Bengt Pipkorn

STRUCTURAL ADAPTIVITY FOR ACCELERATION LEVEL REDUCTION IN PASSENGER CAR FRONTAL COLLISIONS

A mathematical model was developed to explore and demonstrate the injury reducing potential of an adaptable frontal stiffness system for full frontal collisions. The model was validated by means of crash tests and was found to predict the peak accelerations of the crash test vehicles well, whereas correlation concerning mean acceleration or residual crush was not found. Vehicles were divided into three mass classes, and a test matrix was established in order to evaluate different combinations of vehicles involved in frontal crash at three closing velocities. In a baseline simulation setup, constant stiffness values were used and the results were compared to the corresponding simulations using adaptable frontal stiffness. Results show promising acceleration peak reductions at low speeds, implying that injury risk reductions are possible.

A parametric study of a side airbag system to meet deflection based criteria

A side airbag system comprising of 12 liter bag to cover the BioSid chest and the abdomen down to the arm rest level, and 75 mm of padding to cover the pelvic/thigh area was evaluated by a series of sled tests at two different velocities, 10 m/s and 12 m/s. The initial bag (over) pressure was varied from 0 to 80 kPa and the bag ventilation area was varied from zero to 1500 mm2. Compressed air was used to fill the bag. It was found that the ventilation of the bag reduced the maximum chest deflection by 30 percent and the maximum viscous criterion, VC, by 50 percent (comparison was made with the same bag without ventilation). A suitable initial bag (over) pressure was found to be about 50 kPa, when the loading of the abdomen was also taken into consideration. The results indicate that the chest deflection is proportioned to the door average velocity (during the first 20 ms of deflection) to the power of about 2 and that the VC is proportional to the same velocity to the power of about 4. It was also found that a 12 liter ventilated side airbag resulted in 30-40 percent lower chest deflection and about 60 percent lower VC than 50 mm of chest padding (Ethafoam 220).

Validation of a Human Body Model for Frontal Crash and its Use for Chest Injury Prediction

Whole-body kinematics of the finite element human body model THUMS was evaluated by means of sled tests. A model of a crash test dummy (Hybrid-III 50%-ile) was used to validate the test environment by matching the model predictions to the experimentally measured dummy sled test responses. Once the environment was validated, the THUMS model was placed in the sled model and the post mortem human subject (PMHS) sled tests were replicated. Two test configurations were used for the evaluation. One configuration was high impact velocity sled tests with an advanced restraint system. The other configuration was low impact velocity sled tests with a basic restraint system. The test velocities were 48 km/h and 29 km/h respectively. The evaluation was carried out by an objective rating method that compared predictions from the model to results from the mechanical tests. The method assessed the peak level, peak timing and curve shapes of the predictions relative to the test results. The mathematical crash dummy model predictions matched the mechanical counterpart responses well, confirming that the test environment was replicated. The match between the THUMS model predictions and PMHS responses was not as good.

Characteristics of crashes involving injured children in side impacts

The objective of this study was to define the crash characteristics of near-side impact crashes in which children seated in the rear rows are injured. The crash characteristics included the direction of force, heading angle, horizontal impact location, vertical impact location, extent of deformation and intrusion at the child occupants seating position. Cases from in-depth crash investigation databases of the NASS-CDS (National Automotive Sampling System-Crashworthiness Data System), CIREN (Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network) and Chalmers University of Technology were reviewed. The principal direction of force was most frequently between 60° and 75°. The heading angle of the bullet vehicle was most commonly between 61° and 90°. The bullet vehicle hit the passenger compartment of the target vehicle, particularly the rear door. Often, one or both of the adjacent pillars to the rear door were involved, most commonly the B pillar. In 11 of 16 crashes, the car sill was not engaged. Most commonly, the deformation extent was into Zone 3 or more – about 40 cm – and the intrusion at the childs seating position was in the range 20–30 cm. This review of the crashes revealed differences between the current side impact test procedures and the actual side impact crashes in which children were injured.

Child Safety in Vehicles: Validation of a Mathematical Model and Development of Restraint System Design Guidelines for 3-Year-Olds through Mathematical Simulations

Objective: The objectives of this study are to validate a mathematical simulation model of the Q3 ATD in an integrated forward-facing booster-type restraint in the rear seat and to evaluate restraint parameters to further develop design guidelines for this type of restraint system for forward-facing children corresponding to the size of the Q3. Only frontal impact was considered. Methods: The software MADYMO was used to create and run the model of the restraint system and model of the child. The restraint system consisted of a seat and a safety belt. The child dummy model was the Q3. The complete model was validated to sled tests on 12 response signals: displacements of the dummy model, safety belt forces, and dummy model accelerations. The method used in the evaluation of the restraint parameters was a factorial design of experiments (DOE). The study included a total of 9 parameters: 6 related to the safety belt, such as pretensioner, load limiter, and belt anchor positions; two parameters related to the seat (stiffness and pitch angle); and one related to the foot support. The parameters were evaluated based on their effect on a number of dummy model responses. Results: The validation study showed that the mathematical model predicted the ATDs kinematics and measurements. Furthermore, the parameters that had the greatest effect on the dummy model responses were the lap belt angle, the D-ring x and y positions (upper belt anchor), the retractor pretensioner, and the retractor load limiter. The lap belt angle had the greatest effects of all parameters. The resulting head x displacement was 7.8 cm shorter with a lap belt angle of 24 degrees to the horizontal, compared to a 73 degrees to the horizontal belt angle; it also resulted in a reduction of the head resultant acceleration by 9.8 g. Conclusions: In order to decrease the Q3 ATD head, chest, and pelvis accelerations and to limit the Q3 ATD head displacement, the following practices are recommended: first, position the D-ring rearward of the ATD so that the belt encloses the ATDs shoulder; second, position the lap belt anchors to make the lap belt angle 24 degrees to the horizontal, but make sure submarining is not induced; and finally, use a safety belt with pretensioner and load limiter functions. However, these recommendations need to be balanced with the recommendations for other occupant sizes, and any specific settings have to be evaluated further before introduction into vehicles.

A computational biomechanical analysis to assess the trade-off between chest deflection and spine translation in side impact

Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate how the impact energy is apportioned between chest deflection and translation of the vehicle occupant for various side impact conditions. Methods: The Autoliv Total Human Model for Safety (modified THUMS v1.4) was subjected to localized lateral constant velocity impacts to the upper body. First, the impact tests performed on postmortem human subjects (PMHS) were replicated to evaluate THUMS biofidelity. In these tests, a 75-mm-tall flat probe impacted the thorax at 3 m/s at 3 levels (shoulder, upper chest, and mid-chest) and 3 angles (lateral, +15° posterolateral, and −15° anterolateral), for a stroke of 72 mm. Second, a parametric analysis was performed: the Autoliv THUMS response to a 250-mm impact was evaluated for varying impact levels (shoulder to mid-thorax by 50-mm increments), obliquity (0° [pure lateral] to +20° [posterior impacts] and to −20° [anterior impacts], by 5° steps), and impactor pitch (from 0 to 25° by 5° steps). A total of 139 simulations were run. The impactor force, chest deflection, spine displacement, and spine velocity were calculated for each simulation. Results: The Autoliv THUMS biofidelity was found acceptable. Overall, the predictions from the model were in good agreement with the PMHS results. The worst ratings were observed for the anterolateral impacts. For the parametric analysis, maximum chest deflection (MCD) and maximum spine displacement (MSD) were found to consistently follow opposite trends with increasing obliquity. This trend was level dependent, with greater MCD (lower MSD) for the higher impact levels. However, the spine velocity for the 250-mm impactor stroke followed an independent trend that could not be linked to MCD or MSD. This suggests that the spine velocity, which can be used as a proxy for the thorax kinetic energy, needs to be included in the design parameters of countermeasures for side impact protection. Conclusion: The parametric analysis reveals a trade-off between the deformation of the chest (and therefore the risk of rib fracture) and the lateral translation of the spine: reducing the maximum chest deflection comes at the cost of increasing the occupant lateral displacement. The trade-off between MCD and MSD is location dependent, which suggests that an optimum point of loading on the chest for the action of a safety system can be found.

A Comparison of the Performance of Two Advanced Restraint Systems in Frontal Impacts

Objective: The goal of the study is to compare the kinematics and dynamics of the THOR dummy in a frontal impact under the action of 2 state-of-the-art restraint systems. Methods: Ten frontal sled tests were performed with THOR at 2 different impact speeds (35 and 9 km/h). Two advanced restraint systems were used: a pretensioned force-limiting belt (PT+FL) and a pretensioned belt incorporating an inflatable portion (PT+BB). Dummy measurements included upper and lower neck reactions, multipoint thoracic deflection, and rib deformation. Data were acquired at 10,000 Hz. Three-dimensional motion of relevant dummy landmarks was tracked at 1,000 Hz. Results are reported in a local coordinate system moving with the test buck. Results: Average forward displacement of the head was greater when the PT+FL belt was used (35 km/h: 376.3 ± 16.1 mm [PT+BB] vs. 393.6 ± 26.1 mm [PT+FL]; 9 km/h: 82.1 ± 26.0 mm [PT+BB] vs. 98.8 ± 0.2 mm [PT+FL]). The forward displacement of T1 was greater for the PT+FL belt at 35 km/h but smaller at 9 km/h. The forward motion of the pelvis was greater when the PT+BB was used, exhibiting a difference of 82 mm in the 9 km/h tests and 95.5 mm in the 35 km/h test. At 35 km/h, upper shoulder belt forces were similar (PT+FL: 4,756.8 ± 116.6 N; PT+BB: 4,957.7 ± 116.4 N). At 9 km/h, the PT+BB belt force was significantly greater than the PT+FL one. Lower neck flexion moments were higher for the PT+BB at 35 km/h but lower at 9 km/h (PT+FL: 34.2 ± 3.5 Nm; PT+BB: 26.8 ± 2.1 Nm). Maximum chest deflection occurred at the chest upper left region for both belts and regardless of the speed. Conclusion: The comparison of the performance of different restraints requires assessing occupant kinematics and dynamics from a global point of view. Even if the force acting on the chest is similar, kinematics can be substantially different. The 2 advanced belts compared here showed that while the PT+BB significantly reduced peak and resultant chest deflection, the resulting kinematics indicated an increased forward motion of the pelvis and a reduced rotation of the occupants torso. Further research is needed to understand how these effects can influence the protection of real occupants in more realistic vehicle environments.

Parameter Study for Child Injury Mitigation in Near-Side Impacts Through FE Simulations

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of crash-related car parameters on head and chest injury measures for 3- and 12-year-old children in near-side impacts. Methods: The evaluation was made using a model of a complete passenger car that was impacted laterally by a barrier. The car model was validated in 2 crash conditions: the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the US New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) side impact tests. The Small Side Impact Dummy (SID-IIs) and the human body model 3 (HBM3) (Total HUman Model for Safety [THUMS] 3-year-old) finite element models were used for the parametric investigation (HBM3 on a booster). The car parameters were as follows: vehicle mass, side impact structure stiffness, a head air bag, a thorax–pelvis air bag, and a seat belt with pretensioner. The studied dependent variables were as follows: resultant head linear acceleration, resultant head rotational acceleration, chest viscous criterion, rib deflection, and relative velocity at head impact. The chest measurements were only considered for the SID-IIs. Results: The head air bag had the greatest effect on the head measurements for both of the occupant models. On average, it reduced the peak head linear acceleration by 54 g for the HBM3 and 78 g for the SID-IIs. The seat belt had the second greatest effect on the head measurements; the peak head linear accelerations were reduced on average by 39 g (HBM3) and 44 g (SID-IIs). The high stiffness side structure increased the SID-IIs’ head acceleration, whereas it had marginal effect on the HBM3. The vehicle mass had a marginal effect on SID-IIs’ head accelerations, whereas the lower vehicle mass caused 18 g higher head acceleration for HBM3 and the greatest rotational acceleration. The thorax–pelvis air bag, vehicle mass, and seat belt pretensioner affected the chest measurements the most. The presence of a thorax–pelvis air bag, high vehicle mass, and a seat belt pretensioner all reduced the chest viscous criterion (VC) and peak rib deflection in the SID-IIs. Conclusions: The head and thorax–pelvis air bags have the potential to reduce injury measurements for both the SID-IIs and the HBM3, provided that the air bag properties are designed to consider these occupant sizes also. The seat belt pretensioner is also effective, provided that the lateral translation of the torso is managed by other features. The importance of lateral movement management is greater the smaller the occupant is. Light vehicles require interior restraint systems of higher performance than heavy vehicles do to achieve the same level of injury measures for a given side structure.

Improved car occupant safety by expandable A-pillars

There are contradictory requirements on the A-pillar of a modern passenger vehicle. The A-pillar needs to be strong to help withstand the forces, as in a rollover situation, and maintain the occupant cell integrity in rollover and high-speed offset frontal crashes. The A-pillar needs to be slim to ensure good visibility for the driver and should be light to contribute to lower fuel consumption. An ideal A-pillar, which is folded during normal operation but is expanded by high-pressure gas in a crash, resulting in a signficant increase in cross-section and strength, should combine these contradictory requirements. Such an A-pillar was developed in this project. The A-pillar was initially folded and sealed. The goal was to develop an A-pillar that was lighter, had a smaller obscuration angle and had the same level of safety for the occupant as a state-of-the-art A-pillar. Expansion and pressurisation of the folded sealed A-pillar was accomplished by generating a high internal pressure using pyrotechnics, which is a cost- and weight-efficient way to generate high pressures. The development was carried out by combining full-vehicle crash simulations with mechanical tests. The load cases used in the development of the expandable A-pillar were an offset deformable barrier crash at 64 km/h and a roof crush test according to FMVSS 216. The expandable A-pillar concept was subsequently built and mechanically tested. The A-pillar model was validated by means of mechanical testing. Generally, there was a clear correlation between the predicted A-pillar shape and the shape of the expanded mechanical A-pillar. The developed expandable A-pillar combined the goals of high strength, smaller cross-section and lower mass. The developed A-pillar reduced the obscuration angle by 25% and the mass by 8% (excluding brackets and gas generator) relative to a state-of-the-art A-pillar, while maintaining the level of safety for the occupant.

Crash Sensing and Algorithm Development for Frontal Airbag Systems Using CAE Methods and Mechanical Tests

Mathematical models in combination with mechanical tests were used to develop a frontal crash sensing system and algorithm. The required sensor closure time for the initiation of driver side airbag deployment was estimated by means of multi-body dynamic occupant models. The crash sensing system and algorithm were developed using predictions from a finite element model of the front structure of a passenger vehicle. All models were validated by mechanical tests. Generally good agreement was obtained from the model predictions and results from the mechanical tests.