See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266232029

SIDE IMPACT SAFETY: ASSESSMENT OF HIGH SPEED ADVANCED EUROPEAN

MOBILE DEFORMABLE BARRIER (AE-MDB) TEST AND WORLDSID WITH
'RIBEYE'

Article

CITATIONS READS
2 526

4 authors, including:

Mervyn Edwards David Hynd

Transport Research Laboratory Transport Research Laboratory
35 PUBLICATIONS   185 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   270 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jolyon Carroll
Autoliv
28 PUBLICATIONS   150 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vehicle Crash Compatibility View project

EU FP7 THORAX View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jolyon Carroll on 07 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SIDE IMPACT SAFETY: ASSESSMENT OF HIGH SPEED ADVANCED EUROPEAN MOBILE
DEFORMABLE BARRIER (AE-MDB) TEST AND WORLDSID WITH ‘RIBEYE’

Mervyn Edwards, David Hynd, Jolyon Carroll and Alex Thompson

TRL (Transport Research Laboratory)
United Kingdom
Paper Number 11-0082

ABSTRACT For the second part, component level pendulum tests

were performed with a WorldSID to assess the RibEye
In 2009, 2,222 people were killed and 24,690 were system, in particular to compare the RibEye measured
seriously injured in road traffic accidents in Great deflection with the deflections that would be obtained
Britain (GB). About half the people killed were car using a 1D or 2D IR-Tracc sensor and to gain
occupants and just over one third of these were killed in information on the best position for the two off-axis
side impacts. LEDs used with RibEye. In addition, a 60 km/h
AE-MDB test was performed with a WorldSID 50th
Over the past ten years, since the introduction of the percentile driver and 5th percentile rear passenger to
side impact regulation in Europe, much research work compare the performance of the WorldSID with the
has been performed internationally to develop new and ES-2 dummy and to provide a further assessment of the
modified test procedures to improve the level of RibEye system. It was found that the RibEye system
occupant protection offered by vehicles in side impacts. was integrated well into the WorldSID and, in general,
In Europe, this research has been co-ordinated by the worked well. However, a potential issue was identified
European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) with the shoulder rib deflection measurement. This and
and focused on contributing to the development of other findings are discussed further in the paper.
WorldSID and three test procedures. These are an
Advanced European Deformable Barrier (AE-MDB) INTRODUCTION
test, a pole test and an interior headform test.
Over the past ten years, since the introduction of the
This paper describes work performed by TRL on behalf side impact regulation in Europe, much research work
of the UK Department for Transport to inform UK has been performed internationally to develop new and
policy regarding side impact protection and provide the modified test procedures to improve the level of
UK contribution to EEVC activities. The work occupant protection offered by vehicles in side impacts.
described consisted of two parts. This has included the development of a new
anthropometric dummy test tool, namely the WorldSID.
For the first part, three full-scale crash tests were This work has been co-ordinated in Europe by the
performed with Euro NCAP 5 star rated cars to European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC)
investigate the implications of an AE-MDB test at a and worldwide via ad hoc working groups set up by
higher test speed than the current 50 km/h, in particular interested governments (e.g. the International
how much the occupant protection level in a current Harmonization of Research Activities (IHRA) working
vehicle would have to be improved to meet the groups, which were active until 2005) and groups
requirements of such a test and how representative the formed by standard committees (e.g. ISO). In Europe
AE MDB is of a car at these higher speeds. The tests the focus has been on the development of WorldSID
performed indicated that the safety level of a current and three test procedures. These are:
Euro NCAP 5 star rated car is close to being able to • An Advanced European Mobile Deformable
meet the current UNECE Regulation 95 requirements in Barrier (AE-MDB) test, the aim of which is to
a 60 km/h AE-MDB test, but would need substantial improve occupant protection in car-to-car impacts.
modifications for higher speeds. Also, several issues • A pole test, the aim of which is to improve
were highlighted which need to be considered further. occupant protection, especially for head injury, in
These included (1) the suitability of the current barrier car to ‘narrow object’ impacts. Examples of narrow
face, because it was very close to bottoming out in the objects are poles and trees. It should also help to
test performed, and (2) the appropriateness of the ES-2 improve head protection in other side impact
dummy, because of the particularly high T12 spine configurations through the introduction of ‘Head
loads recorded, which indicated that it may not have Protection Systems’ such as side curtain airbags.
behaved in a biofidelic manner in the test performed. • An interior headform test, the aim of which is to
improve head protection by improvement of the

Edwards 1
 padding on stiff vehicle interior structures that the representative the AE-MDB is of a striking car at these
head is likely to strike. higher speeds.

Much of the recent work in Europe to develop these test All MAIS MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+

procedures and the WorldSID 5th percentile female 100

90 Barrier 1500
Struck mass kg Barrier 1500 kg
1250kg,

dummy was performed by a large integrated European Struck Delta v 27 km/h

Struck delta v 27 km/h
80
Commission 6th Framework project called APROSYS

Cumulative percentage
Struck mass 1250kg, Barrier 950 kg
70 Barrier 950
Struck kg
Delta v 22 km/h
[1]. 60 Struck delta v 22 km/h
50

This paper describes work performed by TRL on behalf 40

of the UK Department for Transport to inform UK 30

policy regarding side impact protection and provide the 20

10
UK contribution to EEVC activities. The work 0
described consisted of two parts: the first an assessment 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

of an AE-MDB test with a higher test speed and the DeltaV Km/h

second an assessment of WorldSID, in particular the

‘RibEye’ system for the measurement of rib deflection. Figure 1. Cumulative percentage of delta-v for all
This work is described in further detail below. MAIS, MAIS 2+ and MAIS 3+ from analysis of UK
CCIS data.
ASSESSMENT OF AE-MDB TEST WITH
HIGHER TEST SPEED
Approach
In 2006 the EEVC WG13 (side impact) was tasked by
Three full-scale crash tests (highlighted in Table 1)
the EEVC steering committee to perform a review of
were performed to obtain the maximum amount of
the need to change the side impact regulation (UNECE
information from a limited number of tests and the test
Regulation 95) and, if necessary, bring forward
data already available from the APROSYS project,
appropriate proposals. The first part of this review, an
EEVC WG13 members and Euro NCAP.
analysis of accident databases to determine the
magnitude and nature of side impact accidents, was Table 1.
performed by WG21 (accident studies) [2]. This Test matrix. Note: tests highlighted in green
analysis identified the most significant injuries and their performed within this study. Other tests performed
mechanisms and also provided information to help by APROSYS project, EEVC WG13 members and
define appropriate test configurations, especially for the Euro NCAP.
AE-MDB test. However, the issue of the test speed was
not answered fully. The only accident data available to No. Target Bullet Speed Comment
(km/h)
help set the test speed, the UK CCIS accident data, 1 Golf V AE-MDB 50 Target car stationary; Impact
indicated that an AE-MDB test speed of around 2 Golf V
v3.10
AE-MDB 60
centre 250 mm rear of R-point*
Impact centre 250 mm rear of
65 km/h may be more appropriate than the current test v3.10 R-point
3 Golf V Golf V 48 Target car moving at 24 km/h;
speed of 50 km/h, assuming that the aim is to address a Impact centre R-point
substantial (about 50%) proportion of MAIS 3+ injured 4 Golf V Golf V 65 Target car stationary; Impact
centre 250 mm rear of R-point
casualties [Figure 1]. 5 Fiesta Golf V 65 Target car stationary; Impact
(MY centre 250 mm rear of R-point
2009)
The two red lines on the graph show the delta-v 6 Golf V R95 50 Target car stationary; Impact
expected in Regulation 95 (barrier mass 950 kg) and MDB centre R-point

AE-MDB (barrier mass 1500 kg) tests with a car of *Note: Impact centre 250 mm rearwards of R-point is the standard
mass 1250 kg and a test speed of 50 km/h. It is seen that AE-MDB test configuration to allow loading of rear seated dummy
to address 50% of MAIS 3+ casualties the AE-MDB and reproduce conditions of car-to-car impact with both cars moving.
test speed would have to be raised to give a delta-v of
35 km/h, which for a 1250 kg car would equate to a test The VW Golf Mk V was chosen as the target car for all
speed of about 65 km/h. of the tests except one because it was representative of
a Euro NCAP 5 star rated car and other test data were
The objective of the work performed was to determine available for comparison purposes. A test with a Ford
the implications of an AE-MDB test with a higher test Fiesta was performed to check that the performance of
speed, in particular how much the occupant protection the Golf V was typical of other Euro NCAP 5 star rated
level in a current vehicle would have to be improved to cars. The AE-MDB v3.10 was used because it was the
meet the requirements of such a test and how latest version of the barrier and fell within the

Edwards 2
AE-MDB force deflection performance corridors Also, the rear door fully unlatched and opened during
derived by EEVC WG13 for definition of the barrier the test.
stiffness [3]. Car-to-car tests were performed at The driver dummy injury criteria values and
65 km/h rather than AE-MDB tests because in the accelerations are compared in Figure 4 and Figure 5
60 km/h AE-MDB test the barrier was close to respectively.
‘bottoming out’ and hence may not have been
representative of a car in a 65 km/h impact. For the driver dummy it is seen that, for the Golf
60 km/h AE-MDB and 65 km/h car-to-car tests, all
Results injury criteria values were less than about 80% of the
legislative performance limits. This indicates that the
Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the approximate Golf offered a good level of protection, even at the
alignment of the AE-MDB (coloured in green) and Golf higher impact speeds. However, the spine T12 loads
bullet car lower rails and bumper crossbeam (coloured were high (greater than the Euro NCAP lower limit for
in brown) with Golf V and Fiesta target cars, a full modifier) in particular the Fy force, which
respectively, to help understand the dummy injury indicates possible unloading of the thorax. This is an
criteria values. The amount the AE-MDB overlaps the issue caused by the lack of biofidelity of the ES-2
rear wheel should be noted because in the 60 km/h dummy lumbar spine. It is much stiffer than a human
AE-MDB to Golf V test the barrier nearly bottomed out lumbar spine and hence it can transmit greater loads
on the wheel, so bottoming out may occur in tests at than a human spine. The outcome of this is that when
higher speeds and/or with cars with shorter wheel bases the ES 2 dummy pelvis is subjected to large loads the
such as the Fiesta. lumbar spine will transmit unrealistically large loads to
the thorax. This can help displace the thorax sideways
and hence reduce thorax loading via other load paths,
such as through the ribs, and in turn reduce the
associated injury criteria values. It is expected that this
problem has been resolved with the WorldSID because
it has a more flexible lumbar spine which should not
transmit unrealistically large loads.

For the Fiesta 65 km/h car-to-car test the injury criteria

values, in general, were higher than for the Golf, but
Figure 2. Approximate alignment of AE-MDB and still below the legislative limits with the exception of
bullet car lower rails with Golf V target car and the pubic symphysis force. However, as for the Golf the
ES-2 dummies. spine T12 loads were high which again indicates
possible unloading of the thorax.

Figure 5 shows that the driver dummy accelerations are

substantially increased for the higher speed tests, in
particular in the pelvis and lower spine areas. These are
the areas of the dummy that are more closely aligned
with the barrier and bullet car.

The rear passenger dummy injury criteria values and

accelerations are compared in Figure 6 and Figure 7
Figure 3. Approximate alignment of AE-MDB and respectively.
bullet car lower rails with Fiesta target car and ES-2
For the rear passenger dummy it is seen that for the
dummies.
Golf 60 km/h AE-MDB test the injury criteria were
There were some issues noted for each of the tests but it below the legislative limits. However, spine T12 loads
is not thought that they affected the test results and backplate forces were high indicating possible
significantly. For example, in the AE-MDB vs Golf unloading of the thorax. For the Golf car-to-car test at
60 km/h test there was an incorrect curtain airbag 65 km/h the dummy injury criteria exceeded the
deployment. Specifically, interaction between the bag legislative limits for the pubic symphysis. The high
and the B-pillar and seat belt upper anchorage point pelvis loading was exacerbated by the alignment of the
prevented the bag unfolding and deploying correctly. main rail of the bullet Golf with the bottom of the
dummy pelvis [Figure 2]. Again, spine T12 loads were

Edwards 3
 Injury R95 EuroNCAP EuroNCAP
Criteria higher lower
HIC 1000 650 1000

Head 72g 88g

Acceleration
(3 ms)
Rib 42 mm 22 mm 42 mm
deflection
Viscous 1.0 0.32 1.0
Criterion
Abdominal 2.5 kN 1.0 kN 2.5 kN
Force
Pubic 6.0 kN 3.0 kN 6.0 kN
Symphysis
Back plate 1.0 kN 4.0 kN
force
T12 load 1.5 kN 2.0 kN
T12 moment 150 Nm 200 Nm

Figure 4. Driver injury performance as a percentage of legislative or Euro NCAP lower limits. Notes: Criteria
not used in legislation are indicated with red boxes. In 50 km/h Golf vs Golf test target car was also moving at
24 km/h.

Figure 5. Driver upper spine, lower spine and pelvis accelerations. Note: R95 results not available.

Edwards 4
Figure 6. Rear seat passenger injury performance as a percentage of legislative or Euro NCAP lower limits.

Figure 7. Rear seat passenger upper spine, lower spine and pelvis accelerations.

Edwards 5
high indicating possible unloading of the thorax. For Hence, it does not represent precisely the highly
the Fiesta car-to-car test the dummy injury criteria localised stiffness of a car’s longitudinal member.
exceeded the legislative limits for the pubic symphysis
Figure 8 shows the measured deformations of the target
and the head. The high head injury criteria were a result
cars. It is seen for the tests with the Golf car that the
of the head impacting the C-pillar. This vehicle was not
deformation was substantially larger in the higher speed
fitted with a curtain airbag which probably would have
tests at mid-door and waist rail levels and in particular
prevented this. As for the Golf, spine T12 loads were
for the Golf to Golf tests at 65 km/h. The deformation
high.
in the Golf to Fiesta 65 km/h test was larger than for the
For the rear passenger dummy accelerations [Figure 7] Golf to Golf test and also a different shape. In the Fiesta
two interesting observations were made. The first was test the B-pillar was deformed more than in the Golf
the delay in the acceleration of the dummy in the Golf- test with the result that the Fiesta had more of a
to-Golf 50 km/h test compared to the other tests. This is C-shaped deformation profile compared to the Golf’s
a result of the different test configuration for this test, in M-shaped profile. It should be noted that there was little
particular that the target car was moving at 24 km/h and localised penetration of the target car in the car-to-car
the barrier impact point on the car was 250 mm forward tests due to the good performance of the bumper
compared to the other tests. The result of this was that crossbeam on the bullet Golf car.
the barrier moved into alignment with the dummy later
in the impact than in the other tests. The other Figure 9 shows the deformation of the barrier in the
observation is the much larger pelvis accelerations for 60 km/h AE-MDB to Golf test. It is seen that the AE-
the 65 km/h car-to-car tests. This was a result of the MDB was close to ‘bottoming out’ near its bottom right
alignment of the main longitudinal member of the bullet hand corner due to interaction with the Golf’s rear
car with the bottom of the dummy pelvis in these tests, wheel and C-pillar. This indicates that bottoming out
which increased the dummy loading. It should be noted may occur in tests at higher speeds and/or with cars
that the AE-MDB uses six areas which have different with shorter wheel bases such as the Fiesta.
stiffnesses to represent the stiffness profile of a car.

Target vehicle deformation centred on R-point

450

Front 400
350
Rear
Deformation (mm)

300 AE-MDB 3.10 vs Golf 50km/h AE-MDB 3.10 vs Golf 60km/h Golf vs Golf 50km/h
250 Golf vs Golf 65km/h Golf vs Fiesta 65km/h
200
150
100
50
0 Vehicle X
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 (mm)
450
400
Deformation ( mm )

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Vehicle
X ( mm )
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000
450
400
Deformation ( mm )

350
300
250
R-point Impact point
200
150
100
50
0 Vehicle
X ( mm )
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000
Approximate positions of Golf lower rails

Figure 8. Vehicle deformation measurements at sill, mid-door and waist rail levels.

Edwards 6
 ASSESSMENT OF WORLDSID

The assessment of WorldSID consisted of two main

parts. The first part was a series of component level
pendulum tests to assess the new RibEye™ Multi-Point
Deflection Measurement System (from here on referred
to as ‘RibEye’) for measuring the deflection of the
WorldSID shoulder, thorax and abdominal ribs. The
main objective was to compare the output from the
RibEye optical rib deflection measurement system with
the more conventional measurements that would be
obtained with a one dimensional (1D) or two
dimensional (2D) IR-Tracc sensor.

Figure 9. AE-MDB from 60 km/h Golf test showing The second part consisted of a 60 km/h AE-MDB
that barrier was close to ‘bottoming out’. full-scale crash test to compare the performance of the
WorldSID dummy with the ES-2 dummy and to
Conclusions provide a further assessment of the RibEye system.

• Both the driver and passenger dummy injury The ‘RibEye’ Deflection Measurement System
criteria values were less than 80 percent of the
regulatory limits in the 60 km/h AE-MDB test with It is generally accepted that the WorldSID dummy is
the Golf V. However, during the test the door superior in thorax biofidelity to other side impact
unlatched which would have failed the legislative dummies [4]. Until the introduction of WorldSID, little
requirement that no door opens during the test. In consideration was given to the biofidelity of side impact
addition, issues were noted with the deployment of dummies for oblique loading, because the older
the curtain airbag and that spine T12 loads were dummies were designed to be sensitive in the lateral
high, which is an indication of possible unloading axis only. A feature of the WorldSID is that oblique and
of the thorax. Also, the barrier was close to off-axis chest deformations are possible. A
bottoming out in the test. consequence of this is that measurement of the chest
deflection needs to take into account oblique and off-
• In the 65 km/h car-to-car tests, for at least one body axis deformations.
region, either the driver or passenger dummy injury
criteria values or both exceeded the legislative When it was introduced, the WorldSID 50th percentile
limits in both tests, although by less than about 25 male dummy was instrumented with a 1D IR-Tracc
percent. Furthermore, the spine T12 loads were sensor on each rib to measure the deflection.
particularly high in these tests, (up to 230 percent Unfortunately, these dummies displayed a reduced
of the Euro NCAP lower limit for application of a sensitivity of the rib deflection measurement system to
modifier) which is an indication of possible oblique and offset impact as any rotation of the
unloading of the thorax. IR-Tracc was not taken into account. This limitation
was shown in testing conducted at TRL [5] as part of
• In summary, the tests performed indicated that the the EC 5th Framework SIBER project and in various
safety level of a current Euro NCAP 5 star rated car other studies.
is close to being able to meet the requirements of a
60 km/h AE-MDB test but would need substantial Figure 10 illustrates this problem. Under lateral impact
modifications for higher speeds. In addition, issues the forward component in rib displacement introduces
regarding a higher speed test were highlighted, in extension of the rib deflection measurement system
particular the suitability of the current barrier (indicated by the red dotted line). This reduces the
because it was close to bottoming out and the compression output of the measurement system. Under
suitability of the ES-2 dummy because of the rearward oblique impact [Figure 10(c)], there is more
particularly high T12 spine loads which indicate forward rib deformation. This leads to an even greater
that the dummy may be behaving in an non- underestimate of the lateral rib compression and
biofidelic manner. It is expected that the more therefore of the risk of injury, if based on a single axis
flexible lumbar spine of the WorldSID would help lateral deflection measure.
to resolve this issue.

Edwards 7
 Assessment of WorldSID ‘RibEye’ using Pendulum
Tests

Forty pendulum impactor tests were performed on a

WorldSID 50th percentile male (50M) in broadly two
regimes, namely oblique and offset [Figure 12], for two
different postures of the WorldSID. These were either
suspended in a seated position until the moment of
Figure 10. WorldSID rib schematic top view impact (without any other support) or reclined on the
undeformed (a), deformation under lateral impact WorldSID’s certification bench.
(b), and deformation under rearward oblique
impact (c).
The APROSYS project [6] developed and tested two-
dimensional (2D) IR-Traccs with potentiometers at
their base to improve the sensitivity of the WorldSID
thorax to oblique impact. The 2D IR-Traccs showed Figure 12. Oblique impact (left) and offset impact
improved sensitivity to off-axis deformations, but some (right), schematic overhead views.
error in the measurements was still seen when
The tests were configured to evaluate the RibEye
compared with the true, peak deflection.
deflection measurement system with respect to the
existing 1D and 2D IR-Tracc measurement systems.
In parallel, but on a longer timeframe, an optical rib
Equivalent ID and 2D IR-Tracc measurements were
deflection measurement system was developed, the
calculated from the RibEye measurements. It should be
RibEye. The differences between the RibEye and 2D
noted that the tests were set up to minimise vertical rib
systems are that the RibEye measures vertical
displacements and hence were not suitable to evaluate
displacements as well as lateral and fore-aft, and the
the importance of the vertical measurement that RibEye
deflections are assessed at three different positions
offers.
around the rib. This is achieved by using sensors
mounted on the spine box which optically track three
For a 1D IR-Tracc measurement it was found that even
LEDs on each rib in three dimensions throughout the
for purely lateral impacts, there was a slight
impact [Figure 11]. Using the data obtained from the
underestimate of the rib deflection. For the oblique and
forward, middle, and rearward LED positions, more
offset impacts this under-estimate increased
complicated deformation patterns of the ribs can be
substantially. Table 2 shows the measurements from the
measured than would be possible based on a single
offset tests in which the WorldSID was suspended. It is
point measurement system.
seen that the 1D IR-Tracc deflection measurement
under-estimates were greatest when the loading was
most offset, only 61 percent of the 2D resultant
deflection for 75 mm offset impact.
Front LED
Table 2.
Rib deflections for offset tests with WorldSID
Spine box suspended (all values in mm)
Middle LED positioned Impact 1-D IR- 2-D 2-D RibEye RibEye
offset Tracc calculated resultant middle front LED
here equivalent lateral deflection LED resultant
disp. resultant
-75 23.0 26.7 37.5 37.5 36.1
-50 27.8 30.4 39.4 39.5 34.1
Rear LED -25 28.4 29.2 31.8 31.8 27.8
0 24.3 24.4 24.8 24.8 25.2

25 22.3 22.4 23.0 23.1 23.0

50 18.3 18.7 20.7 21.0 23.9

Figure 11. Example of RibEye resultant deflection This is because with offset impacts a greater component
measurements at the front, middle, and rear LED of the rib deformation comes from x-axis displacement
positions with forward oblique loading. than in lateral tests. This is evident from comparison of
the difference between the 2-D lateral and resultant

Edwards 8
measurements, which are closer for the tests with the comparison of the dummies. However, it should be
smallest offset. noted that the head curtain airbag did not deploy
correctly in either test. The central section of the airbag
For RibEye measurement of lateral displacement it was appeared to be caught on the top of the B-pillar trim or
found that the forward of lateral rib measurement LED seatbelt anchorage which prevented the central section
position provided greater peak lateral displacement from fully deploying. In addition, in the WorldSID test
values than the middle LED. This indicates that the the airbag did not fully unfurl next to the driver
forward position could provide useful additional dummy’s head. However, these issues did not have a
information, if assessing risk of injury based on lateral detrimental effect on the dummy results and the driver’s
rib displacement. This should represent an advantage to head was still protected by the airbag in both tests.
considering the middle LED position alone, as in a
2D IR-Tracc system. A comparison of the WorldSID and ES-2 dummy
performances is reported below for the driver and
For measurement of resultant displacement it was found passenger dummies. The WorldSID and ES-2 dummies
that the resultant deflection was rarely greater at the have significant differences in their anthropometries
forward LED position than at the middle position. From [Figure 13]. The top rib of the ES-2 dummy
this it can be inferred that the front position was not approximately aligns with the shoulder of the
picking up a particularly greater aspect of the overall WorldSID dummy. Also the WorldSID and ES-2
rib loading. Hence, if the resultant deflection was dummies have different seating position procedures. As
considered as the key criterion, it seems as though a result of these differences the initial positions of
alternative rib deflection assessment positions would be WorldSID 50M and ES-2 dummies in the tests were
useful only when there is localised loading. To assess significantly different, e.g. the head to roof
this further it is recommended that the relative measurement was 74 mm for the ES-2 compared to
measurements from the LEDs be considered in loading 119 mm for WorldSID 50M.
expected to cause localised deflections of the rib cage.
For instance, one might consider testing the thorax
when tightly constrained by a seat-belt and when loaded
with a non-flat impact surface.

Assessment of WorldSID in 60 km/h AE-MDB Test

A full-scale side impact crash test was performed

between a Volkswagen Golf and an AE-MDB v3.10 at
60 km/h using a WorldSID 50M driver and a WorldSID
5F rear passenger. The WorldSID 50M was fitted with
ES-2 WorldSID
RibEye and hence equivalent measurements for 1D and (m (mm)
m)
2D IR-Tracc systems could be calculated. The Shoulder width 485 480
WorldSID 5F was fitted with a 2D IR-Tracc system. Pelvis width
Sitting height
355
660
410
600
The main aim of the test was to compare the (neck/torso interface)
Sitting height 920 870
performance of the WorldSID dummies with the (erect)

performance of ES-2 driver and rear passenger

dummies which were tested as part of the investigation Figure 13. Comparison of anthropometry of ES-2
of increased test speed reported previously. A further and WorldSID.
aim of the test was to compare the different rib
deflection measurement systems used in the WorldSID The injury parameter outputs for the ES-2 and
dummies, namely the 1D IR-Tracc, 2D IR-Tracc and WorldSID dummies in the tests are shown in Table 3.
RibEye in a full-scale test.
The main points of interest are the peak force levels
In order to undertake a comparison of the relative recorded for the WorldSID 50M shoulder, which is
performance of the WorldSID and ES-2 dummies, it significantly higher than the ES-2 driver, and the pubic
was necessary to check that the performance of the symphysis, which is significantly lower than the ES-2.
vehicles in both tests was similar. The vehicle
accelerations and deformations in each of the tests were
compared and judged to be similar enough to allow

Edwards 9
 Table 3.
ES-2 and WorldSID injury parameter outputs
ES-2 ES-2 WorldSID WorldSID 5F
Parameter
driver passenger 50M driver passenger

HIC36 163.47 188.22 137.7 201.3

Head Peak resultant accel (g) 42.38 48.00 42.14 49.55

3ms exceedence (g) 40.12 45.92 40.67 46.79

Force y (kN) 0.65 1.87 3.21 -****

Shoulder
Deflection (mm) - - > 40*** 49.11

Top rib deflection (mm) 29.36 28.07 18.39* 25.55**

Middle rib deflection (mm) 21.01 23.11 22.31* 13.20**

Bottom rib deflection (mm) 25.06 26.12 27.64* 18.85**

Thorax
Top rib V*C (m/s) 0.45 0.22 0.22* 0.40**

Middle rib V*C (m/s) 0.22 0.20 0.27* 0.14**

Bottom rib V*C (m/s) 0.25 0.29 0.27* 0.31**

Abdomen Force summation (kN) 1.26 1.91 - -

Abdomen Rib 1 deflection (mm) - - 32.01* 23.93**

Abdomen Rib 2 deflection (mm) - - 35.44* 35.59**

Abdomen
Abdomen Rib 1 V*C (m/s) - - 0.47* 0.49**

Abdomen Rib 2 V*C (m/s) - - 0.51* 1.00**

T12 acceleration Y (g) 63.75 64.50 54.41 101.32

Pubic symphysis force (kN) 4.28 3.41 0.99 1.07

Pelvis
Pelvis accel Y (g) 74.32 64.28 80.22 74.35
*Based on equivalent 1D IR-TRACC measurement
**Based on equivalent calculated lateral component from 2D IR-TRACC
***Value taken prior to channel failures. Estimated peak value approximately 50-60 mm, based on curve fitting to equivalent 1D IR-TRACC
measurements before and after channel measurement range exceeded.
****Shoulder load cell not fitted to dummy

Figure 14. Comparison of driver dummy kinematics (ES-2 left, WorldSID 50M right), showing ES-2 shoulder
moving forward away from ribs (shrugging).

Edwards 10
Considering the difference in shoulder loads, However, the values for HIC and 3ms exceedence
comparison of the driver dummy kinematics showed recorded by the dummy indicated that this head contact
that the dummies’ shoulders interacted with the door was not significant in terms of injury risk. A similar
differently. The ES-2 dummy’s shoulder was pushed phenomenon was seen for the WorldSID 5F in a test
forward and rotated away from the ribs during the performed by APROSYS [7].
impact, whilst the WorldSID 50M shoulder did not
rotate and was directly loaded by the door structure In the test with the ES-2, as reported previously, high
[Figure 14]. Likely contributory factors to this were (1) levels of T12 loading were recorded possibly due to the
the significant structural differences in the design of the poor biofidelity of the ES-2 spine in this area. This may
shoulder between the two dummies and (2). the have unloaded the ribs. The WorldSID is a more
difference in alignment of dummies’ shoulders with the biofidelic dummy than the ES-2, and as such it was
door structure; the WorldSID 50M shoulder aligned expected that loading through T12 would not be as high
directly with the door structure due to the dummy’s and hence any unloading of the ribs would not be as
lower initial position compared to the ES-2. great. As such, higher rib deflections were expected to
be observed for the WorldSID 50M than the ES-2.
Considering the difference in pubic symphysis loading, However, this was not the case. A possible reason for
both the driver dummies showed significant pelvis this result was the increased loading of the WorldSID
movement away from the door which was consistent 50M shoulder in the test which may have unloaded the
with the high pelvis accelerations observed for both ribs. It should be noted that the WorldSID is not fitted
dummies (approximately 80 g). However, this did not with a T12 load cell, and as such it was not possible to
explain the significant difference in pubic symphysis make any conclusions about whether the improved
load, where the ES-2 experienced much higher loading biofidelity of the WorldSID lumbar spine reduced the
than the WorldSID 50M. The differences in dummy T12 loads.
design probably contributed to some of this difference.
However, it is also possible that the WorldSID pelvis In order to compare the performances of the WorldSID
was loaded through a different load path, perhaps at the and ES-2 dummies, a calculation of the estimated injury
rear of the pelvis where the load would not have been risk for each dummy’s body region was made using
picked up by the pubic symphysis load cell. The known injury risk functions. Injury risk functions were
WorldSID 50M can have a sacrum load cell fitted at the not available for the ES-2, so ES-1 risk curves were
rear of the pelvis which may have provided this used. The injury risks for the WorldSID 50M dummy
information. However the dummy used in this test did were calculated using the risk functions developed by
not have this instrumentation fitted. Petitjean et al. [8]. The injury risks for the WorldSID
5F dummy were calculated using the risk functions
The WorldSID 5F rear passenger kinematics showed developed within the APROSYS project [9]. It should
that the head curtain airbag did not protect the dummy’s be noted that the only injury risk functions available for
head during the impact. Despite initial contact with the the WorldSID 50M rib outputs were based on the
lower part of the airbag, the dummy’s head was not 1D IR-Tracc measurements, whilst risk functions were
prevented from contacting the door [Figure 15]. available for the WorldSID 5F using 1D and
2D IR-Tracc outputs. Therefore, for the purposes of this
comparison, the rib outputs for the WorldSID 50M
were based on the equivalent 1D IR-Tracc
measurements calculated from the RibEye outputs,
whilst the rib outputs for the WorldSID 5F were based
on the 2D IR-Tracc calculated lateral displacement
measure.

The calculated injury risks are shown in Table 4.

Comparison of the injury risks between the ES-2 and
WorldSID dummies showed that the ES-2 driver
predicted a significantly higher injury risk than the
WorldSID 50M driver for the thorax and abdomen,
with a similar injury risk for the pelvis based on
Figure 15. WorldSID 5F rear passenger showing acceleration. However, the WorldSID 50M had a very
head contact with door - head not protected by high risk of AIS2+ shoulder injury which cannot be
airbag. compared to the ES-2 because no risk function was
available.

Edwards 11
 Table 4.
Comparison of ES-2 and WorldSID injury risks

Injury risk comparison ES-2 driver ES-2 passenger WS50M driver WS5F passenger

Deflection - - >2% AIS2+*** -

Shoulder
Force - - 92% AIS2+ -

Top Rib deflection 12% AIS3+ 10% AIS3+ <1% AIS3+* 21% AIS3+**

Top Rib V*C 26% AIS3+ 10% AIS3+ [4% AIS3+*] -

Mid Rib deflection 4% AIS3+ 5% AIS3+ <1% AIS3+* 7% AIS3+**

Thorax
Mid Rib V*C 10% AIS3+ 9% AIS3+ [6% AIS3+*] -

Bot Rib deflection 6% AIS3+ 7% AIS3+ <1% AIS3+* 13% AIS3+**

Bot Rib V*C 11% AIS3+ 13% AIS3+ [6% AIS3+*] -

Force 15% AIS3+ 16% AIS3+ - -

Abdomen Rib 1
- - <1% AIS3+* 7% AIS3+**
deflection

Abdomen Rib 1 V*C - - [<2% AIS3+*] -

Abdomen
Abdomen Rib 2
- - <1% AIS3+* 14% AIS3+**
deflection

Abdomen Rib 2 V*C - - [<2% AIS3+*] -

T12 Acceleration 46% AIS3+ 47% AIS3+ <2% AIS3+ -

Force 20% AIS2+ 13% AIS2+ <1% AIS2+ <2% AIS2+

Pelvis
Acceleration 24% AIS2+ 21% AIS2+ 19% AIS2+ [~35% AIS2+]
*Based on equivalent 1D IR-TRACC measurement
**Based on calculated lateral component from 2D IR-TRACC
***Based on value recorded prior to channel failure at 32ms, likely to be much higher

It is likely that that the high load on the shoulder The WorldSID 5F rear passenger injury parameters
reduced the loading on the ribs and therefore could not be directly compared to the ES-2 rear
contributed to the low injury risk for the thorax. It passenger dummy due to the differences in the sizes of
should be noted that there are concerns regarding the the dummies. However, it could be seen that the
injury risk calculated for rib viscous criterion in the WorldSID 5F had generally higher risk of AIS3+ chest
WorldSID 50M, as it is calculated based on the injury than the ES-2.
equivalent 1D IR-Tracc rib compression which does not
take into account the rotation of the rib and therefore A comparison of the rib deflection measurement
does not necessarily relate to the lateral deflection of systems for the WorldSID 50M was made. Using the
the rib. As such these values are shown in square RibEye middle LED measurements equivalent
brackets. Also, it should be noted that the shoulder rib measurements for 1D and 2D IR-Tracc systems were
front and middle LED measurements dropped out calculated [Table 5]. Comparison of the 1D IR-Tracc
during the test, probably due to the high deflection of measurement with the 2D IR-Tracc lateral measurement
the shoulder rib in all three dimensions (lateral, fore/aft (EY) shows that the 1D IR-Tracc consistently
and vertical), which in turn probably led to the rib underestimated the lateral deflection of the ribs. This
LEDs being positioned such that they could not be seen was due to the fact that it does not take the rib rotation,
by the sensors. and therefore fore/aft movement of the rib, into
account. The comparison of the 1D IR-Tracc

Edwards 12
compression with the 2D IR-Tracc calculated resultant The head contacted the door at the base of the
deflection (ER) showed an even larger difference. As window. However, the values for HIC and 3ms
no injury risk functions were available for the exceedence indicated that this head contact
2D IR-Tracc on the WorldSID 50M dummy, it was not was not significant in terms of injury risk.
possible to assess the impact that the underestimation of
rib deflection by the 1D IR-Tracc would have had on • Injury criteria and risks
the likelihood of occupant injury. o There was a significantly higher shoulder load
for the WorldSID 50M compared to the ES-2.
Table 5. This most likely reduced the loading to the
Comparison of 1D and 2D IR-TRACC equivalent thorax. Likely contributory factors were the
measurements for WorldSID 50M driver different alignment of the dummies with the
cars’ structures and the different designs of the
1D IR- 2D IR-TRACC dummies’ shoulders. The different dummy
TRACC (Equivalent from Ribeye alignment was a result of the difference in the
Equivalent Middle LED) anthropometry of the dummies and the
different seating procedures.
EX EY ER
o There was a significantly lower pubic
Shoulder 32.31* 31.51* 50.59* 59.60* symphysis loading for WorldSID 50M
Thorax 1 18.05 20.47 19.3 26.51 compared to the ES-2 even though both
Thorax 2 22.05 19.34 22.83 28.26 dummies had similar pelvis accelerations. The
Thorax 3 26.59 17.93 29.53 34.48 differences in dummy design probably
Abdomen 1 30.87 19.93 34.32 39.64 contributed to some of this difference.
Abdomen 2 34.00 20.68 37.91 43.00 However, it is also possible that the WorldSID
*Values recorded prior to channel measurement range being exceeded pelvis was loaded through a different load
path, perhaps at the rear of the pelvis where the
Conclusions load would not have been picked up by the
pubic symphysis load cell.
Assessment of WorldSID ‘RibEye’ in pendulum tests: o The injury risk predicted by the WorldSID
• Even in the purely lateral impacts, there was a 50M was generally lower than that predicted
slight underestimate in the rib deflection arising by the ES-2 apart from the shoulder. For the
from the 1-D IR-Tracc measurement. This WorldSID 50M high shoulder loads and
increased to 61 % of the resultant, in the case of the deflections were measured and a high risk of
75 mm offset impact test. AIS2+ shoulder injury was predicted. For the
ES-2 relatively low shoulder loads were
• RibEye LED position. measured but an injury risk could not be
o The forward of lateral LED position often calculated because a shoulder injury risk
provided a larger lateral (y-axis) displacement function was not available for ES-2. It should
measurement than the middle LED position. be noted that injury risk curves for the
o Unless the loading is particularly oblique WorldSID 50M were only available for
(> ~30 degrees) or offset (~ 50 mm) there is no 1D IR-Tracc measurements.
additional benefit in using the resultant
deflection data from the forward of lateral • Other
LED position. o A potential issue was identified with
o Only with particularly concentrated loading WorldSID shoulder and RibEye system
would it be expected that the rearward of o The shoulder rib middle and forward
lateral LED position would measure greater rib LEDs deflected out of range of RibEye
deflection values than the forward of lateral sensor causing signal dropout during the
and middle LED positions. test.

Assessment of WorldSID in 60 km/h AE-MDB test. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• Dummy kinematics.
o The WorldSID 50M and ES-2 driver exhibited The authors gratefully acknowledge the UK
different behaviour, in particular for the Department for Transport, Transport Canada, FTSS,
interaction of the shoulder with the car door. Boxboro systems, APROSYS SP1 project members
o The WorldSID 5F head was not protected by EEVC WG13 members and Euro NCAP for their
head curtain airbag due to a low head position. support for this work.

Edwards 13
 the AE-MDB test’, APROSYS SP1.1, Deliverable
D111C-Part2, AP-SP11-0147. www.aprosys.com
This paper used accident data from the United Kingdom
8. Petitjean A, Trosseille X, Petit P, Irwin A, Hassan J
Co-operative Crash Injury Study (CCIS) collected
and Praxl N (2009). ‘Injury risk curves for the
during the period 2000-2009. CCIS was managed by
WorldSID 50th Male Dummy’, Stapp Car Crash
TRL Limited, on behalf of the DfT (Transport
Journal, Vol. 53, November 2009. pp. 443-476.
Technology and Standards Division) who funded the
9. Carroll J, Eggers A, Martinez L and Been B
project along with Autoliv, Ford Motor Company,
(2009). ‘WorldSID Small female Side Impact
Nissan Motor Company and Toyota Motor Europe.
Injury Risk Functions for Thorax, Abdomen and
Previous sponsors of CCIS have included Daimler
Pelvis based on dummy biomechanical testing and
Chrysler, LAB, Rover Group Ltd, Visteon, Volvo Car
existing injury data’, APROSYS SP5, Deliverable
Corporation, Daewoo Motor Company Ltd and Honda
D5.2.11, AP-SP52-0062B. www.aprosys.com
R&D Europe(UK) Ltd. Data was collected by teams
from the Birmingham Automotive Safety Centre of the
© Copyright TRL Limited 2011.
University of Birmingham; the Transport Safety
Research Centre at Loughborough University; TRL
Limited and the Vehicle & Operator Services Agency
of the DfT.
Further information on CCIS can be found at
http://www.ukccis.org

REFERENCES

1. Advanced Protection Systems (APROSYS) EC 6th

Framework project FP6-PLT-506503.
www.aprosys.com
2. Thomas P, Welsh R, Lenguerrand E, Vallet G, Otte
D, and Standroth J (2009). ‘Priorities for Enhanced
Side Impact Protection in Regulation 95 Compliant
Cars’, 21st International Technical Conference on
the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Stuggart,
Germany, June 15-18, 2009.
3. Ellway J (2005). ‘The Development of an
Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier
(AE-MDB) face,’ 19th International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
(ESV), Washington, USA, June 6-9, 2005.
4. EEVC (European Enhanced Vehicle-safety
Committee) 2009. ‘Status of WorldSID 50th
Percentile Male Side Impact Dummy’, EEVC
Working Group 12 report, March 2009. Report
published on the EEVC web site: www.eevc.org.
5. Hynd D, Carroll J, Been B and Payne A (2004).
‘Evaluation of the shoulder, thorax and abdomen of
the WorldSID pre-production side impact dummy’.
IMechE Vehicle Safety Conference, Westminster,
London, UK, 14-15 December, 2004. Institution of
Mechanical Engineers.
6. Waagmeester K and Been B (2009). ‘Single rib and
2D rib deflection sensor drop table impact tests;
sensitivity to impact load and impact direction’.
APROSYS SP5 Deliverable D5.2.8: AP-SP52-
0058.
7. Versmissen T, Palacios E, Nombela M (2009).
‘Evaluation of the use of the WorldSID dummy in

Edwards 14

View publication stats