl6dd<br />

xcurrion<br />

(mm)<br />

650<br />

622<br />

829<br />

H6Ed<br />

Psak<br />

/6loclty<br />

12.9<br />

12.5<br />

Il,6<br />

lhad Inpaet<br />

Veloclty<br />

(n/a)<br />

ll.9<br />

ib ContEct<br />

8.9<br />

Chset<br />

AccsIsrEtlffi<br />

(9 ovor !m)<br />

16.7<br />

44,9<br />

J2.O<br />

The instrumentation results for the 5th percentile female<br />

show high HIC and chest acceleration values. The acceleration<br />

of the dummy is expected to be higher than a 50th<br />

percentile due to the lower mass if subjected to the same<br />

forces. As the diagonal belt runs high across the chest,<br />

shoulder rotation and head forward excursion were low. It<br />

can be seen from figure 4, the 5th percentile dummy does<br />

not make contact with the steering wheel plane when sitting<br />

in the standard position. In practice a 5th percentile driver<br />

would be expected to adjust the seat, bringing the occupant<br />

closer to the vehicle interior. In this case the head could<br />

contact the steering wheel at any velocity up to the peak of<br />

12.5 m/s.<br />

The 95th percentile male dummy produced a greater moment<br />

about the diagonal belt and was less well restrained.<br />

There was considerable rotation ofthe upper body out ofthe<br />

belt with a head forward excursion of some 830mm. This<br />

was high compared with 650mm for the 50th percentile<br />

Hybrid III and 620 mm for the 5th percentile female Hybrid<br />

II. By the same reasoning that the 5th percentile HIC and<br />

chest acceleration are high, the 95th percentile results are<br />

low by comparison.<br />

As with the sth, the 95th percentile occupant would be<br />

likely to adjust the driving position, changing the head<br />

impact position. The velocity at impact would be expected


to be higher than the 8.9 m/s recorded but lower rhan rhe<br />

I I.6 m/s maximum head resultant velocitv.<br />

Belt Type<br />

Tests were conducted to compare the standard belt system<br />

(Run l6) with a range of belt options;<br />

| . l7 Vo Webbing stiffness, standard is l27o (Run 2 I )<br />

2. 8% Webbing stiffness (Run 22)<br />

3. Belt Sfi)mm longer than standard (Run 24)<br />

4. Belt 50omm shorter than standard (Run 23)<br />

5. Weblock sy$tem$ (Runs 52,53)<br />

6. Pre-tensioner system (Run 54)<br />

Webbing Stiffness<br />

Trajectory results for the 3 tests with different webbing<br />

stiffnesses are shown in figure 5.<br />

- SIAilDAR0 IELI<br />

---- t?* ut6Bt[G<br />

-.-.- E* wEEBttG<br />

(tHEst I PELvrs<br />

ilOT AVAIIAELE '<br />

5,,9t#ij,ryJi"Tlns<br />

Bllffness comparlson. Head, chest and pet-<br />

In the case of the lTEo belt there was an increase in the<br />

head forward excursion. The 87o belt showed a slight decrease<br />

in excursion from standard but this could be within<br />

normal scatter. The trajectory graphs show the increase in<br />

head and chest forward movement due to the l77o belt. The<br />

head impact velocity into the steering wheel plane increased<br />

for both the 8% and lTVo belts due to the changed impact<br />

location. The llVo belt also allowed more movement of the<br />

chest. The belt stiffness appeared to have had most effect on<br />

chest acceleration (see table 4 for test data). The instrumentation<br />

results showed an increase, in chest 3ms exceedence.<br />

for the stiffer belt and a corresponding decrease for the<br />

softer one. Both HIC values however were greater.<br />

Belt Length<br />

Trajectory results for the three tests with different webbing<br />

lengths are shown in figure 6.<br />

Changing the length of the seat belt had a much greater<br />

effect on the dummy performance than the belt stiffness.<br />

There was a clear increase in head excursion from 650mm to<br />

70omm for the longer belt (Run 24) and a decrease to 600<br />

for the shorter (Run 23). The corresponding head impacr<br />

velocities were also respectively increased and reduced (see<br />

table 4 for test data). The chest forward rotation in the case<br />

of the long belt was some 15 degrees higher than with the<br />

shorter one.<br />

Fig.ure 6.. Webblng length comparleon. Head, chest and petyt$<br />

lralectorles.<br />

Seat belt reel-out as recorded by the wire potentiometer<br />

was down to 25 mm for the short belt and up to 90mm for the<br />

long belt. The standard belt reel-out was normally in the<br />

region of 40-50mm.<br />

Weblock and Pre-tensioner Systems<br />

The effect of the weblock (Runs 5?,,53) was similar ro<br />

that of the shortened belt. Reel-out was of course reduced<br />

and head excursion brought down (figure 7). The impact<br />

velocity was significantly reduced from the standard configuration<br />

(table 4).<br />

0.t<br />

- STArmno fftI<br />

---- vtl Ldrr<br />

- - - PntrtBtotEn<br />

3tttfir6 Yxttl<br />

FtltE<br />

aff<br />

-04 -0 4 -0.{ -01<br />

tttt't<br />

Flgure 7. Weblock and pro-trnalonor comparleon. Head, chest<br />

and pelvla tralectorlee .-<br />

Table 4. B€lt type results.<br />

nI<br />

Xo l.lt lyp6 HIT<br />

(l6s)<br />

l6<br />

2l<br />

22<br />

24<br />

52<br />

9l<br />

54<br />

Stond.rd<br />

l7t<br />

8t<br />

-5oth<br />

+50lh<br />

l|block<br />

I.bIock<br />

P16trnrLmr<br />

t9l<br />

429<br />

58r<br />

441<br />

546<br />

,26<br />

?BJ<br />

272<br />

H6od HrEd :hsEt lhr.t Ch$t B.lt<br />

I+rct<br />

Yrloctty (n) 0 sv6f ItrE) in) (dss ) ttut<br />

(r/c)<br />

(n)<br />

tt.9<br />

12,J<br />

12,l<br />

lI.7<br />

rr.]<br />

I0,2<br />

9.4<br />

10.0<br />

650<br />

677<br />

640<br />

600<br />

toJ<br />

,20<br />

t00<br />

izJ<br />

The pre-tensioner system used for the tests was of the<br />

type normally activated by a length of cable attached to a<br />

collapsing part of the vehicle structure. A bracket was<br />

36,7<br />

r5, ]<br />

19,5<br />

Jr,6<br />

16,6<br />

t,9<br />

tt, r<br />

t5.8<br />

250<br />

t{l0<br />

7J2<br />

24I<br />

264<br />

214<br />

2fi<br />

n5<br />

44<br />

40<br />

J4<br />

t7<br />

{4<br />

42<br />

4'<br />

49<br />

52<br />

25<br />

90<br />

ft<br />

29<br />

d0<br />

455


mounted to the sled to retain the cable outer and the cable<br />

itself was attached to the sled rails with a shear bolt. This<br />

bolt may have sheared slightly early but the general performance<br />

of the pre-tensioner system was good (Run 54). The<br />

seat belt reel-out was not down as far as in the weblock tests<br />

but the head excursion and impact velocity were both down.<br />

Both these $ystems were seen to have a beneficial effect on<br />

rhe HIC.<br />

Seat <strong>Conf</strong>iguration<br />

Cushion and Seat Back Angles<br />

All seats were of standard production design, with cloth<br />

covers and incorporating an anti-submarining pan. The<br />

design cushion angle was 4.5o up at the front and the<br />

standard back angle was taken to be 25o reclined. The<br />

anchorage locations were standardised for most of the test<br />

runs,<br />

Data from tests in table 5 have been summarized in Table<br />

6. With a constant cushion angle of 4.5o, dummy trajectories<br />

for the three back angles are compared in figure 8' The<br />

effects of the three cushion angles against constant back<br />

angle is shown in figure 9.<br />

Tsble 5. Test matrlx lor cushlon angle and sest back angle<br />

lnvestlgatlon.<br />

Back Angle<br />

Cuehion<br />

Anglo<br />

100 250 40o<br />

-5 .50 44 42*t 41++<br />

4. 50 26 25 2S<br />

14.50 55 ,7<br />

* with lower anctroragoa for*ard and louer<br />

++ illth leather s6et (1or friction)<br />

Table 6. Seat conflguratlon resulte.<br />

Rm<br />

t\t5<br />

25<br />

26<br />

28<br />

tl<br />

Run<br />

Ntmbers<br />

The base configuration for this series was the Type A seat<br />

set with a 25 degree back angle and 4.5 degree cushion angle<br />

(Run 25). This produced slightly different results from the<br />

Type B system, notably a higher belt reel-out and head<br />

excursion. The head velocity was, however slightly lower'<br />

456<br />

HIC<br />

]60t )<br />

15 ]70<br />

t7<br />

40<br />

42<br />

4t<br />

44<br />

Il5<br />

27z<br />

420<br />

h2<br />

599<br />

47i<br />

475<br />

494<br />

468<br />

lbrd tbid<br />

Imcct<br />

/sloclty<br />

(n/r)<br />

!xcurtlon<br />

(n)<br />

lt.9<br />

lr.0<br />

I2,2<br />

It,8<br />

ll.2<br />

lr.6<br />

t2,2<br />

12.6<br />

ll.9<br />

lr.0<br />

685<br />

610<br />

750<br />

7J2<br />

660<br />

795<br />

748<br />

77}<br />

7t7<br />

660<br />

Ch6t<br />

Frd<br />

dtBpl<br />

(n)<br />

z6s<br />

290<br />

T(R<br />

276<br />

268<br />

,7e<br />

,21<br />

t9t<br />

t04<br />

212<br />

Chirt<br />

Dffi<br />

dlBpl<br />

(-)<br />

I6l<br />

14I<br />

196<br />

16r<br />

t4r<br />

L52<br />

188<br />

268<br />

205<br />

170<br />

Chert<br />

Rot.<br />

(dlc)<br />

44<br />

J7<br />

57<br />

47<br />

60<br />

47<br />

l8<br />

57<br />

42<br />

P6lYlr<br />

Fild<br />

dtrpl<br />

(u)<br />

168<br />

189<br />

t85<br />

202<br />

148<br />

166<br />

22J<br />

,66<br />

20r<br />

198<br />

PcIvld<br />

Dom<br />

dlspl<br />

(m)<br />

48<br />

E'<br />

lI4<br />

49<br />

4l<br />

2E<br />

4t<br />

148<br />

54<br />

58<br />

P6lYlr<br />

Rot,<br />

(d"9)<br />

t0<br />

I<br />

t4<br />

22<br />

I5<br />

ll<br />

A<br />

r6<br />

r5<br />

Flgure E. Back angle comparlson' H€ad, chest, pelvls end kne6<br />

trai6ctorles.<br />

Flgure L Cuahlon angle comparison. head, chett' pelvls and<br />

knee trslsctories.<br />

Changing the seat back angle to l0 degrees reduced both<br />

forward excursion and head impact velocity (Run 26).<br />

Although head overall excursion from rest is low, the head<br />

actually moves slightly further forward than standard due to<br />

the more forward statting position. The belt, however, pulls<br />

the dummy up more sharply than in the standard position'<br />

The fact that less belt is left on the reel in this position could<br />

have a contributing factor to this. The overall change in<br />

angle of the body segments during the test was reduced, as<br />

would be expected, although the head angular velocity<br />

showed little change. Similar effects were observed in<br />

reverse when the seat back angle was increased to 40<br />

degrees (Run 28).<br />

With the standard back angle and a cushion angle of 14'5<br />

degrees there was little change in the results (Run 35). A 40<br />

degree back angle (Run 37) with this cushion angle<br />

produced a similar effect to that of the standard back angle'<br />

Excursion and impact velocity both increased.<br />

It appears that, with a good lap belt, the cushion angle has<br />

little effect on the dummy trajectory.<br />

Seat Friction<br />

All seats were fitted with the standard anti-subrnarining<br />

pan. The lower friction was achieved with a leather seat<br />

covering.<br />

A limited number of runs were carried out with the low<br />

friction seat and comparisons were made with cloth covered<br />

seats. Comparative head, chest, pelvis and knee trajectories<br />

are given in figure 10. Table 7 provides test information on<br />

the friction series of tests.


0.t<br />

0.r<br />

c!<br />

- mrr iar, fr|il|lo ciiitn|ril<br />

---- tEllHtr stl. Stmm<br />

r*l6ulATr0l<br />

- -,- ltfiffin ttal. S'<br />

6tct. -5 5. fl,rtffi<br />

,*na*tr.\<br />

slttfrtr vEtt<br />

?L^xl<br />

#<br />

ms<br />

HEAO<br />

-r'+ -l I -t a -0. -0.i -0 { -t t o0 6 t 0.a. t,.<br />

Flg.urr 10. Low frlcllon eeat tssts. Hced, cheat, pelvls and knee<br />

tralsctorles.<br />

Table 7. Test matrlr tor rsst lrlctlon Invosilgf,tlon.<br />

Cuchlon<br />

Angle<br />

*<br />

++<br />

Beck Anglo<br />

l0c 250 400<br />

-9.50 40r, 45*<br />

4.50 'I*, 2t+*<br />

14.50<br />

loathor soit - frlctlon coefficlent 0.45<br />

cloth seat - frictlon coafficlont 0.7<br />

Run<br />

Nulbere<br />

In the standard position (Run 3l) there was a general<br />

increase in forward movement of the dummy in the region<br />

of 30mm at the pelvis and 50mm at the head. Impact velocities<br />

however were similar. When this seat was tested in the<br />

extreme situation of a 40 degree back angle and a -5.5<br />

degree cushion angle (Runs 40,43) there was lirtle change<br />

in the dummy overall movement save the expected increase<br />

in the chest linear and angular displacement.<br />

Conclusions<br />

Of the three spatial measurement systems evaluated in<br />

the early stages of the project, the VICON system was<br />

selected as providing automatic data capture capacity to the<br />

specification of 30 markers at 200 Hz sample rate using 3<br />

video cameras. This equipment was u$ed successfully to<br />

gather dummy trajectory data on the 50 tests planned on this<br />

project.<br />

The tests with the varying dummy size and seat positions<br />

emphasise that wherea$ compliance testing is performed<br />

under one set of conditions there is a wide range of others<br />

that need consideralion during the design and development<br />

stages. For example, the tests have shown that a good lap<br />

belt fit allows a wide range of cushion angles to be used<br />

safely.<br />

The seat belt tests showed that belt stiffness changes do<br />

not have as much effect as changes in the belt length. A<br />

shorter belt shows less reel-out and restrains the occupant<br />

bener. Weblocks and pre-tensioners<br />

also achieve this.<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

The Motor Industry Research Association would like to<br />

thank the following for their contributions and assistance in<br />

the project, and their agreement to publish.<br />

UK Department of Trade and Industry<br />

ASE (UK) Ltd<br />

Rover Croup Ltd<br />

Britax Safety Systems Ltd<br />

Ford Motor Company Ltd<br />

Jaguar Cars plc<br />

Rolls Royce Motor Cars Ltd<br />

Transport and Road Research Laboratory<br />

Oxford Metrics Ltd<br />

References<br />

(l). Freeman, C.M. and Bacon, D.G.C. "The<br />

3-Dimensional Trajectories of Dummy Car Occupants<br />

Restrained by Seat Belts in Crash Simulations." 32nd Stapp<br />

Car Crash <strong>Conf</strong>erence, May 1988.<br />

(2) -'Hybrid III-A Biomechanically Based Crash Test<br />

Dummy". J. K. Foster, J. O. Kortge and M. J. Wolanin. 2lst<br />

Stapp Car Crash <strong>Conf</strong>erence, 1977. SAE No. 770938.


Technical Session 2B<br />

Accident Investi gation<br />

and Data Analysis<br />

Chairman: S. Christopher Wilson, Canada<br />

In-Depth Study of Motor Vehicle Accidents in Japan<br />

Masahiro ltoh, Koshiro Ono,<br />

Japan Automobile Research Institute, Inc.<br />

Yasuhiko lrie,<br />

Traffic Safety and Nuisance Research Institute<br />

Abstract<br />

The Ministry of Transport (MOT) is carrying out a motor<br />

vehicle accident investigation every year for the accurate<br />

determination of the actual status of motor vehicle accidents,<br />

clarification of the relationship between motor vehicle<br />

construction/equipment and human injuries, reinforcement<br />

of motor vehicle safety standards (Safety Regulations<br />

for Road Vehicles) and the promotion of technical evaluation<br />

of individual items of existing standards. Each investigation<br />

consists of case studies aimed at the in-depth study of<br />

specific details of accidents, conditions of accidents occurred<br />

in investigation area$, and statistic survey to find the<br />

prop€r position of each accident subject to investigation.<br />

Roughly l0O cases of accidents are studied and 4,500 cases<br />

are subject to the statistic survey for the duration of four<br />

months in every year. Investigation data are processed into<br />

computer files to allow a proper analysis, according to the<br />

purpose of study at any time as called for.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The MOT of Japan has been carrying out the<br />

investigation and analysis of motor vehicle accidents every<br />

year since 1973, in line with the recommendation submined<br />

by the Council for Transport Technics in 1972, which<br />

pointed out that **it is necessary to clarify the correlation<br />

between traffic accidents and motor vehicle construction/<br />

equipment (interior parts and components), and take<br />

effective $afety measures" to upgrade motor vehicle safety.<br />

The second recommendation was submitted by the Council<br />

in 198 I, which stated that the system and contents of the<br />

investigation should be strengthened. ln response to the<br />

recommendation, the methodology of investigation and<br />

analysis employed in past has improved since 1986, and<br />

areas, duration and number of accidents subject to<br />

investigation have been expanded, along with further<br />

upgrading and reinforcement of motor vehicle safety<br />

standards. Moreover, the investigation/analysis system has<br />

been improved to obtain useful data for the international<br />

harmonization of the standards.<br />

The Traffic Safety and Nuisance Research Institute of the<br />

MOT and Japan Automobile Research Institute, Inc. (JARI)<br />

are engaged in such investigations. An appropriate study<br />

theme, such as the effectiveness of fastening seat belts, the<br />

effectiveness of steering with energy absorbing system, the<br />

actual condition of side collision, the occurrence of vehicle<br />

fire and the compatibility of large trucks, etc. is selected<br />

each year, and approximfltely 100 cases of accidents are<br />

studied in detail for four months every year. Case study/<br />

analysis on correlation among the striking (impact) speed,<br />

vehicle deformation, injured region of occupants, and<br />

damageable objects of vehicles is done for each accident.<br />

All traffic accidents involving human fatalities/casualties<br />

that have occurred during the investigation period in areas<br />

concerned are also studied. The MOT reflects findings of<br />

the analysis to upgrade and reinforce motor vehicle safety<br />

standards (to equip the driver's seat belt with ELR device,<br />

to use HPR glass for motor vehicle windshields,<br />

reinforcement of fuel leakage preventive requirements,<br />

etc.), as well as the confirmation of each item of standards<br />

and the intemational harmonization of such standards.<br />

The present status of motor vehicle accident<br />

investigations and analysis carried out since 1973 will be<br />

described in this paper, and analytical results on<br />

relationships between types ofaccidents and vehicle speeds<br />

immediately before collision, occupant injuries and impact<br />

speeds, comparison of severity of occupant injuries in terms<br />

of EBS (Equivalent Barrier Speed) between occupant$ use<br />

seat belts and those not use them, the degree of sideward<br />

intrusion of the vehicle on the side collision and the severity<br />

of occupant injury and so on will be also reported.<br />

Motor Vehicle Accident Investigation<br />

Methodology<br />

Accident investigation are being carried out by JARI as a<br />

contract work entrusted by MOT. The "Motor Vehicle<br />

Accident Analysis Committee" consisting of experts in<br />

motor vehicles, medicine, traffic engineering, govemment<br />

administration agencies concerned, etc. is formed within<br />

JARI for deliberations on the methodology of investigation<br />

and analysis, etc. and for the preparation of annual reports<br />

based on findings of the investigation and analysis.<br />

The accident analysis section of Traffic Safety and<br />

Nuisance Research Insitute of the MOT and the accident<br />

analysis team of the JARI are engaged in the investigation<br />

under the joint cooperation of the National Police Agency,<br />

the Ministry of Construction, the Medical Association of<br />

Japan and so on.<br />

The duration of investigation is four months per year,<br />

459


followed by five months of the analysis and preparation of a<br />

rePon.<br />

Objectives of investigation and analysis<br />

Indepth investigation for the determination of the actual<br />

status of accidents in order to clarify the relationship between<br />

motor vehicle construction/equipment and the severity<br />

of human injury, contrilute to the upgrading and reinforcement<br />

of motor vehicle safety standards, and the<br />

verification of effect of the standards.<br />

Accidents Subject to Investigation<br />

Case studies<br />

Investigation are done on vehicle to vehicle accidents and<br />

single vehicle accidents involving mainly passenger cars<br />

and trucks (hereinafter refened to four or more wheeled<br />

vehicles unless otherwise specified) with relatively large<br />

damages of vehicles of accidents in which the correlation<br />

between the vehicle construction/equipment and injuries<br />

appear to be significant, and those deemed effective for the<br />

objectives of investigation.<br />

Statistic surveys<br />

Statistic surveys are carried out for all traffic accidents<br />

involving injuries occurred during the four month period of<br />

investigation in a specific area (Ibaraiki) in order to determine<br />

the statistic position of each accident subject to<br />

investigation.<br />

Areas and number of accidents investigated<br />

Seventy or more accidents are investigated out of all<br />

accidents occurred in the specific area. For particular accidents<br />

such as those involving of injured occupants use seat<br />

belts and vehicle fires. 30 or more accidents were selected<br />

out of accidents occurred in areas around the specific area<br />

ffi*'.**"<br />

trlr.. rlrlr.r<br />

tlll<br />

AEcla.rr i.r.rlitrrirr<br />

+<br />

{<br />

ff'<br />

(D lrr6iratori lo to thr Flie hcrdqurrkE 0r Frlin<br />

ti! dlracM rid condition 0[ ercb rccidcni tt rrE<br />

of t.lctbom.<br />

O Ttc Flicc isdqsrtcr+ inlorr ol Ellftt rpf.otrirti<br />

rtrrdcrr to h iircrtitrtcd by tba inrEulalqr L!f,cD<br />

lilBtrutis tm lcs to ihc Flrcc ttrtlor, tbr accidtrt<br />

sE tE rrFrr EhoE ctc.<br />

Flgure 1. Outllna of csso study method.<br />

460<br />

(Tokyo, Chiba, and Tochigi) and other areas in Japan (mainly<br />

Hokkaido, Sizuoka, Aichi, Hyogo, Okayama and<br />

Hiroshima).<br />

Method and System of Investigation<br />

Case studies<br />

Outline of the method of the case studies and the system<br />

of investigation are as shown in figure I . Investigators of the<br />

expert level are carrying out investigations according to the<br />

following procedure.<br />

(l) Investigation in the Specific Area (Ibaraiki)<br />

Investigators go to the police headquarters of the<br />

prefecture or confirm the occurrance and condition of each<br />

accident by means of telephone, and select appropriate<br />

accidents to be investigated. For each accident thus<br />

selected, the investigation team goes to the police station<br />

and finds out the nece$sary information, and carries out the<br />

investigation on traffic environments on the accident scene,<br />

together with the investigation on vehicle involved in the<br />

accident ifthe vehicles are still on the scene ofthe accident.<br />

If the vehicles are already moved out of the scene, the team<br />

finds the place where the vehicles were moved, then goe$ to<br />

the repair shop, etc. to check on the vehicles. Afterwards,<br />

the team goes to the hospital, etc. for the investigation of<br />

regions, details and severity of injuries of person(s)<br />

involved in the accident.<br />

(2) Investigation in Other Areas<br />

lnvestigators obtain accident information from the Road<br />

Traffic Information Center, etc. and select proper objects of<br />

investigation, or phone into the prefectural police<br />

headquarters for the injury of occurrence of accidents or<br />

confirmation of details of each accident so as to select<br />

proper objects of investigation. Then the inve$tigation team<br />

carries out the necessary investigation according to the<br />

same procedure as that of the specific area.<br />

Statistic survey<br />

ln order to determine conditions of accidents occured in<br />

the specific area during the investigation period and to identify<br />

parameter for the selected cases to be studied, investigators<br />

go to the prefectural police headquarters and check on<br />

the number of vehicles involved, the number of persons<br />

involved per type of accident (fatality, $evere injury and<br />

minor injury) and so on for all traffic accidents which involve<br />

casualties or fatalitie$.<br />

Data collection forms<br />

As the purpose of the motor vehicle investigation and<br />

analysis is the clarification of the relationship between the<br />

motor vehicle construction/equipment and the severity of<br />

human injury, items to be investigated were so set that<br />

conditions of vehicle construction/equipment, and the correlation<br />

between parts of components that contacted and<br />

occupants, and injured regions of occupants could be clearly<br />

determined. Details of investigation were al$o set that


traffic environments on occurTence ofaccident can be determined.<br />

Figure 2 shows major items of investigation in systematic<br />

manner classified by "human factors", "motor vehicles"<br />

and "traffic environments". All investigation items<br />

are converted into computer codes, and details entered in<br />

the data collection forms are stored in computer files after<br />

the completion of investigation and data processing, which<br />

are used in subsequent analysis.<br />

@t<br />

g 1l<br />

rffiil<br />

t4l<br />

(fudrit Ertscrir, rErul<br />

affif 0l *cuMrrr I<br />

Flgure 2. Detalls and malor Item$ of Invertigation.<br />

Outline of Accidents Subject to the<br />

Investigation<br />

Number of accidents and number of persons<br />

involved in accidents classified by fiscal year<br />

and types of accidents<br />

Table I shows the number of accidents classified by fiscal<br />

years. The number ofaccidents subject to case studies so far<br />

Table 1. Outllne ol numbers ot dlfferent types of accldentg<br />

lnYestlgated.<br />

ft- ts f T u<br />

H[1. S f,u( b 69. il ut@& 157{15 S<br />

lfftt?.8 fle{. e flffis m{19.n il66<br />

tilflg lD lt0l s l0{ts ll0[# ril0trs<br />

tfl0t ls fot s s67. fl il0?.6 ilsca ll<br />

Fdr*|.. l0 *t0o.1.. d rr !'crf l. 111illfi I{ LE llo0.p lza0zE<br />

57(tS t?{ls<br />

ffi0m rff(Iffi lmi lm tfi( Im lott( t@<br />

il5 t I lm lul<br />

l0J tr9<br />

il9 s il $l<br />

il s<br />

ti<br />

I t t3<br />

lro ts ln I& lsl<br />

Drrr.rr | ourr Esnrlr lsl u fll lBl<br />

ldiltrril *rorctcli/H r'&rr r rtcl'rri lfi l9 il0<br />

ml s fll E? WI<br />

k ef FrHr lrlld lhtrl'ird) u{ {6 6loth sof, s E7@. S il5tiD<br />

lld{3afi l*{t.0 tsH.s 155(S. m lfit(5{. m<br />

Ht{t Is Det0 lflts ls ilt2t ffi Irr5ffifl<br />

mt(lm s(tE B(IE Hi tffi I{{{ lffi<br />

amounts to 1,015, consisting of 157 cases of vehicle to<br />

vehicle head-on collisions, 264 cases of side collisions, 168<br />

cases of rear-end collisions, 168 cases of rear-end<br />

collisions, 245 cases of single vehicle accidents, 124 cases<br />

of four-wheeler to two-wheeler or bicycle accidents and 57<br />

cases of vehicle to pedestrian accidents.<br />

Vehicles involved in the accidents consist of 1,04 1<br />

passenger cars, 139 vans, 514 trucks and l3 other<br />

vehicles-1,707 vehicles in total. The number of occupants<br />

in the vehicle$ amounts to 2.834. Other included in case<br />

studies are 80 motorcycle/mopeds and 44 bicycles,<br />

involving 210 riders/cyclists. As for the classification of<br />

accidents involving occupants, there are 265 fatalities,<br />

1,664 casualties and l,l l5 no-injury case$.<br />

Number of vehicles classified by principal<br />

direction of impact force and general area<br />

of damage (forms of impacts)<br />

The number of vehicles and ratio of the principal direction<br />

of impact force, generfll area of damage and type of<br />

accident for vehicle to vehicle collisions and single vehicle<br />

collisions subject to case studies are shown in figure 3.<br />

= Rerr-end colltsion<br />

:<br />

ffi srnrle vthicle sccideit<br />

lrnr-iidcd<br />

| ?7( l.9t)<br />

0thrrr qrnrrr | ztg (15<br />

I ztg (li, ir) ll)<br />

Abrcrt I 19( l.3t)<br />

Toul I l$l( l00f)<br />

x0tc<br />

0ilrrr: l0f. 0lt. 0t8, crc<br />

lbr.nt: Firc hrr!lr ntt<br />

rictr r{iiiil. lrtl<br />

irtq rrtrr. !tE,<br />

Lrrvc 0ut unltrori,<br />

Flgure 3. Numbers ol vehlcles and rEtloe claaalfled by forma of<br />

vehlcle lmpact8 and type of accfdenla.<br />

The classification is done by using three digits ofcodes of<br />

CDC (Collision Deformation Classification according to<br />

SAE J224)-namely, frontal collisions are classified into<br />

I lF, l2F and 0lF, side collisions 02R.03R.04R.08L. 09L<br />

and l0L, rear-end collisions 058, 068 and 078. Other colli-<br />

461


sions such as l0F.01R.048. etc. are classified as those with<br />

different directions of impact force, and vehicle fires during<br />

running without involving collision are classified as<br />

"absent".<br />

The number of vehicle subject to analysis is I ,43 I , which<br />

consist of782 vehicles involved in front collisions (54.67o),<br />

187 vehicles involved in side collisions (l3.\Vo), 197 vehicles<br />

involved in rear-end collisions (l3.8%o),219 vehicles<br />

involved in collisions of other direction of impact force<br />

(l5.3Vo),27 vehicles involved in collisions from both sides<br />

(l.9Vo) and l9 vehicles without collisions (l.3Vo).<br />

Number of occupants and severity of injuries<br />

classified by principal direction of impact<br />

force<br />

Number of occupants and ratios classified by the princi<br />

pal direction of impact force, general area of damage and the<br />

severity of injury are shown in figure 4. The greatest number<br />

( 1,280) of occupants classified by the prinicpal direction of<br />

impact force is observed in frontal collisions, followed by<br />

345 occupants in side collisions and 287 occupants in rearend<br />

collisions.<br />

Figure 4. Numbers of occupants and ratlos classlfled by lorms<br />

ol vehlcle Impacts and severlties of iniuties,<br />

Ratios of injury severity classified by the principal direction<br />

of impact force shows that rear-end collisions account<br />

for the highest rute of 9l.7Vo for minor injury and no-injury<br />

cases. Side collisions for the highest rate of 35.6Vo for severe<br />

injury and fatality cases.<br />

462<br />

InjurY sGYerll,<br />

fl r. t-rts o<br />

ffi r.t-rrs o.s*z'o<br />

El - r.,r-rts z. s*s. o<br />

ffi r.r-rrs o,o-.r.o<br />

Itt' 0 0.5<br />

-2,t<br />

I<br />

[6 l{l<br />

Irr.rr, l0r, 0lr. tlr, .r.,<br />

Atr.*rj lilr lilrlr rrl<br />

rlir rrrrira. lrll<br />

t t<br />

-i.0<br />

t0<br />

tr<br />

6.0<br />

*t.!<br />

tr<br />

tr<br />

5it I. tl)<br />

15t ilt. en<br />

t0t L tD<br />

il5 t010 ttt ttr 2t5il t00n<br />

Position of accidents subject to case studies<br />

Statistic $urveys have been also carried out since 1986 for<br />

all traffic accidents occurred in the specific area during the<br />

investigation period, for the clear determination of parameter<br />

for the selected of accidents subject to case studies.<br />

The total number of accidents covered by the statistic<br />

surveys in three years up to 1988 (total duration: l2 months)<br />

is 12,647.<br />

Vehicle to vehicle collision and single vehicle accidents,<br />

which are main targets of investigation, amount to 5,929 of<br />

which 198 accidents have been subject to ca$e studies.<br />

Comparison of severity of injury between statistic surveys<br />

and case studies shown following results. Statistic<br />

surveys yielded ll9 fatalities (Z.OVo),795 severe injuries<br />

(l3.4Vo) and 5,015 minor injuries (84.67o). According to<br />

case studies, on the other hand, fatalities are 80 cases<br />

(4O.4Vo), severe injuries 90 cases (45.SVo) and minor injuries<br />

28 cases (14.l7o), with higher ratios of fatalities and<br />

severe injuries than the statistic surveys.<br />

Comparison of vehicle running speeds immediately before<br />

collisions between statistic surveys and case studies<br />

indicates that case studies show higher speeds in terms of<br />

cumulative incidence rates, as shown in figure 5. It is also<br />

found from the classification by type of accidents that the<br />

speeds are generally higher for case studies as shown in<br />

figures 6 to 9. According to the comparison of the speeds by<br />

the 50o/o line of cumulative incidence rates, single vehicle<br />

accidents show the highest speed range. Likewise, it is also<br />

found by looking at the relationship between the severity of<br />

occupant injury and the speed immediately before collision<br />

that the speeds of case studies are generally higher for<br />

severe and minor injuries than the statistic surveys, though<br />

the $ame tendency is observed between them for fatalities,<br />

as most of them covered by the statistic surveys are also<br />

included in the case studies as shown in figures l0 to 12.<br />

s<br />

2 500<br />

?000<br />

ffiffiffiH\*^<br />

200 roo il<br />

1 500<br />

I 000<br />

500<br />

4 150 5<br />

l<br />

E tn<br />

I<br />

z<br />

VAsraLisric<br />

+ survey<br />

! crsc<br />

+ 3tu(ty<br />

i0 lrt 50 6d ti irt q0 I00 I l0 120 130 lao<br />

Speed (lu/h)<br />

Floure 5. Numbers of vehlclee and cumulativg incidence rate$<br />

cldssified by vehicle speeds lmmedlately before colllglon.<br />

q<br />

G<br />

0<br />

0<br />

o<br />

5 0 E E<br />

o<br />

l<br />

d<br />

I<br />

0 o


400<br />

o<br />

i r00<br />

E 0l<br />

E 2oo<br />

E<br />

0<br />

i<br />

E too<br />

Head-on colllslon<br />

@*ristic<br />

+ SUtrct<br />

I cr*<br />

4F stud,<br />

t0 a0 50 60 70 E0 90 lo0 ilo 120 ljo lto<br />

Speed (ltr/h)<br />

I'<br />

0 0 ;<br />

0<br />

d<br />

h<br />

o<br />

g<br />

o<br />

E<br />

5 0 t<br />

o<br />

d<br />

t<br />

0 "<br />

Flgurc 6. Numb€ra ol vehlclea and cumulative incidencc ratas<br />

claaslfled by types of accldente and vehlcle speeda lmmedlately<br />

before colllslon.<br />

n<br />

500 n H n<br />

*de nffi ffiHn n<br />

colrrtroh<br />

?oo roo F<br />

1 000<br />

.9 rso<br />

o<br />

* 100<br />

E r o<br />

Flgure 7. Numbere ot yehlcle$ and cumulatlve lncldence rates<br />

classlfled by type$ of accldsnts and vehlcle apeeda lmmedlately<br />

before colllsion.<br />

o<br />

E<br />

I<br />

E<br />

2 500<br />

2000<br />

1 500<br />

1 000<br />

500<br />

150<br />

100<br />

strucl<br />

Ych ic lc<br />

lu !0 50 6[ 70 80 90 100 ll0 120 l]D 140<br />

H A<br />

Speed (krlh)<br />

3tl rklnt<br />

rchiclc<br />

Flgurc 8. Numbert ol vehlclee and cumulatlve Incidcnco ratos<br />

clagalfled by types ot accldcnts and vahlcle apeeda lmmediat6ly<br />

before colllslon.<br />

6<br />

o<br />

fu :r<br />

Relr-€nd colltsloo<br />

o o F<br />

@**iatic<br />

+ $rttt<br />

E *tc<br />

+ rtrdt<br />

0 l0 20 t0 a0 t0 60 70 8o 90 100 rrd lto rI0 lr0<br />

SDe6d (lclh)<br />

50<br />

d<br />

o<br />

o<br />

-E<br />

o<br />

n<br />

5<br />

I<br />

0 a<br />

o<br />

6<br />

p<br />

I<br />

a<br />

q A<br />

q<br />

0 6<br />

r A<br />

o<br />

I<br />

Slngle vehlcle lccldent<br />

@s[uslrc<br />

+ Sufvey<br />

rl lu ?0 l0 .0 50 60 ?r) E0 90 I00 lt0 120 ll0 ll0<br />

Speed (!u/h)<br />

loo F<br />

o<br />

!<br />

0<br />

0<br />

5 0 E<br />

E<br />

o<br />

G<br />

I<br />

0 u<br />

Flgure 9. Numbers of vehlcles and cumulatlve lncldence rstes<br />

clasalfled by types of accldents and vehlcle speeds lmme.<br />

dlately before colllslon.<br />

E c o<br />

6<br />

o<br />

!<br />

3 3 0<br />

I r o<br />

I<br />

E to<br />

Fetal I ty<br />

0 l0 20 lo a0 t0 60 70 E0 90 l0o ll0 120 130 140<br />

Speed (kr,/h)<br />

roo t<br />

Flgure 10. Numbers of occupEnls and cumulatlve Incldence<br />

rates claseiflsd by E€vsrltl€a of Inlurlee and vehlcle epeeds<br />

lmmedlatoly belore colllslon.<br />

E<br />

d<br />

r<br />

5<br />

g<br />

o<br />

I<br />

?00<br />

150<br />

100<br />

50<br />

severe lnJury<br />

o l0 ?0 30 a0 50 60 r0 80 90 100 tto t?0 t30 lao<br />

speed (kr/h)<br />

Flgure 11. Numberg of occupants and cumulatlvs lncidence<br />

rates cle8slfied by E€varltl€a of Inlurlea and vehlcle apeedr<br />

lmm6dlat6ly b€fors colllElon.<br />

It is found from foregoing data that fatalities and severe<br />

injuries are the majority of accidents subject to case studies<br />

and that the speeds immediately before collision are also<br />

higher.<br />

0<br />

€<br />

o<br />

o<br />

qr1 E U<br />

o<br />

F<br />

I<br />

!<br />

0 u<br />

100 g<br />

o<br />

0<br />

G<br />

0<br />

o<br />

c<br />

e<br />

5 0 t<br />

E<br />

o<br />

!<br />

a<br />

I<br />

J<br />

o '


E rro<br />

!<br />

c<br />

E<br />

j roo<br />

1 1 0<br />

-<br />

na<br />

NHH<br />

illnor lnjury ^ 100 r<br />

@stattsltc<br />

+ surv€y<br />

! crsc<br />

+ ttudy<br />

,l lrl :c J0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ll0 I20 130 110<br />

Speed (krlh)<br />

Floure 12. Numbsrs of occupanls and cumulatlve Incidence<br />

rafes claesltled by g€verltlc+i ol iniuriee and vehlcle rpeeds<br />

lmmedlately belore colllslon.<br />

Analysis of Accidents Involving<br />

Passenger Cars<br />

Of all vehicles involved in accidents, passenger cars<br />

(limited to bonnet-type cars) with the highest vehicle ratio<br />

and relatively small differences in vehicle construction and<br />

weigh were analyzed in terms of the principal direction of<br />

impact force, general area of damage, relationship between<br />

the impact speed (equivalent barrier speed) and the severity<br />

of injury, etc.<br />

Principal direction of impact force and<br />

number of vehicles classified by equivalent<br />

barrier $peed<br />

The distribution of speeds of vehicles subject to case<br />

studies is studied according to the classification by the principal<br />

direction of impact force. It is found from figure 13<br />

that speeds are slightly higher for side collisions than those<br />

of frontal collisions in terms of equivalent banier speeds<br />

(values obtain by calculating energy absorption rated from<br />

o<br />

E<br />

I t-<br />

Floure 13. Numberr of yrhlclss and cumulatlve Incldcnce<br />

rsfcs clrttlfled by prlnclpal dlrectlong ol lmpact lorce and<br />

equlvElsnt bsrrlar sprcdS.<br />

4M<br />

10<br />

I<br />

8<br />

o1<br />

ol<br />

o-j<br />

70t<br />

o<br />

L<br />

I<br />

ol<br />

10<br />

o<br />

ffiFtort<br />

! siac<br />

ffilar<br />

+ trort<br />

+ Stdc<br />

+F lcr r<br />

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100<br />

Equlvalent berrler epeed (krlh)<br />

E<br />

o<br />

d<br />

0<br />

U<br />

o<br />

E<br />

100 ;<br />

E<br />

e<br />

!<br />

I<br />

a<br />

o<br />

6<br />

0 a<br />

E<br />

o<br />

q<br />

I<br />

0 u<br />

amount$ of crushes of vehicles and converting the values<br />

into barrier impact test speeds), and the speeds of rear-end<br />

collisions are lower than others. The speeds on the 507o line<br />

of cumulative incidence rates is 25km/h for side collisions.<br />

2lkm/h for frontal collisions and lOkm/h for rear-end<br />

collisions.<br />

Severities of occupant injuries classified by<br />

principal direction of impact force and<br />

equivalent barrier speed$<br />

Injuries ofoccupants involved in accidents are compared<br />

according to classifications of principal direction of impact<br />

force and equivalent barrier speeds. Severities of occupant<br />

injuries are classified by J-AIS (compared with AIS: J-AIS<br />

0.5 and 1.0 are equivalent to AIS l; likewise, J-AIS 1.5 and<br />

2.0 = AIS 2; J-AIS 2.5 and 3.0 = AIS 3; J-AIS 6.0 through<br />

9.0 are for the classification of fatalities by hours, which are<br />

equivalent to AIS 6), and the severity of the maximum<br />

injury of each occupant is expressed as "M.J-AIS".<br />

Cumulative incidence rates of the maximum severity of<br />

occupant injuries are classified into fatalities (M.J-AIS 6.0<br />

through 9.0), severe injuries (M.J-AIS 2.5 through 5.0),<br />

minor injuries (M.J-AIS 0.5 through 2.0) and no-injury<br />

(M.J-Ar S 0).<br />

The data compared by the principal direction of impact<br />

force are shown in figures 14 to 16. Although this compari-<br />

d<br />

e<br />

o<br />

6<br />

I<br />

O<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

?0<br />

l0<br />

0<br />

I{urbcr<br />

of<br />

occultnta<br />

+il.J-AIS 0 204<br />

* il.J-AIS 0,5-2. 0 383<br />

+il.J-AIS 2.5-5. 0 114<br />

+il.J-AIS 6,0-9. 0 5 9<br />

0 lil 20 l0 {0 50 60 ?0 80 90 100<br />

Equlvalent barrler epeed (krlh)<br />

Flgure 14. Cumulative incldence rat€l of occuPant Inlurles involved<br />

In lrontsl colll$lons classlfled by equlvalent barrler<br />

sp€eds and aeverltles of lnluries.<br />

fl<br />

6<br />

o<br />

d<br />

s<br />

E<br />

o<br />

E<br />

g<br />

E<br />

tr<br />

G<br />

)I<br />

3<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

JO<br />

?o<br />

10<br />

0<br />

+t.J-Ars 0<br />

l||bcf<br />

of<br />

ffiGUDtnrl<br />

60<br />

+t,J-AIS 0,5-2. 0 r0r<br />

+il.J*AIS 2,5-S. 0 6 3<br />

+ ti, J-Ats 6,0-9. 0 { 2<br />

0 l0 e0 50 .0 50 60 t0 80 90 100<br />

Equlvrlent barrler epeed (kr/h)<br />

Figure 15. Cumulatlve Incldencs rates of occupant lnlurlea lnvolved<br />

In elds collaslons classlfled byequivaltntberrlsr speedg<br />

and severlllea of lnlurler.


e<br />

6<br />

o<br />

€<br />

I<br />

a<br />

u<br />

rQo<br />

90<br />

EO<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

JO<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

l[bcr<br />

of<br />

trcuFrltE<br />

+ll.J-AI$ 0 5l<br />

* ll,J-AI9 0.$-2.0 lrg<br />

+ il,J-AIS ?,5-5,0 3<br />

+ll,J-AIS 6,0-9,0 6<br />

l0 20 l0 .0 50 60 70 E0 90 I00<br />

Equlval6nt barrter Epeed (kr/h)<br />

Flgure 16. Cumulatlve Incldence ratgs ol occuofnt Inlurle$ Involved<br />

In rear.end colllslons classllled by sqLlvaledt berrler<br />

spasda and aavsrltlea of Inlurler.<br />

son shows similar tendencies of injury between frontal and<br />

side collisions, injuries occur from relatively low impact<br />

speeds for rear-end collisions but speeds to have caused<br />

fatalities are relatively high. It should be noted, however,<br />

that this tendency is not clearly determined, as the number<br />

of occupants involved in fatal accidents is small.<br />

Comparison of severities of occupant injuries<br />

between those using sert helts and those<br />

not using them<br />

The mandatory use of seat belt was reinforced since November<br />

1986 in Japan, on the whole, the rate of belt use (it<br />

wzs 92Vo for drivers involved in vehicle to vehicle and<br />

single vehicle accidents according to the national statistics<br />

of 1987) has been improved to have contributed to the<br />

reduction of injuries in accidents. Using rates in case studies<br />

are, however, generally quite low, and it was as low as 237o<br />

for drivers involved in accidents subject to investigation in<br />

1988. This low using rate is presumably due to rhe facr that<br />

cases with reduced injuries owing to seat b€lt use normally<br />

would not be included in case $tudies, a$ severe injuries and<br />

fatalitie$ are main objects of case studies, which resulted in<br />

the seemingly low using rate. Effects of seat belts on the<br />

reduction of injuries are observed here, where front seat<br />

occupants are considered as the object of analysis. The<br />

o<br />

H '<br />

-<br />

I<br />

t<br />

0<br />

B 3<br />

d<br />

5 2<br />

= .<br />

E<br />

0<br />

"""<br />

o o o 0 6<br />

"Affi<br />

d866";<br />

OeOOc o o o a<br />

0 l0 20 30 .0 50 60 ?0 80 90 l0o<br />

Equlvalent barrler speed (krlh)<br />

Be I ted<br />

I<br />

A 5<br />

A ro<br />

Flgurs 17. Soverltlee ol occupant Inlurles Involved In lrontll<br />

colllslons clsrslflrd by cqulvdlcnt bairlsr apoodr.<br />

number ofoccupants subject to the analysis is 78 for those<br />

who use seat belts (3 or more point belts) and 505 for those<br />

who do not use seat belts.<br />

Figure l7 shows the relationship between the severity of<br />

the maximum injury and the equivalent barrier speed. Effects<br />

of seat belt use were not recognized in this figure.<br />

Thus, occupants with negative factors to have reduced the<br />

effect of seat belts are excluded from those who use seat<br />

belts. Namely, occupants of vehicles collided by trucks with<br />

large amounts of intrusions (30cm or more) into the vehicle<br />

compartments, causing underride, or where rear seat occupants<br />

not use seat belts pushed front seat occupants through<br />

seat backs, etc. are excluded for the purpose ofcomparison.<br />

Table 2 shows the breakdown of occupants who are<br />

deemed to have such negative factors.<br />

Table 2. Number of occupantr lor whlch thc sfiect of teat bolt<br />

u$o on tho reductlon ol Inlury |3 prerumably reduced.<br />

[ause of prcsufiably rcduccd 0r i ver Co-dr i ver Totr I<br />

Largc ailount of intrusron (30cr or nore) l 3 l7<br />

Underr rde col I rsron I I<br />

llfong use 2<br />

lnflucnce of unbeltcd rerr se!t occuprnt 2 4<br />

Torn I L O o 32<br />

According to this comparison, the effect of seat belts can<br />

be recognized, as the injury severity is lower for those using<br />

seat belts than those not using seat belts, as shown in figure<br />

18.<br />

ra<br />

-<br />

3<br />

I<br />

t)<br />

l r<br />

€<br />

1 2<br />

J<br />

E<br />

0<br />

a "..'<br />

f i l a<br />

0 l0 20 30 r0 t0 60 ?0 80 90 100<br />

Equlvdlent bsrrler Bpeed (krlh)<br />

Unbe<br />

o<br />

c.}<br />

\ ,<br />

Ited<br />

I<br />

l0<br />

20<br />

Flgure 18. Ssvorltlor of occupanl Inlurlcr Involvsd In lrontal<br />

collltlonr clamllled by equlvalent balrler rpesdr.<br />

A comparison of cumulative incidence rates is also made<br />

between occupants using seat belts and those not using<br />

them, according to the classification by severities of injuries.<br />

Figure l9 shows cumulative incidence rates of occupants<br />

using seat belts, while figure 20 shows the rates of<br />

those not using seat belts. It is found from these figures that<br />

equivalent barrier speeds tend to be higher for those using<br />

seat b€lts in each category of injury severity.<br />

50<br />

455


a<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

a<br />

o<br />

6<br />

I<br />

O<br />

ool<br />

rol<br />

uoJ<br />

701<br />

uol<br />

50-l<br />

4 0'i<br />

,'ol<br />

20 1<br />

':l<br />

Belted<br />

liurber<br />

OI<br />

occupants<br />

+!f.J-AIS 0 22<br />

+ll.J-AIS 0,5-2,0 28<br />

++lq,J-AIS ?.5-5.0 16<br />

+lt.J-Ars 6.0-9,0 t2<br />

! I j ;n li 40 50 b0 70 irl ttr 100<br />

Equlvalent barrler speed (krlh)<br />

Flgure 19. Cumulatlve lncldence rstes of occupant Injurlet Involvsd<br />

In frontal colllslons clas$lflcd by equlvalenl barrler<br />

speeds and severllles of Inlurler.<br />

This difference is particularly significant for cases of no-<br />

injury (M.J-AIS 0) and minor injuries (M.J-AIS 0.5-2.0),<br />

which may be also considered as an effect on the injury<br />

reduction by use of seat belts.<br />

As have been compared so far, the effect of seat belt use<br />

on the injury reduction is recognized, but occupant injuries<br />

caused by the improper use of seat belts or injuries of front<br />

seat occupants resulted from the pushing by rear seat occupants<br />

not using seat belts are also found recently. Activity to<br />

prompt on promote the proper use of seat belts and the<br />

development of a more comfortable seat belt system are<br />

considered necessary, since such problems are likely to<br />

increase along with the increasing use of seat belts.<br />

+t<br />

E : area of slde slII lower Plane<br />

to the slndow frane lorer Plane<br />

ril<br />

-fit i<br />

l l r l<br />

lli<br />

J(<br />

il:<br />

M :<br />

*<br />

o^<br />

$ro<br />

Ito<br />

Hoo<br />

0<br />

E s o<br />

5 + o<br />

g J o<br />

8 2 0<br />

i 1 0<br />

6 o<br />

0 1 0 2 0 1 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0<br />

Equlvelent berrler speed (krlh)<br />

Unbelted<br />

l{u[ber<br />

of<br />

0ccuPants<br />

* rrr.J-AIS 0 135<br />

+ ll|.J-AIS 0,5-2.0 25r<br />

-* Irl,J-Ars 2.5-5.0 71<br />

+ ltl.J-AIS 6.0-9.0 42<br />

Flgure 20. Cumulative incidenc€ rates ot occupant lniurles ln.<br />

volved In frontal colllalona claeelfled by €qulvalent barrier<br />

eposde and severltles ol injuriet.<br />

Side collision accidents<br />

The number of vehicle collided sideward by other vehicles<br />

or objects (CDC codes; 01, 0?,03, 04, 05R; 07, 08,09,<br />

10, lll-) and subjected to investigation classified by the<br />

principal direction of impact force and general area of damage<br />

is 192 (right-side collisions: 92 vehicles; left-side collisions:<br />

100 vehicles) as shown in figure 21. As for the principal<br />

direction of impact force, direction of 02 o'clock and l0<br />

o'clock from the forward direction are most frequently<br />

found, including directions of 03 o'clock, while collisions<br />

from the backward direction are few. By looking at intruded<br />

vehicles classified as E or A according to the CDC (E: area<br />

of side sill lowerplane to the window frame lowerplane; A:<br />

area of side sill lower plane to the roof top), intrusions into<br />

.!3tl<br />

presence<br />

of lntruslon<br />

related vehicle<br />

A : area of side slll lower plane<br />

to the roof top<br />

ffiH<br />

Flgure 21. Numbers of vchlcles classlfled by prlnclpal dhectlons of lmpsct force, general arGas of damage$, and absenc€/presence<br />

of lntruslon <strong>Int</strong>o passengsr compartment.<br />

466


their passenger compafrments are found in 103 vehicles out<br />

of 149 vehicles classified as E, and 42 vehicles ofout of43<br />

vehicles classified as A. As forthe general area of damage, P<br />

(middle), F (front) and Y (front + middle) account for the<br />

majority, with great amounts and rates of intrusions for P<br />

and Y in particular. The most frequently found principal<br />

direction of impact force into the passenger compartment is<br />

09 o'clock.<br />

Relationship between equivalent berrier<br />

speed and maximum intrusion into passenger<br />

compflrtment<br />

The relationship between the equivalent barrier speed<br />

and the maximum intrusion into passenger compartment in<br />

vehicle to vehicle and single vehicle accidents is shown in<br />

f,tgure 22. Vehicles collided from direction of 0t,02,03,09,<br />

l0 or I I o'clock, with the general area of damage in P, D<br />

(entire side plane), Y, Z (middle + back) and the range of E,<br />

A or H (bumper upper plane to the roof top) are covered<br />

here. It is found from this figure that some correlation<br />

exists between the equivalent barrier speed and the maximum<br />

intrusion into passenger compartment$, but significant<br />

variations are also found from single accident vehicles.<br />

Therefore, it was decided to limit objects of the analysis<br />

to vehicle to vehicle collisions, and the relationship mentioned<br />

above was analyzed again.<br />

The relationship between the equivalent barrier speed<br />

and the maximum intrusion into passenger compartments<br />

according to the classification by the general area of damage<br />

was thus re-evaluated. Namely, general areas of damages<br />

are classified into R D (E, A, H) and Y, Z (E, A, H), and<br />

principal directions of impact force are classified into three<br />

categories of 03,09 o'clocks, 0l,l I o'clocks and 02,10<br />

o'clocks. Figure 23 shows vehicles with the general area of<br />

damage in the zone of P, D while figure 24 shows vehicles<br />

with the general area of damage in the Y,Z zone, with each<br />

of them classified by the principal direction of impact force.<br />

;<br />

150<br />

It0<br />

130<br />

r?0<br />

..9 tto<br />

g 100<br />

9 s o<br />

E ro<br />

*<br />

Eo<br />

I<br />

5<br />

. -<br />

JU<br />

! , 0<br />

f 3 0<br />

?0<br />

l0<br />

0<br />

DuatE arcr: P. tt. Y, z (8, A, ll)<br />

Dlrectlon: 01. 02. 03, 09, 10, ll<br />

O c<br />

o o o A o<br />

" g8 4<br />

:lir:a<br />

iUE o -<br />

o o<br />

o<br />

0 l0 20 30 .0 50 60 t0 80 90 100<br />

Equlvalent barrler epeed (k|/h)<br />

vchlclc to vGhlclt<br />

coII l3 lon<br />

o l<br />

o l<br />

o 5<br />

Slntlr vchlclc<br />

ecldGnt<br />

a l<br />

4 ?<br />

A 3<br />

Flgure 2e. texlmum <strong>Int</strong>rurlonr <strong>Int</strong>o pessenger compartmGntr<br />

In $ldt colllslons clscalflcd by squlvalent barrler spcrds (vehlcle<br />

to vehlclo colllslons and rlngle vehlcle accldents).<br />

150<br />

l a0<br />

t30<br />

.9 rro<br />

d 100<br />

q 90<br />

i 8 0<br />

! s o<br />

I<br />

r l0<br />

4 3 0<br />

?0<br />

l0<br />

0<br />

150<br />

la0<br />

| 30<br />

'* 1?O<br />

I ' - -<br />

9 rro<br />

E 100<br />

3 g o<br />

5 so<br />

h<br />

E ? 0<br />

- 60<br />

!l so<br />

! r o<br />

s 3 0<br />

t0<br />

DilidE arer: P, D (E. A. Hl<br />

Dlrectlon:03,09<br />

0 l0 20 30 10 50 60 10 80 90 100<br />

Equlvalent barrler epeed (krlh)<br />

DU|l $c6: I, Z (E, A, [)<br />

Dlr*tlon:03,09<br />

01, lI<br />

0e. l0<br />

0 l0 20 t0 r0 50 60 ?0 80 90 100<br />

Equlvalent blrrler apeed (kr,/h)<br />

- 0s, 09<br />

o l<br />

d 2<br />

o 5<br />

Flgure 24. Maxlmum <strong>Int</strong>ruglong <strong>Int</strong>o paraengcr compartmsnta<br />

In slde colllsions classlfled by oqulvalcnt barrler apeeda (vehlcle<br />

to vehlcle colllrlons).<br />

Comparison of both figures shows that the intrusion into the<br />

P, D zone tends to be slightly greater than that of the Y, Z<br />

zone, and the maximum intrusion into the passenger compartment<br />

is slightly greater where the principal direction of<br />

impact force is in the range of 03,09 o'clocks, while it is<br />

smaller where it is within the range of 0l,I I o'clocks. This<br />

tendency is more significant in the Y, Z zone. As described<br />

so far, some correlation is found between the equivalent<br />

barrier speed and the maximum intrusion into the passenger<br />

compartment by the classification of principal direction of<br />

impact force as mentioned above.<br />

Injuries of vehicle occupants<br />

- 03. 09<br />

o l<br />

o 2<br />

Flgure 23. Maxlmum <strong>Int</strong>ruslons <strong>Int</strong>o psrasng€r compErtmenls<br />

ln elde colllelons classllled by equlvalcnt barrlrr spaadr (vehlcle<br />

to vehlcle colllalona).<br />

Table 3 and table 4 show numbers of injuries as classified<br />

by damageable parts and components against front seat<br />

occupants and regions of injuries. As regards damageable<br />

parts and components against the occupants, those at both<br />

sides of passenger compartments account for the highest<br />

rate of 42.8Vo in vehicle to vehicle collisions, while they<br />

account for 37.SVo in single vehicle accidents, and objects<br />

out$ide vehicles are direct causes ofdamages in other cases.<br />

As for the classification by regions of injuries, head, neck<br />

and chest account forhigherrates in vehicle to vehicle colli-<br />

467


sions, while head accounts for the highest rate in single<br />

vehicle accidents. Damageable parts or components caused<br />

relatively severe injuries are door panels, A-pillars and vehicle<br />

interior deformations and exterior parts/components<br />

of the other vehicle in vehicle to vehicle collisions, while<br />

A-pillars, roofside rails and objects outside vehicle in single<br />

vehicle accidents.<br />

Relationships among the severity of the maximum injury<br />

of occupants, equivalent barrier speed and the maximum<br />

intrusion into the passenger compartment were studied<br />

next, by classifying general area of damages into P, D, Y and<br />

Z (E, A, H) and principal direction of impact force into two<br />

categories of 01, 02, 03 o'clocks and 09, 10, 1 I o'clocks,<br />

with front seat occupants as the objects of analysis. Figure<br />

25 and 26 show the relationship between the equivalent<br />

barrier speed and the severity ofoccupant injury classified<br />

by the direction of impact and the location of sitting. Although<br />

a clear tendency cannot be found due to great variations<br />

among individual vehicles, it is found that severity of<br />

injuries in struck side occupants are generally severe than<br />

those of the opposite side occupants, and for the occupants<br />

of left seats in particular where the principal direction of<br />

impact force is with the zone of 09, 10, ll o'clocks' The<br />

occuffence of injuries are found for both right and left seat<br />

occupants where the equivalent barrier speed is l0km/h or<br />

higher and fatalities are found where the equivalent barrier<br />

speed is 35km/h or higher for both right and left seat occupants,<br />

where the principal direction of impact force is in the<br />

zone of 01, 02, 03 o'clocks. In case where the principal<br />

direction of impact force is in the zone of 09, 10, I I<br />

o'clocks, injuries are found for both left and right seat<br />

occupants where the equivalent barrier speed is l5kmft or<br />

higher and fatalities are found where the equivalent barrier<br />

speed is 25km/h or higher for left seat occupants and 45km/<br />

h or higher for right seat occupants. Likewise, the relationship<br />

between the maximum intrusion into the Passenger<br />

compartment and the severity of occupant injury has been<br />

$tudied. It is found as shown in figure 27 and 28 that variations<br />

among individual vehicle are even greater than the<br />

above. The occurrence of injuries are found where the<br />

amount of intrusion is Ocm or more for left seat occupants,<br />

and 5cm or more for right seat occuPants, while the occurrence<br />

of fatalities are found where the intrusion is 35cm or<br />

more for both right and left seat occupants, where the principal<br />

direction of impact force is in the zone of 01, 02, 03<br />

o'clocks. In case where the principal direction of impact<br />

force is in the zone 09, 10, I I o'clocks, injuries are found<br />

from the Ocm intrusion for both left and right seat occupants,<br />

while the fatalities are found from the intrusion of 20cm for<br />

Table 3. Numbsrs of Inlurlet ol occupants Involved In slde colllslons classifled by damageable parts, reglons and aeverltles of<br />

Inlurlee (vehlcle to vehlcle colllrlona).<br />

t.<br />

lj<br />

hrrlr ldrr.rurill<br />

I lrrsr<br />

tli<br />

I t,rl lrt<br />

{.r'..0r orlil '.1'.1<br />

crrrrErl r.tror Elrr. I'rdr. rM*i 1 rDo.r Jr.br<br />

1[ttllrr1010t0<br />

i<br />

ol'." 0 r.5 t0 t! I { (q 5 0 r 0 | 0 e 0.1'll,l r.o r.: ro rt ro.'jj<br />

I<br />

I t<br />

! ? ! rrr0r0,.jie.ir I r 0 r r ro !.0 | oro t 1! rr ro r.0.1'll,l ? 0 | 0.1".0. i | 0 il r[:l<br />

t ? t t l ? i l<br />

I l '<br />

lfr flFt7 ! r r r rFral lm a ! e i l r r f r<br />

r{[ti xr*rrt u-rr]r I E<br />

Tgble 4. Numbers ot hlurles of occupants Involved ln elde colllslons claaallled by damageable parts, reglont snd seYsritie$ of<br />

inlurles (slngle vehlcle accldents).<br />

- I rrnd8hrcld<br />

E I insrurelr gutl<br />

""<br />

Slrli:",l,'iT''<br />

" "lrmf<br />

I *rdt-rrrl<br />

! | ourirda ottftr<br />

= | rqo EurrrcG<br />

468<br />

t,0 l.tr 10 z5 1.0 {.0 5.0 ? 0 9 0 4'lt<br />

1 1 |<br />

l t z<br />

t l<br />

t r i<br />

l l l 3 6<br />

2 l l l<br />

2 2 l 1 6<br />

t 1 1 5<br />

t l<br />

l t<br />

l r<br />

2 a 6 2 9 l l ? l<br />

ctrYrcrl rrlr0n<br />

?lll|lI'en* trrbrl tn* tr.br<br />

*.1f0-,j ,,, t0 r.0 t0 s.0 I o s.o,11l,l r.o e0,lll,l I.s Lo to r.o,l'l!,r 5 J.0 r, 0t;i; nru!lr rlnitolr^r(r<br />

l t l r S<br />

l l l S<br />

I t 2 2 t t 5 l l t 2 r 2 1<br />

2 2l r r 2


left seat occupants and from the 4thm intrusion for right<br />

seat occupants.<br />

h<br />

s<br />

I<br />

T n<br />

- -<br />

i r<br />

o<br />

l'2<br />

E r<br />

0<br />

DuatE $cr: P. It, Y, Z (E, A, H)<br />

Dtrcctlon:0L 02,03<br />

0 t0 ?0 30 a0 50 60 ?0 80 90 100<br />

Equtvalent berrler epeed (krlh)<br />

Rltfit lrotrt<br />

trauFfit<br />

o l<br />

o 2<br />

U N<br />

Oro<br />

Lcft frort<br />

ftcuDmt<br />

a l<br />

A 2<br />

A 5<br />

Figure ?5. Saverltlee of Inlurlor of occupsnt8 Involved In slde<br />

colllslon$ clesslflrd by cgulvalsnt barrlsr apeede (vehlcle to<br />

vehlcle colllslon*).<br />

0<br />

I<br />

6<br />

H ?<br />

I<br />

? r<br />

-<br />

E l<br />

0<br />

B s<br />

6<br />

a l<br />

)<br />

0<br />

Dutf, rr€r: P, D, Y, Z (E. A' ll)<br />

Ittrectlon:09,10.1f<br />

A<br />

a . A a<br />

o g q<br />

o € o O<br />

A o . o O s<br />

a O o<br />

l0 t0 t0 a0 50 50 ?0 80 90 100<br />

Equlvelent birrler epeed (kr,/h)<br />

Rldrt lront<br />

occupmt<br />

o l<br />

6 2<br />

o 5<br />

Olo<br />

trlt front<br />

occuP6ht<br />

a l<br />

A ?<br />

A 5<br />

Figure 26. $avsrltles of Inlurlea of occupanla Involved In slde<br />

collislons classlflad by equlvalent barrler apeeds (vehlcle to<br />

Yehlc16 colllslona).<br />

I<br />

t<br />

3 1<br />

I<br />

? 5<br />

E<br />

5<br />

h<br />

o<br />

B r<br />

6<br />

1 l<br />

I<br />

E<br />

0<br />

Itr.ar rrcr: P, lt. Y, Z (8. A, lll<br />

Itlrmtls: Ol,01,0t<br />

A O<br />

0 l0 t0 30 {0 50 60 ?0 N0 90l0it0ttf,tf,tot50<br />

llarllul lntruslon (cr)<br />

llttt lront<br />

ftcrDer<br />

o l<br />

o t<br />

o s<br />

Olo<br />

L.ft front<br />

*euFmt<br />

A l<br />

a l<br />

A 5<br />

Flgure 27. Severltles ot Inlurlcr of occupants Involved In slde<br />

colllslons classllled by merlmum <strong>Int</strong>ruslons <strong>Int</strong>o pssssnger<br />

compartm€nta (vehlcle to vehlcle colllslons).<br />

6<br />

- 6<br />

-- i<br />

I<br />

t<br />

0<br />

B 3<br />

s<br />

5 ?<br />

= .<br />

E<br />

0<br />

Durte rrci:'P. D. I, Z (E, A" H)<br />

Dlrectlon:09.<br />

r0.11<br />

0 l0 20 30 r0 50 60 ?0 80 s0l0ht0r2hti.0l50<br />

llarlrur lntru8lon (cr)<br />

Rlttt front<br />

oecuptnt<br />

p l<br />

o z<br />

Oto<br />

Latt front<br />

dcuDfit<br />

a l<br />

A 2<br />

Flgure 28. Seyerltlrs of Inlurler of occupanl8 Involved In slde<br />

colllslons classlfled by marlmum <strong>Int</strong>ruslons <strong>Int</strong>o psssongsl<br />

compartments (yehlcle to vehlcle colll$lon$).<br />

Summary<br />

Accident case studies being canied out at present and<br />

stati$tic surveys for the clear determination of parameter for<br />

the selected accidents have been described in this report,<br />

together with the outline of accidents investigation so far<br />

and some examples of analysis on seat belts and side<br />

collisions.<br />

The following can be pointed out by summarizing findings<br />

of this report.<br />

(l) Rates of fatalities and severe injuries, and vehicle<br />

speeds immediately before collision are higher in accidents<br />

covered by the case studies than those ofother accidents in<br />

general.<br />

(2) The distribution of number of vehicles classified by<br />

the principal direction of impact force and the equivalent<br />

barrier speed has been studied for passenger cars. It is found<br />

that equivalent banier speeds are slightly higher in side<br />

collisions than those in frontal collisions, while the speeds<br />

are lower in rear-end collisions. Likewise, the distribution<br />

of severities of occupant injuries has been studied. It is<br />

found that the tendency of injuries is similar between frontal<br />

and side collisions. while it is different for rear-end<br />

collisions.<br />

(3) The effect of rhe seat belt use on the reduction of<br />

injury has been compared between passenger car occupants<br />

use seat belts and those not use them who were involved in<br />

frontal collisions, according to the classification by the<br />

equivalent barrier speeds. As a result, the effect ofseat belt<br />

use on the injury reduction is recognized on comparison<br />

taking account of passenger companment intrusion rate,<br />

underride collisions into trucks and the effect on rear seat<br />

occupants without use seat belts.<br />

(4) Conelation is found between the equivalent barrier<br />

speed and the maximum intrusion into the passenger<br />

compartment in vehicle to vehicle side collisions by<br />

limiting the zone of principal direction of impact force and<br />

the general area of damage. For single vehicle accidents,<br />

469


however, variations among individual vehicles are great and<br />

clear correlation cannot be determined. This is presumable<br />

due to the difference in object to which each vehicle collided.<br />

For occupant injuries, those of oacupants in struck<br />

vehicle tend to become severer in general, but the tendency<br />

is not clear when it is considered in relation to the equivalent<br />

barrier speed or the maximum intrusion into the passenger<br />

compartment.<br />

Postscript<br />

Objectives, methodology, outline and some of analytical<br />

results of motor vehicle traffic accident investigations<br />

carried out so far under the Ministry of Transport of Japan<br />

have been reported. We intend to carry out more studies/<br />

investigations and analysis of data in order to reflect the<br />

findings to motor vehicle safety standards.<br />

References<br />

(l) The Councils for Transport Technics,<br />

"Technical<br />

Measures for Safety of Motor Vehicles-First Program for<br />

Future Motor Vehicle Safety Standards", September, 1972<br />

(Japanese).<br />

(2) The Councils for Transport Technics,<br />

"Technical<br />

Measures for Safety of Motor Vehicles-Second Program<br />

Plan for Future Motor Vehicle Safety Standards", October,<br />

1980 (Japanese).<br />

(3) Land Transport Engineering Department, Regional<br />

Transport Bureau, Ministry of Transport, "Motor Vehicle<br />

Accident Investigation and Analysis Reports", 1973 to<br />

1988 (Japanese).<br />

(4) Koshiro Ono and Takashi Sato, "Review of MOT<br />

Vehicle Accident Investigation in Past Seven Years",<br />

Proceedings Ninth <strong>Int</strong>emational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence on<br />

Experimental Safety Vehicles, Kyoto, Japan, October 1982.<br />

(5) SAE Recommended Practice J2?4a, "Collision<br />

Deformation Classification<br />

",<br />

(6) P.L. Harms, M. Renouf, P.D. Thomas and M.<br />

Bradford, "Injuries to Restrained Car Occupants; What are<br />

the Outstanding Problems?", Proceedings Eleventh<br />

<strong>Int</strong>ernational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence on Experimental Safety<br />

Vehicles, Washington, D.C. United States, May 1987.<br />

(7) Dietmar Otto, Norbert Siidkamp and Hermann Appel'<br />

"Residual<br />

Injuries to Restrained Car Occupants in Frontand<br />

Rear-Seat Positions", Proceedings Eleventh<br />

<strong>Int</strong>emational Technical <strong>Conf</strong>erence on Experimental Safety<br />

Vehicles, Washington, D.C. United States, May 1987.<br />

(8) David C. Viano, "Limits and Challenges of Crash<br />

Protection", Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 20,<br />

No.6. December 1988.<br />

The Crash Avoidance Rollover Study: A Database for the Investigation of Single<br />

Vehicle Rollover Crashes<br />

E,A. Harwin, Lloyd Emerp<br />

National Highway Traffic Safety<br />

Administration.<br />

U.S. Department of Transportation<br />

Abstract<br />

In an effort to more fully understand the contributions of<br />

the vehicular, environmental and driver characteristics to<br />

the frequency of rollover crashes, a dedicated database with<br />

a broad spectrum of variables, has been developed. This<br />

database, denoted by the acronym CARS (Crash Avoidance<br />

Rollover Study;, includes data from approximately three<br />

thousand single vehicle rollover crashes. Vehicle types<br />

encompassed by this study include passenger cars, light<br />

trucks, utility vehictes and vans. The contents of the CARS<br />

database were collected over a one and a half year period by<br />

trained investigators from the Maryland State Police and<br />

supplemented by information derived from analyses by<br />

NHTSA staff. This database contains all levels of reported<br />

accident and injury severity.<br />

<strong>Int</strong>roduction<br />

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<br />

(NHTSA) is involved in continuing research into the causes<br />

470<br />

and the effects of rollover crashes. The goal of this research<br />

is to answer the following questions:<br />

r What vehicle factors influence rollover<br />

propensity?<br />

r What environmental factors affect rollover<br />

frequency?<br />

r What driver factors are causal to rollover<br />

involvement?<br />

r What changes in vehicle design, highway design,<br />

and driver behavisr will reduce the risks<br />

associated with rollovers?<br />

This research ha$ taken several approaches including<br />

accident data analysis, development of sophisticated<br />

vehicle handling and rollover computer simulations and<br />

full-scale experimental testing. Analysis of a validated<br />

rollover database is considered essential to support these<br />

efforts, as well as aiding in the develoPment of future<br />

rollover countermeasures.<br />

Past analyses of rollover crash data, revealed the areas of<br />

information where existing files do not meet the needs of<br />

ongoing rollover research. Thus NHTSA decided to<br />

construct a database which could yield a maximum amount<br />

of information on topics such as accident scene<br />

characteristics, the driver condition and the precrash<br />

vehicle stability and handling behavior.


Existing Data Bases<br />

Three major sources of accident data, developed by<br />

NHTSA, are available to support accident analysis research.<br />

They are the Fatal Accident Reporting Sysrem (FARS), rhe<br />

National Accidenr Sampling Sy$rem (NASS) and the Crash<br />

Avoidance Research Datafile (CARDfile) (l).*<br />

FARS is an excellent source of infonnation pertaining to<br />

the consequences<br />

ofaccidents when fatalities are involved.<br />

FARS variables and collection criteria allow tletailed<br />

evaluation of topics related to vehicle crashworthiness<br />

characteristics. However, since FARS deals solely with the<br />

accidents in which a death occurs, accidents with less severe<br />

injury levels are not included in the database. Also, as<br />

Edwards (?) indicates, the lack of success in crash<br />

avoidance problem identification, using crashworthiness<br />

oriented databa$es, stems from the fundamental differences<br />

in the approach to accident harm mitigation. That is, the<br />

accident data collected by crashworthiness researchers is<br />

more closely related to understanding injury causes, in<br />

order to lessen their severity, than to accident prevention.<br />

NASS has an extensive variety of data variables in its<br />

files. Not only do the files have information pertaining to<br />

the consequences of rollover crashes, but the automated<br />

NASS files may be supplemented by examining the hard<br />

copy files for additional information concerning precrash<br />

conditions (3). These files have been used by researchers as<br />

the benchmark of national representativeness for police<br />

reported accidents. However, as NASS is a sample, it lacks<br />

the numbers of observations deemed appropriate for<br />

analyses on the vehicle make/model level.<br />

CARDfile is a database constructed from state police<br />

accident reports from five states, and was designed to<br />

improve the precrash information available at the vehicle<br />

make/model level. The file variables were selected to<br />

include indicators of precrash stability and control. The<br />

large size and representativeness of the CARDfile data files<br />

allows statistical analyses to be performed at the vehicle<br />

make/model level. However, to maximize the NHTSA<br />

capability to analyze single vehicle rollover accidents with<br />

respect to precrash handling, stability, roadway<br />

characteristics, and driver condilions, it was determined<br />

that an enhanced CARDfile style database, with a broader<br />

range of variables, was necessary.<br />

CARS Database<br />

Design Criteria<br />

NHTSA research has shown that over ninety percent of<br />

vehicle rollover accidents do not involve another vehicle.<br />

This finding, along with past analyses of single vehicle<br />

rollover accidents, rruggests that the medium best suited for<br />

rollover data analysis would be a detailed study of single<br />

vehicle rollover crashes. If complete, this data could<br />

provide an excellent opportunity to test hypotheses relating<br />

to the role of the vehicle, the accident scene, and the driver<br />

in these crashes. It was determined that a single vehicle<br />

rollover accident database, with emphasis on issues relating<br />

rNumbcrs in parenthescs designale references at cnd of paper.<br />

to crash avoidance, would be designed using police repoft$<br />

and supplemented<br />

by the following $ources;<br />

. A trained accident reconstructionist would<br />

investigate and verify the original state accident<br />

repon.<br />

r The accident reconstructionist would interview<br />

the original accident investigating officer for<br />

verification of certain data and for additional<br />

information.<br />

r The reconstructionist would interview the driver<br />

to derive additional accident data characteristics<br />

such as precrash handling or road condition.<br />

r The vehicle registration record would be obtained<br />

for the rollover accident vehicle from the state<br />

registration file.<br />

r The complete driving record of the rollover<br />

vehicle driver would be obtained to aid in<br />

assessing driver related factors.<br />

r NHTSA analysts would provide $tabiliry and<br />

vehicle damage analysis results.<br />

The resulting CARS files were constructed from every<br />

available single vehicle rollover accident occurring in the<br />

state of Maryland from August 1987 until December of<br />

1988. Its files consist of approximately three thousand<br />

accidents for the vehicle classes of passenger car, light<br />

truck, rrtility vehicle, and van. Since these rollovers are of<br />

sufficient number, and were obtained over a continuous<br />

period of eighteen monrhs, CARS has rhe following<br />

beneficial characteristics:<br />

Accidents resulting in all levels of injury severity<br />

were obtained.<br />

Sufficient numbers of accidents, representing a<br />

current vehicle make/model population, were<br />

obtained. This allows for analyses to be<br />

performed based on specific make and models.<br />

A broad spectrum of accident variables were<br />

obtained which permit the reconstruction of a<br />

vehicle's probable precrash movements.<br />

The numbers oferrors introduced by handling and<br />

coding mistakes were minimized by the<br />

redundant collection of data and by performing<br />

multiple levels of data verification.<br />

Since CARS represent$ a continuous time period<br />

and a defined geographical area, the commonly<br />

used data normalizing metrics for exposure, such<br />

as vehicle registration, can be easily employed.<br />

Data Collection Methodology<br />

The Crash Avoidance Rollover Study, CARS, was<br />

designed to meet the above data criteria to provide an<br />

enhanced crash avoidance rollover database. past and<br />

present efforts of database collection, such as NASS, rely on<br />

the utilization of numerous teams of accident<br />

reconstructionists. It is costly, in time and available<br />

resources, to train sufficient numbers of teams necessarv for<br />

471


a project the size of CARS. A more cost effective solution<br />

was to mobilize the trained accident reconstructionists of<br />

the Maryland State Police. This elite group of officers,<br />

trained in accident investigation techniques, were already<br />

geographically placed throughout the state. This special<br />

team of accident reconstructioni$ts were given specific<br />

collection instructions and data acquisition forms. When a<br />

rollover, which met the above criteria, was reported, a<br />

member of the team was dispatched to collect the required<br />

data.<br />

Data source redundancy and data cross checking<br />

capability were designed into the CARS collection<br />

methodology. For example, the Maryland Motor Vehicle<br />

Accident Report gave the location and description of the<br />

accident site. This was validated and upgraded by on-site<br />

measurements and photographs of the accident scene.<br />

Data from multiple sources were also collected to<br />

facilitate reconstruction of accident precrash and causal<br />

factors (table l). The data sources for these elusive factors<br />

include the following:<br />

r Maryland State Motor Vehicle Accident Report<br />

r Driver interview by accident reconstructionist<br />

r Original investigating officer interview taken by<br />

the accident reconstructionist<br />

r Additional physical evidence was collected at the<br />

accident scene and from the crash vehicle by the<br />

accident reconstructionist<br />

Table 1. Dsta sources.<br />

FOLICE ACCIDENT REFOFT<br />

VEHCLE FEFONT<br />

VErcLE<br />

This information was then used for accident evaluation<br />

by NHTSA engineers. For example, the precrash behavior<br />

of the vehicle, before rolling, was estimated. A<br />

determination was made as to whether the accident vehicle<br />

was skidding, what type of skid occurred (such as spinning<br />

or sideslipping) and an assessment was made as to the<br />

probable cause of that skid (such as braking or steering).<br />

One engineer performed this evaluation to minimize<br />

inconsistencies.<br />

Data was also derived from photographs of the CARS<br />

vehicles. Structural damage to accident vehicles was<br />

evaluated by using a modified version of the SAE<br />

Recommended Practice (J224). This practice provides a<br />

basis for the classification of a vehicle's deformation level<br />

caused by an accident. ln the CARS database, vehicle body<br />

damage was coded using this SAE zero to nine scale to<br />

represent the extent of vehicle body deformation. Zero is<br />

coded for no body damage and nine is coded when body<br />

472<br />

BEOBTRATION<br />

ENCINEERINC EVALUATION<br />

INTERVIEWS:OFIVER ANO OFFCEA<br />

OREINAL IHVESiIdAIdO OFFEEF<br />

RECONSTFUCTIOffIST<br />

SI^IE AEOI$TFATPN FILEg<br />

AECONATFUCTI<strong>ONE</strong>T<br />

BTATE LECEHSINO FILES<br />

tust cM# oaTA AHAIYST$<br />

flffig4 ENCINFFF<br />

RECONTBWTFNI8T<br />

GSNERAL AACEENT/ORIVER INFOAKATIfr<br />

VFHICTE MEASUREMENIg AfiD FHOTOS<br />

MAXE/MOOEL VEAIFEATION<br />

TIhE MEAEUREMEflTS AilO MODEL INFOFMATION<br />

MEASUNEMENTF/HOTOE<br />

O<br />

ORIV€R TICKET FECOFO<br />

VEHICLE OEFORMAIION EVALUATPN<br />

FHECAAS STABILITY ABEE9EEilT<br />

DHNEA, fiO^OWAY, VErcLE OSOITEH<br />

intrusion is complete. This coding allowed for as detailed of<br />

an analysis as the photographic evidence could provide.<br />

One team of NHTSA crashworthiness analysts performed<br />

this coding to maximize consistency.<br />

Data Quality Control<br />

Data quality control procedures were instituted at every<br />

level of the database construction process.<br />

The Maryland State Police selected to investigate CARS<br />

crashes were those who had been trained and certified by the<br />

State of Maryland as accident reconstructionists. These<br />

officers were chosen for their proven abilities and interest in<br />

accident reconstruction. This group was then briefed by the<br />

Maryland State Police project leader and NHTSA engineers<br />

regarding the objectives of the vehicle rollover project and<br />

the proper use of the data forms. All vehicle measurements,<br />

accident scene measurements, and accident reconstruction<br />

procedures were thoroughly discussed with this group.<br />

The next level of data quality control was intrinsic to the<br />

CARS data gathering design. As mentioned above, multiple<br />

sources of key, yet difficult to acquire, information were<br />

used. Data indicating such accident descriptors as driver<br />

physical condition, vehicle speed, and vehicle skidding<br />

were subject to this redundant data gathering method' The<br />

third level of data quality control was implemented by the<br />

NHTSA receiving engineer. Each accident data form was<br />

checked for missing or improperly entered data, and for<br />

completeness and appropriateness with respect to the CARS<br />

collection criteria. Forexample, if an incoming accident file<br />

lacked a driver record it would be withheld until the missing<br />

material could be recovered from the Maryland State Police<br />

computer files.<br />

Quality control efforts were rigorously implemented at<br />

the data entry level, Using separate sessions, the raw data<br />

was double entered. The two resulting data files were then<br />

subjected to a computer data comparison program where<br />

each data inconsistency was documented. The appropriate<br />

accident file was then pulled for each flagged observation,<br />

and, wherever possible, corrected.<br />

A fifth level of quality control was applied to assure a<br />

dependable vehicle make and model coding. The vehicle<br />

identification number, CARDfile output code, vehicle type<br />

code, and vehicle photographs were double checked for<br />

consistency. The verified vehicle code was then processed<br />

by a CARS program which was designed to separate truck,<br />

vans, and utility vehicles into distinct make/model groups.<br />

For example, the make/model category for a Ford pickup<br />

was broken down into Fl50's, F250's, etc.<br />

The most ambitious step of the data verification<br />

procedure used a series of computer programs, written<br />

expressly for CARS. These programs checked all variables<br />

against an acceptable, predetermined value range. When<br />

inconsistencie$ were reported, records would be pulled, and<br />

the values verified or corrected.


CARS Datahase Organization<br />

CARS is composed of five data files and two user files.<br />

The data files are entitled Accident, Vehicle, Tire. Driver.<br />

and Passenger. The two user files are the Vehicle Parameters<br />

and the Variable Library, The above files are in SAS<br />

(Statistical Analysis System) format and are installed on a<br />

VAX I l/780 mini-computer. Their configurarion, as<br />

outlined in table 2, allows forrapid examination of variables<br />

taken from one file or, for more complicated analyses, file<br />

merging. Examples of the use of these files, individually<br />

and collectively, may be found in the Analysis section of<br />

this paper.<br />

Table 2. Crash avoldance rollover study detabase.<br />

Accident file<br />

+<br />

lr"*tro I<br />

The Accident file contains over sixty variables which<br />

describe such accident related factors as the roadway characteristics,<br />

environment. roadside attributes and the sequence<br />

of crash events (table 3). The variable, -tripping,'<br />

which estimates the rollover initiating event, proves to be<br />

especially beneficial in demonstrating the effects of roadway<br />

and roadside features on the risk of single vehicle<br />

rollover accidents. The variables which describe the land<br />

use at the crash site may be of particular research interest.<br />

Table 3. Accldent flle contents.<br />

TIME OF CFASH<br />

OESCRIPTOF TYPE<br />

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS<br />

$EVEBITY MEASURES<br />

ROADWAY DESCFIPTOHS<br />

HOADSIDE DE$CRIPTOHS<br />

WEATHEB/LIGHT<br />

PRECRASH MOVEMENT INDICATOFS<br />

LOCALE<br />

OTHEB<br />

NUMBEF OF VAHIABLES<br />

2<br />

7<br />

2<br />

17<br />

o<br />

6<br />

€<br />

3<br />

t1<br />

Past NHTSA analyses have shown that rural environments<br />

are significantly related to the incidence ofrollovercrashes<br />

(4).<br />

Vehicle file<br />

The Vehicle file contains over sixty variables which allow<br />

investigation of vehicle related factors in rollover<br />

crashes (table 4). This file was generated using an extensive<br />

make/model coding and verification system (see the section<br />

on Data Quality Control) so that accident analyses may be<br />

performed on distinct make/model groups. Vehicle level<br />

precrash stability (the incidence of skidding, for example)<br />

and crash outcome (the amount of vehicle deformation,<br />

number of quarter tums rolled, etc.) variables allows the<br />

researcher to obtain insight into the entire crash accident<br />

scenario. This file also contains parameter measurements of<br />

the accident-involved vehicle.<br />

Table 4. Vehlcle flle contents.<br />

Tire file<br />

MAKE/MODEL IDENTIFICATION<br />

VEHICLF CONDITION<br />

MEASUFEO PARAMETER$<br />

PHECFASH MOVEMENTS<br />

CRASH MOVEMENTS<br />

VEHICLE MODIFICATIONS<br />

VEHICLE LOADING<br />

MILEAGE<br />

OTHEF<br />

The Tire file contains twenty-five variables which describe<br />

the tire tread depth, inflation pressure, and rolling<br />

radius of the crash vehicles' tire (table 5). Tread depth<br />

provides data for assessing a tire's influence on the dynamic<br />

performance on wet surfaces. Tire inflation pressure is necessary<br />

for the analysis of limit performance of tires in cornering<br />

and braking maneuvers. Such tire data is also essential<br />

to rollover simulation validation.<br />

Driver file<br />

The Driver file is composed of more than forty variables<br />

related to the driver demographics, driver condition at the<br />

time of the crash, driving history, and any possible accidenr<br />

avoidance errors or attempts made by the driver (table 6).<br />

For example, of primary importance to the understanding<br />

of a driver's behavior at the time of the crash. is the use of<br />

alcohol. As shown by Terhune (5), in a study of injured<br />

4't3


Table 5. Tlre flle contenta.<br />

DEscRrproR TYPE I Huueen oF VARIABLE$<br />

MANUFACTUHER I 4<br />

MoDEL NAME | 4<br />

OEM SIZE RATING I 4<br />

TFEAD DEPTH I 4<br />

GAUGE PRESSUHE I 4<br />

RoLLTNG FADrus | 4<br />

orHER | 1<br />

Table 6. Drlver flle contenla.<br />

DISCHIPTOF TYPE NUMBER OF VAHIABLE$<br />

DFIVER CONDITION<br />

DRIVEF HISTOBY<br />

DFIVEF AVOIDANCE ATTEMPT<br />

DRIVEF ERFOF<br />

IN.JUFY SEVERITY<br />

EJECTION<br />

BESTBAINT USE<br />

DRIVER DEMOGRAPHIC$<br />

OTHEF<br />

drivers, alcohol use is consistently under reported. To mitigate<br />

this bias, in our database, data from multiple sources of<br />

use indicators were included in CARS. Despite these efforts,<br />

the thirty percent alcohol impairment rate found in<br />

this file must still be considered more of a lower bound<br />

estimate for the actual rate of alcohol involvement in rollover<br />

accidents.<br />

Passenger files<br />

The Passenger file, with its ten variables, was established<br />

to aid in analyses directed at rollover outcome harm mitiSation.<br />

These variables rePort on injury serverity, age/sex<br />

demographics, and restraint use (table 7).<br />

474<br />

17<br />

q<br />

2<br />

11<br />

1<br />

2<br />

1<br />

3<br />

1<br />

Table 7. Passenger flle contsnts.<br />

DESCRIFTOFT TYPE I NUMBER OF VAHIABLES<br />

PASSENGEF INJUFY SEVEFITY I 1<br />

EJECTION<br />

FESTRAINT USE<br />

DEMOGRAPHICS<br />

OTHER<br />

Vehicle parameter file<br />

This file contains twenty-nine variables of measured,<br />

calculated, or identifying vehicle characteristics. The measurements<br />

were performed by the Vehicle Research and Test<br />

Center, NHTSA, using an apparatus called the Inertial Parameter<br />

Measurement Device (7). The file parameters include<br />

such items as center-of-gravity data and moment of<br />

inertia measurements. These parameters allow the testing of<br />

statistical hypotheses relating the risk ofrollover to vehicle<br />

geometric configuration (table 8). Currently, these measurements<br />

exist for approximately one hundred make and<br />

models by model year.<br />

Tsble 8. vshlcle parEm€t€r flle contents.<br />

DESCRIPTOB TYPE I NUMBEF OF VARIABLES<br />

MODEL TDENTIFICATION I 15<br />

MEASURED DIMENSION$ I 5<br />

GENTEF oF GRAVITY POSITION$ I 2<br />

INEFTIA MEASUHEMENTS I 3<br />

DERTVED RATIOS I 2<br />

oTHER I 2<br />

Library<br />

Attached to the CARS data files is a user format library<br />

file containing the definitions of the variable codes. This file<br />

provides the user with a formatted and therefore easily read<br />

output from CARS.<br />

Single vehicle accident database supplement<br />

The above CARS files are designed to be supplemented<br />

with a database of all single vehicle crashes. This database<br />

will be gathered from the Maryland Automated Accident<br />

files, for the same time period as CARS. It will have a<br />

structure similar to that of CARS. However, as this informa-<br />

2<br />

,l<br />

2<br />

3


tion will be taken from a single source, the variable roster<br />

will be more limited. This database may be used as a merric<br />

of single vehicle accident exposure.<br />

Analysis-Sample Results<br />

The CARS database files may be examined using<br />

traditional SAS techniques for descriptive and inferential<br />

analyses. Frequency distributions of variables have been<br />

explored in a continuing quality control effort. CARS has<br />

also been subjected to several preliminary exarninations to<br />

assess its capability to support re$earch. The following<br />

analysis samples demonstrate the versatility of this database<br />

to provide insight into the problems of rollover accidents.<br />

Accident file<br />

The relative frequency of tripping is of primary importance<br />

to the issue of rollover. Tripping, by way of a working<br />

definition, is a rollover initiating event where a force, other<br />

than roadway friction, is generated by a mechanical interaction<br />

of the vehicle with its environment. Untripped rollover<br />

is defined as a rollover which results solely from the interaction<br />

of the vehicle tires with a hard surface. Table 9 contains<br />

the distribution of these estimated sources of tripping. It is<br />

of interest to note that the untripped rollover is a relatively<br />

rare event (less than ten percent of the database).<br />

Tabfe L Trfpplng mechanlrma.<br />

UNTFIPPED<br />

MECHANISM<br />

PAVEMENT EDGE<br />

DITCH<br />

SOIL,/FLAT<br />

GUAFDFAIL,/BARRIER<br />

EMBANKMENT/SLOPE DOWN<br />

OTHER,/UNKNOWN<br />

PERCENT OF DATABASE<br />

9.8<br />

7.4<br />

3.7<br />

23.3<br />

24.O<br />

7.O<br />

14.4<br />

10.4<br />

Figure I shows the distribution of the above tripping<br />

mechanisms as a function of the variable .land use.' This<br />

variable is a description ofthe general character ofthe land<br />

in the vicinity of the crash site and takes on the values of<br />

'urban' or 'rural.' The two most notable differences<br />

Trlpplng mechanlsms In rollover Eccldents: by land ute.<br />

FJERCT N I<br />

30<br />

7i<br />

!llr9**<br />

t.o'"' sn'j' qo'L/t\'A],,qate[s.,,qopt,,,*auoilir<br />

uiiet'oAftiin"nut'o' ;\Hte<br />

i u'<br />

IRIPF'INTJ Mt.L I IANI.]M<br />

Flgure 1. Maryland GAFS Flle data.<br />

E<br />

UFBAN<br />

N nLrrr<br />

between these distributions are found for'roadside curb,'<br />

cited 3.5 times more often in urban settings, and 'ditch,'<br />

cited 2.2 times more often in rural areas.<br />

The CARS variables which describe features adjacent to<br />

the lanes of travel show a proportionately higher ratio of<br />

curbs in urban environments (3.6 times greater than that<br />

found for rural). These variables also show that a larger<br />

proportion of ditches are found along rural roadways (2.5<br />

times more often than in the urban environments), figure Z.<br />

PF RL]t. NT<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

/gFFertR<br />

oul+oer*<br />

Roadalde<br />

fsalures present ln rollover craehes.<br />

c'ss**o$.ute=r"oet.Ioptoo$$ t'F\ "$-**<br />

67.4<br />

20.3<br />

8.0<br />

J.E<br />

o.7<br />

URAAN u<br />

R(JRI N<br />

Flgure 2. Featurer adlacsnt lo lanee of trayel. Up to two cltscl<br />

P€r oD8ervatlon. taryland CAFS Flle data.<br />

Vehicle<br />

file<br />

Rollover analyses are frequently performed on data broken<br />

out by vehicle type, (forexample, passengercars, pickup<br />

trucks, etc.). The distribution of these designations is<br />

reported in table 10.<br />

Table 4. Vehlcle type dlstrlbutlon.<br />

VEHICLE TYPE PEBCENT OF DATABASE<br />

PASSENGEF CARS<br />

PICKUF TRUCKS<br />

UTILITY VEHICLES<br />

VANS<br />

OTHER<br />

The frequency distribution of the reconstructed variable,<br />

'Precrash<br />

Vehicle Dynamic Behavior,' which resulted from<br />

the stability analysis performed by NHTSA sraff, (rable I I )<br />

reveals that the greatest proponion (sixty-eight percent) of<br />

precrash stability conditions involves some type of skidding.<br />

Thus, Table I I shows that five percent of the single<br />

vehicle rollovercases were initiated by a vehicle displaying<br />

a precrash front wheel lateral skid (understeer) type ofvehi-<br />

cle skidding, fifty percent displayed a precrash rearwheel<br />

lateral skid (oversteer)<br />

type ofvehicle skidding, and thideen<br />

percent displayed a four wheel lateral skid (neutral steer)<br />

type of vehicle skidding.<br />

475


Table 11. Precrash vehlcle dynsmlc behavior (stabllity<br />

condltlon).<br />

STABILITY CONDITION<br />

NO $KID INDICATED (STABLE)<br />

FRONT WHEEL/LATERAL (UNDEBSTEEF)<br />

FIEAR WHEEL LATEBAL (OVEHSTEEH)<br />

FOUB WHEEL LATEHAL (NEUTRAL STEEF)<br />

UNKNOWN<br />

Table 12 shows a breakdown of the above sixty-eight<br />

percent of skidding accidents, evaluated as to instability<br />

cause or instability precipitator. A noteworthy finding in<br />

table l2 is the discovery that fifty percent of the skidding<br />

type of rollover accidents were caused by the lateral force<br />

generated by going around a curve in the road too fast.<br />

Twenty-four percent of the rollover accidents were caused<br />

by the driver putting in a severe steering input while on a<br />

straight road such as passing another vehicle, The eighteen<br />

percent precrash skidding attributed to snow and ice includes<br />

accidents occurring on both curves and straight<br />

roads.<br />

Table 12. Cauee ol dynamlc ln$tablllty (up to two clted per<br />

case).<br />

CAUSE OF INSTABILITY PEFCENT OF DATABASE<br />

LATERAL CUBVE FORCE<br />

ACCELEFATION INPUT<br />

STEERING INPUT<br />

BBAKING INPUT<br />

STEEFING AND ACCELERATION<br />

STEEBING AND BRAKING<br />

OTHER (SNOW, ICE, ETC)<br />

UNKNOWN<br />

The distribution of vehicle body deformation damage<br />

areas, table 13, shows that the most frequently damaged<br />

portions of a vehicle involved in a rollover are the vehicle<br />

top and sides. What is less expected is the large (forty-eight<br />

percent) proportion of vehicles which have measurable<br />

frontal damage.<br />

Table 13" Vehlcle arca of deformatlon.<br />

52<br />

1<br />

24<br />

1<br />

18<br />

10<br />

+ AFEA OF DAMAGE PERCENT OF DATABASE<br />

TOP DAMAGE<br />

FRONT DAMAGE<br />

-REAB DAMA-GE<br />

DAMAGE<br />

_LEFT<br />

RIGHT OAMAGE<br />

+ MTJLTIPLE AREAS OF DAMAGE MAY BE CODED FOR EACH ROLLOVEF<br />

476<br />

48<br />

26<br />

Vehicle parameter file<br />

By accessing variables from the Driver, Vehicle, and Vehicle<br />

Parameter files, the relationships between a selection<br />

of vehicle geometric parameters, quarter turns rolled, mean<br />

driver injury severity, and estimated speed were explored.<br />

This was performed using nineteen make/models which had<br />

measurements available and were represented by a minimum<br />

of ten observations in the database. All values represent<br />

make/model based means. The estimate for driver injury<br />

is derived from the police reported, ordinal values of'0,'<br />

representing no injury, to '4,' indicating a fatality. The<br />

estimate for speed, is based on data from the police report,<br />

the investigator's report, the driver's estimate, or the speed<br />

limit. The variable for the quarter turns rolled estimates the<br />

number of quarter turns the vehicle underwent. A matrix of<br />

Pearson correlation coefficients and their associated P values,<br />

probabilities that there is no association, are reported in<br />

table 14.<br />

Table 14. Pearson correlatlon coeff lclentg.<br />

INJUFY r,004<br />

0.000<br />

0.578<br />

._ 0,0,1_.._<br />

$PEED<br />

0.578<br />

0.387<br />

0.10 1<br />

1,000 "0.089<br />

0.0 10 0,000<br />

--O.r-S$<br />

0.74<br />

FOLL<br />

0.367<br />

1.000<br />

WEIGHT<br />

10 r.<br />

_il<br />

-0,2 l8<br />

0.370<br />

o.720 0.000<br />

0.t0t -0.3?g<br />

dg19_ 0.1 75<br />

6FF<br />

t__ _<br />

FOLL INEFTIA<br />

0.403<br />

0,087<br />

0,074<br />

0.785<br />

-0.32S<br />

d. r70<br />

0,397<br />

0.10 1<br />

0.367<br />

0,r22<br />

0.0c<br />

0.73<br />

INJUHYi MEAN DFIVEB INJUFY<br />

BOLL: MEAN OUAHTEF TOFNS FOLLED<br />

?14<br />

38d<br />

-.0t I I<br />

0.65?<br />

-0.416<br />

0.o77<br />

-0,219<br />

0.3€9<br />

0.t01<br />

0.E80<br />

0.403<br />

0.067<br />

- is;r<br />

0.101<br />

'0.3t5 0.2 14<br />

dtlL'__ 0.380<br />

r,000 -0.€08<br />

0.000 0.00E<br />

0.608<br />

0 006<br />

0.81 I<br />

1.0001<br />

0.81t<br />

0.0001<br />

t.000<br />

0.000<br />

-0.390<br />

oi_":<br />

-0.543<br />

0 0087<br />

0.074<br />

0,765<br />

0.387<br />

0,!??<br />

r:; i<br />

0.€51<br />

0.81 I<br />

o.0n0r<br />

-0 3s0<br />

0.09s<br />

1.000<br />

0,000<br />

0.63r<br />

0.004<br />

SFEED: MEAN EETIMATEO 6PEEO<br />

WEIGHT: MEAN CUFB WEIGHT<br />

FOLL INEFTIA<br />

-0.3?s<br />

0.170<br />

0.083<br />

.o:ltt<br />

-0.416<br />

o.o77<br />

0.8 t?<br />

0.0001<br />

-0.583<br />

0.00s<br />

0.9s1<br />

0.004<br />

1.000<br />

0.000<br />

llll illii^*ii.'iL:"'i:'"T"?i,1""1'*Il1fl i:''ffitl'UlT!?i,'" L,NEAF a'soctA'o'<br />

19 PASS€NGEF CAFS, FIOKUF THUCX$, UTIIITY VEHICLES AND VANS<br />

MINIMUM OF 1O OBSEFVATIONS PEF MAFE/MODEL<br />

Using a five percent criterion that the probability of no<br />

association is significant, the top line of the table indicates<br />

that as the mean injury increases so does the average estimate<br />

for speed. That is, if there is more initial energy imparted<br />

to the rollover speed, there is an increased risk of injury.<br />

Several of the measured vehicle Parameters, including<br />

weight, wheelbase, half track to center*of-gravity height,<br />

and roll moment of inenia are also correlated according to<br />

the five percent standard. For example, the mean roll moment<br />

of inertia has a negative and significant association<br />

with the mean half track width to center-of-gravity height<br />

ratio (7).<br />

Conclusions<br />

Based on the following attributes, CARS is a versatile<br />

and cost effective medium in which researchers may gain<br />

insight into single vehicle rollover accidents:<br />

r The CARS database structure, of five data files<br />

and two user files, allows for ease of access within<br />

one file or file aggregation.<br />

The detailed information within CARS allows for<br />

the testing ofa broad range ofhypotheses relating

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!