Browse Topic: Frontal collisions
Occupant Safety systems are usually developed using anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), such as the Hybrid III, THOR-50M, ES-2, and WorldSID. However, in compliance with NCAP and regulatory guidelines, these ATDs are designed for specific crash scenarios, typically frontal and side impacts involving upright occupants. As vehicles evolve (e.g., autonomous layouts, diverse occupant populations), ATDs are proving increasingly inadequate for capturing real-world injury mechanisms. This has led to the adoption of computational Human Body Models (HBMs), such as the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) and Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS), which offer superior anatomical fidelity, variable anthropometry, active muscle behaviour modelling, and improved postural flexibility. HBMs can predict internal injuries that ATDs cannot, making them valuable tools for future vehicle safety development. This study uses a sled CAE simulation environment to analyze the kinematics of the HBMs
Commercial vehicle sector (especially trucks) has a major role in economic growth of a nation. With improving infrastructure, increasing number of trucks on roads, accidents are also increasing. As per RASSI (Road Accident Sampling System India) FY2016-23 database, commercial vehicles are involved in 42% of total accidents on Indian roads. Involvement of trucks (N2 & N3) is over 25% of total accidents. Amongst all accident scenarios of N2 &N3, frontal impacts are the most frequent (26%) and causing severe occupant injuries. Today, truck safety development for frontal impact is based on passive safety regulations (viz. front pendulum – AIS029) and basic safety features like seatbelts. In any truck accident, it is challenging rather impossible to manage comprehensive safety only with passive safety systems due to size and weight. Accident prevention becomes imperative in truck safety development due to extremely high energy involved in front impact scenarios. The paper presents a unique
A passenger vehicle's front-end structure's structural integrity and crashworthiness are crucial to ensure compliance with various frontal impact safety standards (such as those set by Euro NCAP & IIHS). For a new front-end architecture, design targets must be defined at a component level for crush cans, longitudinal, bumper beam, subframe, suspension tower and backup structure. The traditional process of defining these targets involves multiple sensitivity studies in CAE. This paper explores the implementation of Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) in component-level target setting. PINNs integrate the governing equations into neural network training, enabling data-driven models to adhere to fundamental mechanical principles. The underlying physics in our model is based upon a force scheme of a full-frontal impact. A force scheme is a one-dimensional representation of the front-end structure components that simplifies a crash event's complex physics. It uses the dimensional and
Indian passenger car accident data indicates that approximately 44% of crashes are frontal impacts (Refer fig 1). Among the injuries sustained in these crashes, lower leg injuries are notably critical, contributing to nearly 25% of driver occupant injuries (Refer fig 2). To evaluate such injuries, the Bharat New Car Assessment Program (BNCAP) includes lower leg injury metrics as part of the Frontal Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB64) test. While the overall injury performance is assessed at the vehicle level, BNCAP also monitors vehicle interior intrusions—particularly pedal intrusions—as key contributors to lower limb injury severity. A major challenge in frontal crashes is the intrusion of the vehicle's front-end structure into the occupant compartment. Rigid components, particularly the brake pedal assembly, can be displaced rearward during a crash, significantly increasing the risk of lower leg injuries. Therefore, minimizing pedal intrusions into the driver foot-well is critical for
The effect of seat belt misuse and/or misrouting is important to consider because it can influence occupant kinematics, reduce restraint effectiveness, and increase injury risk. As new seatbelt technologies are introduced, it is important to understand the prevalence of seatbelt misuse. This type of information is scarce due to limitations in available field data coding, such as in NASS-CDS and FARS. One explanation may be partially due to assessment complexity in identifying misuse and/or misrouting. An objective of this study was to first identify types of lap-shoulder belt misuse/misrouting and associated injury patterns from a literature review. Nine belt misuse/misrouting scenarios were identified including shoulder belt only, lap belt only, or shoulder belt under the arm, for example, while belt misrouting included lap belt on the abdomen, shoulder belt above the breasts, or shoulder belt on the neck. Next, the literature review identified various methods used to assess misuse
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
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 831