DEVELOPMENT and EVALUATION of the ES-2 SIDE IMPACT DUMMY Michiel Van Ratingen, on Behalf of EEVC WG12 European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee, Europe Paper # 336
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE ES-2 SIDE IMPACT DUMMY Michiel van Ratingen, on behalf of EEVC WG12 European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee, Europe Paper # 336 ABSTRACT different side impact dummies. There is a risk that similar tests with the two different dummies do not The issue of the European Directive 96/27/EC: indicate a common result in terms of improving “Protection of Occupants of Motor Vehicles in the vehicle safety and thus trauma induced injury. Such Event of a Side Impact” in 1998 marked an important diversity causes automotive industry serious concern, step in improving vehicle safety in Europe, but also especially if they sell the same vehicle in different confronted car and restraint manufacturers with the markets. difficulties of having to comply with different ISO has initiated the development of the new side standards in the world. Subsequently, harmonisation impact dummy WorldSID to replace the existing of the side impact test procedures and test devices has dummies such that there will be a more advanced become a key objective for industry and governments world single harmonized side impact test dummy. world-wide. The EEVC WG12 on Adult Crash The realistic time frame for development and Dummies has contributed to this objective by evaluation may be up to 10 years before this dummy assessing the design of the existing European side can go into a legislative test procedure. Starting from impact dummy EUROSID-1. Updates to the design an existing regulated dummy, interim harmonization are proposed to make it acceptable for application in could be reached much quicker. other standards in the world as an intermediate harmonisation solution until the WorldSID dummy There has always been pressure from Europe for the becomes available. USA to accept the EUROSID-1 dummy in their side impact standard. This has been unsuccessful so far This paper summarises the main design for a number of reasons, some of which have been improvements and gives the results of the dummy technical. A new approach for interim harmonization evaluation program carried out on behalf of the has been made in terms of upgrading the EUROSID- working group. This evaluation has shown that the 1 dummy, addressing some of the technical issues important shortcomings of the EUROSID-1 have that have so far prevented its adoption by NHTSA. At been satisfactorily addressed with this new design, the same time, other issues have been addressed that whilst biofidelity is maintained. origin from more than a decade of experience with the EUROSID-1 in Europe. Support for this development comes from NHTSA, Transport INTRODUCTION Canada, Japan, Australia and others. The EUROSID-1 was developed in the 1980s’ to EEVC Working Group 12 has the task of co- meet the needs of the European Commission, in ordinating the development and evaluation of the terms of improving vehicle safety in side impact, upgraded EUROSID dummy world-wide. For this through the activities of EEVC Working Group 9. purpose, it has set up an international Task Group The crash test dummy is now incorporated in ECE including governments and the automotive industry Regulation 95 and hence used as regulatory test and a Steering Committee to oversee the process. device in two of the biggest automotive markets, This paper reports on status of the development of the Europe and Japan. Over the same time period another improved EUROSID dummy, ES-2. In particular, it dummy, SID, was being developed in the USA by summarizes the results from the ES-2 prototype NHTSA. This dummy is now part of the US side evaluation in Europe, carried out on behalf of the impact standard FMVSS-214. Thus the current EEVC Working Group 12 to explore the dummy's regulatory situation is that there are at least two potential as regulatory test device. different side impact test procedures using two van Ratingen, M.R. 1 DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF ES-2 Abdomen/lumbar spine - Introduction of T12 load cell between thoracic spine and abdomen; The technical issues that have so far prohibited the Pelvis - Abduction end stop buffer to prevent metal to EUROSID-1’s adoption by NHTSA and US industry metal contact and simplified and reduced-size pubic have been identified and documented by the EEVC load cell attachment; WG12 [1]. Further issues that need to be addressed if an interim harmonized dummy is to be a reality have Extremities - Redesigned upper leg to prevent been identified through a questionnaire amongst users unrealistic loads going into the pelvis as a result of of the EUROSID-1 dummy world-wide [2]. The leg to leg contact. complete list of issues has formed the basis for the New positioning tools (tilt angles and door-to-dummy development of new parts, sensors and procedures for distance measurement) have been developed to aid the EUROSID dummy [3]. The resulting dummy is reproducible dummy positioning in the car prior to called ES-2. It should be emphasized that there was testing. no intention in this work to develop a ‘new’ advanced European side impact dummy or to ‘improve’ its In addition to the hardware developments, updates biomechanical performance as these issues are dealt are proposed of the certification procedures for neck, with in the WorldSID program. The development of thorax, abdomen, lumbar spine and pelvis. More ES-2 has been purely one of problem solving background on the modifications and proposed sufficient to meet the needs of legislative authorities certification procedures can be found in [1] and [3]. world-wide. The following hardware improvements have been made and incorporated in the ES-2 EVALUATION dummy: Head - Introduction of upper neck load cell for So far, ES-2 prototypes have been evaluated in improved HIC and neck injury assessment; Europe, the USA, Canada and Japan. The test programme has been carried out in three consecutive Neck - Redesigned buffers and cavities to prevent phases: design try-out, selection of the definite buffer dislocation and improved locking of the dummy configuration and assessment of the final spherical screw; dummy perfomance [3]. In the third and last phase, Shoulder - Coated low friction top and bottom plate ES-2’s superiority to EUROSID-1 as regulatory test and flexible clavicle; device has been evaluated. This assessment includes biofidelity, sensitivity, repeatability, certification, Thorax - New ‘needle bearing’ rib module guide handling, durability and full-scale car crash system to eliminate rib binding and re-designed back- performance. plate (Figure 1). The final evaluation phase in Europe has been carried out by the partners in the EC SID-2000 project [4] on behalf of the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee and by the Association of European Car Manufacturers ACEA [5]. The subjects covered in the evaluation of EEVC are biofidelity, certification, sensitivity, repeatability, handling and durability and full-scale test performance. Biofidelity A crash test dummy has to satisfy several types of requirements. One of the important requirements is that it exhibits a good degree of biofidelity. For the Figure 1. ES-2 needle bearing rib modules, new ES-2, the goal of the biofidelity assessment was to back-plate and load cell. demonstrate that the changes introduced have not van Ratingen, M.R. 2 negatively affected the dummy's biofidelity with does not give targets for 6.7 m/s, the responses at respect to the EUROSID-1. Hence, the tests have higher velocity are compared to the ISO TR9790 been focussed on those body regions that have altered corridor given for pendulum acceleration only [8]. significantly, i.e. the thorax and pelvis-femur. Unless For the EUROSID-1, the results reproduce the test mentioned otherwise, the test procedures and results published previously e.g. by Harigae, et al. [9] reference target corridors used are those established Both T1 and the pendulum signals show a dip in the by the EEVC [6] and used for EUROSID-1. The unloading phase. At 6.7 m/s, the response is biofidelity of the EUROSID-1 production version is considerably below the lower boundary of the ISO reported previously [7]. corridor in the unloading phase. Thorax - The thorax biofidelity has been For the ES-2 prototype, the results show a loading assessed in two types of tests: full body pendulum phase similar to that of EUROSID-1. The initial peak tests and "Heidelberg" sled tests. in the pendulum acceleration signals is somewhat Full body pendulum tests more pronounced, probably due to the extra 100 gram TNO Automotive in the Netherlands performed full moving mass in the needle bearing design. Unlike the body pendulum tests. The dummy thorax was EUROSID-1, the unloading signals fit well in the impacted at 4.3 m/s and 6.7 m/s using the Part 572 ISO corridor. Overall, the ES-2 prototype thorax 23.4 kg mass impactor. The T1 lateral and pendulum shows improved biofidelity with respect to acceleration results for both the ES-2 prototype and EUROSID-1 in the full body pendulum test, due to its the EUROSID-1 are given in Figure 2. As EEVC better performance in the rebound phase. Thorax Data, 4.3 m/s Pendulum (TNO) “Heidelberg” sled tests 20 Full body sled tests were performed at the Transport EUROSID-1 15 Research Laboratory (TRL) in the UK (Figure 3). ES- 2 Three types of sled test against an instrumented wall 10 EEV C are performed to collect the data necessary for 5 comparison with the available corridors of impacts of 7.6 m/s against rigid wall, 10.3 m/s against rigid wall 0 0 1020304050 -5 -10 Pendulum (G) Acc. T1 (G) Acc. -15 -20 Thorax Data, 6.7 m/s Pendulum (TNO) 40 EUROSID-1 30 ES- 2 ISO TR9790 20 10 0 0 1020304050 -10 -20 -30 Pendulum (G) Acc.