SAFETY ENHANCED INNOVATIONS FOR OLDER ROAD USERS. EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME HORIZON 2020 GA No

Transcription

1 SAFETY ENHANCED INNOVATIONS FOR OLDER ROAD USERS EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME HORIZON 2020 GA No Deliverable No. Deliverable Title Dissemination level D3.2a Elderly Overweight Dummy Test and Validation Public Written by Krystoffer Mroz Alessio Melloncelli Autoliv FCA Checked by Mark Burleigh Mark Burleigh Bernard Been Humanetics Humanetics Humanetics 15/05/ /05/2018 Approved by Marcus Wisch BASt 26/05/2018 Issue date 31/05/2018 This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides test results for the new prototype Elderly, overweight dummy. Thirteen low speed tests (delta-v 35 km/h) were carried out to assess its validity for elderly occupant protection testing. Five tests looked at repeatability again at a delta-v of 35 km/h and five tests simulating restraint misuse cases in the field. Test setups were repeatable along with deceleration pulse. The dummy showed sensitivity to the different restraint systems with the split buckle belt with triple pretensioners to be the most effective restraint. The criss-cross belt system with retractor pretensioning and load limiter stop was the second most effective. For repeatability the dummy showed very good acceleration results but in other results they were not as good, the most improvement would be required in the abdomen. The misuse tests did show the fatal case to have the highest deflection but deflections in general were lower than expected suggesting the ribcage response is too stiff. This also seemed the case in the abdomen and pelvis. Therefore the prototype dummy requires improvement in biofidelity. Contributions of the partners: Autoliv Sled testing and reporting FCA Vehicle testing and reporting Humanetics Report structure introductions, conclusions and review BASt Report review Partner Representative Chapters Autoliv Krystoffer Mroz 2 & annex FCA Alessio Melloncelli 3 Humanetics Mark Burleigh 1 & 4 Page 2 out of 62

3 Contents Executive summary Introduction The EU Project SENIORS Background and Objectives of this Deliverable Experimental Dummy Restraint Sled Tests Introduction Test Setups Results Discussion / Analysis Conclusion Experimental Dummy Repeatability Sled Tests and Belt Misuse Introduction Test Setup Repeatability Sled Test Loop Test Set Up Repeatability Loop Elderly Overweight Dummy Positioning And Interior Adjustments Other Instrumentation Cameras Other Instrumentation Transducers Misuse And D-ring Position Sled Test Loop D-ring Misuse Position Selected Accidents Misuse Seatbelt Extender Test Matrix Set Up Summary Loop Results Repeatability Sled Test Loop 1 Results Introduction Dummy Positioning Results Loop Dummy Biomechanical Results Loop Loop 1 Film Frames (repeatability) Misuse and D-ring Position Sled Test loop 2 Results Introduction Dummy Positioning Results Loop Dummy Biomechanical Results Loop Loop 2 Film Frames (misuse) Discussion / Analysis Repeatability Sled Test Loop 1 Discussion Misuse and D-ring Position Sled Test Loop 2 Discussion Conclusions Conclusions on Biomechanical Repeatability Conclusions on D-Ring And Misuse Tests General Summary and Conclusions References Acknowledgments Page 3 out of 62

4 Disclaimer Appendix 1: Experimental Dummy Restraint Sled Tests (Autoliv) Test Fixture Geometry and Dummy Positioning Measurements Dummy Measurements Positioning Measurements Points Belt System Measurement Points Belt System and Test Fixture Occupant Position 1 with Faro Arm for each test Occupant Position 2 Tilt and Tape Measurements Test Fixture Geometry Page 4 out of 62

5 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE EU PROJECT SENIORS Because society is aging demographically and obesity is becoming more prevalent, the SENIORS (Safety ENhanced Innovations for Older Road users) project aims to improve the safe mobility of the elderly, and overweight/obese persons, using an integrated approach that covers the main modes of transport as well as the specific requirements of this vulnerable road user group. This project primarily investigates and assesses the injury reduction in road traffic crashes that can be achieved through innovative and suitable tools, test and assessment procedures, as well as safety systems in the area of passive vehicle safety. The goal is to reduce the numbers of fatally and seriously injured older road users for both major groups: car occupants and external road users (pedestrians, cyclists, e-bike riders). Implemented in a project structure, the SENIORS project consists of four technical Work Packages (WP1 WP4) which interact and will provide the substantial knowledge needed throughout the project. These WPs are: WP1: Accidentology and behaviour of elderly in road traffic WP2: Biomechanics WP3: Test tool development WP4: Current protection and impact of new safety systems In addition, there is one Work Package assigned for the Dissemination and Exploitation (WP5) as well as one Work Package for the Project Management (WP6). 1.2 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS DELIVERABLE In the U.S and Europe statistics show that overall the numbers of fatalities are reducing but the older road users above 65 are taking a larger share of these fatalities. The age and weight statistically identified for the most vulnerable person in the U.S was a 70 year old female 1.61 m in height and 73 kg in weight, a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 29, just below the obese level of 30. Humanetics initiated the elderly overweight dummy in the U.S as a research tool to try and help protect this vulnerable age group and to use 3D printing for most of the dummies manufactured parts. This new technology would be a platform to help develop crash test dummies for the future. Page 5 out of 62

6 Currently there is no dummy representing an elderly overweight person so a dummy specifically designed to represent this age group would be advantageous to adapt restraint systems. Developing an elderly overweight dummy will also bring awareness to the crash test industry to this age group. The dummy is a prototype and is in an early stage of development, therefore improvement is still to be done. The dummy is very much a research tool and improvement particularly to biofidelity will be key to the dummy s success. The dummy has not been tested in frontal impacts before so any durability issues will be addressed. Testing the dummy in SENIORS will help speed up its development to become a more accurate test tool for occupant elderly protection. The objective of this Deliverable is to report about the current status of testing with the Elderly, Overweight Dummy in SENIORS and its validation. Page 6 out of 62

7 2 EXPERIMENTAL DUMMY RESTRAINT SLED TESTS 2.1 INTRODUCTION Thirteen low speed (35 km/h) sled tests were carried out to investigate the response of the elderly overweight dummy to different airbag and seat belt configurations. These are the first frontal sled tests ever done on this new prototype dummy. In these tests the aim is to validate the dummy regarding sensitivity to different restraint conditions. 2.2 TEST SETUPS The investigation was carried out by means of mechanical sled tests with the elderly, overweight dummy (EATD) in the SENIORS buck, Figure 1. This generic buck is comprised of a seat belt system, a rigid seat and a generic driver airbag. The generic driver airbag was pre-inflated to a target value of 19kPa using compressed air and the response was adapted to the impact velocity 35km/h using an active venting device. The venting device was triggered at 10ms which resulted in the opening of the venting hatch starting at 50ms and ending at 60ms. Using an external strap, the depth of the generic airbag was adjusted so that a slight contact was initiated to the chest of the overweight elderly dummy. The SENIORS buck is described in detail in report D2.5a, chapter (Eggers, 2017). Figure 1: Elderly overweight dummy in SENIORS buck. The positions of the seat, footrest, steering wheel and the belt system anchorage points were recorded using faro arm measurements. For the tests with generic load limiting, a more rearward position of the two lower belt anchorage points were used. The initial position of the EATD and the belt routing on the chest and pelvis were recorded using faro arm measurements for each test. EATD position angles, belt position angles and belt force gauge positions were recorded using tilt and tape measurements. All test fixture geometry and positioning measurements are given in Appendix 1. Page 7 out of 62

8 In total 13 sled tests were carried out in impact severities representing a full frontal rigid barrier at 35km/h, see Table 1, with different restraint systems as described in detail below. Load limiting forces within round brackets (LL1) were used only during the pretensioning phase (up to 20ms) and did not affect the restraining of the dummy at the time of maximum loading. For the 3-point belts, the retractor pretensioner was triggered at 8ms and the lap pretensioner at 15ms. For the 3-point two retractor belts, both the retractor and lap pretensioners were triggered at 8ms. For the criss-cross belts, the two diagonal belt retractors were triggered at 8ms and the lap pretensioner at 8ms. For the split buckle belts, the diagonal belt retractor was triggered at 8ms, the inboard pretensioner at 15ms and the outboard pretensioner at 8ms. Table 1: Elderly dummy test overview 35km/h (DAB=driver airbag, LL1=retractor load limiting force high, LL2=retractor load limiting force low, TTF LL2=switch time from high to low load limiting force, PLP=pyrotechnic lap pretensioner, RP=retractor pretensioner, LLS=load limiting stop). No Test No T Belt Type Airbag LL1 (kn) LL2 (kn) TTF LL2 (ms) PLP pt Generic LL DAB 2,0 - - No pretensioning pt Generic LL DAB 2,0 - - No pretensioning pt Generic LL DAB 2,0 - - No pretensioning pt Belt DAB (5,0) 2,0 20 R200 RP LLS pt Belt DAB 4,0 - - PLP pt Belt DAB 4,0 - - PLP pt Belt DAB 4,0 - - PLP pt 2-ret Belt DAB (5,0) 2,0 20 PLP pt 2-ret Belt DAB (5,0) 2,0 20 PLP ret Criss-Cross DAB (3,0) 0,9 + 0,9 20 R200 RP LLS ret Criss-Cross DAB (3,0) 0,9 + 0,9 20 R200 RP LLS Split Buckle DAB 6,0 2, R200 RP LLS + PLP Split Buckle DAB 6,0 2, R200 RP LLS + PLP 3.1 The response of the elderly, overweight dummy was investigated from the restraining of 5 seat belt configurations: 1) 3-point SENIORS belt system (Figure 2): A belt system with the SENIORS generic load limiting device and no pretensioners. 2) 3-point double-pretensioned baseline (state-of-the-art) belt system (Figure 3): A belt system with retractor and lap pretensioners. Retractor load limiter values of 2kN and 4kN were used. Page 8 out of 62

9 3) 3-point two-retractor belt with double pretensioning (Figure 4): A belt system with locked webbing slippage through the buckle. To simplify belt fitting on the dummy, a retractor pretensioner instead of a lap pretensioner was used at the outer anchor point of the lap belt. (A retractor pretensioner can pay out webbing to fit the dummy). 4) 3+2, two-retractor criss-cross belt with triple pretensioning (Figure 5): An additional pretensioned and load limited diagonal belt was added to the 3-point tworetractor belt, creating a criss-cross belt geometry. 5) Split buckle belt with triple pretensioning (Figure 6): A belt system with separate lap and diagonal belts. The diagonal belt was retractor pretensioned and load limited. The lap belt was equipped with double pretensioning using a retractor pretensioner and a lap pretensioner. Figure 2: 3-point belt with generic load limiting device (right). Figure 3: 3-point belt with double pretensioning (baseline). Figure 4: 3-point two-retractor belt with double pretensioning (baseline). Page 9 out of 62

10 Figure 5: 3+2 two-retractor criss-cross belt with triple pretensioning. Figure 6: Split buckle belt with triple pretensioning. Deceleration of the SENIORS sled was carried out using a bending bars mechanical setup. The pulses were well repeated between the tests, Figure 7. Compared to the 35km/h target pulse, the peak accelerations were well matched but with a softer initial build-up of accelerations. Figure 7: Test crash pulses compared to the target pulse in 35km/h. The EATD was equipped with the sensors according to Table 2. Page 10 out of 62

11 Table 2: Elderly, overweight dummy sensors and channel descriptions. Num Sensor Description 1 S3CHSTLELOTHANYP Lower chest left angle y 2 S3CHSTLELOTHANZP Lower chest left angle z 3 S3CHSTLELOTHDC0P Lower chest left displ. 4 S3CHSTLEUPTHANYP Upper chest left angle y 5 S3CHSTLEUPTHANZP Upper chest left angle z 6 S3CHSTLEUPTHDC0P Upper chest left displ. 7 S3CHSTRILOTHANYP Lower chest right angle y 8 S3CHSTRILOTHANZP Lower chest right angle z 9 S3CHSTRILOTHDC0P Lower chest right displ. 10 S3CHSTRIUPTHANYP Upper chest right angle y 11 S3CHSTRIUPTHANZP Upper chest right angle z 12 S3CHSTRIUPTHDC0P Upper chest right displ. 13 S3ABDOLE00THDC0P Abdomen left displ. 14 S3ABDORI00THDC0P Abdomen right displ. 15 S3HEAD0000THACXP Head Acc X 16 S3HEAD0000THACYP Head Acc Y 17 S3HEAD0000THACZP Head Acc Z 18 S3HEAD0000THAVXP Head Angular Velocity X 19 S3HEAD0000THAVYP Head Angular Velocity Y 20 S3HEAD0000THAVZP Head Angular Velocity Z 21 S3CHST0000THACXP Chest Acc X 22 S3CHST0000THACYP Chest Acc Y 23 S3CHST0000THACZP Chest Acc Z 24 S3PELV0000THACXP Pelvis Acc X 25 S3PELV0000THACYP Pelvis Acc Y 26 S3PELV0000THACZP Pelvis Acc Z The thorax IR-TRACC (InfraRed Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest Compression) sensor measurements were processed using the THOR 50th Diadem sequence to derive the resultant chest deflections. For the abdomen IR-TRACC measurements, the displacements were set to zero at time 0ms. No recalculation of the abdomen displacements was carried out. 2.3 RESULTS Repeated tests were carried out for all belt systems except for the pretensioned 2kN load limited 3-point belt. Chest deflection Rmax values (maximum resultant chest deflection of all IR-TRACCs) from 23-29mm were obtained for the SENIORS generic belt and 26mm for the pretensioned 2kN load limited belt, Table 3. A reduction of Rmax from 20-24mm to 19-21mm was obtained for the criss-cross belt compared to the baseline state-of-the-art belt system and a reduction to for the split- Page 11 out of 62

12 buckle belt. For the 3-point two retractor belt, similar Rmax values were obtained as for the baseline system. For most of the belt systems, the peak Rmax value was measured in one of the lower chest IR-TRACC points. For the generic load limiter, 2kN load limited and 4kN load limited 3-point belts, time-history curves of chest resultant deflections and airbag pressure are given in Figure 8, abdomen displacements in Figure 9 and belt forces in Figure 10. For the two-retractor 3-point belt, the criss-cross belt and the split buckle belts, time-history curves of chest resultant deflections and airbag pressure are given in Figure 11, abdomen displacements in Figure 12 and belt forces in Figure 13. Head, chest and pelvis resultant accelerations for all belt configurations are given in Figure 14 and Figure 15. Positive abdomen peak displacements, indicating an extension of abdomen point, were measured for all belt systems on the right side and for most belt systems where a lap pretensioner was present on the left side, Figure 9 and Figure 12. In the tests using the 3- point generic LL belt configuration, the abdomen displacement measurement failed in compression. Table 3: Elderly dummy thorax IR-TRACC peak resultant deflections, 35km/h. (DAB=driver airbag, IR- TRACC measurement locations UL=upper left, UR=upper right, LL=lower left, LR=lower right). Test No T Belt Type Airbag UL Res. (mm) UR Res. (mm) LL Res. (mm) LR Res. (mm) Rmax (mm) Pos Rmax pt Generic LL DAB LR pt Generic LL DAB LR pt Generic LL DAB LL/LR pt Belt 2kN DAB LL pt Belt 4kN DAB LL pt Belt 4kN DAB LL pt Belt 4kN DAB UL/LR pt 2-ret Belt DAB LL pt 2-ret Belt DAB LL/LR ret Criss-Cross DAB LL/LR ret Criss-Cross DAB LL/LR 447 Split Buckle DAB UR/LL 448 Split Buckle DAB UR Page 12 out of 62

13 Figure 8: Chest resultant deflections, belt shoulder force and airbag pressure for the tests with generic load limiter, 2kN load limited and 4kN load limited 3-point belts. Figure 9: Abdomen IR-TRACC displacements, lower shoulder belt forces and outboard lap belt forces for the tests with generic load limiter, 2kN load limited and 4kN load limited 3-point belts. Page 13 out of 62

14 Figure 10: Upper shoulder belt forces, lower shoulder belt forces, outboard lap belt forces and belt pull-in/pullout for the tests with generic load limiter, 2kN load limited and 4kN load limited 3-point belts. Figure 11: Chest resultant deflections, belt shoulder force and airbag pressure for the tests with the 2- retractor belt, the criss-cross belt and the split buckle belt (reference tests T to T in red). Page 14 out of 62

15 Figure 12: Abdomen IR-TRACC displacements, lower shoulder belt forces and outboard lap belt forces for the tests with the 2-retractor belt, the criss-cross belt and the split buckle belt (reference tests T to T in red). Figure 13: Upper shoulder belt forces, lower shoulder belt forces, outboard lap belt forces and belt pull-in/pullout for the tests with the 2-retractor belt, the criss-cross belt and the split buckle belt (reference tests T to T in red). Page 15 out of 62

16 Figure 14: Head, chest and pelvis resultant accelerations for the tests with generic load limiter, 2kN load limited and 4kN load limited 3-point belts. Figure 15: Head, chest and pelvis resultant accelerations for the tests with the 2-retractor belt, the criss-cross belt and the split buckle belt (reference tests T to T in red). Page 16 out of 62

17 2.4 DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS For the pretensioned 3-point, criss-cross and split buckle belt configurations, a smaller spread in maximum chest deflections (Rmax 17-26mm) was obtained for the elderly, overweight dummy compared to the THOR 50 th dummy (Rmax 19-43mm), see report D2.5a(Eggers, 2017). This could suggest the dummy is currently too stiff in the thorax. It was also noticed in the video when the pretensioning was activated that the pelvis flesh was stiffer than the THOR pelvis flesh as the belt did not penetrate as far into the flesh. The effect of the retractor load limiting level on the chest deflection response was small in the elderly, overweight dummy tests due to the position of the measured maximum resultant chest deflection (Rmax). For most of the belt configurations, the Rmax was obtained at the lower chest IR-TRACC positions (LL or LR) while in the THOR tests, the Rmax value was obtained at the upper points (UL and/or UL/UR). One reason for this can be the larger size of the lower torso of the EATD compared to the THOR dummy. The larger size causes the shoulder belt to enclose the lower torso to a larger extent for the elderly, overweight dummy compared to the THOR dummy, which can potentially increase the loading on this body part. Also, a smaller initial clearance between the lower torso/abdomen to the airbag was obtained in the EATD tests compared to the THOR tests which could have increased the loading from the airbag. For the elderly, overweight dummy, the effect of improved load distribution using the crisscross belt configuration was obtained in reduced deflections at the upper measurement points. However, this effect was not as large when considering also the lower measurement points. Largest reduction in Rmax was instead obtained using the split buckle belt due to larger reductions at the lower chest deflection points. At 35km/h, small or no belt payout was obtained for the 4kN load limiting. Also, small belt webbing pull-in and short pelvis excursions was obtained using an anchor pretensioner. This can be caused by a possibly overly stiff pelvis/abdomen of the EATD. Positive values (extension) of most abdomen IRTRACC displacements were obtained, especially when powerful lap pretensioning was used as for the 3-point two retractor, the criss-cross and the split buckle belts. A possible scenario is that the lap belt is pulled below the abdomen points which restrains the pelvis and pushes the abdomen into extension from mass inertia forces. Another reason for not measuring compressive displacements in the Page 17 out of 62

18 abdomen can be due to the use of the rigid seat which prevents the pelvis from downward motion into the seat. In a deformable vehicle seat, a downward pelvis motion allows the lap belt to slide closer to the abdomen which has the potential to load the abdomen into compression. In the tests where the 3-point generic LL belt configuration was used, the left abdomen displacement signal was clipped at -6mm, Figure 9. Due to the initial compression of -15mm, the lower limit of the measurement range was reached for this sensor. To avoid this in future tests, it is recommended to either increase the measurement range or to reset the sensor position value to zero at the start of the test. 2.5 CONCLUSION Compared to the reference 3-point belt system, the largest reduction in Rmax was obtained with the split buckle belt followed by the criss-cross belt. For the THOR dummy, the largest reduction in Rmax was obtained with the criss-cross belt. As opposed to the THOR dummy, the reduced loading on the lower torso from the belt systems with enhanced lap pretensioning was not obtained with the elderly, overweight dummy due to the larger lower torso and abdomen size. These differences in torso loading indicate that the EATD has the potential as a tool for the development of safety systems which can improve the protection of the overweight population. For most of the belt systems, the Rmax value was obtained in the lower IR-TRACC positions and thus relatively insensitive to variations in retractor load limiting levels. Small belt webbing pull-in and short pelvis excursions was obtained using an anchor pretensioner which can be caused by an overly stiff pelvis/abdomen on the EATD. It would be a recommendation to compare the stiffness of the pelvis to an average human subject. Overall the dummy showed that it could discriminate between the baseline restraint system (3-point belt) and the advanced restraint systems used in this study. These findings indicate that the dummy is sufficiently validated to measure the effect from various loading conditions using advanced belt restraints systems. Page 18 out of 62

19 3 EXPERIMENTAL DUMMY REPEATABILITY SLED TESTS AND BELT MISUSE 3.1 INTRODUCTION Two loop test series were performed with a Body in White (BiW) vehicle structure: five low speed tests looking at repeatability and 5 misuse tests looking into bad belt positionings by reproducing documented accidents. The repeatability tests were to establish if results were reliable, while the purpose of misuse tests was to look at the sensitivity of the dummy differentiating between good and bad belt positionings. 3.2 TEST SETUP REPEATABILITY SLED TEST LOOP 1 The first five sled tests were performed with the very same set-up in order to test repeatability both of the dummy positioning and of the biomechanical response of the dummy. All sled tests were performed in the SESA sled test facility in FCA Italy, using a Seattle Safety servo sled 3.1MN, see Figure 16. Figure 16: SESA sled facility. FCA Italy Page 19 out of 62

20 TEST SET UP REPEATABILITY LOOP 1 In order not to introduce too many variables in this first loop of testing it was decided to use a simple setup with only standard single pretensioned seatbelts and standard 4w seat (4w means 4 ways: forward/rearward longitudinal regulation and erect/lying seatback angle regulation) to restrain the dummy with a standard SENIORS deceleration pulse. The BiW chosen is a Jeep Renegade reinforced buck, see Figure 17. Figure 17: Jeep Renegade reinforced BiW Main characteristic of test set up are listed below: BiW: Reinforced LHD 2016 Jeep Renegade buck Tested side: Driver (Left) Pulse: Low Speed (SENIORS project, delta-v 35 km/h), see figure 18. Figure 18: SENIORS low speed pulse Page 20 out of 62

21 Seat: Restraint system: Instrument Panel: Steering column: Time to fire: 4w fabric mechanical driver seat Constant load limiter (CLL) with retractor pretensioner seat belts. Limitation load on shoulder 3KN Not present Not present Retractor pretensioner 12ms ELDERLY OVERWEIGHT DUMMY POSITIONING AND INTERIOR ADJUSTMENTS The position of the dummy on the seat was performed in compliance with the requirements of Euro NCAP for the positioning of the HIII 05F (5 th %-ile) dummy in frontal full-width impact test on driver side, see EuroNCAP protocol Full Width Frontal Impact Test Protocol v1.0.4 (EuroNCAP, 2018). Prescription for the positioning of the dummy of the used protocol are listed in chapters: 5 PASSENGER COMPARTMENT ADJUSTMENTS 5.1 Driver Compartment Adjustments 5.4 Driver Seating Position for Test 6 DUMMY POSITIONING AND MEASUREMENTS 6.1 Determine the H-point 6.2 Dummy Installation 6.3 Dummy Placement 6.4 Driver Dummy Positioning Table 4: Final seat, H-point and interiors set up target with the application of the full width frontal impact test protocol v1.0.4 Repeatability sled test loop - Elderly overweight dummy positioning target Seat travel from rearmost position [mm] 210 mm 9% of seat longitudinal track from the forwardmost position % Seat height from full down position 25% Torso angle [deg] 21 Seat Headrest heigh Full Down Headrest outboard rod to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] 890 Headrest outboard rod to rim x-z plane [mm] - x H3D H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 265 Target x H-point z H3D H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 145 Target z H-point Steering wheel horizontal adjustment N.D. Not Applicable Steering Steering wheel vertical adjustment N.D. Not Applicable Steering wheel angle [deg] N.D. Not Applicable D-ring D-Ring z position Mid Range Head Head angle Dummy Pelvis Pelvis angle Knees distance knee to knee (y direction) mm Page 21 out of 62

22 Figure 19 shows photos of the final setup with positioned EATD before test: Figure 19: Elderly, overweight dummy position before testing OTHER INSTRUMENTATION CAMERAS Four off-board high speed cameras (1 khz framerate) were used to capture cinematic of the dummy in the sled tests. Positioning of the cameras were selected to obtain best view of the dummy during the test, see Figures 20 and 21. Figure 20: Position of the four off-board cameras Page 22 out of 62

23 Figure 21: Off-board camera views OTHER INSTRUMENTATION TRANSDUCERS To monitor the performance of the SESA sled and of the seat belt CLL the following transducers were used, see Figure 22. Instrumentation vehicle-acelerometers Tunnel Middle Base of the B-pillar Sled Trolley Retention system instrumentation Belt force B3 (F) Belt force B6 (F) Belt force B4 (F) Belt force B5 (F) X X X X X X X Figure 22: Transducers and seatbelt load cells positions ( X means installed ) MISUSE AND D-RING POSITION SLED TEST LOOP 2 The second loop of sled tests was performed with the aim of reproducing field misuse (seat belt extender) and not optimal D-ring position on two different vehicles categories: SUV and SEDAN. Page 23 out of 62

24 D-RING MISUSE POSITION SELECTED ACCIDENTS Selected reference field misuse to be reproduced on the sled with the Elderly overweight dummy are: CASE Occupant is shorter than 160 cm, manual shoulder belt upper anchorage adjustment in full up position. Events description: The crash occurred as Vehicle 1 (V1) shown in red, see Figure 23, exited a slight right curve and hit a patch of ice, causing the vehicle to cross the double yellow line into the northbound lane. The front of V1 impacted the front of V2 head-on. After impact, both vehicles rotated slightly to the right before coming to final rest. Figure 23: Diagram showing layout of V1 and V2 collision in Case Injury Causation: Passenger occupant on V1 sustained mildly displaced bilateral fractures to ribs 1-8 rib with related hemo/pneumothorax and a sternal body fracture due to direct chest contact with the shoulder portion of the belt (confidence of certain). She also sustained a right C7 transverse process fracture due to spinal flexion over the Page 24 out of 62

25 shoulder portion of the belt and L2/L3 vertebral end plate fractures without significant height loss due to spinal column load into the seat structure via the pelvis (confidence of certain). The case occupant also received a right hip contusion due to contact with the lap belt (confidence of certain). Table 5: Case occupant details in vehicle V1 Gender Female Age 77 years Fate Not fatal ISS 33 MAIS 5 (Thorax) Table 6: Case vehicle and dummy sled setup details to reproduce collision Driver side Passenger side X Seat travel from rearmost position [mm] % of seat longitudinal track from the forwardmost position Seat % Seat height from full down position N.A. Not Applicabe, 4w seat Torso angle [deg] 21 Headrest heigh Full Down Headrest outboard rod to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] 630 x H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 282 Target x H-point z H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 197 Target z H-point Steering wheel horizontal adjustment N.A. Not Applicable, passenger side Steering Steering wheel vertical adjustment N.A. Not Applicable, passenger side Steering wheel angle [deg] N.A. Not Applicable, passenger side D-ring D-Ring z position Uppermost Misuse position, high belt routing on thorax Head Head angle [deg] Dummy Pelvis Pelvis angle [deg] Knees Distance knee to knee, y direction [mm] Table 7: Setup details of reference sled test, to be performed, for comparison purpose, with optimal D- ring z position Seat Steering Driver side Passenger side X Seat travel from rearmost position [mm] % of seat longitudinal track from the forwardmost position % Seat height from full down position N.A. Not Applicabe, 4w seat Torso angle [deg] 21 Headrest heigh Full Down Headrest outboard rod to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] 630 x H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 282 Target x H-point z H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 197 Target z H-point Steering wheel horizontal adjustment N.A. Not Applicable, passenger side Steering wheel vertical adjustment N.A. Not Applicable, passenger side Steering wheel angle [deg] N.A. Not Applicable, passenger side D-ring D-Ring z position Mid Range Normal use position Dummy Head Head angle [deg] Pelvis Pelvis angle [deg] Knees Distance knee to knee, y direction [mm] Page 25 out of 62

26 CASE Occupant is taller than 175 cm and manual shoulder belt upper anchorage adjustment in full down position Events description: The vehicle 1 (V1) was travelling north on a two lane, two way highway where the road curved to the left with no paved shoulders, see Figure 24. V1 appeared to continue straight in the curve and departed the roadway to the right a short distance before the front of V1 impacted a large tree about 1.3 meters from the edge of the road. V1 rotated counterclockwise and came to final rest angled northwest on a downward slope still near the struck tree. Figure 24: Diagram showing layout of V1 collision in Case Injury Causation: The front occupant (see table 8) was using the manual lap/shoulder belt and the belt retractor pretensioner actuated and the frontal instrument mounted airbag deployed on impact. It appeared the seatback was in some reclined position. On impact his Page 26 out of 62

27 body moved forward being restrained by the seatbelt. Significant loading on the seatbelt webbing was documented on the shoulder portion. The webbing at the latch plate also had loading on the webbing. Table 8: Case occupant details Gender Male Age 66 years Fate Fatal ISS 29 MAIS 4 (Thorax) Dummy Seat Steering D-ring Table 9: Case vehicle and dummy sled setup details to reproduce collision Driver side X Passenger side Seat travel from rearmost position [mm] % of seat longitudinal track from the forwardmost position % Seat height from full down position 30% To lower the belt routing on thorax Torso angle [deg] 21 Headrest heigh Full Down Headrest outboard rod to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] 860 x H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 265 Target x H-point z H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 127 Target z H-point Steering wheel horizontal adjustment Mid Steering wheel vertical adjustment Mid Steering wheel angle [deg] 62.3 D-Ring z position Lowermost Misuse position, low belt routing on thorax Head Head angle [deg] Pelvis Pelvis angle [deg] Knees Distance knee to knee, y direction [mm] CASE: Occupant (see table 10) is taller than 175 cm, manual shoulder belt upper anchorage adjustment in full up position and seat middle position. Events description: The case vehicle 1 (V1) approached the hillcrest travelling left across the center lines. V1 impacted V2 head-on (see figure 25). After impact, V1 rotated counter clockwise 70 degrees. The other vehicle (V2) came to rest in the roadway just after impact. V1 and V2 were both towed due to damage. Page 27 out of 62

28 Figure 25: Diagram showing layout of V1-V2 collision in Case Injury Causation: The case occupant sustained right rib fractures one through ten, left rib fractures one through eight, a sternal fracture, a manubrial fracture, and a left kidney laceration all due to contact with the steering wheel through the airbag and the seatbelt; a left kidney hematoma possibly due to contact with the seatbelt. Table 10: Case occupant details Gender Male Age 81 years Fate Fatal ISS 17 MAIS 3 (Thorax) Dummy Table 11: Case vehicle and dummy sled setup details to reproduce collision Seat Steering D-ring Driver side X Passenger side Seat travel from rearmost position [mm] 210 9% of seat longitudinal track from the forwardmost position % Seat height from full down position 0% Full down Torso angle [deg] 21 Headrest heigh Full Down Headrest outboard rod to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] 890 x H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 265 Target x H-point z H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 145 Target z H-point Steering wheel horizontal adjustment Mid Steering wheel vertical adjustment Mid Steering wheel angle [deg] 62.3 D-Ring z position Uppermost Misuse position, high belt routing on thorax Head Head angle [deg] Pelvis Pelvis angle [deg] Knees Distance knee to knee, y direction [mm] Page 28 out of 62

29 MISUSE SEATBELT EXTENDER A seatbelt extender is a post market option used to increase accessibility to the seat belt buckle for overweight people. An increase of buckle head length could cause an increased risk of submarining in frontal impact and decrease the efficiency of the pelvis restraint. Figure 26: Picture showing seat belt extender Use of the seatbelt extender will be reproduced with the setup as shown in Table 12. Dummy Seat Steering D-ring Table 12: Seat belt extender test setup details MISUSE sled test loop - Elderly overweight dummy positioning target Driver side X Passenger side Seat travel from rearmost position [mm] 210 9% of seat longitudinal track from the forwardmost position % Seat height from full down position 0% Full down Torso angle [deg] 21 Headrest heigh Full Down Headrest outboard rod to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] 890 x H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 265 Target x H-point z H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] 145 Target z H-point Steering wheel horizontal adjustment Mid Steering wheel vertical adjustment Mid Steering wheel angle [deg] 62.3 D-Ring z position Mid Range Head Head angle [deg] Pelvis Pelvis angle [deg] Knees Distance knee to knee, y direction [mm] Normal use position, belt routing altered by a seatbelt extender on buckle side Page 29 out of 62

30 TEST MATRIX SET UP SUMMARY LOOP 2 MISUSE LOOP Table 13: Final test matrix for testing loop 2 Fiat safety systems PULSE BiW Occupant (shoulder belt adjustments) Test 1 Low speed Fiat Tipo Passenger Safty system std for SENIORS Test 2 Low speed Fiat Tipo Passenger Safty system std for SENIORS Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Low speed Low speed Low speed Jeep Renegade Jeep Renegade Jeep Renegade Driver Driver Driver Safty system std for SENIORS Safty system std for SENIORS Safty system std for SENIORS + Seat belt extender TARGET Performance zero D-ring in normal use position. D-RING Seatbelt in position close to the neck (CASE ) D-RING Seatbelt in position close to the neck (CASE ) D-RING Seatbelt in position down to the chest (CASE ) Evaluation of Seat belt extender 3.3 RESULTS REPEATABILITY SLED TEST LOOP 1 RESULTS INTRODUCTION Five sled tests were performed in the first loop with the following set up: Dummy elderly, overweight dummy Dummy positioning from Euro NCAP full-width frontal protocol, HIII 05F Pulse low speed BiW seat and pretensioned seat belt only (12 ms) Aim was to evaluate: - dummy positioning (repeatability, critical points vs actual production interiors) - biomechanics data repeatability. Repeatability LOOP (Test N ) 11090_ZG 11091_ZG 11092_ZG 11093_ZG 11094_ZG Table 14: Loop 1 Test matrix Fiat safety systems PULSE BiW Occupant (shoulder belt adjustments) Low speed Low speed Low speed Low speed Low speed Jeep Renegade Jeep Renegade Jeep Renegade Jeep Renegade Jeep Renegade TARGET Driver Driver seat + seatbelt Protocol evaluation / reapetibility Driver Driver seat + seatbelt Protocol evaluation / reapetibility Driver Driver seat + seatbelt Protocol evaluation / reapetibility Driver Driver seat + seatbelt Protocol evaluation / reapetibility Driver Driver seat + seatbelt Protocol evaluation / reapetibility DUMMY POSITIONING RESULTS LOOP 1 Positioning of the dummy was done following the Euro NCAP Full Width Frontal Impact Test Protocol v Table 15 shows details of the recorded measurements. Page 30 out of 62

31 Table 15: Positioning data for each test of Loop 1 (note: higher standard deviations marked in yellow) 11090_ZG 11091_ZG 11092_ZG 11093_ZG 11094_ZG Mean Std. Dev. Seatbelt Seatbelt anchorage position Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid N.A. N.A. Steering wheel horizontal adjustment N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Steering wheel Steering wheel vertical adjustment N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Steering wheel angle [deg] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Seat travel from rearmost position [mm] N.A. N.A. % Seat height from full down position N.A. N.A. Torso angle [deg] N.A. N.A. Seat Headrest heigh Full Down Full Down Full Down Full Down Full Down N.A. N.A. Headrest outboard rod to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] N.A. N.A. Headrest outboard rod to rim x-z plane [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. x H3D H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. z H3D H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. Chin to top of rim/bottom edge of glass x-z plane [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Nose to top of rim N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Head Nose to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] Nose to upper belt webbing [mm] x Head center of gravity from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] z Head center of gravity from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Chest to hub x direction [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Chest Stomach to bottom of rim/ip x direction [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Sternum angle [deg] Left x Left shoulder bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] z Left shoulder bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Arms x Right shoulder bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Right N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. z Right shoulder bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Other Hand joint distance [mm] Pelvis angle [deg] x Dummy H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Pelvis Dummy z Dummy H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Angle between dummy H-Point and head center of gravity [deg] Left knee bolt to IP x-z plane minimum [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Left knee bolt to floor z direction [mm] Left tibia to IP x-z plane minimum [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Left Left femur angle [deg] Left tibia angle [deg] x Left knee bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] z Left knee bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Legs Right knee bolt to IP x-z plane minimum [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Right knee bolt to floor z direction [mm] Right tibia to IP x-z plane minimum [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Right Right femur angle [deg] Right tibia angle [deg] x Right knee bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. z Right knee bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Other Distance between external metallic parts of knees [mm] TEST FCA Test Number COLOUR Test _ZG Test _ZG Test _ZG Test _ZG Test _ZG Dummy positioning shows a good repeatability, with standard deviations which don t exceed 8-9 mm and 2-3 degrees for angular measurements. However, the EATD shows higher standard deviations along z-coordinate (see highlighted cells). Page 31 out of 62

32 DUMMY BIOMECHANICAL RESULTS LOOP 1 Pulse: Figure 27: BiW acceleration, velocity and displacement obtained on rear floor for tests 11090_ZG, 11091_ZG, 11092_ZG, 11093_ZG and 11094_ZG Head acceleration: Figure 28: Head x, y, z and resultant acceleration for tests 11090_ZG, 11091_ZG, 11092_ZG, 11093_ZG and 11094_ZG Page 32 out of 62

33 Figure 29: Head x acceleration, x relative velocity and x relative displacement for tests 11090_ZG, 11091_ZG, 11092_ZG, 11093_ZG and 11094_ZG Chest acceleration: Figure 30: Thorax x, y, z and resultant acceleration for tests 11090_ZG, 11091_ZG, 11092_ZG, 11093_ZG and 11094_ZG Page 33 out of 62

34 Chest deflection: Figure 31: Chest (upper S, lower I ) and abdomen left ( SX ) and right ( DX ) deflections for tests 11090_ZG, 11091_ZG, 11092_ZG, 11093_ZG and 11094_ZG IR-TRACC rotation: Figure 32: IR-TRACC y and z rotations on upper ( S ) and lower ( I ), left ( SX ) and right ( DX ) ribs for tests 11090_ZG, 11091_ZG, 11092_ZG, 11093_ZG and 11094_ZG Page 34 out of 62

35 Seatbelts: Figure 33: Seatbelt load on B3 ( Shoulder 1 ), B4 ( Shoulder 2 ), B5 ( Lap 2 ) and B6 ( Lap 1 ) load cells for tests 11090_ZG, 11091_ZG, 11092_ZG, 11093_ZG and 11094_ZG LOOP 1 FILM FRAMES (REPEATABILITY) Here in after left view video frames at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 ms are reported for tests 11090_ZG (top left), 11091_ZG (top center), 11092_ZG (top right), 11093_ZG (bottom left) and 11094_ZG (bottom right). Page 35 out of 62

36 Page 36 out of 62

37 Figure 34: Repeatability loop film frames (frames at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120ms) At 0 ms, setup looks similar for all tests. At 20 ms, there are no perceivable differences than at 0 ms. At 40 ms, in test 11090_ZG the knee is a little higher comparing to other tests. In all tests the dummy has moved forward including the headrest and seatback. Head rotation is a little different in test 11091_ZG, with the head slightly more tilted than in other tests. Smoke is seen in the bottom two pictures as retractor covers were not fitted. At 60 ms, the knee in test 11090_ZG has moved higher and further forward than in the other tests. Clearance distances from headrest and seatback are the same in all tests. At 80 ms, arm is more bent in test 11090_ZG (less extended) and knees are higher and further forward. Head rotation seems a little higher in test 11091_ZG. The dummy is returning back into the seat. At 100 ms, arms and shoulders in test 11090_ZG are not as forward as in other tests, head rotation also does looks lower. In test 11091_ZG head and neck continue to be more rotated. Page 37 out of 62

38 3.3.2 MISUSE AND D-RING POSITION SLED TEST LOOP 2 RESULTS INTRODUCTION The purpose of the second loop was to perform five sled tests reproducing real accidents characterized by seatbelt misuse in order to evaluate the effects of incorrect belt routings on elderly dummy biomechanics. Dummy Pulse BiW Elderly, overweight dummy Low speed Seat, pretensioned seatbelt (12 ms) Table 16: Loop 2 Test matrix MISUSE LOOP PULSE BiW Occupant Fiat safety systems (shoulder belt adjustments) Test 1 Low speed Fiat Tipo Passenger Safty system std for SENIORS Test 2 Low speed Fiat Tipo Passenger Safty system std for SENIORS Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Low speed Low speed Low speed Jeep Renegade Jeep Renegade Jeep Renegade Driver Driver Driver Safty system std for SENIORS Safty system std for SENIORS Safty system std for SENIORS + Seat belt extender TARGET Performance zero D-ring in normal use position. D-RING Seatbelt in position close to the neck (CASE ) D-RING Seatbelt in position close to the neck (CASE ) D-RING Seatbelt in position down to the chest (CASE ) Evaluation of Seat belt extender DUMMY POSITIONING RESULTS LOOP 2 Positioning of the dummy was done in order to reproduce real accidents characterized by different seatbelt belt routing. Page 38 out of 62

39 Table 17: Positioning data for each test of Loop _ZG 11096_ZG 11136_ZG 11137_ZG 11138_ZG Seatbelt Seatbelt anchorage position Mid Full Up Full Up Full Down Mid Steering wheel horizontal adjustment N.A N.A. Mid Mid Mid Steering wheel Steering wheel vertical adjustment N.A. N.A. Mid Mid Mid Steering wheel angle [deg] N.A. N.A Seat travel from rearmost position [mm] % Seat height from full down position N.D. N.D Torso angle [deg] Seat Headrest heigh Full Down Full Down Full Down Full Down Full Down Headrest outboard rod to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] Headrest outboard rod to rim x-z plane [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. x H3D H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] z H3D H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Chin to top of rim/bottom edge of glass x-z plane [mm] Nose to top of rim N.A. N.A Head Nose to top edge of glass x-z plane [mm] Nose to upper belt webbing [mm] x Head center of gravity from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] z Head center of gravity from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Chest to hub x direction [mm] N.A. N.A Chest Stomach to bottom of rim/ip x direction [mm] Sternum angle [deg] Left x Left shoulder bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A z Left shoulder bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A Arms x Right shoulder bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. Right z Right shoulder bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. Other Hand joint distance [mm] Pelvis angle [deg] x Dummy H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Pelvis Dummy z Dummy H-Point from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] Angle between dummy H-Point and head center of gravity [deg] Left knee bolt to IP x-z plane minimum [mm] Left knee bolt to floor z direction [mm] Left tibia to IP x-z plane minimum [mm] Left Left femur angle [deg] Left tibia angle [deg] x Left knee bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A z Left knee bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A Legs Right knee bolt to IP x-z plane minimum [mm] Right knee bolt to floor z direction [mm] Right tibia to IP x-z plane minimum [mm] Right Right femur angle [deg] Right tibia angle [deg] x Right knee bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. z Right knee bolt from upper fastening of driver door striker [mm] N.A. N.A. N.A. Other Distance between external metallic parts of knees [mm] Page 39 out of 62

40 DUMMY BIOMECHANICAL RESULTS LOOP 2 Pulse: Figure 35: BiW acceleration, velocity and displacement obtained on rear floor for tests 11095_ZG, 11096_ZG, 11136_ZG, 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG Head acceleration: Figure 36: Head x, y, z and resultant acceleration for tests 11095_ZG, 11096_ZG, 11136_ZG, 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG Page 40 out of 62

41 Figure 37: Head x acceleration, x relative velocity and x relative displacement for tests 11095_ZG, 11096_ZG, 11136_ZG, 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG Chest acceleration: Figure 38: Thorax x, y, z and resultant acceleration for tests 11095_ZG, 11096_ZG, 11136_ZG, 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG Page 41 out of 62

42 Chest deflection: Figure 39: Chest (Rib S = upper, I = lower) and abdomen left ( SX ) and right ( DX ) deflections for tests 11095_ZG, 11096_ZG, 11136_ZG, 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG IR-TRACC rotation: Figure 40: IR-TRACC y and z rotations on upper ( S ) and lower ( I ), left ( SX ) and right ( DX ) ribs for tests 11095_ZG, 11096_ZG, 11136_ZG, 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG Page 42 out of 62

43 Seatbelts: Figure 41: Seatbelt load on B3 ( Shoulder 1 ), B4 ( Shoulder 2 ), B5 ( Lap 2 ) and B6 ( Lap 1 ) load cells for tests 11095_ZG, 11096_ZG, 11136_ZG, 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG LOOP 2 FILM FRAMES (MISUSE) Hereinafter side view video frames at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120 ms are reported for tests 11136_ZG (top left), 11137_ZG (top center), 11138_ZG (top right), 11095_ZG (bottom left) and 11096_ZG (bottom right). Page 43 out of 62

44 Page 44 out of 62

45 Figure 42: Repeatability loop film frames (frames at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120ms) Page 45 out of 62

46 At 0 ms, setup looks identical for each vehicle. At 20 ms, the airbags are starting to inflate, the dummy has not yet started to move. At 40 ms, the airbags are almost fully inflated in the Renegade, the dummy and seat back have moved forward. On Jeep Renegade the head appears to still be near to the headrest, while on Tipo the head has already started to move away from the head rest. Dummy positions in each vehicle are virtually the same. Tipo passenger airbag is starting to inflate. At 60 ms, the airbags are fully inflated and the head has just made contact with them. In the Renegade the dummy positioning is similar in all three tests. In test 11096_ZG, with respect to the other test on Tipo, head and neck are a little more forward rotated along with the shoulders. The Renegade dummy positions are very similar, only left hand has come off the wheel in test 11136_ZG. At 80 ms, the airbags still appear to be fully inflated as the head makes deeper contact. In all tests knees are contacting the dashboard. In test 11138_ZG the arm is more bent comparing to other Renegade tests.. In test 11095_ZG the neck seems more tensioned and a little more rotated than in test 11096_ZG. At 100 ms, the dummy is rebounding but the head is still in contact with the airbag. In the Tipo the head has rotated further forward. Neck and head rotation in test 11095_ZG is higher than in test 11096_ZG, probably due to the more horizontal orientation of seatbelt portion from shoulder to D-Ring, which results in a more efficient chest restraint in the first test. The airbag in the Tipo still appears fully inflated while the Renegade airbag is starting to deflate. At 120 ms, the dummy has rebounded away from the airbag. In the Renegade test 11136_ZG the dummy appears lower with the head and neck tilting back, in test 11137_ZG the head and neck are vertical and in test 11138_ZG the head is tilted a little forward. On the Tipo in test 11095_ZG the dummy has rebounded further back into the seat with the head and neck rotated further forward than in test 11096_ZG. Page 46 out of 62

47 3.4 DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS REPEATABILITY SLED TEST LOOP 1 DISCUSSION Pulse: The low speed pulse was correctly obtained in all the performed tests, with a very good repeatability. Head: Head acceleration has a good repeatability, with the exception of the first test (11090_ZG), which shows a different trend after 80 ms (higher resultant peak, lower displacement). Chest: Chest acceleration shows good repeatability. However in the first test (11090_ZG) acceleration is a little bit out of trend, having a slightly different z acceleration and a peak at 95 ms (in all the components). Chest and abdomen deflections (in terms of IR-TRACC compression/extension) are in general quite low in their order of magnitude. The first test (11090_ZG, in blue) is similar to the others on right (Dx) upper rib and left (Sx) abdomen, but the deflections are generally higher in other locations (lap belt force 2 was the lowest in this test). The dummy s behavior is quite similar for all other tests in all body regions, even if repeatability seems worst for abdomen deflections. Furthermore, both on left and right side, abdomen IR-TRACC shows a compression at the beginning of the test, when seatbelt starts to load, followed by a marked extension, which could be caused by inertia. IRTRACC rotations, in general, seem not as repeatable as other signals, and their value doesn t exceed 4 degrees. Considering that right inferior rib sign was reversed by mistake, all z rotations show that chest moves left with respect to spine; that can be an effect of seatbelt routing and load. Seatbelts: Seatbelt behavior was the same in all performed tests, only lap belt load B5, near to the buckle, ( Lap Belt Loads 2 ), is slightly lower in the first test. This can be due to the flattening of the pelvis foam after the first sled test. Page 47 out of 62

48 3.4.2 MISUSE AND D-RING POSITION SLED TEST LOOP 2 DISCUSSION Pulse: The low speed pulse was correctly obtained in all the performed tests, with a very good repeatability. Head: Head acceleration is higher on driver side, due to the stronger interaction with airbag. On passenger side (Fiat Tipo) acceleration is lower, and displacement is higher. Both for Tipo and for Renegade head acceleration is higher with respect to repeatability loop, and displacement is lower. Chest: In order to correctly understand the results it is necessary to consider that dummy y axis, with respect to car, is directed inboard for tests on driver side and outboard for tests 11095_ZG and 11096_ZG, performed on passenger side. For that reason, in tests 11095_ZG and 11096_ZG, thorax y accelerations have an opposite trend with respect to driver side tests. Accelerations were quite similar for the two tests on Fiat Tipo, while there is a higher difference between the tests performed on Jeep Renegade. Chest and abdomen deflections (in terms of IR-TRACC compression/extension) are higher than in repeatability loop, especially for Jeep Renegade, where there is a strong interaction between the Driver Air Bag (DAB) and the dummy chest. Both for Jeep Renegade and for Fiat Tipo it can be seen that a lower and more external belt routing (Test 11137_ZG for Jeep, Test 11095_ZG for Fiat) causes a higher chest deflection on upper outwards rib ( S Sx for Jeep and S Dx for Fiat) and a lower chest deflection on upper inwards rib ( S Dx for Jeep and S Sx for Fiat). Fiat Tipo deflections on upper chest are lower because of the different dummy interaction with airbag. Lower outwards IR-TRACC compression ( I Sx for Jeep and I Dx for Fiat) is similar for all tests, with the only exception of 11138_ZG, which was performed with seatbelt extender. The compressive right abdominal deflection obtained in tests 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG is maybe caused by a submarining of the inwards iliac wing. In test 11138_ZG this event was maybe caused by the seatbelt extender. With respect to driver side tests, in tests 11095_ZG and 11096_ZG z rotations have an opposite trend because the dummy is on passenger side. Like for repeatability tests, z rotations show that chest moves outwards with respect to spine (the sign of lower right I Dx rib was reversed by mistake). Page 48 out of 62

49 Seatbelts: Seatbelt behavior seems to confirm submarining on right iliac wing for tests 11137_ZG and 11138_ZG, because the load on B5, near to the buckle, ( Lap Belt Loads 2 ), is lower than in test 11136_ZG. 3.5 CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS ON BIOMECHANICAL REPEATABILITY In Table 18 the most important biomechanical parameters are shown. It is interesting to underline that head, chest and pelvis acceleration have a good repeatability, while the relative standard deviation is higher for chest (in particular on lower ribs) and, most of all, abdomen deflections. This is partly due to the low values of lower rib and abdomen deflections (low results even with small absolute varaitions, can produce relatively larger deviations). Obtaining higher values by using a higher speed or a softer response could reduce the standard deviation. However this shows the dummy in some areas to be unrepeatable at low speed, and it must be improved after the project. Table 18: Repeatability results standard deviation Loop _ZG 11091_ZG 11092_ZG 11093_ZG 11094_ZG Mean Rel. Std. Dev. Head Res. Acc. [g] % Chest Res. Acc. [g] % Pelvis Res. Acc. [g] % Upper Left Rib Defl. [mm] % Upper Right Rib Defl. [mm] % Lower Left Rib Defl. [mm] % Lower Right Rib Defl. [mm] % Left Abdomen Defl. [mm] % Right Abdomen Defl. [mm] % The first test was shown to have the most variation, and it is also confirmed by the video frames, which show a slightly different kinematics. However kinematics is part of the repeatability, so it must be repeatable when the dummy is accurately positioned. The elderly overweight dummy also showed to have some durability issues, which are probably due to materials and technologies used for this prototype. The usage of more conventional materials and technologies as used on the Hybrid III dummy, for example, could probably improve durability. Alternatively the 3D printed material needs to be improved. Page 49 out of 62

50 3.5.2 CONCLUSIONS ON D-RING AND MISUSE TESTS Considering the SENIORS standard restraint system different belt routings seem to have an important effect on upper chest deflections: in general, a higher belt routing resulted in a lower deflection on upper outwards rib, but causes an increase of upper inwards rib deflection. Jeep Renegade DAB interaction with the elderly, overweight dummy thorax also causes an increase of upper chest deflection (both on inwards and outwards side), while Fiat Tipo PAB (Passenger Air Bag) interaction with dummy chest seems weaker. The use of a seatbelt extender in test 11138_ZG may have caused submarining by going over the iliac wing of the pelvis bone. In general the chest deflections measured in the dummy were low, considering the injuries sustained in the case studies reproduced in tests 11096_ZG, 11136_ZG and 11137_ZG. The occupant of accident reproduced in test 11096_ZG had rib fractures and a neck fracture, the occupant of accident reproduced in test 11136_ZG had rib fractures and liver damage and the occupant of accident reproduced in test 11137_ZG was fatally injured. Max deflection was seen in the reproduced fatal test (11137_ZG): 25 mm on upper chest and 17 mm on lower chest. In the real accident reproduced in test 11136_ZG the belt was likely not over the pelvis bones and placed on the top of the abdomen: that probably caused the belt to submarine into the abdomen area, lacerating the liver. This was not visible in the dummy results with only 7mm of abdomen compression measured. Generally, the results suggest that the ribcage system on the dummy is too stiff for the elderly person as these deflections would be considered relatively low. It should also be considered that elderly bones are likely to be more fragile hence the need for lower injury thresholds for the elderly. Currently the Elderly Overweight dummy lacks a well-established biomechanical biofidelity definition and comparison of the dummy kinematic response. This should be established first to enable comparison of the dummy biofidelity and tune body segment responses to accepted targets. Page 50 out of 62

51 4 GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The main goal in testing the Elderly, overweight dummy in SENIORS was to help developing and finding areas to improve its performance by looking at its sensitivity to various restraint systems in generic rig testing, repeatability and misuse testing. Results have shown that the Elderly, overweight Dummy has room for improvement. An important area for improvement is in biofidelity, the ability of the dummy to accurately predict injury is crucial. Biofidelity testing therefore is to be completed by Humanetics after the project to further tune the dummy s response. Overall durability was satisfactory despite two arm bone failures and tears in some flesh parts. The bones were easily repaired and parts quickly replaced. For the flesh improved 3D printed material will be required in certain areas or redesigned to prevent damage. As low speed tests have been conducted, a real assessment of durability is yet to be completed in the project when higher speed testing is carried out. The dummy did show it was sensitive to improved restraint systems by showing that the criss-cross and split buckle reduced potential injury the most. This result was similar to the THOR 50th male dummy, which showed that the criss-cross belt protected the dummy s thorax area most (Eggers, 2017). Differences in results between the two dummies could highlight the need for an elderly overweight dummy to specifically protect this vulnerable group by further understanding the effect of different types of restraint systems. Repeatability testing showed some good results in acceleration; however in chest and abdomen deflections these results were not so good. Some design issues were highlighted in D3.4a (Burleigh, 2018) regarding the abdomen and pelvis which would not have helped repeatability in the lower torso, as set up could have variation due to the abdomen not always being repeatedly positioned relative to the pelvis. A new design was proposed to lock the abdomen more into the pelvis. Page 51 out of 62

52 Glossary Term ATD BIW CAE CLL DAB EATD LLS PAB PLP PMHS RP SENIORS SUV IRTRACC Definition Anthropometric test device; sometimes known as a crash test dummy Body In White Computer Aided Engineering Constant Load Limiter Driver Air Bag Elderly, Overweight Dummy Load Limiting Stop Passenger Air Bag Pyrotechnic Lap Pretensioner Post Mortem Human Subject Retractor Pretensioner Safety ENhanced Innovations for Older Road users Sports Utility Vehicle InfraRed Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest Compression Page 52 out of 62

53 REFERENCES Burleigh. (2018). SENIORS Deliverable 3.4a - Validated Elderly Overweight Dummy. European Commission, Horizon 2020, GA No Eggers. (2017). SENIORS Deliverable 2.5a - Updated injury criteria for the THOR. European Commission, Horizon 2020, GA No EuroNCAP. (2018). EuroNCAP Test Protocol, full width Frontal Impact v January Humanetics. (2015b). User Manual Hybrid III 5th Female User Manual Rev F. Humanetics. (2017). User Manual THOR-50M THOR User Manual Rev D. Humanetics. (2015a). User manual WorldSid Small Female. W WorldSid 5th User Manual, Rev E. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No DISCLAIMER This publication has been produced by the SENIORS project, which is funded under the Horizon 2020 Programme of the European Commission. The present document is a draft and has not been approved. The content of this report does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors. Page 53 out of 62

54 APPENDIX 1: EXPERIMENTAL DUMMY RESTRAINT SLED TESTS (AUTOLIV) TEST FIXTURE GEOMETRY AND DUMMY POSITIONING MEASUREMENTS DUMMY MEASUREMENTS POSITIONING Page 54 out of 62

55 Page 55 out of 62

56 MEASUREMENTS POINTS BELT SYSTEM Page 56 out of 62

57 MEASUREMENT POINTS BELT SYSTEM AND TEST FIXTURE Page 57 out of 62

58 Page 58 out of 62

59 OCCUPANT POSITION 1 WITH FARO ARM FOR EACH TEST Page 59 out of 62

60 OCCUPANT POSITION 2 TILT AND TAPE MEASUREMENTS Test Number Hand joint distance (thumb-thumb) T T T T T T T T T T T T T mm Knee distance mm Femur Angle L (deg) 6, R (deg) 6, Tibia Angle L (deg) 56, R (deg) 56, Sternum Angle (A) deg , Belt angle at shoulder ('C) deg Upper edge belt to chin (D) mm Belt angle at sternum (F) deg Center line of gauge to d-ring (B3) mm Center line of gauge to buckle (B4) mm Center line of gauge to end plate/plp (B6) mm Pelvis Angle deg Abdomen to lower steering wheel rim (horiz) Nose to upper rim (XZplane) mm mm Page 60 out of 62

61 TEST FIXTURE GEOMETRY Steering wheel angle: 24deg Coordinate system: X positive fwd, Y positive right, Z positive down Nr. Position Dir Test fixture Nr. Position Dir Test fixture 0 Origin (reference point on seat) 1 Steering wheel Rim Upper 3 Steering wheel Rim Lower 4 On chest #1 5 On chest #2 6 On chest #3 7 On chest #4 X 0 X -511 Y 0 13 Retractor Y 295 Z 0 Z 163 X 352 X -170 Y Lap pretensioner, PLP Y 250 Z -711 Z 127 X 222 X 820 Y 5 15 Foot plate #1 Y -183 Z -398 Z -48 X 120 X 817 Y Foot plate #2 Y 199 Z -273 Z -47 X 71 X 622 Y Foot plate #3 Y -185 Z -314 Z 181 X 35 X 615 Y Foot plate #4 Y 193 Z -358 Z 181 X 5 X -592 Y String pot base upper Y -35 Z -419 Z -591 Page 61 out of 62