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

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

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

Potential Effects of Deceleration Pulse Variations on Injury Measures Computed in Aircraft Seat HIC Analysis Testing

STUDY ON CAR-TO-CAR FRONTAL OFFSET IMPACT WITH VEHICLE COMPATIBILITY

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

Head Injury Analysis of Vehicle Occupant in Frontal Crash Simulation: Case Study of ITB s Formula SAE Race Car

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

Wheelchair Transportation Principles I: Biomechanics of Injury

Virtual human body model for fast safety assessment

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

Australian Pole Side Impact Research 2010

ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF AN ADVANCED INTEGRATED SAFETY SEAT DESIGN IN FRONTAL, REAR, SIDE, AND ROLLOVER CRASHES

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

BENCHMARK DATA TESTING

Comparison of HVE simulations to NHTSA full-frontal barrier testing: an analysis of 3D and 2D stiffness coefficients in SIMON and EDSMAC4

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Toyota Prius

DESIGN FOR CRASHWORTHINESS

UPDATE ON NHTSA'S OBLIQUE RESEARCH PROGRAM

EVALUATION OF VEHICLE-BASED CRASH SEVERITY METRICS USING EVENT DATA RECORDERS

Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation Rating Protocol (Version II)

THE INFLUENCE OF THE SAFETY BELT ON THE DECISIVE INJURY ASSESSMENT VALUES IN THE NEW US-NCAP

Design Evaluation of Fuel Tank & Chassis Frame for Rear Impact of Toyota Yaris

Technical Product Sheet

Update on Pedestrian Leg Testing

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Chevrolet Malibu

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Scion xb

DOT HS July Assessing the Restraint Performance Of Vehicle Seats and Belt Geometry Optimized for Older Children

Update on Pedestrian Leg Testing

Attenuating Head Impact with Vehicular (Including Heavy Truck) Interiors

Lateral Protection Device

White Paper. Compartmentalization and the Motorcoach

Effect of Head-Restraint Rigidity on Whiplash Injury Risk

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

Flex GT Testing of US Vehicles

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

Crashworthiness Evaluation of an Impact Energy Absorber in a Car Bumper for Frontal Crash Event - A FEA Approach

Pre impact Braking Influence on the Standard Seat belted and Motorized Seat belted Occupants in Frontal Collisions based on Anthropometric Test Dummy

FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN CAR COMPATIBILITY PHENOMENA

EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNTERMEASURES IN RESPONSE TO FMVSS 201 UPPER INTERIOR HEAD IMPACT PROTECTION

Petition for Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection

Safer Vehicle Design. TRIPP IIT Delhi

Full Width Test Overview, Aims and Conclusions

ADVANCED RESTRAINT SY S STEM (ARS) Y Stephen Summers St NHTSA Ve NHTSA V hi hhicle S Saf t e y t R Resear R h c 1

Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation

Correlation of Occupant Evaluation Index on Vehicle-occupant-guardrail Impact System Guo-sheng ZHANG, Hong-li LIU and Zhi-sheng DONG

WorldSID 50 th Update

Vehicle Safety Research in TGGS

THOR Specification and Certification Version 1.0 November 2018 TB 026

Comparison of the 6YO ATD kinematics restrained in Booster CRSs Sled Experiments in frontal, oblique and side impacts

Optimizing Seat Belt and Airbag Designs for Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes

Assesment of Passengers Safety in Emergency Situations, Based on Simulation

ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF STEERING WHEEL AIR BAGS FOR DRIVERS SEATED IN WHEELCHAIRS DURING FRONTAL CRASH TESTS

FIMCAR. Frontal Impact Assessment Approach FIMCAR. frontal impact and compatibility assessment research

Performance as Test Procedures of the PDB and ODB Tests for a Mini-Car

Crash Investigation Data in the United States October 2017

Rule 563 Issued August 2006, effective 09/01/2010 No new tests FMVSS 208: Frontal up to 35mph, Offset 25mph 214: Lateral crabbed MDB 33.5mph Record da

P5 STOPPING DISTANCES

Evaluation of Event Data Recorder Based on Crash Tests

Research on Chest Injury Criteria

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Toyota Camry

Assessment of Injury Potential in Aircraft Side- Facing Seats Using the ES-2 Anthropomorphic Test Dummy

JARI Research Activities for Traffic Safety

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

Lighter and Safer Cars by Design

D1.3 FINAL REPORT (WORKPACKAGE SUMMARY REPORT)

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

THUMS User Community

Figure 1. What is the difference between distance and displacement?

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

Study concerning the loads over driver's chests in car crashes with cars of the same or different generation

Page 2. The go-kart always had the same mass and used the same motor.

Keywords: wheelchair base frames, frontal-impact crashworthiness, crash testing, wheelchair transportation safety, surrogate seating system

HEAD AND NECK INJURY POTENTIAL IN INVERTED IMPACT TESTS

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF AUTOMOTIVE CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS IN MASS TRANSIT BUSES. A Thesis by. Nishant Kuber Balwan

THE EXPECTED IMPACT OF UN REGULATION NO. 137 TESTS ON EUROPEAN CARS AND SUGGESTED TEST PROTOCOL MODIFICATIONS TO MAXIMISE BENEFITS

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

Digges 1 INJURIES TO RESTRAINED OCCUPANTS IN FAR-SIDE CRASHES. Kennerly Digges The Automotive Safety Research Institute Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation

Crash Cart Barrier Project Teacher Guide

Analysis on Injury Characteristics of Child Passenger in China's Traffic Accidents

The Automotive Body Parts Association. The Truth About Aftermarket Parts: A Scientific Assessment

STUDY OF VEHICLE DYNAMICS AND OCCUPANT RESPONSE IN SIDE IMPACT CRASH TESTS

Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of Crash Safe Composite Lighting Columns, Contact-Impact Problem

New Frontier in Energy, Engineering, Environment & Science (NFEEES-2018 ) Feb

FlexPLI Round Robin Testing

Post Crash Fire and Blunt Force Fatal Injuries in U.S. Registered, Type Certificated Rotorcraft

Reduction of Acceleration Induced Injuries from Mine Blasts under Infantry Vehicles

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

Evaluation of Advance Compatibility Frontal Structures Using the Progressive Deformable Barrier

Q1. The graph shows the speed of a runner during an indoor 60 metres race.

The stopping distance of a car is the sum of the thinking distance and the braking distance.

SAE Mini Baja. Frame Team. Ahmed Alnattar, Neil Gehr, Matthew Legg. Project Proposal

Potential Use of Crash Test Data for Crashworthiness Research

ACCELERATION PULSES AND CRASH SEVERITY IN LOW VELOCITY REAR IMPACTS REAL WORLD DATA AND BARRIER TESTS

PETITION to Amend 49 CFR , FMVSS 207-Seating Systems

Proposal for the 02 series of amendments to Phase 2 of Regulation No. 129 (Enhanced Child Restraint Systems)

History Dr. Richard Passamaneck- Inventor

RSA Protective Technologies

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

Transcription:

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 Kettering University

Overview Introduction Formula SAE Impact Attenuator Rules Methodology Evaluation Criteria HIC, Neck Loads and Moments, N ij, Femur Loads Testing Procedures Baseline Testing, Pulse Shape Comparison, Critical Speed Test Results Comparison of evaluation criteria Kinematic Analysis using high speed video Conclusions

Introduction - Formula SAE Worldwide collegiate competition Students conceive, design, and fabricate small formula style cars Driver risks have never been tested in a crash environment

Introduction - Formula SAE Impact Attenuator Rules 3.3.6.4 Impact Attenuator Data Requirement The team must submit calculations and/or test data to show that their Impact Attenuator, when mounted on the front of the vehicle with a total mass of 300 kgs (661 lbs) and run into a solid, non-yielding impact barrier with a velocity of impact of 7.0 m/s (23 ft/s), would give and average deceleration of the vehicle not to exceed 20 g. Does not specify deceleration time-history pulse shape

Introduction Methodology Evaluate the Impact Attenuator rule based on ATD Injury Criteria Explore the Safety Envelope by increasing impact speeds Evaluate Pulse Shape Kinematic Analysis Using High Speed Video Evaluate HANS Device Effectiveness

Typical Test Test Conditions 7.0 m/s 16.5 g avg 35 ms

Evaluation Criteria - HIC Head Injury Criteria (HIC) is used to evaluate the severity of head trauma based on accelerations HIC consists of two criterion, HIC 36 and HIC 15 HIC 36 and HIC 15 calculate the highest average acceleration over a 36 ms and 15 ms period respectively Values for HIC 36 that exceed 1000 and values of HIC 15 that exceed 700 represent a 31% chance of skull fracture

Evaluation Criteria - Nij N ij criteria is based on the resultant neck loads and moments experienced by the ATD N ij represents the four major combinations of neck loading in a frontal crash N ce : Compression load and Extension moment N cf : Compression load and Flexion moment N te : Tension load and Extension moment N tf : Tensions load and Flexion moment N ij values that exceed 1.0 and individual load and moment values that exceed their IARV represent a 22% chance of AIS 3 neck injury

Evaluation Criteria - Femur Axial load cell in femur measures compression and tension loads Axial loads that exceed 10,000 N represent a 35% chance of a moderate injury to the femur

Procedure Baseline Test Replicate as close as possible the deceleration due to the impact attenuator: 7.0 m/s, 20 g average, 35 ms pulse Pulse Shape Comparison Increased speed to 12.5 m/s, average of 16 g, 80 ms pulse Three pulse shapes compared: early high-g peak, constant g, and late highg peak Each pulse shape compared both with and without the use of a HANS device Critical Speed Test Increased impact speed until Injury Assessment Reference Values were exceeded Test specifications: 15.6 m/s, 80 ms pulse, 20 g average deceleration Utilized late high-g pulse shape and was tested with and without HANS

Early High-g Pulse

Constant-g Pulse

Late High-g Pulse

Results Baseline Showed no condition where IARV were exceeded Test one, two, and three values were negligible when compared to the IARV Many values in test four were much closer to the IARV May be due to much higher initial velocity (11.2 m/s) and average deceleration (27.6) than tests one, two, and three Femur load cell was not utilized

Axial Femur Load (N) HIC 15 HIC 36 0.200 10000 700 1000 - - 224 394.8 69.5 0.293-0.962-0 - 0.669 28 39.9-43.4 43.4 36.2 0.296 0.029 0.158 Peak Resultant Head Accel (g's) 30.6 N ce 0.230 0.266 0.057 0.171-0.240 0.214 0.057 0.165 1 N te 1 N cf 1 Results - Baseline IARV 4170-4000 310-135 Baseline Test #1 15.7 6.9 381.7-413.7 34.17-25.35 Baseline Test #2 16.7 7.1 379.3-475.3 35.14-31.41 Baseline Test #3 16.6 6.9 394.5-449.1 33.1-32.45 N tf 1 Extension Neck Moment (N-m) Flexion Neck Moment (N-m) Compression Neck Load (N) Tension Neck Load (N) V (m/s) Average Acceleration (g's) Test Baseline Test #4 27.6 11.2 2346-413.4 97.47-101.1

Results - Baseline ATD did not experience maximum acceleration until after 35 milliseconds Test Conditions: Baseline Test #4

Results - Pulse Shape No condition where IARVs were exceeded On average the constant-g measured values exceeded that of the early-g and late-g pulses The average initial velocity of the constant-g pulse was also 1 m/s higher that the early-g pulse and 2.5 m/s higher that the late-g pulse The addition of the HANS device reduced the tension neck load in every test

Results Pulse Shape Test Average Acceleration (g's) V (m/s) Tension Neck Load (N) Compression Neck Load (N) Flexion Neck Moment (N-m) Extension Neck Moment (N-m) N ce N te N cf N tf Peak Resultant Head Accel (g's) HIC 36 HIC 15 Axial Femur Load (N) IARV 4170-4000 310-135 1 1 1 1 1000 700 10000 Early High-g #1 16.9 11.6 3131-927.8 29.91-44.77 0.651 0.426 0 0.535 78 421 251 2256 Early High-g #2 15.6 11.6 3115-814.6 41.42-45.94 0.344 0.481 0 0.582 74 420 249 1821 Early High-g HANS #1 15.8 11.2 1862-710.4 64.29-55.64 0.469 0.328 0 0.433 75 400 258 2342 Early High-g HANS #2 17.6 12.1 1876-270.9 71.23-41.67 NA 0.477 0.117 0.505 68 507 312 4043 Constant-g #1 17.7 12.5 3240-950.3 19.88-71.12 0.651 0.426 0 0.535 52 450 281 3866 Constant-g #2 16.8 12.5 3631-1011 25.16-73.38 0.691 0.504 0 0.614 55 557 306 4877 Constant-g HANS#1 18.2 12.5 2066-1184 38.29-57.52 0.608 0.328 0 0.398 63 587 364 4614 Constant-g HANS#2 17.5 12.5 1370-870.6 48.18-65.26 0.695 0.315 0.152 0.25 62 423 321 3581 Late High-g #1 16.6 12.1 3297-505.2 15.58-31.74 0.245 0.324 0 0.534 55 449 273 484 Late High-g #2 12.9 11.2 2641-461.3 22.86-22.81 0.195 0.173 0 0.425 54 240 149 353 Late High-g HANS #1 17.7 12.5 1370-516.8 47.49-54.96 0.433 0.409 0.093 0.282 66 437 354 1485 Late High-g HANS #2 14.5 12.5 1590-509.5 42.29-52.78 0.387 0.4 0.094 0.331 67 452 373 4394

Results Pulse Shape Test Average Acceleration (g's) V (m/s) Tension Neck Load (N) Compression Neck Load (N) Flexion Neck Moment (N-m) Extension Neck Moment (N-m) N ce N te N cf N tf Peak Resultant Head Accel (g's) HIC 36 HIC 15 Axial Femur Load (N) Average Values w/o HANS Early High-g Avg 16.3 11.6 3123-871 35.7-45.4 0.498 0.454 0 0.559 76 420 250 2039 Constant-g Avg 17.3 12.5 3436-981 22.5-72.3 0.671 0.465 0 0.575 54 504 294 4372 Late High-g Avg 14.8 11.6 2969-483 19.2-27.3 0.22 0.249 0 0.48 54 344 211 419 Average Values w/ HANS Early High-g Hans Avg 16.7 11.6 1869-491 67.8-48.7 0.469 0.403 0.059 0.469 71 453 285 3193 Constant-g Hans Avg 17.9 12.5 1718-1027 43.2-61.4 0.652 0.322 0.076 0.324 63 505 342 4098 Late High-g Hans Avg 16.1 12.5 1480-513 44.9-53.9 0.41 0.405 0.094 0.307 67 444 363 2940 Comparison with and w/o HANS Early High-g 2.8% 0% -40% -44% 90% 7% -6% -11% - -16% -6% 8% 14% 57% Constant-g 3.5% 0% -50% 5% 92% -15% -3% -31% - -44% 17% 0% 17% -6% Late High-g 9.2% 8% -50% 6% 134% 98% 86% 63% - -36% 22% 29% 72% 602%

Results Critical Speed During the critical late high-g test the tension neck load, HIC 15, HIC 36, and femur load IARV were exceeded The use of the HANS device reduced the tension neck load below the IARV The use of the HANS did not affect the HIC 15, HIC 36, and femur load values Test Average Acceleration (g's) V (m/s) Tension Neck Load (N) Compression Neck Load (N) Flexion Neck Moment (N-m) Extension Neck Moment (N-m) N ce N te N cf N tf Peak Resultant Head Accel (g's) HIC 36 HIC 15 Axial Femur Load (N) Critical Late High-g 20.0 15.6 4817-1150 57.92-58.69 0.589 0.702 0.075 0.813 101 1549 1143 13550 Critical Late High-g HANS 20.0 15.6 2305-1421 40.4-45.42 0.491 0.351 0.103 0.418 96 1412 1042 13490

Results Critical Speed Kite Graph (no HANS) Test Conditions 15.6 m/s 20 g avg 80 ms

Results Critical Speed Kite Graph (w/ HANS) Test Conditions 15.6 m/s 20 g avg 80 ms

Conclusions The baseline tests that approximated the Formula SAE rules (7.0 m/s, 20-g average deceleration) resulted in measured injury values that were negligible compared to the IARV The tests comparing pulse shape all resulted in values which were less than the IARV The statistically highest values comparing pulse shape were seen during the constant-g test however, the average acceleration was slightly higher for these tests

Conclusions Cont. The addition of a HANS device reduced the tension neck load in every test and brought the test value below the IARV for the critical speed test An impact from 15.6 m/s with a 20-g average deceleration rate was found to pose a serious risk of injury to the driver, with and without the HANS device. To reduce the risk of injury to the driver, horizontally mounted tubes should be placed a

Acknowledgements Janet Brelin-Fornari, John Young and the Kettering University Crash Safety Center for the use of their facility. Denton Safety Systems for the use of their equipment Jamie Jones and Red Horse Racing for the donation of a HANS device for testing. Lynn St. James and HANS for the donation of two new HANS devices.

References Gideon, T., Melvin, J., Streetz, L., and Willhite, S. ATD Neck Tension Comparisons for Various Sled Pulses, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2002, SAE 2002-01-3324. Society of Automotive Engineers. 2006 Formula SAE Rules. http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/ Eppinger R., Sun E., Bandak F., Haffner M., Khaewpong N., Maltese M., Kuppa S., Nguyen T., Takhounts E., Tannous R., Zhang A., Saul R. Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems II. November, 1999, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. FMVSS 208. May 27, 1998 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. Trauma.org. Abbreviated Injury Scale. Accessed on August 22, 2006. http://www.trauma.org/scores/ais.html.

Thank You For Your Time Any Questions?