COMPARISON OF HUMAN OCCUPANT KINEMATICS IN LABORATORY IMPACT...

COMPARISON OF HUMAN OCCUPANT

KINEMATICS IN LABORATORY IMPACT AND RUN-OFF-ROAD CRASH CONFIGURATIONS

R. Reichert, S. Kan, D. Marzougui, K. Opiela

TRB, 1st International Road Safety Conference

San Francisco, June 12-15, 2017

1

An accident on the “Autobahn” …

2

Source: Youtube

TRB, 1st International Road Safety Conference, 2017

“Safety doesn’t happen by accident”

The fatality rate in the US has been stagnant since 2009 Additional safety research is needed

3

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2014 Annual Report File (ARF)


Compare Occupant Kinematics and Injury Risk in different load cases. Evaluate near- and far-side occupants

Research Objective

4

Validated vehicle model

Validated human occupant

models


Outline

Model Development & Validation

90° Pole Impact

75° Pole Impact

NJ Barrier Impact

Summary

5 TRB, 1st International Road Safety Conference, 2017

Mid-size sedan

Latest Developed FE-Model

6

1000 parts

2.3 million elements


Vehicle Model Development

7

1 Vehicle selection 2 Purchase physical vehicle 3 Mass CG & intertia 4 Geometry generation 5 Vehicle tear down 6 Material coupon testing 7 FE model generation 8 Validation


Left Oblique - Baseline Animation 1


Left Oblique – Baseline 140ms


Intrusion Toe-pan intrusion well captured

Vehicle and Barrier Pulse Acceleration well captured

Door Sill Deformation Moderate door sill deformation

Pulse and deformation

well captured

Left Oblique – Test vs Simulation


Right Oblique – Animation 1


Right Oblique – 140ms


Intrusion Toe-pan intrusion reasonably well captured

Vehicle and Barrier Pulse Acceleration well captured

Door Sill Deformation Moderate door sill deformation

Pulse and deformation well captured

Right Oblique – Test vs. Simulation


Frontal Load Cases - Summary

14

The developed FE model captures well the structural vehicle crash characteristics of a mid-size sedan

in frontal impact configurations


SINCAP 62km/h - Animation


SINCAP 62km/h – 140ms


SINCAP 62km/h - Results

17

Vehicle Kinematics and Pulse Similar overall vehicle kinematics CORA-Rating: 0.92

Vehicle Damage Comparison Post crash intrusion measurements at 5 different heights

compare well in test and simulation


Side Oblique Pole 32 km/h - Animation


Side Oblique Pole 32 km/h – 140ms


Side Oblique Pole 32 km/h - Results

20

Vehicle Damage Comparison Post crash intrusion measurements at 5 different heights (sill top, occupant hip point, mid door, window sill, and window top) compare well in test and simulation


IIHS Side Impact 50km/h - Animation


IIHS Side Impact 50km/h – 140ms


IIHS Side Impact 50km/h - Results

23

IIHS Test conducted by OEM

Stuctural Rating Test: 12.5cm (GOOD) (distance to seat center): Simulation: 12.6cm (GOOD)


Human Occupant Model - THUMS

24

Detailed human body finite element model. Developed and improved by Toyota since 2002

Total HUman Model for Safety Version 4

~ 2.000.000 elements

Represents 50th percentile male


Human Model – Validation Tests

25

Validation conducted by Toyota


Integrated Occupant Vehicle Model

26

Vehicle model was equipped with human occupant models on driver

and passenger seat and relevant restraints


Outline


90° Pole Impact

75° Pole Impact

NJ Barrier Impact

Summary


Represents 90° impact into tree or pole at 29km/h

Has been used as laboratory test for vehicle rating and regulation (near-side dummy only)

Study evaluates near- and

far-side occupants Same seating position

Equipped with relevant

restraints (seat-belt, airbag)

90° Pole Configuration


90° Pole Animation


90° Pole – Vehicle Measurements


t=0ms t=180ms

Change in velocity, i.e. the difference of initial velocity and rebound velocity:

∆v in lateral vehicle direction (y): 36 km/h

∆v in longitudinal vehicle direction (x): 6 km/h

Maximum local intrusion (passenger door): 250 mm

90° Pole – Occupant Kinematics


60ms 110ms 140ms 180ms

Near-side occupant

protected by airbags

Head to head contact

Near-side occupant rebounded towards

struck side

90° Pole – Injury Risk


BRIC: Brain injury criteria: HIC: Head Injury Criteria: Probability of sustaining a serious head injury:

IARV: Injury Assessment Reference Value

High risk of serious head injury due to direct

interaction of near- and far-side occupant

Outline


90° Pole Impact

75° Pole Impact

NJ Barrier Impact

Summary


Represents oblique impact into tree or pole at 32km/h

Laboratory test for vehicle rating and regulation (near-side dummy only)





75° Pole Configuration


75° Pole Animation




∆v in longitudinal vehicle direction (x): 8 km/h Maximum local intrusion (passenger door): 300 mm

75° Pole – Vehicle Measurements


t=0ms t=180ms

75° Pole – Occupant Kinematics


60ms 100ms 140ms 180ms

Near-side occupant


Driver interacts with passenger

without head-to-head contact

Near-side occupant moves towards

middle of vehicle

75° Pole – Injury Risk


BRIC: Brain injury criteria: HIC: Head Injury Criteria: Probability of sustaining a serious head injury:


No direct contact between driver and passenger.

Low risk of head injury based on HIC

Outline


90° Pole Impact

75° Pole Impact

NJ Barrier Impact

Summary


Represents 25° oblique impact into NJ Barrier at 100km/h

Used to evaluate road side hardware (often without occupants)





NJ Barrier Configuration


NJ Barrier - Animation


NJ Barrier – Vehicle Measurements


t=0ms t=180ms



∆v in longitudinal vehicle direction (x): 25 km/h Maximum local intrusion at the passenger door: 10 mm

NJ Barrier– Occupant Kinematics


60ms 110ms 140ms 180ms

Near-side occupant


Forward motion of driver and

passenger. No interaction

Driver head strikes shoulder of passenger

NJ Barrier– Injury Risk


BRIC: Brain injury criteria: HIC: Head Injury Criteria: Probablility of sustaining a serious head injury:


Low risk of head injury based on HIC.

Higher values for far-side occupant due to

interaction with shoulder

Outline


90° Pole Impact

75° Pole Impact

NJ Barrier Impact

Summary


Summary – Vehicle


∆v in lateral vehicle direction (y) [km/h]

36 38 25

∆v in longitudinal vehicle direction (x) [km/h]

6 8 25

Maximum Intrusion [mm]

250 300 10

75° Pole showed highest intrusion and delta v in lateral vehicle direction

NJ Barrier showed highest delta v in longitudinal vehicle direction and lowest intrusion

Summary – Injury Risk


Near Side Occupant showed higher chest deflection than far-side occupant in all configurations

90° Pole showed highest risk of injury due to head-to-head contact NJ Barrier showed least amount of occupant to occupant interaction with

increased values for far-side head due to contact with shoulder

Possible Countermeasures


Conclusion


Available tools can be used to evaluate impact configurations that are not captured by today’s vehicle rating and regulation tests.

Potential injury risk can be determined and development of countermeasures can contribute to reduced fatality and injury rates in the future.

?

50

Thank You

[email protected]


Date post:	08-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongnhan
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

COMPARISON OF HUMAN OCCUPANT KINEMATICS IN LABORATORY IMPACT...

Documents