Browse Topic: Frontal collisions
With the current trend of including the evaluation of the risk of brain injuries in vehicle crashes due to rotational kinematics of the head, two injury criteria have been introduced since 2013 – BrIC and DAMAGE. BrIC was developed by NHTSA in 2013 and was suggested for inclusion in the US NCAP for frontal and side crashes. DAMAGE has been developed by UVa under the sponsorship of JAMA and JARI and has been accepted tentatively by the EuroNCAP. Although BrIC in US crash testing is known and reported, DAMAGE in tests of the US fleet is relatively unknown. The current paper will report on DAMAGE in NCAP-like tests and potential future frontal crash tests involving substantial rotation about the three axes of occupant heads. Distribution of DAMAGE of three-point belted occupants without airbags will also be discussed. Prediction of brain injury risks from the tests have been compared to the risks in the real world. Although DAMAGE correlates well with MPS in the human brain model across
This study was conducted to assess the occupant restraint use and injury risks by seating position. The results were used to discuss the merit of selected warning systems. The 1989-2015 NASS-CDS and 2017-2021 CISS data were analyzed for light vehicles in all, frontal and rear tow-away crashes. The differences in serious injury risk (MAIS 3+F) were determined for front and rear seating positions, including the right, middle and left second-row seats. Occupancy and restraint use were determined by model year groups. Occupancy relative to the driver was 27% in the right-front (RF) and 17% in the second row in all crashes. About 39% of second-row passengers were in the left seat, 15% in the center seat and 47% in the right seat. Restraint use was lower in the second row compared to front seats. It was 43% in the right-front and 32% in the second-row seats in all crashes involving serious injury. Restraint use increased with model year groups. It was 63% in the ‘61-‘89 MY vehicles and 90
Letter from the Special Issue Editors
Field data has shown that belt-positioning boosters help reduce the risk of injury to children in a crash. This study builds on prior submarining work (Slusher et al. 2022) and aims to analyze kinetic metrics (which can be easily recorded from anthropomorphic test devices in crash tests) in submarining and non-submarining conditions for a 6-year-old pediatric human occupant in frontal crashes
This SAE Recommended Practice describes common definitions and operational elements of Event Data Recorders. The SAE J1698 series of documents consists of the following: SAE J1698-1 - Event Data Recorder - Output Data Definition: Provides common data output formats and definitions for a variety of data elements that may be useful for analyzing vehicle crash and crash-like events that meet specified trigger criteria. SAE J1698-2 - Event Data Recorder - Retrieval Tool Protocol: Utilizes existing industry standards to identify a common physical interface and define the protocols necessary to retrieve records stored by light duty vehicle Event Data Recorders (EDRs). SAE J1698-3 - Event Data Recorder - Compliance Assessment: Defines procedures that may be used to validate that relevant EDR output records conform with the reporting requirements specified in Part 563, Table 1 during the course of FMVSS-208, FMVSS-214, and other applicable vehicle level crash testing
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the testing procedures required to evaluate the integrity of a ground ambulance-based patient litter, litter retention system, and patient restraint when exposed to a frontal, side or rear impact. Its purpose is to provide litter manufacturers, ambulance builders, and end-users with testing procedures and, where appropriate, acceptance criteria that, to a great extent ensures the patient litter, litter retention system, and patient restraint utilizes a similar dynamic performance test methodology to that which is applied to other vehicle seating and occupant restraint systems. Descriptions of the test set-up, test instrumentation, photographic/video coverage, test fixture, and performance metrics are included
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the dynamic testing procedures required to evaluate the integrity of patient compartment interior Storage Compartments such as cabinets, drawers, or refillable supply pouch systems when exposed to a frontal, side or rear impact (i.e., a crash impact). Its purpose is to provide component manufacturers, ambulance builders, and end-users with testing procedures and, where appropriate, acceptance criteria that, to a great extent, ensure interior Storage Compartments or systems meet the same performance criteria across the industry. Descriptions of the test set-up, test instrumentation, photographic/video coverage, test fixture, and performance metrics are included
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the dynamic and static testing procedures required to evaluate the integrity of the ambulance substructure, to support the safe mounting of an SAE J3027 compliant litter retention device or system, when exposed to a frontal, side or rear impact (i.e., a crash impact). Its purpose is to provide manufacturers, ambulance builders, and end-users with testing procedures and, where appropriate, acceptance criteria that to a great extent ensure the ambulance substructure meets the same performance criteria across the industry. Prospective manufacturers or vendors have the option of performing either dynamic testing or static testing. Descriptions of the test set-up, test instrumentation, photographic/video coverage, test fixture, and performance metrics are included
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the test procedures for conducting frontal impact occupant restraint and equipment mounting integrity tests for ambulance patient compartment applications. Its purpose is to describe crash pulse characteristics and establish recommended test procedures that will standardize restraint system and equipment mounting testing for ambulances. Descriptions of the test set-up, test instrumentation, photographic/video coverage, and the test fixtures are included
This procedure establishes a recommended practice for performing a Low Speed Thorax Impact Test to the Hybrid III Small Female Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD or crash dummy). This test was created to satisfy the demand by the industry to have a certification test which results in peak chest deflection similar to current full vehicle, frontal impact tests. An inherent problem exists with the current certification procedure because the normal (6.7 m/s) thorax impact test has test results for peak chest deflection that are greater than those currently seen in full vehicle, frontal tests. The intent of this document is to develop a low speed thorax certification procedure for the H-III5F dummy with a 3.0 m/s impact similar to the SAE J2779 procedure for the H-III50M dummy
The Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR) is an advanced crash test dummy designed for frontal impact. Originally released in a 50th percentile male version (THOR-50M), a female 5th version (THOR-05F) was prototyped in 2017 (Wang et al., 2017) and compared with biofidelity sub-system tests (Wang et al., 2018). The same year, Trosseille et al. (2018) published response corridors using nine 5th percentile female Post Mortem Human Subjects (PMHS) tested in three sled configurations, including both submarining and non-submarining cases. The goal of this paper is to provide an initial evaluation of the THOR-05F biofidelity in a full-scale sled test, by comparing its response with the PMHS corridors published by Trosseille et al. (2018). Significant similarities between PMHS and THOR-05F were observed: as in Trosseille et al. (2018), the THOR-05F did not submarine in configuration 1, and submarined in configurations 2 and 3. The lap belt tension and seat forces were similar in
The first objective of this study, addressed in Part 1, is to use finite element (FE) human body modeling (HBM) to evaluate the tangent of the Belt-to-Pelvis angle (tanθBTP) as a submarining predictor in frontal crashes for occupants in reclined seats. The second objective, addressed in Part 2, is to use this predictor to assess two technical solutions for reducing submarining risks for two different occupant anthropometries. In Part 1, tanθBTP (the lap belt penetration from the anterior superior iliac spine [ASIS] in the abdominal direction) was evaluated in impact simulations with varying seat belt anchor positions. Sled simulations with a 56 km/h full-frontal crash pulse were performed with the SAFER HBM morphed to the anthropometry of a small female and average male. A correlation was found between the submarining predictor and submarining. In Part 2, the anti-submarining solutions (i) split buckle belt system and (ii) anchor moving system were evaluated using the submarining
The preeminent obligation of the automotive engineers, while designing a car, is to assure the driver’s well-being during any kind of impact by suppressing intrusions into the cockpit or minacious deceleration levels. Technologists and designers are advancing various modern active and passive safety systems to augment vehicle occupants’ safety. To mitigate the research and development expenditure in time and money, it is recommended to utilize computational crash simulations for the early evaluation of safety behavior under vehicle impact tests. Therefore, in this research study, an attempt is made to simulate crashworthiness and design the impact attenuator utilized in Formula SAE (FSAE) vehicles to absorb the kinetic energy of a car during a frontal collision. Closed-cell aluminum foam is selected as its material because of its less density than solid metals and ability to undergo large deformations at almost constant load. CAE software is used to carry out explicit dynamic impact
Frontal collision is the leading cause of passenger vehicle occupant death in the recent years. Active safety systems like automatic emergency braking has been demonstrated to be able to mitigate frontal collision or to reduce collision impact. However, braking is not as effective as steering when host vehicle is at high speed, since it typically requires more minimum safety distance for braking than for steering to avoid a frontal collision. Evasive steering assist (ESA) is designed to improve driver’s steer maneuver in the case of a potential imminent front collision with another vehicle or VRU. If driver initiates a steering maneuver but that steering input is not enough to avoid the collision, then evasive steering assist will kick in to apply an additional steering in the direction of the driver’s input, to help driver complete the evasive steering maneuver stably and safely. This paper discusses our recent development effort in ESA, including architecture design, path planning
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 793