Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 12 – uploaded by Jacqueline Paver

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figures 12 and 13 shows videotape frames from ITHS 40% offset frontal tests of a 1996 (top) and 1999 (bottom) Hyundai Sonata into a deformable barrier at 40 mph.

Figure 12 s 12 and 13 shows videotape frames from ITHS 40% offset frontal tests of a 1996 (top) and 1999 (bottom) Hyundai Sonata into a deformable barrier at 40 mph.

Related Figures (12)

Figure 2. Composite plot of injury measures showing rate reduction with increasing vehicle SWR. In 2008, NHTSA confirmed a NASS statistical analysis indicating that, in rollover crashes, vehicles with post-crash negative headroom (more roof crush than original headroom) were 5 times more likely to be injurious (at any level of injury) than vehicles with post-crash positive headroom [18]. Figure 3 is a plot of positive and negative post-crash headroom as a function of vehicle SWR in JRS rollover tests.
Figure 2. Composite plot of injury measures showing rate reduction with increasing vehicle SWR. In 2008, NHTSA confirmed a NASS statistical analysis indicating that, in rollover crashes, vehicles with post-crash negative headroom (more roof crush than original headroom) were 5 times more likely to be injurious (at any level of injury) than vehicles with post-crash positive headroom [18]. Figure 3 is a plot of positive and negative post-crash headroom as a function of vehicle SWR in JRS rollover tests.
Figure 3. Post-crash positive and negative headroom in order of ascending vehicle SWR. In 2009, a statistical analysis of NASS and CIREN files [19] evaluated the probability and odds ratio of rollover fatalities and injury as a function o head, spine and spinal cord f vehicle residual crush. For residual crush in bands of 0 to 3!%, 3% to 6, 6 to 12 and 12 inches and above, the corresponding ratings in order are “good,” “ac “acceptable” probabi ceptable” and “poor.” The ity is roughly 30% greater than “good” and the probability of “poor” is 2.5 times greater than “acceptal ble.”
Figure 3. Post-crash positive and negative headroom in order of ascending vehicle SWR. In 2009, a statistical analysis of NASS and CIREN files [19] evaluated the probability and odds ratio of rollover fatalities and injury as a function o head, spine and spinal cord f vehicle residual crush. For residual crush in bands of 0 to 3!%, 3% to 6, 6 to 12 and 12 inches and above, the corresponding ratings in order are “good,” “ac “acceptable” probabi ceptable” and “poor.” The ity is roughly 30% greater than “good” and the probability of “poor” is 2.5 times greater than “acceptal ble.”
Figure 5. Residual crush normalized to 21 mph and 270° roll rate. The following structural injury risk measures were identified in previously-published analyses of more than 50 JRS dynamic rollover tests: SWR, major radius (MR) at the A-pillar, structural roof elasticity, impact angle, pitch and/or yaw [20]. These dynamic tests also identified vehicles with grossly underestimated injury potential based on static roof strength tests alone. Figure 5 shows residual crush, normalized to a single test protocol, plotted on the fatality risk chart to 12 inches of residual crush of Figure 4.
Figure 5. Residual crush normalized to 21 mph and 270° roll rate. The following structural injury risk measures were identified in previously-published analyses of more than 50 JRS dynamic rollover tests: SWR, major radius (MR) at the A-pillar, structural roof elasticity, impact angle, pitch and/or yaw [20]. These dynamic tests also identified vehicles with grossly underestimated injury potential based on static roof strength tests alone. Figure 5 shows residual crush, normalized to a single test protocol, plotted on the fatality risk chart to 12 inches of residual crush of Figure 4.
Figure 4. A fatal probability function vs. residual crush. Figure 4, the fatality probability chart, shows increasing probability of fatality with increasing vehicle residual crush.
Figure 4. A fatal probability function vs. residual crush. Figure 4, the fatality probability chart, shows increasing probability of fatality with increasing vehicle residual crush.
Figure 6. Comparison of the production and prototype flexible rollover neck at maximum head excursion. CfIR conducted experiments comparing the head excursion of the production and prototype flexible rollover neck under identical test conditions. The results at 10 and 15 mph, shown in Figure 6, demonstrate increased head excursion with increasing impact speed. At 15 mph, the flexible neck moved forward about 4 inches farther than the production neck,
Figure 6. Comparison of the production and prototype flexible rollover neck at maximum head excursion. CfIR conducted experiments comparing the head excursion of the production and prototype flexible rollover neck under identical test conditions. The results at 10 and 15 mph, shown in Figure 6, demonstrate increased head excursion with increasing impact speed. At 15 mph, the flexible neck moved forward about 4 inches farther than the production neck,
Figure 7. Consensus injury criteria map of dynamic crush injury risk criteria. The IARV injury criteria were recalibrated relative to the production neck. In tests with either neck, there was no correlation between injury risk, described by residual crush, and injury measures, described by IARV. The only consensus injury measures were roof crush and roof crush speed based on criteria developed by McElhaney [22]. Figure 7 is a map of those injury measures.
Figure 7. Consensus injury criteria map of dynamic crush injury risk criteria. The IARV injury criteria were recalibrated relative to the production neck. In tests with either neck, there was no correlation between injury risk, described by residual crush, and injury measures, described by IARV. The only consensus injury measures were roof crush and roof crush speed based on criteria developed by McElhaney [22]. Figure 7 is a map of those injury measures.
Figure 8. Injury risk, IARV and momentum exchange test results of the 2009 Ford F-150. IIE EE gpI IE EEE Each was normalized to its AIS > 3 reference value. For each JRS rollover test, the percentage of structural injury risk and dummy measure criteria were determined and compared. Results for the 2009 Ford F-150 are illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Injury risk, IARV and momentum exchange test results of the 2009 Ford F-150. IIE EE gpI IE EEE Each was normalized to its AIS > 3 reference value. For each JRS rollover test, the percentage of structural injury risk and dummy measure criteria were determined and compared. Results for the 2009 Ford F-150 are illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 9. Societal losses as a function of deltaV and vehicle damage areas. The accident analysis of the NHTSA/Minicars RSV required passive protection airbag performance in a 30° angled impact mode [24]. This requirement was based on the yearly societal costs of injuries and fatalities as a function of vehicle damage areas and deltaV from the MDAI and ACIR files shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Societal losses as a function of deltaV and vehicle damage areas. The accident analysis of the NHTSA/Minicars RSV required passive protection airbag performance in a 30° angled impact mode [24]. This requirement was based on the yearly societal costs of injuries and fatalities as a function of vehicle damage areas and deltaV from the MDAI and ACIR files shown in Figure 9.
Figure 11. WHS 2012 Acura TSX small (25%) overlap test at 40 mph at maximum head excursion. Figure 10. IHS 2012 Kia Soul small (25%) overlap test at 40 mph at maximum head excursion.
Figure 11. WHS 2012 Acura TSX small (25%) overlap test at 40 mph at maximum head excursion. Figure 10. IHS 2012 Kia Soul small (25%) overlap test at 40 mph at maximum head excursion.
Figures 10 and 11 shows the dummy head near the A-pillar in the IIHS small (25%) overlap frontal tests at 40 mph.
Figures 10 and 11 shows the dummy head near the A-pillar in the IIHS small (25%) overlap frontal tests at 40 mph.
Figure 13. IIHS 1999 Hyundai Sonata (40%) offset frontal test at 40 mph at maximum head excursion. Figure 12. WHS 1996 Hyundai Sonata (40%) offset frontal test at 40 mph at maximum head excursion.
Figure 13. IIHS 1999 Hyundai Sonata (40%) offset frontal test at 40 mph at maximum head excursion. Figure 12. WHS 1996 Hyundai Sonata (40%) offset frontal test at 40 mph at maximum head excursion.
FP igure 14, TIHS 2006 Crown Victoria side impact test (no airbags) at maximum head excursion. Figure 14 is a frame from an IIHS side impact of a 2006 Crown Victoria without airbags at 30 mph.
FP igure 14, TIHS 2006 Crown Victoria side impact test (no airbags) at maximum head excursion. Figure 14 is a frame from an IIHS side impact of a 2006 Crown Victoria without airbags at 30 mph.
Related topics:
Engineering
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved