This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Analysis of the Influence of Various Side Impact Test Procedures
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
A side impact study using eight impact configurations was conducted in conformity with a test method proposed by the U.S. (NHTSA) and another method currently under study in Europe (EEVC). On the basis of the data obtained, parameters possibly influencing the injury value of a dummy were examined. Also, the possibility of developing an alternative test in which the MDB (moving deformable barrier) is replaced by an MRB (moving rigid barrier) was considered. The results are as follows:
-
(1)
Comparison of NHTSA and EEVC Test Methods
-
1)
Difference Between NHTSA and EEVC MethodsThe U.S. NHTSA and European EEVC test methods caused widely different dummy injury values due to the different test conditions of the MDB, the crabbed angle, and the dummy. Therefore, these cannot be regarded as equivalent test methods.
-
2)
Influence of MDBTest results indicated that the shape and stiffness of the MDB have a large influence on the dummy injury value, so that an MDB specification should be formulated to represent the characteristics of vehicles on the market.
-
3)
Influence of Crabbed AngleThe influence of a non- or 27° crabbed angle on the dummy injury value differs at the front and rear seats. Consequently, the necessity for a crabbed angle varies in accordance with whether the test emphasis is placed primarily on front occupants or on and rear occupants equally. This should be carefully decided on the basis of data on actual accidents.
-
4)
Influence of DummyTest results indicated that SID and EUROSID did not show similar responses when tested under the same conditions. Improvements must be made in these dummies including an effort to better biofidelity characteristics.
-
1)
-
(2)
Examination of Alternative Test MethodA test using an MRB was conducted to study the possible development of a alternative test not requiring the use of an MDB. Although in this MRB-employed test result, the contact velocity and the deformation at dummy's sitting position were not the same as those in MDB-employed tests, the results indicated that the dummy responses in the two types of tests could be made the same by changing the MRB test conditions.
Authors
Citation
Ohmae, H., Sakurai, M., Harigae, T., and Watanabe, K., "Analysis of the Influence of Various Side Impact Test Procedures," SAE Technical Paper 890378, 1989, https://doi.org/10.4271/890378.Also In
References
- NHTSA Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards “Side Impact Protection” 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 88-06, Notice 1 and Docket No. 88-07, Notice 1 1988
- TRANS/SCI /WP29/GRCS/R58 Protection of the Occupants of a Passenger Car in the Event of a Lateral Collision 1985
- “EUROSID Information Bulletin #1 and #2”; TNO Road Vehicle Research Institute Report No. 700564002 – A and B 1987
- NHTBA NHTSA Side Impact Testing Procedure Docket No. 79-04, Side Impact 1985
- Morita K. Experimental Study on Strength of Side Structure of Passenger Cars Journal of JSAE 32 1986
- Hackney J.R. Results of the NHTSA's Thoracic Side Import Protection Research Program SAE 840886
- ISO/TC22/SC10/GTI/N90 Validation of the EEVC Mobile Deformable Barrier 1985
- JARI/JAMA The Biofidelity Test Results on SID and EUROSID IRCOBI Conference 1988
- Hofmann J. Mathematical Simulation of Side Impact 8th ESV Conference 1980
- Richter R. Composite Test Procedure for Side Impact Protection SAE 871117
- JARI/JAMA A Study on Energy Absorbing Units of MDB for Side Impact Test 11th ESV Conference 1987
- JAMA ISO/TC22/SC12/GT5/N213 SID and EUROSID Data 1988
- JAMA ISO/TC22/SC10/GT1/N145 JAMA's Test Results and Comments on Side Impact Test Procedures 1988