Effects of mutual vehicle characteristics on passenger injury during front-end impact by Hideki Yonezawa * Koji Mizuno Harushige Yanagisawa * Hir

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Effects of mutual vehicle characteristics on passenger injury during front-end impact by Hideki Yonezawa * Koji Mizuno ** Harushige Yanagisawa *** Hir"

はすなこやぎ
4 years ago
Views:

1 Effects of mutual vehicle characteristics on passenger injury during front-end impact by Hideki Yonezawa * Koji Mizuno ** Harushige Yanagisawa *** Hiroko Minda * Tomohiro Yamaguchi *** Abstract In terms of vehicle front impact safety, the full-lap front impact was introduced into 1994 safety regulations. Moreover about offset front impact, in 2 (JNCAP), vehicle assessment testing was conducted, and regulatory aspects were also examined. Passenger protection regarding such collisions has reached a fixed level for several years. In terms of standards, however, these tests were aimed at simulatory self-protection for the same vehicles in the same collisions. Now, there is now a need to consider passenger safety (compatibility) in collisions of vehicles of different sizes. To assure compatibility, the passenger compartment must be preserved during impact as energy is absorbed by the front end of the vehicles while maintaining an adequate structural interaction between vehicles. Adequate structural interaction is a prerequisite condition for keeping the passenger compartment intact and absorbing energy by the front end of the vehicle while preventing override. The IHRA (International Harmonized Research Activities) compatibility-working group (WG) has adopted five candidate tests for evaluating compatibility performance, i.e., full lap, PDB, ODB, overload, and MDB tests, to allow evaluation of compatibility performance through a combination of multiple tests. The full lap and PDB (progressive deformable barrier) tests are offered for the evaluation of structural interaction. In the present study, the full lap, PDB, ODB, overload, and MDB tests were conducted according to IHRA testing procedures, and the methods for evaluating each test were investigated and the vehicle-vehicle impacts were compared.

2 (1) FRB test (2) ODB test 2 (JNCAP) (3) Overload test (4) PDB test ( ) (5) MDB test Fig.1. Test procedures for evaluating compatibility ( ) Table 1 C 56 km/h 5% IHRA (International Harmonized Research Activities) Fig.2 A WG (1) B Fig.1 (2) PDB (Progressive Deformable Table 1. Test matrix of car to car test Barrier) (3) Curb mass Test mass Velocity Overlap Test Car model Dummy (kg) (kg) (km/h) ratio IHRA Minicar A % driver's sheet Test 1 PDB ODB Car C driver's sheet MDB Minicar B % driver's sheet Test 2 Car C driver's sheet % 5% 5% (a) Minicar A (b) Minicar B JNCAP Fig.2. Interaction of front side members A B

3 Fig.3 Fig.4 Fig.5 A C B C B (a) Minicar A JNCAP A B A JNCAP (b) Car C Fig.3. Minicar A vs. Car C Fig.6 B C B A A JNCAP Fig.7 ODB 64km/h(JNCAP) B Tibia index A B C A (a) Minicar B B JNCAP JNCAP A B (b) Car C Fig.4. Minicar B vs. Car C

4 (a) Minicar A vs. Car C (b) Minicar B vs. Car C Fig.5. Bottom view of structural interaction A pillar beltline right fender front driver toe board right longitudinal front Minicar A Test 1 Car C ( ) AHOF (Average Height of Force) COV (Coefficient of Variance: / ) 4 C (21 ) C 1545kg 163kg Hybrid III AM5 55 km/h Fig mm 125 mm 125 mm Test 2 Minicar B Multiple load cells Capacity kn kn Car C Longitudinal deformation (mm) Ground height Fig.6. Vehicle deformation 125 mm Fig. 8. High resolution load cells CTC (/w Crown) ODB64 Wagon Minicar A R HIC Minicar Move B Chest def Wagon Minicar A R Minicar Move B (Injury parameters) / IARV Fig.7. Injury parameters (or values) of driver dummy Femur (right) Femur (left) TI (right lower) TI (left lower) 3.2. Fig.9 C ( ) (4)

COV TRL 5 kn (2) COV CFC 6Hz 3.4. Fig.1 Fig.9.

11 5 ms H i Hi Fi ( t) 25 ms COF = (1) 3 ms 35 ms Fi ( t) i:, i=1,.

5 COV TRL 5 kn (2) COV CFC 6Hz 3.4. Fig.1 Fig.9. Front structure of Car C 3.3. Fig.1. Car deformation in full rigid barrier test AHOF COV(Coefficient (2) of Variance) COF(Center of Force) F i (t) Fig.11 5 ms H i Hi Fi ( t) 25 ms COF = (1) 3 ms 35 ms Fi ( t) i:, i=1,.., N COF CFC 6Hz AHOF COF F( t) COF( t) dt AHOF = (2) F( t) dt COV Fig.12 (1), (2) COF AHOF 3 ms STD( t) COV( t) = (3) COF Fi ( t) / N COF AHOF

6 4 ms COF 464 mm Fig.13 (3) COV COV 6 AHOF=464 mm 5 kn COV COV 2 25 ms 1 COV 35 ms 7 ms Fig.12. COF and AHOF in full rigid barrier test. COF (mm) COV ms 5 ms Fig.13. COV in full rigid barrier test. 15 ms 25 ms 3 ms 35 ms 4 ms 45 ms 5 ms 55 ms Fig.11. Footprint in full rigid barrier test (55 km/h) (ODB, Offset Deformable Barrier) IHRA ODB EuroNCAP JNCAP 64 km/h 4.2. JNCAP JNCAP ODB 64 km/h Fig.14

7 JNCAP 6 Fig. 16 A A D E Fig.17 D E 25 KN D E Fig.14. Load cell in JNCAP ODB test MPV (EuroNCAP) y =.2319 x ( ) Curb mass (kg) JNCAP Fig.15. Maximum barrier force and vehicle curb mass in Fig.15 ODB test at 64km/h kn Upper Upper Lower Lower Fig.15 Total Total kn (a) Minicar (b) Car A Upper Upper Lower Lower Total Total 2 2 Fig.15 EuroNCAP 1 1 EuroNCAP JNCAP (c) Car B, C (d) Minivan EuroNCAP JNCAP Fig.16. Average barrier force-time histories in offset frontal impact tests by car class. Maximum barrier force (kn) 7 6 Minicar Car MPV Car (EuroNCAP)

25 2 15 1 5 Upper Lower Total 5 1 15 2-5 25 2 15 1 5 Upper Lower Total 5 1 15 2-5.68 1.2.68 1.2.32.68.32 alu sheet 1 mm 35 mm 25 mm 1 mm 15 mm (a)small car D (b) Small car E Fig.17.

8 Upper Lower Total Upper Lower Total alu sheet 1 mm 35 mm 25 mm 1 mm 15 mm (a)small car D (b) Small car E Fig.17. Barrier force-time histories and barrier deformation of small car D and E in offset frontal impact tests (JNCAP). D Fig.18. PDB barrier 5.2. PDB Fig PDB 1999 IHRA, ISO PDB AHOF PDB C 1547kg 1632kg Hybrid III AM5 Fig.2 6 km/h PDB 75 mm PDB 2 2 PDB ODB 64 km/h PDB (Fig.18 ) PDB COF COV PDB COF Fig ms PDB COF

9 PDB COF COF COV Fig.22 PDB COV COV COV PDB ms 2 ms COV PDB COV COV PDB AHOF COV PDB Fig.23 4 ms 6 ms 8 ms 1 ms Fig.2. Footprint in PDB test. COF (mm) PDB FRB Fig.19. Car and barrier deformation in a PDB test. Fig.21. Center of force determined from PDB and full rigid barrier test.

COV 5. 4. 3. 2. FRB 1. PDB. 5 1 15 Fig.22.

26 PDB ODB PDB 6 km/h ODB 64 km/h Fig.23. Deformation contour of PDB 5.3. PDB ODB JNCAP ECE R94 ODB(Offset Fig.

Deformable Barrier) PDB ODB 4 C 6 PDB 75 mm PDB ODB Fig.24 ODB FRB ODB 2 PDB 1 (Fig.

10 COV FRB 1. PDB Fig.22. COV-time history in full rigid barrier test and PDB barrier PDB, ODB, Fig.25 Fig.26 PDB ODB PDB 6 km/h ODB 64 km/h Fig.23. Deformation contour of PDB 5.3. PDB ODB JNCAP ECE R94 ODB(Offset Fig.24. Car and barrier deformation in a 64 km/h ODB test. Deformable Barrier) PDB ODB 4 C 6 PDB 75 mm PDB ODB Fig.24 ODB FRB ODB 2 PDB 1 (Fig.19 ) PDB ODB Fig.25. Acceleration-time history in PDB test (6 ODB ECE R94 km/h),odb test (64 km/h) and full rigid barrier test (55 km/h) PDB Acceleration (m/s 2 )

11 PDB B ODB 64 B FRB 55 Vehicle deformation (mm) Fig.27 Fig.26. Instrusion into the passenger compartment in PDB test (6 km/h), ODB test (64 km/h) and full rigid barrier test (55 km/h) m e α e m p α p A B F A B F Fig.28 B Table 2 ECE R94 8 km/h IHRA Fig.29 Fig.3 Fig.31 (1) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) Car model Table 2. Test matrix of overload test Car year Curb mass (kg) Test mass (kg) Velocity (km/h) Overlap ratio Minicar A % Minicar B % Smallcar F % Passenger compartment m P, α P Engine m E, α E Fig.27. Overload test model Barrier force =m E α E +m P α P Remarks Without dummies Without dummies Without dummies (5) (6) (7) Fig.28 A 48 ms 5 ms B 5 ms 55 ms 68 ms F 66 ms 68 ms

12 74 ms Fig.28 A B F 299, 313, 295 kn Barrier force max.(5 ms) Fig.3. Photos of overload test Minicar B 152, 234, 115 kn Deformation max. (8 ms) 2 1 Barrier force Mech. force Structural force (a) Minicar B (b) Minicar A (c) Small car F Barrier force Mech. force Structural force Barrier force Mech. force Structural force Fig.28. Force-time histories in overload test Barrier force max. (66 ms) Deformation max. (1 ms) Fig.31. Photos of overload test Small car F Fig.32 B kn, 25 kn Force in car-to-car crash test (kn) 2 1 Maximum force End of crash force Civic Wagon R Civic Move Move Wagon R Barrier force max. (66 ms) Deformation max. (8 ms) Fig.29. Photos of overload test Minicar A 1 2 Force in overload test (kn) Fig.32. Maximum force level and end of crash force in overload tests and in car to car test

13 Fig.34 2 MDB D MDB 6 ms MDB MDB ECE R94 FMVSS (2-stage ECE R94 FMVSS barrier) 3 Fig ms MDB Fig km/h 5% MDB 4% MDB 54 mm 483 mm MDB 45 mm 25 psi 381 mm 245 psi 45 mm 25 mm ECE 5 psi 45 psi 12 mm FMVSS MDB psi psi 23 mm 5 mm 5 ms 245 psi 2 ECE R94 deformable FMVSS stage deformable element deformable element element Fig.33. Comparison of MDB face Fig.36 F ( 5 ) MDB MDB Fig.37 A 2 ECE FMVSS MDB ms 2 ( 18 mm) MDB 4 ms 2 mm 28 mm 18 mm 559 mm 8 ms Fig.34. Vehicle deformation change in MDB test 2-stage barrier Longitudinal deceleration (G) ECE R94 barrier FMVSS 214 barrier 2-stage barrier Car to car (5% overlap) Fig.35. Acceleration-time history in MDB test

14 ECER94 FMVSS stage barrier Car to car (5 km/h) Fig.36. Deformation of vehicle A pillar (Belt line) Steering shaft Toe pan Front fender edge (i h) Front side member (right) ECE R94 barrier FMVSS barrier 2 stage barrier Car-to-car (1) (2) ODB (3) 3 MDB 3 MDB Deformation (mm) FDB(Fixed deformable barrier) Fig.37. Comparison of vehicle deformation in MDB test (1) O Reilly, P., International Harmonized Research Activity (IHRA) Vehicle Compatibility, IMechE, Conference Transactions, Vehicle Safety 22. (2) Edwards, J., Happian-Smith, J., Byard, N., Davies, C., Hobbs, A., Compatibility the Essential Requirements for Cars in Frontal Impact, IMechE, Conference Transactions, Vehicle Safety 2, pp.3-17, 2. (3) Diaboine, A., Delannoy, P., Improvements in Car to Car Compatibility: Physics, Design Constraints and (1) Assessment Test Methodology Criteria, IMechE, (2) ODB Conference Transactions, Vehicle Safety 22. (3) (4) Mizuno, K., Tateishi, K., Ezaka,.Y., Test Procedures (criteria) to Evaluate Vehicle Compatibility, Paper No. 127 ESV 21,

The Evaluation on Impact Strength of Structural Elements by Means of Drop Weight Test Elastic Response and Elastic Limit by Hiroshi Maenaka, Member Sh

The Evaluation on Impact Strength of Structural Elements by Means of Drop Weight Test Elastic Response and Elastic Limit by Hiroshi Maenaka, Member Shigeru Kitamura, Member Masaaki Sakuma Genya Aoki, Member