Search Results

The front camera module is a fundamental component of a modern vehicle’s active safety architecture. The module supports many active safety features. Perception of the road environment, requests for driver notification or alert, and requests for vehicle actuation are among the camera software’s key functions. This paper presents a novel method of testing these functions virtually. First, the front camera module software is compiled and packaged in a Docker container capable of running on a standard Linux computer as a software in the loop (SiL). This container is then integrated with the active safety simulation tool that represents the vehicle plant model and allows modeling of test scenarios. Then the following simulation components form a closed loop: First, the active safety simulation tool generates a video data stream (VDS). Using an internet protocol, the tool sends the VDS to the camera SiL and other vehicle channels.

A new apparatus for testing modern safety belt systems was developed. The apparatus design, dynamic behavior and test procedure are described. A number of tests have been conducted using this apparatus. These tests allowed identification of key performance parameters of pretensioners and load limiting retractors which are relevant to occupant protection in a crash environment. Good test repeatability was observed, which allowed comparison of different safety belt designs. The apparatus may be used for better specification and verification of safety belt properties on a subsystem level as well as for the validation of CAE models of safety belts used in simulations of occupant response to crash events.

This paper illustrates that the shoulder complex of the Hybrid III allows a load transfer from the upper extremities that can be associated with an increase of the thoracic spine acceleration. The force transferred by the Hybrid III shoulder and clavicle joints is a result of both inertial forces and contact forces acting on upper extremities. Its possible effect on the 3ms chest injury parameter raises some concerns. First, the Hybrid III shoulder joint compliance has been questioned by other publications. Second, there appears to be no documentation in the literature that supports a relationship between shoulder joint load and chest injury risk in humans. Lastly, kinematics of the upper extremities can vary from test to test, especially between different test facilities, which could contribute to variation of chest response. In this paper, original experimental and simulation data are used to explore this topic.