Side Impact Safety: Assessment of High Speed Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (Ae-Mdb) Test and Worldsid With 'Ribeye'
Side Impact Safety: Assessment of High Speed Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (Ae-Mdb) Test and Worldsid With 'Ribeye'
Side Impact Safety: Assessment of High Speed Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (Ae-Mdb) Test and Worldsid With 'Ribeye'
net/publication/266232029
Article
CITATIONS READS
2 526
4 authors, including:
Jolyon Carroll
Autoliv
28 PUBLICATIONS 150 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jolyon Carroll on 07 January 2015.
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+
90 Barrier 1500
Struck mass kg Barrier 1500 kg
1250kg,
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
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
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.
Edwards 3
Injury R95 EuroNCAP EuroNCAP
Criteria higher lower
HIC 1000 650 1000
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.
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
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
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.
Edwards 9
Table 3.
ES-2 and WorldSID injury parameter outputs
ES-2 ES-2 WorldSID WorldSID 5F
Parameter
driver passenger 50M driver passenger
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.
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
Top Rib deflection 12% AIS3+ 10% AIS3+ <1% AIS3+* 21% AIS3+**
Abdomen Rib 1
- - <1% AIS3+* 7% AIS3+**
deflection
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.
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
Edwards 14