this report (including any attachments) is a confidential ... · this report (including any...

This report (including any attachments) is a confidential and classified document. The publication or distribution of this report or

the information contained herein must not be disclosed without the written approval of the author.







2

Background

(a) (b)

Oblique Moving

Deformable Barrier THOR (Test Device for Human

Occupant Restraint)

Driver Occupant : THOR Metric

Front Passenger : THOR Metric





• Objective

• Vehicle Tests

• MADYMO model development

• Sled Tests

• Observations

3

Contents





4

Issue

Current sled methodology is mostly dedicated to full frontal crash study

• Hyge sled

• Hydraulic sled

Some sled methodology is also available for side impacts

Short term goals

Study crash test data and develop MADYMO model

System level correlation

MADYMO model methodology development

Mid term goals

Sled model development

Sled level Correlation

Sled test methodology development

Goal

Post project, using the sled methodology and simulation methodology for development of

countermeasures





5

Vehicle Spec

Test Mode

Vehicle : Sedan Dummy (Driver & front Passenger)

Vehicle 1 (V1) Vehicle 2 (V2) THOR THOR

RMDB ● ● ●

RMDB ● ● ●

Small Overlap ● ●

Small Overlap ● ●

• Hyundai performed several oblique crash test prior to RFC from NHTSA

Vehicle Test Matrix





Injury Comparison

NHTSA Oblique

IIHS Small Overlap

NHTSA Oblique

Head strike thru’

NHTSA Oblique Impact

Obliqueness and severity of the event

Significantly high chest deflection for chest upper and lower

right potentiometer; Anchor PT, IP intrusion contributes in

overall high deflection

High intrusions in upper dash area contributes to femur and

tibia loading

Floor and toe pan intrusions dominate ankle injury

Outboard

seat movement

Head visor

contact

UL

LL

UR

LR

Impact mode

comparison

6

%IA

RV

valu

es

* Provisional IARV values per Saunders and Parent (2013)





7

Injury Comparison

V1

V2

NHTSA oblique impact: Driver

Head injuries are similar for baseline and

modified vehicle

Higher chest deflection for baseline vehicle

due to higher cowl X-bar intrusion

NHTSA oblique impact: Passenger

Similar injury pattern is seen for baseline

and modified vehicle

High HIC value for baseline due to head

strike thru’

Small overlap countermeasures are

mainly concentrated in side sill area

These countermeasures reduce

intrusions in A-pillar area, in door frame

and IP beam area and in sill area. The

reduced intrusions are not sufficient

though and do not help in reducing

injury values

V1 vs V2

%IA

RV

valu

es

7 * Provisional IARV values per Saunders and Parent (2013)





8

Logic Flow

Full vehicle testing

Full vehicle CAE

modeling and correlation

Sled model development /

parametric study

Sled test baseline

development

Sled test parametric

study

CAE Analysis Sled Testing





MADYMO Input parameters

Occupant kinematics

• Vehicle Acceleration in X and Y direction (Vx and Vy)

• Vehicle pitching, yaw and rotation

• Rate of rotation

Occupant Injuries

• Head Injury

BrIC

HIC

• Chest Deflection

MADYMO model

development

Intrusion

Acceleration pulse

Restraint Interaction

Interior interaction

9





Vehicle MADYMO Model Development

MADYMO model using version R7.5

MADYMO THOR dummy: R7.5 Beta version

Correlated front NCAP model was used as starting

point

Displacement based MADYMO model

Vehicle X and Y acceleration pulse is used to derive

X and Y vehicle displacements

Additional joints and planes were created to account

for vehicle intrusions

Vehicle intrusion are incorporated to steering column,

IP, toe pan, A-pillar in the model

Rate of intrusion are based on video analysis and

peak injury timing

CAB, Door structure, knee bolsters and other vehicle

interior were incorporated to account for occupant

kinematics and injury

MADYMO model

development

10





Vehicle MADYMO Model Development

Front NCAP model

Oblique model floor

Floor Intrusions

Door trim and roof rail

Interior set up and CAB support

MADYMO model

development

11





MADYMO input parameters

Vehicle motion

• X and Y displacement extracted from vehicle acceleration

• Displacement based model was seen to be more effective than acceleration based model

Vehicle Intrusions

• Dynamic Intrusion Floor, Steering column intrusion, IP and toe pan

• Rate of Intrusion was determined by video analysis and peak injury timings

MADYMO model

development

12

CONFIDENTIAL

Video





Vehicle MADYMO Model Correlation

Model correlation focus

o Dummy kinematics

40 ms 60 ms 80 ms 100 ms 120 ms

CAE

Test

MADYMO model

correlation

13





Correlation: Head Injury

Correlation: Chest Injury CAE

TEST

MADYMO model

correlation

14

Head Resultant Acceleration

Chest Resultant Acceleration Chest Deflection





Correlation: Femur Injury

Correlation: Pelvis Injury CAE

TEST

MADYMO model

correlation

Correlation: Belt load

15

Femur Force

Video

Resultant Acceleration Belt Load





16

Logic Flow


Full vehicle CAE



parametric study

Sled test baseline

development


study






Sled MADYMO Model Development

R

Displacement based MADYMO model

Model rotation based on head free body trajectory from

vehicle (22°)

Resultant displacement is used

Static steering column and IP intrusions

Sled model

development

Vehicle test driver head trajectory 22°

MADYMO R7.5 ATD- THOR Beta Version

17

CONFIDENTIAL Resultant displacement





18

Parametric study to determine physical test setup

Sled rotation angle: 16 – 28° (2° Δ)

Simulate ATD rotation

ATD seating height Z: 0 – 75 mm (15 mm Δ)

Simulate vehicle pitching

Steering column

intrusion X: 0 – 60 mm (10 mm Δ)

Y: 0 – 50 mm (10 mm Δ)

Simulate Column intrusion

Knee bolster intrusion X: 0 – 50 mm (10 mm Δ)

Simulate IP intrusion

Final Sled Setup 22°

Steering column

stroking X: 0 – 70mm

Sled model

development





Sled model

development

Sled Angle variation study

Vehicle Vy Trend

• Vy ↑ α off centered head contact

• DAB interaction α ωz ↑

Steering column stroke study

• Sled buck angle 22°; 3 column stroke variations: No stroke, 50% stroke and 100% stroke

100% column stroke = 70 mm

• Reduction in BrIC is observed with increase in sled angle

reduced DAB interaction

* BrIC calculation 2013 Stapp Takhouts et al. (2013) 19





20

• BrIC has no effect with knee bolster intrusions

• BrIC increases with increase in steering column intrusions due to

restricted dummy kinematics

Sled model

development

Knee bolster intrusion study

Steering column intrusion study






21

Driver chest deflection found to be insensitive to static

intrusions in sled environment


Sled model

development





22

Logic Flow


Full vehicle CAE



parametric study

Sled test baseline

development


study






23

Resultant accel

eration

θ

Sled buck • Sled buck at 22°based on head trajectory angle

• Vehicle resultant X and Y acceleration provided in

global X direction

• Static intrusions based on CAE analysis

Resultant acceleration pulse

Sled Setup





24

Sled Setup

Sled setup input parameters

Based on CAE studies and sled parametric studies the following setup parameters were established

• Buck angle was finalized to 22 deg

• Steering column static intrusion was set to 25mm in X direction

• No knee bolster intrusion

• Steering column stroking was removed

• Dummy height H-point raised by 25mm to account for pitching and the airbag contact point

220





25

Sled vs. Vehicle

Driver Head shows good correlation to vehicle test

Head accel [g] and disp [mm] Vehicle test

Sled Test Head ang vel [deg/s]

Vehicle test

Sled Test

* BrIC calculation 2013 Stapp Takhouts et al. (2013)





26

Sled test correlation: Driver Head

26

< Standard Shoulder > < SD3 Shoulder >

70 ms

90 ms

110 ms

Vehicle test

Sled Test

Vehicle test Sled Test



Sled test has longer coupling of Driver

shoulder to seatbelt

Sled vs. Vehicle


CONFIDENTIAL Information








27

Driver Chest shows good correlation to vehicle test

Chest accl [g] & belt load [N] Vehicle test

Sled Test

Chest deflection Vehicle test

Sled Test

Sled vs. Vehicle






28

Vehicle test

Sled Test Head accel [g] and disp [mm] Head ang vel [deg/s]

Vehicle test

Sled Test

Passenger head shows good correlation to vehicle test

• Head strike in vehicle - same logic as shown for driver

Sled vs. Vehicle






29

Sled 90 ms

110 ms

130 ms

29

< Standard Shoulder > < SD3 Shoulder >

Sled test has longer coupling of

Passenger shoulder to seatbelt




Sled vs. Vehicle










30

Passenger chest shows good correlation to vehicle test

Chest accl [g] & belt load [N] Vehicle test

Sled Test

Chest deflection Vehicle test

Sled Test

Sled vs. Vehicle






31

Sled vs. Vehicle

Passenger repeatability study (n=3)


Head ang vel [deg/s]





MADYMO Observations:

• MADYMO proved to be an effective tool in order to set up Sled buck

• Model was able to replicate dummy kinematics from vehicle which was translated in the sled

• Injury trends in MADYMO sensitivity study and Sled sensitivity study matched well

• Driver BrIC is sensitive to early interaction with curtain airbag

• MADYMO sled injury results did not capture peak injuries from vehicle

Sled test Observations:

• Sled test showed good correlation to the vehicle test

• Sensitivity study was used to correlate sled to vehicle test

• Sled buck angle was finalized to 22° based on head trajectory angle and sensitivity study

• Driver BrIC is sensitive to early interaction with curtain airbag

• Driver and Passenger chest deflection found to be insensitive to static intrusions in sled environment

• Repeatability

– Passenger study showed good repeatability for BrIC and ATD head kinematics (n=3)

• Injury trends shown can be used in further countermeasure development

32





33

Questions?

this report (including any attachments) is a confidential ... · this report (including any...

Documents