Repeatability study of replicate crash tests: A signal analysis approach.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an objective basis on which to evaluate the repeatability of vehicle crash test methods, a recently developed signal analysis method was used to evaluate correlation of sensor time history data between replicate vehicle crash tests. The goal of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of rollover crash tests performed with the Dynamic Rollover Test System (DRoTS) relative to other vehicle crash test methods. METHODS: Test data from DRoTS tests, deceleration rollover sled (DRS) tests, frontal crash tests, frontal offset crash tests, small overlap crash tests, small overlap impact (SOI) crash tests, and oblique crash tests were obtained from the literature and publicly available databases (the NHTSA vehicle database and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety TechData) to examine crash test repeatability. RESULTS: Signal analysis of the DRoTS tests showed that force and deformation time histories had good to excellent repeatability, whereas vehicle kinematics showed only fair repeatability due to the vehicle mounting method for one pair of tests and slightly dissimilar mass properties (2.2%) in a second pair of tests. Relative to the DRS, the DRoTS tests showed very similar or higher levels of repeatability in nearly all vehicle kinematic data signals with the exception of global X' (road direction of travel) velocity and displacement due to the functionality of the DRoTS fixture. Based on the average overall scoring metric of the dominant acceleration, DRoTS was found to be as repeatable as all other crash tests analyzed. Vertical force measures showed good repeatability and were on par with frontal crash barrier forces. Dynamic deformation measures showed good to excellent repeatability as opposed to poor repeatability seen in SOI and oblique deformation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Using the signal analysis method as outlined in this article, the DRoTS was shown to have the same or better repeatability of crash test methods used in government regulatory and consumer evaluation test protocols.

Repeatability of a dynamic rollover test system.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to characterize the rollover crash and to evaluate the repeatability of the Dynamic Rollover Test System (DRoTS) in terms of initial roof-to-ground contact conditions, vehicle kinematics, road reaction forces, and vehicle deformation. METHODS: Four rollover crash tests were performed on 2 pairs of replicate vehicles (2 sedan tests and 2 compact multipurpose van [MPV] tests), instrumented with a custom inertial measurement unit to measure vehicle and global kinematics and string potentiometers to measure pillar deformation time histories. The road was instrumented with load cells to measure reaction loads and an optical encoder to measure road velocity. Laser scans of pre- and posttest vehicles were taken to provide detailed deformation maps. RESULTS: Initial conditions were found to be repeatable, with the largest difference seen in drop height of 20 mm; roll rate, roll angle, pitch angle, road velocity, drop velocity, mass, and moment of inertia were all 7% different or less. Vehicle kinematics (roll rate, road speed, roll and pitch angle, global Z' acceleration, and global Z' velocity) were similar throughout the impact; however, differences were seen in the sedan tests because of a vehicle fixation problem and differences were seen in the MPV tests due to an increase in reaction forces during leading side impact likely caused by disparities in roll angle (3° difference) and mass properties (2.2% in moment of inertia [MOI], 53.5 mm difference in center of gravity [CG] location). CONCLUSIONS: Despite those issues, kinetic and deformation measures showed a high degree of repeatability, which is necessary for assessing injury risk in rollover because roof strength positively correlates with injury risk (Brumbelow 2009). Improvements of the test equipment and matching mass properties will ensure highly repeatable initial conditions, vehicle kinematics, kinetics, and deformations.

Occupant Kinematics in Laboratory Rollover Tests: ATD Response and Biofidelity.

Rollover crashes are a serious public health problem in United States, with one third of traffic fatalities occurring in crashes where rollover occurred. While it has been shown that occupant kinematics affect the injury risk in rollover crashes, no anthropomorphic test device (ATD) has yet demonstrated kinematic biofidelity in rollover crashes. Therefore, the primary goal of this study was to assess the kinematic response biofidelity of six ATDs (Hybrid III, Hybrid III Pedestrian, Hybrid III with Pedestrian Pelvis, WorldSID, Polar II and THOR) by comparing them to post mortem human surrogate (PMHS) kinematic response targets published concurrently; and the secondary goal was to evaluate and compare the kinematic response differences among these ATDs. Trajectories (head, T1, T4, T10, L1 and sacrum), spinal segment (head-to-T1, T1-to-T4, T4-T10, T10-L1, and L1-to-sacrum) rotations relative to the rollover buck, and spinal segment extension/compression were calculated from the collected kinematics data from an optical motion tracking system. Response differences among the ATDs were observed mainly due to the different lateral bending stiffness of the spine from their varied architecture, while the additional thoracic joint in Polar II and THOR did not seem to provide more flexion/extension compliance than the other ATDs. In addition, the ATD response data were compared to PMHS response corridors developed from similar tests for assessing ATD biofidelity. All of the ATDs, generally, drifted outboard and upward during the tests similar to the PMHS. However, accompanied with this upward and outward motion, the ATD head and upper torso pitched forward (~10 degrees) while the PMHS' head and upper torso pitching rearward (~10 to ~15 degrees), due to the absence of flexion/extension compliance in the ATD spine. The differences in these pitch motions resulted in a difference of 130 mm to 160 mm in the longitudinal position of the head at 195 degrees of roll angle. Finally, substantially less lateral spinal bending was also observed in the ATDs compared to the PMHS. The results of the current study suggests there is greater upper spine flexion/extension, and lateral bending stiffness in all of the ATDs in comparison to the PMHS, and provided information for improvement of ATD biofidelity in future for rollover crashes.