JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Toyota Prius

Similar documents
JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Chevrolet Malibu

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Scion xb

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Toyota Camry

JAMA/JARI Evaluation Tests of

Repeatability of a Dynamic Rollover Test System

REPORT NUMBER: 214P-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 214 DYNAMIC SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION RIGID POLE

REPORT NUMBER: 214P-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 214 DYNAMIC SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION RIGID POLE

HEAD AND NECK INJURY POTENTIAL IN INVERTED IMPACT TESTS

REPORT NUMBER: 214P-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 214 DYNAMIC SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION RIGID POLE

A dream? Dr. Jürgen Bredenbeck Tire Technology Expo, February 2012 Cologne

Crashworthiness Evaluation. Roof Strength Test Protocol (Version III)

CRABI 12-Month Old Infant Dummy

THOR Specification and Certification Version 1.0 November 2018 TB 026

Methodologies and Examples for Efficient Short and Long Duration Integrated Occupant-Vehicle Crash Simulation

Service Bulletin A

REPORT NUMBER: 214-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 214 SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION INDICANT

AGATE (ADVANCED GENERAL AVIATION TRANSPORTATION EXPERIMENT PROGRAM) FULL-SCALE TEST AND DEMONSTRATION REPORT NO: C-GEN (REV N/C)

Humanetics is now shipping all ATDs for use in the U.S. NCAP at SBL-A and also offers upgrade kits for previously delivered dummies.

Crashworthiness Evaluation Offset Barrier Crash Test Protocol (Version III) June 1996

Crashworthiness Evaluation Side Impact Crash Test Protocol (Version I) December 2002

SPCT Method. The SPCT Method - Testing of Dog Crates. Utskrivet dokument är ostyrt, dvs inte säkert gällande.

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards

Full Width Test ECE-R 94 Evaluation of test data Proposal for injury criteria Way forward

Motorcoach Roof Crush/Rollover Testing. Discussion Paper. March 2009

Australian Pole Side Impact Research 2010

Virginia Department of Transportation

SLED TEST PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING KNEE IMPACT AREAS

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards

Modeling of Commuter Category Aircraft Seats under Crash Loading

EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF OCCUPANT ENTRAPMENT FORD TAURUS INTO REAR OF FORD EXPLORER 30% OFFSET, 70 MPH. Test Date: August 3, 2010

REPORT NUMBER: SNCAP-CAL NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM SIDE IMPACT TEST MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION 2007 MAZDA CX-7 SUV NHTSA NUMBER: M75401

Rear Impact Dummies. Z. Jerry Wang, PhD, Chief Engineer Eric Jacuzzi, Project Engineer

TEST REPORT FOR: The Tracy Law Firm Honda Fit 5-Door Hatchback TESTED TO: 64.4 km/h 40% Moderate Overlap Frontal Impact PREPARED FOR:

E/ECE/324/Rev.2/Add.128/Rev.1/Amend.2 E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.2/Add.128/Rev.1/Amend.2

GENERAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC LEEDSTOWN ROAD COLONIAL BEACH, VIRGINIA 22443

Modeling tire vibrations in ABS-braking

Infant Restraint Systems

Joint Australian and Canadian Pole Side Impact Research

Side Impact Crashworthiness Evaluation. Crash Test Protocol (Version V)

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 202 HEAD RESTRAINTS STATIC REQUIREMENTS

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP)

ANCAP Test Protocol. Child Occupant Protection v7.2a

Problem Traditional ejection test manikins have limited head sensors Upper neck forces/moments Triaxial accelerometer Possibly angular (pitch) acceler

NEW CRASH TESTS: SMALL CARS IMPROVE AND THE TOP PERFORMERS ALSO ARE FUEL SIPPERS

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( C) 1998 Nissan Altima Texas August/1998

FAAC International, Inc.

Crashworthiness Evaluation Side Impact Crash Test Protocol (Version II) October 2003

ANCAP Test Protocol. Child Occupant Protection v7.2.1

Side Impact Crashworthiness Evaluation. Crash Test Protocol (Version VIII)

Technical Report Documentation Page. Quasi Static and Dynamic Roof Crush Testing

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 202 HEAD RESTRAINTS STATIC REQUIREMENTS

Simposium NasionalTeknologi Terapan (SNTT) EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF DUMMY NECK FOR CRASHWORTHINESS ASSESSMENT

Injury Risk and Seating Position for Fifth-Percentile Female Drivers Crash Tests with 1990 and 1992 Lincoln Town Cars. Michael R. Powell David S.

STATUS OF NHTSA S EJECTION MITIGATION RESEARCH. Aloke Prasad Allison Louden National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Analysis of a Frontal Impact of a Formula SAE Vehicle David Rising Jason Kane Nick Vernon Joseph Adkins Dr. Craig Hoff Dr. Janet Brelin-Fornari

THOR Mod Kit Update May Human Injury and Applied Biomechanics Research Divisions

Reconstruction of Low-Speed Crashes using the Quasi-Static Force vs. Deformation Characteristics of the Bumpers Involved in the Crashes

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) FAR SIDE OCCUPANT TEST & ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

Side Impact Crashworthiness Evaluation Crash Test Protocol (Version VI) December 2012

Side Impact and Ease of Use Comparison between ISOFIX and LATCH. CLEPA Presentation to GRSP, Informal Document GRSP Geneva, May 2004

TRL s Child Seat Rating, (TCSR) Front Impact Testing Specification

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 214S SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION (STATIC)

Observations from Repeatable Dynamic Rollover Tests

Safety Briefing on Roof Crush How a Strong Federal Roof Crush Standard Can Save Many Lives & Why the Test Must Include Both Sides of the Roof

ROLLOVER CRASHWORTHINESS OF A RURAL TRANSPORT VEHICLE USING MADYMO

RESTRAINT EFFECTIVENESS DURING ROLLOVER MOTION

Side impact protection in non-integral CRS First feedback on 440 mm. 52 nd Meeting of the UN Informal Group on Child Restraint Systems

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 225 CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS LOWER AND TETHER ANCHORAGES

SPE Abstract. Introduction

Attenuating Head Impact with Vehicular (Including Heavy Truck) Interiors

Surviving a Crash in Rear Seats: Addressing the Needs from a Diverse Population

SPMM OUTLINE SPECIFICATION - SP20016 issue 2 WHAT IS THE SPMM 5000?

ARE SMALL FEMALES MORE VULNERABLE TO LOWER NECK INJURIES WHEN SEATED SUFFICIENTLY AWAY FROM THE STEERING WHEEL IN A FRONTAL CRASH?

The Center for Auto Safety

REDUCING RIB DEFLECTION IN THE IIHS TEST BY PRELOADING THE PELVIS INDEPENDENT OF INTRUSION

Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. Q1.5 Child Dummy (Advanced 1.5 year old child) Parts Catalog

FULL FRONTAL COLLISION SAFETY PERFORMANCE TEST PROCEDURE

Cornering & Traction Test Rig MTS Flat-Trac IV CT plus

Crashworthiness Evaluation Offset Barrier Crash Test Protocol (Version VII)

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) OFFSET DEFORMABLE BARRIER FRONTAL IMPACT TESTING PROTOCOL

Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. Hybrid-III 95th Large Male Dummy H. Brand Harmonized Parts Catalog

Pedestrian Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version II) February 2019

Hybrid III 95th Large Male Full Assembly

TEST METHOD Booster Seats. May 2012R January 1, Revised: Issued: (Ce document est aussi disponible en français)

SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION TO ISO/IEC 17025:2005

This paper details the development of the latest potential updates to the FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly 4 including the assembly s geometry,

Road vehicles Design and performance specifications for the WorldSID 50th percentile male side impact dummy Part 2: Mechanical subsystems

Potential Use of Crash Test Data for Crashworthiness Research

ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD

GTR Rev.1. Note:

Occupant Restraint Systems in Frontal Impact

* * * A T T E N T I O N * * * Individual Vehicle dimensions were obtained through the use of the Expert AutoStats(R) program.

Crashworthiness Evaluation Offset Barrier Crash Test Protocol (Version IX) October 2002

Roll Over Protection for the Oil & Gas Industry

FRONTAL IMPACT TESTING PROTOCOL

TEST METHODS CONCERNING TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT

MGA Research Corporation

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( E) 1998 Mercury Tracer

Research on Chest Injury Criteria

Model 6A Series 6-Axis Load Cells (Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz)

Transcription:

Page 1 of 62 JRS Dynamic Rollover Test 2010 Toyota Prius Sponsored By: Automotive Safety Research Institute Charlottesville, VA. Vehicle Donated by: State Farm Insurance Company Chicago, IL.

Introduction Page 2 of 62 Center for Injury Research conducted a JRS dynamic rollover test consisting of two rolls of a 2010 Toyota Prius on August 11 and 12, 2010. This test report is organized in sections containing test information, data tables and photographs as follows: Section 1 Test Procedures and Summaries Section 2 Test Results, Data Tables and Selected Comparison Photographs for Roll 1. Section 3 Test Results, Data Tables and Selected Comparison Photographs for Roll 2. Section 4 Data Graphs Section 5 All Test Photographs Enclosed with this report is a DVD of the video of both rolls. 2010 Toyota Prius Executive Summary The test was a two roll event. The planned difference between the rolls was the pitch of the vehicle; 5 degrees in Roll 1 and 10 degrees in Roll 2 and the position of the Hybrid III dummy. For Roll 1, the dummy was located out of position;" leaning towards the passenger side approximately 45. For Roll 2, the dummy was placed in the nominal seating position. Table 1 describes the impact conditions of each test. Table 2 shows the injury assessment reference values for the low durometer neck that was used. Table 1 Summary of Test Conditions Roll Pitch Road Speed Contact Angle Roll Rate 1 5 deg 15 mph 147 deg 187 deg/sec 2 10 deg 14.9 mph 142 deg 187 deg/sec Table 2 Lower Neck IARV's for 10% Probability of an AIS 3 Injury Neck Type My (Nm) Flexion My (Nm) Extension Mx (Nm) Axial Fz (N) Production 380 156 268 4000 Low Durometer 90-110 38-46 59-90 1640-2000 Human/Cadaver 58 1500

Page 3 of 62 In Roll 1, the peak lower neck compressive load was 315 N and the peak lower neck moment was 19 Nm in flexion and 40 Nm in extension. The peak intrusion speed at the top of the A-Pillar was 4.3 mph with a peak crush of 4.4 inches. In Roll 2, the lower neck mount failed during the test. Data from the neck was recorded, but the peak values cannot be validated. The peak lower neck compressive load was 451 N and the peak lower neck moment was 14 Nm in flexion and 95 Nm in extension The peak intrusion speed at the top of the A-Pillar was 8.2 mph with a peak crush of 6.6 inches. 1. Test Procedure and Summaries For each roll of the test, the following steps are performed as necessary: 1. Inspect the test vehicle for prior damage, rust or other factors that might influence the outcome of the test 2. Prepare the test equipment 3. Install and prepare the instrumentation and video cameras 4. Install the test vehicle in test fixture 5. Perform pre-test measurements 6. Photograph the vehicle 7. Conduct the test 8. Perform post test measurements 9. Photograph the vehicle following the test The set up of the test vehicle in the fixture and the instrumentation in the vehicle was the same for Rolls 1 and 2 with the exception of the pitch angle; Roll 1 = 5.0 and Roll 2 = 10.0. The test weight of the vehicle was 3,233 pounds. The initial weight of the vehicle was 3,070 pounds. The test roll moment of inertia was approximately 389 lb*ft*sec 2 for a referenced value of 398 lb*ft*sec 2. The vehicle was suspended on mounts at the rear and at the front in a manner that allowed it to roll freely and be dropped, passenger side (the near side) leading. Due to the shape and location of the center console the four string potentiometer mounts were placed approximately 7 inches lateral of the longitudinal roll axis of the vehicle. The sensors measured the roof dynamics at the top of the driver s side A-pillar and B-pillar, at the header inboard of the A-pillar and at the top of the passenger s side A-pillar. The mounting positions of the string potentiometers resulted in less than 1% error in their measurements as compared to normal mounting locations, which place the string pots on the longitudinal axis. An instrumented, restrained Hybrid III 50th percentile male test dummy was placed in the driver s seat. The dummy was instrumented with upper and lower neck load cells as well as a triaxial head accelerometer. In addition, seat belt load cells were utilized. Each roll was conducted with a Hybrid III dummy equipped with a more biofidelic (low durometer) neck and lumbar joint, located in the driver s seat which was positioned in the mid seat position. The dummy was restrained using the vehicle's standard 3 point harness with a nondeployed pre-tensioner. The dummy's head was chalked before each roll to locate impact marks during the tests. To make the Hybrid III dummy more biofidelic, the two cables in the lower

Page 4 of 62 spine of the dummy were removed. The lower neck mounting block was replaced with a block that increased the neck angle forward 30 degrees from the nominal position. For the first roll the dummy was tethered "out of position" with a light wire that electronically disconnected at approximately 90 of roll. The "out of position" location of the dummy was found by rotating the vehicle by 90 toward the passenger side. This orientation simulated the dummy accelerating toward the passenger side door at 1 g. For the second roll the dummy was placed in the nominal seating position. Six vertical and two lateral load cells were placed in the moving roadway to record the impact characteristics of the test. Two string potentiometers were placed on the fixture support towers to record vehicle vertical motion characteristics during the test. One string potentiometer was located in the front drop tower and the other was located in the rear drop tower. A roll encoder was placed on the cable pulley which pulls the moving roadway to record the roadway velocity throughout the test. In addition, a roll rate sensor was placed inside the vehicle. The equipment used in the conduct of this test is listed in Table 3 and the test vehicle identification data is shown in Table 4 below.

Page 5 of 62 Table 3 Equipment and Instrumentation Item MFR./Model String Potentiometer Driver s Side A-Pillar Space Age Control 301432 String Potentiometer Driver s Side B-Pillar Space Age Control 301432 String Potentiometer Roof Header Space Age Control 301432 String Potentiometer Passenger s Side A-Pillar Space Age Control 301432 String Potentiometer Front Fixture Support Tower Space Age Control 4332-01 String Potentiometer Rear Fixture Support Tower Space Age Control 4332-01 Upper Neck Load Cell RA Denton 1716A Lower Neck Load Cell RA Denton 1794A Triaxial Head Accelerometer Endevco, 7264C-2KTZ-2-240 Belt Load Cell - Lap RADenton 3255 Belt Load Cell - Torso RADenton 3255 Roll Rate Sensor DTS ARS Hybrid III, 50 th Percentile Male Denton 50th Male Vertical Load Cell 1 Transducer Techniques, SWP-20k 173372 Vertical Load Cell 2 Transducer Techniques, SWP-20k 176138 Vertical Load Cell 3 Transducer Techniques, SWP-20k 176139 Vertical Load Cell 4 Transducer Techniques, SWP-20k 176140 Vertical Load Cell 5 Transducer Techniques, SWP-20k 176141 Vertical Load Cell 6 Transducer Techniques, SWP-20k 176142 Lateral Load Cell 1 Transducer Techniques, DSM-8k 149806 Lateral Load Cell 2 Transducer Techniques, DSM-8k 149807 Roadway Velocity Roll Encoder Contelec RSC 2201 236 111 106 Vehicle Data Acquisition System Diversified Technical Systems, TDAS PRO SIM Roadway Data Acquisition System Diversified Technical Systems, TDAS PRO SIM JRS Fixture Acquisition System Measurement Computing, USB 1608FS Table 4 General Test Vehicle Data Test Vehicle: 2010 Toyota Prius Test Vehicle Information: Manufacturer: Toyota Gross Weight: 3,980 lb Sunroof: Yes Equivalent Years: 2010- Present VIN: JTDKN3DU1A0085103 Curb Weight: 3,042 lb 2WD/4WD: 2WD Body Type: 4 Door Hatchback

Page 6 of 62 2. Test Results, Data Tables and Selected Comparison Photographs for Roll 1. The results of the first roll of the JRS Dynamic Rollover Test are presented in this section. In the roll, the vehicle dropped as planned and contacted the vehicle s roof structure. Roll 1 8/11/2010 Summary of Results Instrument Peak Value Residual Intrusion (inches) Peak Velocity (mph) Sum of Vertical Load Cells (near side contact) 11,828 lb Sum of Vertical Load Cells (far side contact) 16,853 lb Sum of Lateral Load Cells (near side contact) 1,241 lb Sum of Lateral Load Cells (far side contact) 1,269 lb Driver s Side A-Pillar String Potentiometer -4.4 in -1.8-4.3 Driver s Side B-Pillar String Potentiometer -2.3 in -0.9-3.6 Roof Header String Potentiometer -2.5 in -0.7-3.8 Passenger s Side A-Pillar String Potentiometer -1.4 in 0.0-2.0 Instrument Maximum Value Minimum Value Lap Belt Load 207 lb -4 lb Shoulder Belt Load 401 lb -3 lb Dummy Head Acceleration Ax 10 g -1 g Dummy Head Acceleration Ay 8 g -2 g Dummy Head Acceleration Az 1 g -8 g Lower Neck Load Cell Fx 1,258 N -98 N Lower Neck Load Cell Fy 352 N -127 N Lower Neck Load Cell Fz 526 N -315 N Lower Neck Load Cell Mx 21 Nm -8 Nm Lower Neck Load Cell My 19 Nm -40 Nm Upper Neck Load Cell Fz HIC 187 N -1,397 N 40 N/A The vertical load cells mounted on the roadway platform show the near and far side impacts. The vehicle struck the roadway on the near side at approximately 1.72 seconds. The entire roll sequence was completed by approximately 2.1 seconds.

Page 7 of 62 The string potentiometers located on the fixture support towers show the vertical vehicle motion throughout the test. The front of the vehicle dropped 4.4 inches and the rear dropped 4.3 inches prior to initial touch down. The vehicle was pitched at 5.0 degrees at contact. The roll encoder located on the cable pulley shows the roadway velocity throughout the roll. The roadway was traveling at 15 mph at contact. A roll rate sensor in the vehicle was used to determine the roll angle and rate at impact. The roll angle of the vehicle was 147 degrees and the roll rate was 187 degrees per second at the roadway impact. During the first roll the windshield fractured and peeled away from the driver side A- pillar. A small buckle type deformation occurred in the far side C-pillar. The Hybrid battery in the rear of the vehicle was undamaged. Pull tests were conducted on both the driver side doors of the vehicle after the first roll. Each door required less than 15 lb-f to open.

Roll 1 Comparison Photographs Page 8 of 62 Figure 1: Vehicle Pre Roll 1 Figure 2: Vehicle Post Roll 1

3. Test Results, Data Tables and Selected Comparison Photographs for Roll 2. Page 9 of 62 The results of the second roll of the JRS Dynamic Rollover Test are presented in this section. In the roll, the vehicle dropped as planned and contacted the vehicle s roof structure. Roll 2 8/12/2010 Summary of Results Instrument Peak Value Residual Intrusion (inches) Peak Velocity (mph) Sum of Vertical Load Cells (near side contact) 6,906 lb Sum of Vertical Load Cells (far side contact) 22,314 lb Sum of Lateral Load Cells (near side contact) 452 lb Sum of Lateral Load Cells (far side contact) 1,380 lb Driver s Side A-Pillar String Potentiometer -6.6 in -2.0-8.2 Driver s Side B-Pillar String Potentiometer -3.0 in -0.8-5.4 Roof Header String Potentiometer -5.3 in -1.5-6.8 Passenger s Side A-Pillar String Potentiometer -1.7 in 0.0-3.9 Instrument Maximum Value Minimum Value Lap Belt Load 310 lb -5 lb Shoulder Belt Load 210 lb -4 lb Dummy Head Acceleration Ax 10 g -1 g Dummy Head Acceleration Ay 8 g -2 g Dummy Head Acceleration Az 1 g -8 g Lower Neck Load Cell Fx* Lower Neck Load Cell Fy* Lower Neck Load Cell Fz* Lower Neck Load Cell Mx* Lower Neck Load Cell My* Upper Neck Load Cell Fz 2,331 N -290 N 474 N -173 N 298 N -451 N 13 Nm -17 Nm 14 Nm -95 Nm 204 N -2,103 N 89 N/A HIC *The lower neck mount failed during the test, which resulted in peak values that cannot be validated. The vertical load cells mounted on the roadway platform show the near and far side impacts. The vehicle struck the roadway on the near side at approximately 1.73 seconds. The entire roll sequence was completed by approximately 2.05 seconds.

Page 10 of 62 The string potentiometers located on the fixture support towers show the vertical vehicle motion throughout the test. The front of the vehicle dropped 4.0 inches and the rear dropped 4.1 inches prior to initial touch down. The vehicle was pitched at 10 degrees at contact. The roll encoder located on the cable pulley shows the roadway velocity throughout the roll. The roadway was traveling at 14.9 mph at contact. A roll rate sensor in the vehicle was used to determine the roll angle and roll rate at impact. The roll angle of the vehicle was 142 degrees and the roll rate was 187 degrees per second at the roadway impact. During the second roll the windshield fractured further. The small quarter windows in front and rear of the driver side broke. Pull tests were conducted on both the driver side doors of the vehicle after the second roll. Each door required less than 15 lb-f to open.

Roll 2 Comparison Photographs Page 11 of 62 Figure 3: Vehicle Pre Roll 2 Figure 4: Vehicle Post Roll 2

4. Data Graphs Roll 1 Data Plots 8/11/2010 Page 12 of 62 Plot 1: String Potentiometer Driver's Side A-Pillar Displacement v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 2: String Potentiometer Driver's Side B-Pillar Displacement v. Time Data Sampling Rate:

Roll 1 Page 13 of 62 Plot 3: String Potentiometer Driver's Side Roof Header Displacement v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 4: String Potentiometer Passenger's Side A-Pillar Displacement v. Time Data Sampling Rate:

Roll 1 Page 14 of 62 Plot 5: Lower Neck Load, Fx, v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 6: Lower Neck Load, Fy, v. Time Data Sampling Rate:

Page 15 of 62 Roll 1 Plot 7: Lower Neck Load, Fz, v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 8: Lower Neck Load, Mx, v. Time Data Sampling Rate:

Roll 1 Page 16 of 62 Plot 9: Lower Neck Load, My, v. Time D ata Sampling Rate: Plot 10: Upper Neck Load, Fz, v. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 1 Page 17 of 62 Plot 11: Head Acceleration, Ax, vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate: Plot 12: Head Acceleration, Ay, vs. Time Data Sampling Rate:

Roll 1 Page 18 of 62 Plot 13: Head Acceleration, Az, vs. Time Data Sampling Rate: HIC = 40 D ata Sampling Rate: Plot 14: Resultant Head Acceleration vs. Time

Roll 1 Page 19 of 62 Plot 15: Lap Belt Load* vs. Time *Measured on one side of the belt Data Sampling Rate: Plot 16: Torso Belt Load* vs. Time *Measured on one side of the belt Data Sa mpling Rate:

Roll 1 Page 20 of 62 Plot 17: Total Vertical Load v. Time D ata Sampling Rate: Plot 18: Total Lateral Load v. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 1 Page 21 of 62 Plot 19: String Potentiometer Front Fixture Support Tower Displacement vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate: 1 khz Plot 20: String Potentiometer Rear Fixture Support Tower Displacement vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate: 1 khz

Roll 1 Page 22 of 62 Plot 21: Roll Encoder on Roadway Velocity vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate: 1 khz Plot 22: Roll Angle vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 1 Page 23 of 62 Plot 23: Roll Rate vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 2 Data Plots 8/12/2010 Page 24 of 62 Plot 24: String Potentiometer Driver's Side A-Pillar Displacement v. Time D ata Sampling Rate: Plot 25: String Potentiometer Driver's Side B-Pillar Displacement v. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 2 Page 25 of 62 Plot 26: String Potentiometer Driver's Side Roof Header Displacement v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 27: String Potentiometer Passenger's Side A-Pillar Displacement v. Time Data Sa mpling Rate:

Roll 2 Page 26 of 62 Plot 28: Lower Neck Load, Fx, v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 29: Lower Neck Load, Fy, v. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 2 Page 27 of 62 Plot 30: Lower Neck Load, Fz, v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 31: Lower Neck Load, Mx, v. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 2 Page 28 of 62 Plot 32: Lower Neck Load, My, v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 33: Upper Neck Load, Fz, v. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 2 Page 29 of 62 Plot 34: Head Acceleration, Ax, vs. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 35: Head Acceleration, Ay, vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 2 Page 30 of 62 Plot 36: Head Acceleration, Az, vs. Time Data Sampling Rate: HIC = 89 D ata Sampling Rate: Plot 37: Resultant Head Acceleration vs. Time

Roll 2 Page 31 of 62 Plot 38: Lap Belt Load* vs. Time *Measured on one side of the belt Data Sampling Rate: Plot 39: *Measured on one side of the belt D ata Sampling Rate: Torso Belt Load* vs. Time

Roll 2 Page 32 of 62 Plot 40: Total Vertical Load v. Time Data Sampling Rate: Plot 41: Total Lateral Load v. Time Data Sa mpling Rate:

Roll 2 Page 33 of 62 Plot 42: String Potentiometer Front Fixture Support Tower Displacement vs. Time Data Sampling Rate: 1 khz Plot 43: String Potentiometer Rear Fixture Support Tower Displacement vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate: 1 khz

Roll 2 Page 34 of 62 Pl ot 44: Roll Encoder on Roadway Velocity vs. Time Data Sampling Rate: 1 khz Plot 45: Roll Angle vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Roll 2 Page 35 of 62 Plot 46: Roll Rate vs. Time D ata Sampling Rate:

Page 36 of 62 5. All Test Photographs Test Setup

Page 37 of 62 Test Setup and Vehicle Instrumentation

Page 38 of 62 Vehicle Instrumentation

Page 39 of 62 Vehicle Instrumentation

Page 40 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Dummy Inspection

Page 41 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Dummy Inspection

Page 42 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Pre-Roll

Page 43 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Pre-Roll

Page 44 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Pre-Roll

Page 45 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Pre-Roll

Page 46 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Post-Roll

Page 47 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Post-Roll

Page 48 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Post-Roll

Page 49 of 62 Roll 1 Photographs 8/11/2010 Post-Roll

Page 50 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Dummy Inspection

Page 51 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Dummy Inspection

Page 52 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Pre-Roll

Page 53 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Pre-Roll

Page 54 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Pre-Roll

Page 55 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Pre-Roll

Page 56 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Post-Roll

Page 57 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Post-Roll

Page 58 of 62 Roll 2 Photographs 8/12/2010 Post-Roll

Page 59 of 62 Pre-Test

Page 60 of 62 Pre-Test

Page 61 of 62 Post-Test

Page 62 of 62 Post-Test