Search Results

Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule [1] for a new safety standard related to child safety seats and their anchorage systems in vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 225 - “Child Restraint Systems; Child Restraint Anchorage Systems” requires that motor vehicle manufacturers provide a new method for installing child restraints using anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts. The new standard was developed because it is recognized that the full effectiveness of child restraint systems is not being realized due to design features affecting the compatibility of child restraints with vehicle seating and seat belt systems. By requiring an easy-to-use anchorage system that is independent of the vehicle seat belts, the NHTSA believes that the final rule makes possible more effective child restraint installation and will thereby increase child restraint effectiveness and child safety.

In April 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201U. This rule specifies improved upper interior head impact protection requirements for all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less (and buses under 8,500 lbs). The purpose of this new safety standard is to afford occupants within a vehicle additional protection to reduce the likelihood of severe head injury regardless of the type of vehicle collision. As with past standards, the NHTSA provided a test procedure to be used for compliance testing. This procedure includes information regarding set-up, targeting, testing, and data analysis. The targeting procedure, which locates all applicable target points on the upper interior trim of a vehicle, was written without being vehicle-specific. This test procedure is one of the most complex and time-consuming testing protocols developed in recent years.

The implementation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201U-Upper Interior Head Impact Protection[1] will require significant changes to vehicle interiors. The response from the safety industry to this regulation has resulted in a number of new and innovative design solutions. These countermeasures include integrated trim components, foam, and other types of deformable structures. The challenge to the safety industry is to design the components to provide higher levels of head impact protection without sacrificing other important considerations such as vision, appearance, durability, and cost. This paper will present background information on FMVSS 201U testing, discuss various countermeasure concepts currently being implemented, and suggest design alternatives relative to specific regions in a given vehicle.

This paper will provide an overview of the “Fast Path” project which was designed to address the requirements of the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201 Extended Rule, for automotive interior head impact protection. It will discuss the following topics: developing a system to identify successful combinations of materials and energy absorbing designs for automotive interior trim head impact applications, designing component testing and tooling, establishing a ranking methodology to provide engineering direction for future automotive products, and correlating to Finite Element Analysis (FEA) modeling.

Occupant protection in the event of interior head impact is a major issue in the development process of interior component countermeasures. As phase-in schedules for head impact protection regulations fast approach, auto safety engineers are presented with major challenges in regard to developing suitable design alternatives. This paper presents a variety of testing options which are available to evaluate interior design options. These test alternatives vary from simple component-level drop tests to in-vehicle compliance testing. Each type of test serves a specific purpose in the development of interior components from a head impact protection perspective. The basic parameters for each type of test, including mass, form shape, velocity, and motion will be discussed. Test data from component-level testing is presented, as well as the advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.