Search Results

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have both developed crash test methodologies to address frontal collisions in which the vehicle's primary front structure is either partially engaged or not engaged at all. IIHS addresses Small Overlap crashes, cases in which the vehicle's primary front energy absorbing structure is not engaged, using a rigid static barrier with an overlap of 25% of the vehicle's width at an impact angle of 0°. The Institute's Moderate Overlap partially engages the vehicle's primary front energy absorbing structure using a deformable static barrier with 40% overlap at a 0° impact angle. The NHTSA has developed two research test methods which use a common moving deformable barrier impacting the vehicle with 20% overlap at a 7° impact angle and 35% overlap at a 15° impact angle respectively.

The goal of this study is to present the methods employed and results obtained during the first six tests performed with a new dynamic rollover test system. The tests were performed to develop and refine test methodology and instrumentation methods, examine the potential for variation in test parameters, evaluate how accurately actual touchdown test parameters could be specified, and identify problems or limitations of the test fixture. Five vehicles ranging in size and inertia from a 2011 Toyota Yaris (1174 kg, 379 kg m₂) to a 2002 Ford Explorer (2408 kg, 800 kg m₂) were tested. Vehicle kinematic parameters at the instant of vehicle-to-road contact varied across the tests: roll rates of 211-268 deg/s, roll angles of 133-199 deg, pitch angles of -12 deg to 0 deg, vertical impact velocities of 1.7 to 2.7 m/s, and road velocities of 3.0-8.8 m/s.

This study investigates the performance of a 3-point restraint system incorporating an inflatable shoulder belt with a nominal 2.5-kN load limiter and a non-inflatable lap belt with a pretensioner (the “Airbelt”). Frontal impacts with PMHS in a rear seat environment are presented and the Airbelt system is contrasted with an earlier 3-point system with inflatable lap and shoulder belts but no load-limiter or pretensioners, which was evaluated with human volunteers in the 1970s but not fully reported in the open literature (the “Inflataband”). Key differences between the systems include downward pelvic motion and torso recline with the Inflataband, while the pelvis moved almost horizontally and the torso pitched forward with the Airbelt. One result of these kinematic differences was an overall more biomechanically favorable restraint loading but greater maximum forward head excursion with the Airbelt.