Sie sind auf Seite 1von 67
Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Computational Mechanics for Car Body Design I Crash Simulation of

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Computational Mechanics for Car Body Design I

Crash Simulation of Car Bodies with FEM – Part 1

Fabian Duddeck f.duddeck@qmul.ac.uk

of Car Bodies with FEM – Part 1 Fabian Duddeck f.duddeck@qmul.ac.uk June 2007 Crashworthiness, 1 Fabian

First Motor Cars, 1886

First Motor Cars, 1886 Carl Benz (1844 – 1929) Benz Car (1886) June 2007 Crashworthiness, 2

Carl Benz (1844 – 1929)

Benz Car (1886)

First Motor Cars, 1886 Carl Benz (1844 – 1929) Benz Car (1886) June 2007 Crashworthiness, 2

First Pedestrian Fatality, 1896

First Pedestrian Fatality, 1896 Mrs. Bridgette Driscol of Croyden was the first person killed by a
First Pedestrian Fatality, 1896 Mrs. Bridgette Driscol of Croyden was the first person killed by a
First Pedestrian Fatality, 1896 Mrs. Bridgette Driscol of Croyden was the first person killed by a

Mrs. Bridgette Driscol of Croyden was the first person killed by a car when she left the Crystal Palace in London.

First Crash Tests, 1937

• The AUTO UNION AG, based in Chemnitz, Germany, was the first car manufacturer to develop an empirical crash program in

1937/38.

• They performed frontal, side, pole impacts and rollover tests.

• The rollovers were captured in a test film, the other tests were too fast. The cars were dropped sideways from a ramp.

• The intention was to test the strength of the bodies as part of the development program for the introduction of plastic or wooden structures.

• The studies were motivated by the aim to replace metal for car structures by wood or plastics without loosing crashworthiness.

DKW Auto-Union, 1937/38
DKW Auto-Union, 1937/38

First Biomechanics, 1944

• In 1944, John Stapp started research in aerospace medicine for the U.S. air force.

• The first rocket-sled deceleration research program at Edwards Air Force Base on the Mojave Desert was Stapp's first project related to passive safety.

• His assignment was to determine human tolerance to deceleration and protection from crash forces.

• John Stapp started to be concerned not with the structure but with the human body.

• Often, he himself was the test object.

the human body. • Often, he himself was the test object. John Paul Stapp, 1944 June
John Paul Stapp, 1944
John Paul Stapp, 1944

First Biomechanics, 1944

• The rocket-sled accelerated 400 m on tracks to attain aircraft landing speeds, then was subjected to aircraft crash deceleration. Metal scoops beneath the sled plowed into a trough of water for the slow-down.

• Thirty-two rocket runs were made with a dummy passenger before Stapp took his first ride in Dec. 1947. By May 1948 he had taken 16 rides in the backward-facing position, with stresses up to 35 times the pull of gravity. This was double the stress that had previously been set as the limit of human tolerance.

• These experiments proved that backward-facing seats would give air transport passengers optimum crash protection.

John Paul Stapp, 1944
John Paul Stapp, 1944

First Conferences on Passive Safety, 1955

• The first Car Crash Conferences were organized in 1955 by John P. Stapp.

• He presented at the Holloman Air Base sled tests and auto crash tests; aspects of automotive design and safety features were discussed.

• Many of the safety features discussed and recommended were passed along to traffic experts and automotive engineers, e.g.:

- moving dashboards

- energy absorbing padding;

- fitting doors with safety locks;

- removing rear window shelves;

- fastening seats

- bumper design;

John Paul Stapp
John Paul Stapp
shelves; - fastening seats - bumper design; John Paul Stapp 50 t h Stapp Car Crash

50 th Stapp Car Crash Conference

November 6-8,

2006

http://www.stapp.org

Accident Analysis

Accident Analysis Is this a safe vehicle? Is this a safe vehicle? June 2007 Crashworthiness, 8
Accident Analysis Is this a safe vehicle? Is this a safe vehicle? June 2007 Crashworthiness, 8

Is this a safe vehicle?

Accident Analysis Is this a safe vehicle? Is this a safe vehicle? June 2007 Crashworthiness, 8
Accident Analysis Is this a safe vehicle? Is this a safe vehicle? June 2007 Crashworthiness, 8

Is this a safe vehicle?

First Sled Tests, 1950s

Insights:

• The possibility to survive in a crash with 50 km/h was almost zero;

• 25% of the fatalities happened because the occupants were thrown out of the vehicles;

• The design of the interior is not adequate to prevent severe head injuries;

• The steering wheel and the instrumental board should be adopted to head and chest impacts.

• Nils Bohlin invented the three-point belt and introduced it into the Volvo cars in 1959.

• The belting systems are really improving safety;

1959. • The belting systems are really improving safety; Mercedes Benz June 2007 Crashworthiness, 9 Fabian
Mercedes Benz
Mercedes Benz

Crash Crumble Zone, 1951

Béla Barényi, 1907 – 1997
Béla Barényi, 1907 – 1997
Crash Crumble Zone, 1951 Béla Barényi, 1907 – 1997 Patent for the Crash Crumble Zone, 1951
Crash Crumble Zone, 1951 Béla Barényi, 1907 – 1997 Patent for the Crash Crumble Zone, 1951
Patent for the Crash Crumble Zone, 1951

Patent for

the Crash

Crumble

Zone,

1951

Crash-safe Door Lock, 1961

Crash-safe Door Lock, 1961 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 11 Fabian Duddeck
Crash-safe Door Lock, 1961 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 11 Fabian Duddeck
Crash-safe Door Lock, 1961 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 11 Fabian Duddeck

Safety Steering Wheel, 1963

Safety Steering Wheel, 1963 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 12 Fabian Duddeck
Safety Steering Wheel, 1963 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 12 Fabian Duddeck

Safety Steering Wheel, 1963

Béla Barényi
Béla Barényi
Safety Steering Wheel, 1963 Béla Barényi June 2007 Crashworthiness, 13 Fabian Duddeck

Rocket Wagon for Crash Tests, 1962

• For acceleration (14 m/s²), a hot water rocket wagon was developed (pressurized container, fast opening valve, ejection nozzle).

• The container is filled with water and heated up (temperature: 260° C, 50 at). After opening of the valve, the water is vaporizing outside of the container.

• It was not possible to integrate the rocket into the vehicle itself without modifying the structure remarkably.

into the vehicle itself without modifying the structure remarkably. June 2007 Crashworthiness, 14 Fabian Duddeck
into the vehicle itself without modifying the structure remarkably. June 2007 Crashworthiness, 14 Fabian Duddeck

Full Car Crash Tests, 1960s

Full Car Crash Tests, 1960s B a r r i e r t e s t

Barrier tests

Mercedes-Benz
Mercedes-Benz
1960s B a r r i e r t e s t s Mercedes-Benz Car-to-car and

Car-to-car and roll-over tests

r i e r t e s t s Mercedes-Benz Car-to-car and roll-over tests June 2007

New Acceleration Method for Crash Tests, 1970s

• New acceleration method based on an electric linear motor that runs underneath the vehicles along a 100-meter trench.

• New video and lightning systems have been developed.

• Deformable and non-deformable barriers were used.

been developed. • Deformable and non-deformable barriers were used. June 2007 Crashworthiness, 16 Fabian Duddeck
been developed. • Deformable and non-deformable barriers were used. June 2007 Crashworthiness, 16 Fabian Duddeck

Current Test Tracks, 2005

Current Test Tracks, 2005 UTAC, Paris June 2007 Crashworthiness, 17 Fabian Duddeck
Current Test Tracks, 2005 UTAC, Paris June 2007 Crashworthiness, 17 Fabian Duddeck
UTAC, Paris
UTAC, Paris

Current Crash Tests, 2005

Current Crash Tests, 2005 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 18 Fabian Duddeck
Current Crash Tests, 2005 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 18 Fabian Duddeck
Current Crash Tests, 2005 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 18 Fabian Duddeck

Respiratory

Cancer

Nervous

causes

Digestive

Accidents

and crime

system

Circulation

Other

organs

system

organs

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Causes of Fatalities

Total number of fatalities in Germany (1989): 697,730
Total number of fatalities
in Germany (1989):
697,730

Causes of Fatalities (Accident and Crime)

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Total number of fatalities in traffic accidents in Germany (1989): 7,812 (=1,12 %) Traffic accidents
Total number of fatalities in traffic
accidents in Germany (1989):
7,812 (=1,12 %)
Traffic
accidents
Domestic
accidents
Work
accidents
Sport and
leisure
Other
accidents
Suicide
Violence

Road Fatalities, 2005

 

France

Germany

UK

U.S.A.

(2005)

(2005)

(2005)

(2005)

Persons killed

5,318

5,361

3,201

43,443

Persons seriously injured

39,811

76,952

28,954

-

Child fatalities

143

159

141

2,348

Motorcyclists fatalities

1,237

982

569

4,553

Cyclists fatalities

180

575

148

784

Pedestrians fatalities

635

686

671

4,881

Registered accidents

-

2 253 992

-

-

http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/index.htm

http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr

http://www.destatis.de/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Traffic deaths per 100,000 population since 1970

Traffic deaths per 100,000 population since 1970 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 22 Fabian Duddeck

Fatalities and Road Traffic (Germany)

Germany 54.1 million Number of vehicles 33.8 million Accidents with injuries 15,050 Fatalities due to
Germany
54.1 million
Number of vehicles
33.8
million
Accidents with injuries
15,050
Fatalities due to road traffic
5,361

But: NHTSA (USA) 22 nd August, 2006:

Rise in Motorcycle and Pedestrian Deaths Led to Increase in Overall Highway Fatality Rate in 2005

Active and Passive Safety

Human being
Human being

safety instructions, safety informations, medicine, legal security

Vehicle
Vehicle

Environment

traffic steering, road construction, laws, accident recording

Active Safety : Avoid accidents stable driving conditions, intuitive control, “intelligent” driving systems,
Active Safety : Avoid accidents
stable driving conditions,
intuitive control,
“intelligent” driving systems,
optimal perception
Passive Safety : Mitigate the consequences of accidents motivation to use safety items, rescue facilities,
Passive Safety : Mitigate the consequences of accidents
motivation to use
safety items,
rescue facilities,
assurances
auto-protection,
partner protection
low danger roads,
securing of the
accident places

Active and Passive Safety

Automotive Safety Accident Avoidance Mitigation of Injuries Human Vehicle Environment During the After the
Automotive Safety
Accident Avoidance
Mitigation of Injuries
Human
Vehicle
Environment
During the
After the
Accident
Accident
Condition
Vision, Lights
Weather
(physical,
Self
Partner
Rescue
psych.)
Protection
Protection
Capability
Braking,
Traffic,
Perception
Protection
Protection of
Acceleration
Routing
of own
the other
Occupants
Occupants
Protection
of Two-Wheeler
and Pedestrian
Handling,
Comfort,
(Driver –
Acoustics,
Traffic
Occupant
Prevention of
Climate,
Density
Protection
Sharp-edged
Vehicle –
Body Parts
Environment)
Spring-Damper
Occupant Cell
(Steering Wheel,
Dashboard, etc.)
Handling
Traffic Control
Characte-
Signal
Medical Care
Deformation
ristics
Characteristics
Bumper and
Prevention
Information
Restraint
Hood Design
of fire
System
Systems

Percentiles of Car-to-Car Collisions

• Frontal impact is the dominating type (ca. 56 %);

• Second probable type is the lateral impact with ca. 38 %;

• Rear impact is happening rather seldom (ca. 6 %);

• Until some years ago, the frontal impact was the most dangerous of all impact types;

• Due to new restraint systems, frontal crash becomes less severe while the percentage of fatal side impacts is rising. The risk of being severely injured or killed by a side impact is much higher than in the frontal crashes.

Side Door Impact Type V / VI: 21.6%

Frontal Offset Type II / IV: 34.1%

Side Impact

V / VI: 21.6% Frontal Offset Type II / IV: 34.1% Side Impact Type VII/VIII: 16.1%
Type VII/VIII: 16.1% Rear Impact Type IX / XI: 4.0% Rear Offset Frontal Impact Type
Type VII/VIII:
16.1%
Rear Impact
Type IX / XI: 4.0%
Rear Offset
Frontal Impact
Type I / III: 21.7%
Type X / XII: 2.5%
Rear Offset Frontal Impact Type I / III: 21.7% Type X / XII: 2.5% 1998 June

1998

Passive Safety

Roof Interior Head restraint Dashboard Pedestrian protection Rear impact Belt system Frontal impact Lateral impact
Roof
Interior
Head restraint
Dashboard
Pedestrian protection
Rear impact
Belt system
Frontal impact
Lateral impact
Bumper
Steering wheel
Seats
http://www.easi.de

Rising Complexity of Passive Safety

Rising Complexity of Passive Safety Rollover Current product line Side air bags Sensor system Trim parts
Rollover Current product line Side air bags Sensor system Trim parts Euro NCAP Suspension and
Rollover
Current
product line
Side air bags
Sensor system
Trim parts
Euro NCAP
Suspension and
steering column
Head impact
US LINCAP
FE dummies
Right-hand drive car crash
Pole impact
AZT / Danner tests
Rear impact
IIHS side impact
US side
ECE side impact
AMS
Offset impact
against rigid wall
FMVSS-208
US NCAP
Old
product line

Frontal Impact – Case Study

Frontal Impact – Case Study http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov June 2007 Crashworthiness, 29 Fabian Duddeck
Frontal Impact – Case Study http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov June 2007 Crashworthiness, 29 Fabian Duddeck
Frontal Impact – Case Study http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov June 2007 Crashworthiness, 29 Fabian Duddeck
Frontal Impact – Case Study http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov June 2007 Crashworthiness, 29 Fabian Duddeck

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov

Frontal Impact – Case Study

V1 - First vehicle

• Honda Civic, 1997, m=1064 kg, Δv 1 = 63.4 km/h

• 53 year old male, weight = 90kg, height = 160 cm, unrestrained, airbag;

V2 - Second vehicle

• Ford Taurus, 1992, m=1430 kg, Δv 2 = 47.1 km/h

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov, John H. Siegel

kg, Δ v 2 = 47.1 km/h http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov , John H. Siegel June 2007 Crashworthiness, 30

Frontal Intrusion – Honda Civic

Frontal Intrusion – Honda Civic June 2007 Crashworthiness, 31 Fabian Duddeck
Frontal Intrusion – Honda Civic June 2007 Crashworthiness, 31 Fabian Duddeck
Frontal Intrusion – Honda Civic June 2007 Crashworthiness, 31 Fabian Duddeck
Frontal Intrusion – Honda Civic June 2007 Crashworthiness, 31 Fabian Duddeck

Frontal Impact – Principle Tests

Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier

Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier FMVSS: ECE-R 12: US-NCAP: v=48.3 km/h v=48.3 km/h v=56.0 km/h.
Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier FMVSS: ECE-R 12: US-NCAP: v=48.3 km/h v=48.3 km/h v=56.0 km/h.

FMVSS:

ECE-R 12:

US-NCAP:

Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier FMVSS: ECE-R 12: US-NCAP: v=48.3 km/h v=48.3 km/h v=56.0 km/h.

v=48.3 km/h v=48.3 km/h v=56.0 km/h.

Type 2: Offset (40 %), deformable barrier (ODB)

Type 2: Offset (40 %), deformable barrier (ODB) ECE-R 94: AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP v=56.0 km/h v=64.0
Type 2: Offset (40 %), deformable barrier (ODB) ECE-R 94: AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP v=56.0 km/h v=64.0

ECE-R 94:

AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP

Type 2: Offset (40 %), deformable barrier (ODB) ECE-R 94: AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP v=56.0 km/h v=64.0

v=56.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h

ECE-R 94: AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP v=56.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h June 2007 Crashworthiness, 32 Fabian
ECE-R 94: AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP v=56.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h June 2007 Crashworthiness, 32 Fabian

Frontal Impact – Principle Tests

Type 3: Frontal pole test (tree)

Type 3: Frontal pole test (tree) In-house v=30.0 km/h
Type 3: Frontal pole test (tree) In-house v=30.0 km/h
Type 3: Frontal pole test (tree) In-house v=30.0 km/h

In-house

Type 3: Frontal pole test (tree) In-house v=30.0 km/h

v=30.0 km/h

Type 4: Danner test (AZT test) Insurance

Type 4: Danner test (AZT test) Insurance AZT: v=16.0 km/h

AZT:

Type 4: Danner test (AZT test) Insurance AZT: v=16.0 km/h

v=16.0 km/h

v=30.0 km/h Type 4: Danner test (AZT test) Insurance AZT: v=16.0 km/h June 2007 Crashworthiness, 33
v=30.0 km/h Type 4: Danner test (AZT test) Insurance AZT: v=16.0 km/h June 2007 Crashworthiness, 33

Frontal Impact – Full Width Test

Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier

Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier FMVSS: ECE-R 12: NCAP: v=48.3 km/h v=48.3 km/h v=56.0 km/h.
Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier FMVSS: ECE-R 12: NCAP: v=48.3 km/h v=48.3 km/h v=56.0 km/h.

FMVSS:

ECE-R 12:

NCAP:

Type 1: Full width, rigid barrier FMVSS: ECE-R 12: NCAP: v=48.3 km/h v=48.3 km/h v=56.0 km/h.

v=48.3 km/h v=48.3 km/h v=56.0 km/h.

• The integrity of the occupant compartment should be assured (safety cage);

• The rebound (negative velocity) shows that 10% of the deformation is elastic; the total change in velocity is higher than the original velocity.

• The deceleration of the occupants is very high (special demand of the restraint systems).

is very high (special demand of the restraint systems). Deceleration, velocity, and deformation as a function
Deceleration, velocity, and deformation as a function of time. Seiffert and Wech, 2003
Deceleration, velocity, and deformation as a function of time.
Seiffert and Wech, 2003

40 % Offset Test, Deformable Barrier (ODB)

Type 2: Offset (40 %), ODB

Type 2: Offset (40 %), ODB ECE-R 94: AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP v=56.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h v=64.0
Type 2: Offset (40 %), ODB ECE-R 94: AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP v=56.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h v=64.0

ECE-R 94:

AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP

Type 2: Offset (40 %), ODB ECE-R 94: AMS, ADAC EuroNCAP v=56.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h v=64.0

v=56.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h v=64.0 km/h

• Only one side of the front end hits the barrier; a smaller area of the structure must manage the crash energy.

• The front end on the struck side crushes more than in a full-width test (higher intrusion).

• Full-width tests are especially demanding of restraints but less demanding of structure, while the reverse is true in offsets.

of structure, while the reverse is true in offsets. Deceleration, velocity, and deformation as a function

Deceleration, velocity, and deformation as a function of time. For different types of crash. Seiffert and Wech, 2003

Consumer Tests – NHTSA Star Ratings

• In 1994, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) changed the way they rated frontal crash test performance.

• Instead of a numerical scale, they created a 5-star rating system.

of a numerical scale, they created a 5-star rating system. BMW Z4 tested by the NHTSA,

BMW Z4 tested by the NHTSA, 2004

Probability of life-threatening injury

Less than 10 % 5 stars

Less than 10 %

5

stars

10 – 19 % 4 stars

10

– 19 %

4

stars

20 – 34 % 3 stars

20

– 34 %

3 stars

35 – 45 % 2 stars

35

– 45 %

2

stars

More than 45 % 1 star

More than 45 %

1 star

 

Frontal Crash (NHTSA)

 

Driver

 

Passenger

     
     
   

Head injury

   

criterion

 

847

670

(HIC)

 

Chest

   

deceleration

 

46

47

Femur load

 

538/664

697/699

Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP

maximal 16 points
maximal 16 points

maximal 16 points

Front S i d e + maximal 6 credits Good Adequate Marginal Weak Poor

Front

Side

Front S i d e + maximal 6 credits Good Adequate Marginal Weak Poor

+ maximal 6 credits

Good

Adequate

Marginal

Weak

Poor

maximal 16 points
maximal 16
points
+ 2 points for the head protection system

+ 2 points for the head protection system

Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP

frontal impact

frontal impact side impact good adequate marginal weak poor Frontal impact (max. 16 points ) (max.
frontal impact side impact good adequate marginal weak poor Frontal impact (max. 16 points ) (max.

side impact

frontal impact side impact good adequate marginal weak poor Frontal impact (max. 16 points ) (max.

good

adequate

marginal

weak

poor

Frontal impact (max. 16 points)

(max. 16 points)

+ side impact

+ pole impact

+ 6 additional credits

(max. 2 points)

33

- 40

points

 

25

- 32

points

Head and Neck Chest Knee, Femur, Pelvis Leg and Foot

4 points

17

- 24

points

4 points

9

- 16

points

4 points

1

- 8

points

-

4 points

0

points

0 points  
 
   
   

The only value taken from the structure

 

(100 – 200 mm intrusion into the footwell)

Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP

Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP June 2007 Crashworthiness, 39 Fabian Duddeck
Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP June 2007 Crashworthiness, 39 Fabian Duddeck
Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP June 2007 Crashworthiness, 39 Fabian Duddeck
Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP June 2007 Crashworthiness, 39 Fabian Duddeck

Consumer Tests – EuroNCAP

Occupant Child Pedestrian www.euroncap.com BMW 3-Series 28 th June, 2005 protection protection protection 5 stars
Occupant
Child
Pedestrian
www.euroncap.com
BMW 3-Series
28 th June, 2005
protection
protection
protection
5 stars
4 stars
1 star

Deformable Barriers

• For the Euro-NCAP frontal impact (64 km/h, 40% offset) a deformable barrier was developed.

• The barrier's deformable face is made of aluminum honeycomb, which makes the forces in the test similar to those involved in a frontal offset crash between two vehicles of the same weight, each going just less than 64 km/h.

Honeycomb structure
Honeycomb structure
each going just less than 64 km/h. Honeycomb structure Continuum model June 2007 Crashworthiness, 41 Fabian

Continuum model

each going just less than 64 km/h. Honeycomb structure Continuum model June 2007 Crashworthiness, 41 Fabian
each going just less than 64 km/h. Honeycomb structure Continuum model June 2007 Crashworthiness, 41 Fabian
each going just less than 64 km/h. Honeycomb structure Continuum model June 2007 Crashworthiness, 41 Fabian

Crash Barrier - Repeatability ?

Crash Barrier - Repeatability ? Low strength honeycomb (large cell size) High strength honeycomb (small cell
Crash Barrier - Repeatability ? Low strength honeycomb (large cell size) High strength honeycomb (small cell

Low strength honeycomb (large cell size)

Repeatability ? Low strength honeycomb (large cell size) High strength honeycomb (small cell size) FE-model with

High strength honeycomb (small cell size)

cell size) High strength honeycomb (small cell size) FE-model with solid elements and constitutive model for

FE-model with solid elements and constitutive model for honeycomb

size) FE-model with solid elements and constitutive model for honeycomb June 2007 Crashworthiness, 42 Fabian Duddeck

Lateral Impact – Case Study

Isuzu Hombre:

• Driver: 56-year-old male

• 173 cm (5’ 7.5 ”), 111kg ( 245 lb)

• 3-point belt worn

• Driver airbag non-deployed

• MAIS: 4

• ISS: 36

• Change in velocity: Δv = 21 mph

Head: AIS 2 Loss of consciousness <10 min.

Abdomen: AIS 4 Laceration, major left kidney

Thorax: AIS Contusion, bilateral lungs w/ left hemopneumothorax

Isuzu Hombre 1999 4 star side impact rating (LINCAP)
Isuzu Hombre
1999
4 star side impact rating (LINCAP)

Impacting car:

1995 Chevrolet Camaro

Lateral Impact – Case Study

49 cm of maximum crush
49 cm of maximum crush

Case Occupant Outcome

• Left nephrectomy

• Weight bearing on right at discharge

• Toe-touch weight bearing on left

• Rehabilitating at parents’ home out of state

• Separated from wife

Armrest deformed and cracked
Armrest deformed and cracked

General reasons for injuries

• Variability in driver and passenger responses

• Poor relation between the injury criteria (TTI) and other injury tolerances (HIC)

• Many injuries not measured or accounted for (neck, abdomen, pelvis)

• High injury acceptance rate

Lateral Impact Tests

FMVSS 214: LINCAP: m=1,368 kg 54 km/h 54 km/h 62 km/h
FMVSS 214: LINCAP: m=1,368 kg 54 km/h
FMVSS 214:
LINCAP:
m=1,368 kg
54 km/h

54 km/h

62 km/h

ECE-R 95: EU-NCAP: m=950 kg 50 km/h
ECE-R 95:
EU-NCAP:
m=950 kg
50 km/h

50 km/h

50 km/h

62 km/h ECE-R 95: EU-NCAP: m=950 kg 50 km/h 50 km/h 50 km/h June 2007 Crashworthiness,
62 km/h ECE-R 95: EU-NCAP: m=950 kg 50 km/h 50 km/h 50 km/h June 2007 Crashworthiness,

Lateral Impact Tests

29 km/h rigid
29 km/h
rigid
IIHS: 54 km/h m=1500 kg
IIHS:
54 km/h
m=1500 kg
Lateral Impact Tests 29 km/h rigid IIHS: 54 km/h m=1500 kg June 2007 Crashworthiness, 46 Fabian
Lateral Impact Tests 29 km/h rigid IIHS: 54 km/h m=1500 kg June 2007 Crashworthiness, 46 Fabian

Rear Impact Tests

FMVSS 301 (2005) Offset Deformable Barrier with a mass of 1,368 kg and a velocity
FMVSS 301 (2005) Offset
Deformable Barrier with a mass of
1,368 kg and a velocity 80 km/h.
40% overlap
Renault
15 km/h

Rear Impact Tests

For the rear impact load case, the structure is normally not very much loaded, because of the low relative velocities in accidents. In addition, most vehicles have a sufficiently large deformation zone to absorb energy. Almost rigid structures like the engine for the frontal impact are missing.

like the engine for the frontal impact are missing. Renault ULSAB Advanced Vehicle Concepts 2001 June

Renault

like the engine for the frontal impact are missing. Renault ULSAB Advanced Vehicle Concepts 2001 June
like the engine for the frontal impact are missing. Renault ULSAB Advanced Vehicle Concepts 2001 June

ULSAB Advanced Vehicle Concepts 2001

Rollover

Type of

2001

2002

%

Vehicle

Change

Persons

     

Killed

10,157

10,666

+5.0%

Passenger

4,559

4,768

+4.6%

Car

Van

786

698

-11%

SUV

2,149

2,448

+14%

Pickup

2,651

2,742

+3.4%

Truck

Persons

     

Injured

243,000

228,000

-6.2%

Passenger

109,000

106,000

-2.8%

Car

Van

17,000

14,000

-18%

SUV

60,000

58,000

-3.3%

Pickup

56,000

48,000

-14%

Truck

58,000 -3.3% Pickup 56,000 48,000 -14% Truck June 2007 Crashworthiness, 49 Fabian Duddeck
58,000 -3.3% Pickup 56,000 48,000 -14% Truck June 2007 Crashworthiness, 49 Fabian Duddeck

Rollover – Quasistatic Roof Test

ULSAB
ULSAB
Rollover – Quasistatic Roof Test ULSAB Roof Fall Test, DaimlerChrysler. June 2007 Crashworthiness, 50 Fabian Duddeck

Roof Fall Test, DaimlerChrysler.

Rollover – Quasistatic Roof Test ULSAB Roof Fall Test, DaimlerChrysler. June 2007 Crashworthiness, 50 Fabian Duddeck

Rollover - Numerical Simulation

Rollover - Numerical Simulation FMVSS 208 In Europe, there are no legislations concerning rollover, whereas in
Rollover - Numerical Simulation FMVSS 208 In Europe, there are no legislations concerning rollover, whereas in

FMVSS 208

In Europe, there are no legislations concerning rollover, whereas in the U.S. two standardized test procedures are prescribed. These are the quasi-static roof- compression test (FMVSS 216) and the dynamic roll over test.

Head Impact, FMVSS 201

Head Impact, FMVSS 201   v = 24.1 km/h Head impactor (6.8 kg) on a pendulum
Head Impact, FMVSS 201   v = 24.1 km/h Head impactor (6.8 kg) on a pendulum
 

v

= 24.1 km/h

Head impactor (6.8 kg) on a pendulum against seat and instrumental board

 

v

= 19.0 km/h

Acceleration a < 80g / 3ms

Energy absorption in the interior

(vehicle with air bag)

v

= 24.1 km/h

Free flying head impactor (6.8 kg) against interior parts

Acceleration (HIC) (free motion head form)

FMVSS: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

Load Impact

Load Impact Geigl et. al. 2002 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 53 Fabian Duddeck
Load Impact Geigl et. al. 2002 June 2007 Crashworthiness, 53 Fabian Duddeck
Geigl et. al. 2002
Geigl et. al. 2002

Compatibility

• The crashworthiness of a car is not sufficiently evaluated by a crash against a rigid or deformable barrier.

• The override problem is not regarded in barrier tests.

• The bumper mismatch problem is neglected (Danner test).

• The bumper mismatch problem is neglected (Danner test). DaimlerChrysler x June 2007 Crashworthiness, 54 Fabian

DaimlerChrysler

x
x

Voluntary Agreement of the Car Manufacturers

Before February 11th, 2003:

Self-initiated, independent action by manufacturers to develop vehicle-to- vehicle crash compatibility Feb. 13th, 2003:

Commitment of industry to work together on crash compatibility The Working Groups are tasked to:

• Develop performance criteria for near- term countermeasures

• Develop test and investigation plans necessary to support development of performance criteria for longer-term countermeasures Near-term Voluntary Agreement with Performance Criteria for enhancing crash compatibility :

• Front-to-Side Crashes

• Front-to-Front Crashes

compatibility : • Front-to-Side Crashes • Front-to-Front Crashes June 2007 Crashworthiness, 55 Fabian Duddeck
compatibility : • Front-to-Side Crashes • Front-to-Front Crashes June 2007 Crashworthiness, 55 Fabian Duddeck
Compatibility Injury risk: very low low medium high very high Compatibility crash between Kia Sorrento

Compatibility

Compatibility Injury risk: very low low medium high very high Compatibility crash between Kia Sorrento (left,
Compatibility Injury risk: very low low medium high very high Compatibility crash between Kia Sorrento (left,
Injury risk: very low low medium high very high
Injury risk:
very low
low
medium
high
very high

Compatibility crash between Kia Sorrento (left, m=2270 kg) and VW Golf (right, m=1480 kg), ADAC motorwelt 7/2004.

Compatibility Injury risk: very low low medium high very high Compatibility crash between Volvo XC90

Compatibility

Compatibility Injury risk: very low low medium high very high Compatibility crash between Volvo XC90 (left,
Compatibility Injury risk: very low low medium high very high Compatibility crash between Volvo XC90 (left,
Injury risk: very low low medium high very high
Injury risk:
very low
low
medium
high
very high

Compatibility crash between Volvo XC90 (left, m=2340 kg) and VW Golf (right, m=1480 kg), ADAC motorwelt 7/2004.

Compatibility – Numerical Simulation

•Real car-to-car crashes have to be performed and analyzed numerically •Numerical studies are feasible because of the rapid rising computer resources:

-A single FE-model of a vehicle has currently about 1,200,000 finite elements. -The CPU time (8 CPUs) ranges between 12 and 30 hours. -On a cluster of 128 CPUs, models of about 8 million elements can be analyzed in about 10 hours.

models of about 8 million elements can be analyzed in about 10 hours. June 2007 Crashworthiness,
models of about 8 million elements can be analyzed in about 10 hours. June 2007 Crashworthiness,

Aggressivity

undeformed deformed unfavorable favorable
undeformed
deformed
unfavorable
favorable

•Aggressive form leads to high peaks

•Engine cradles act like spear heads

•Imprint of cradles is still visible

•Load is distributed over a larger area

•Homogeneous load distribution

•No particular risk zones

Aggressivity

Aggressivity Progressive Deformable Barrier (UTAC) June 2007 Crashworthiness, 60 Fabian Duddeck

Progressive Deformable Barrier (UTAC)

Aggressivity

Aggressivity June 2007 Crashworthiness, 61 Fabian Duddeck

Aggressivity

Aggressivity June 2007 Crashworthiness, 62 Fabian Duddeck

Simulation and Reality (Chrysler)

Simulation and Reality (Chrysler) June 2007 Crashworthiness, 63 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality (Chrysler) June 2007 Crashworthiness, 63 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality (Chrysler) June 2007 Crashworthiness, 63 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality (Chrysler) June 2007 Crashworthiness, 63 Fabian Duddeck

Simulation and Reality

Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 64 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 64 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 64 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 64 Fabian Duddeck

Simulation and Reality

Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 65 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 65 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 65 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 65 Fabian Duddeck

Simulation and Reality

Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 66 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 66 Fabian Duddeck
Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 66 Fabian Duddeck

Simulation and Reality

Simulation and Reality June 2007 Crashworthiness, 67 Fabian Duddeck