Pre-Impact Braking Influence on the Standard Seat-Belted and Motorized Seat-Belted Occupants in Frontal Collisions Based on Anth
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IRC-11-72 Ircobi Conference 2011 Pre‐impact Braking Influence on the Standard Seat‐belted and Motorized Seat‐belted Occupants in Frontal Collisions based on Anthropometric Test Dummy Susumu Ejima1, Daisuke Ito1, Jacobo Antona1, Yoshihiro Sukegawa1, Hisao Ito1 Abstract The posture of a driver is varied according to age, gender and physique. In addition, this posture further changes just before the collision, due to a driver’s evasive maneuvers. In reality, it is difficult for drivers to maintain the standard posture of the Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (ATD). Therefore, it is predicted that these behavioral differences before frontal collisions affect the gravity of injuries suffered by the occupant. The objective of this study is to investigate the influence of braking just before the collision in the frontal impact test with a dummy while considering the effect of the belt‐restraint system. Keywords Pre‐crash, Sled, Occupants, Restraint Systems, Anthropometric Test Dummy I. INTRODUCTION In this research, the effect of occupant protection systems is evaluated by tests with an ATD applying the pre‐crash conditions. So far, such evaluation was usually done by computer models [1] because it was difficult to reconstruct the circumstances of the pre‐crash phase in the laboratory. However, it is now possible to evaluate the effects of leading‐edge safety devices such as the smart‐restraint system and the adaptive‐restraint system by way of laboratory experiment. Therefore, the authors propose the experimental effect evaluation method with the test sled that can incorporate the influence of braking in the pre‐crash phase. In this experimental system, the barrier test which was employed in the traditional frontal impact tests was improved so that a crash stop could be given just before the collision against the barrier. The ATD for the effect evaluation of occupant protection devices was also improved so that it could replicate the driver’s behavior at the time of a low‐impact collision. In the experiment in which the mass‐produced three‐point seat belt (SB) was fitted to the improved ATD, it was confirmed that braking in the pre‐crash phase enhances the impact forces on the chest and pelvis. In addition, for the effect evaluation of the occupant protection devices, a motorized seat belt (MSB) which was equipped with a motor in the retractor was employed as a device to retract the webbing for restraining the posture at the time of braking. II. METHODS Development of Pre‐Crash Sled System The objective of the development of the pre‐crash sled is to assess the pre‐crash behavior of the driver and the influence on the driver after the collision either when the occupant protection device such as the MSB coupled with pre‐crash brake is activated or when the driver steps on the brake pedal. Figure 1 shows the Rigid Barrier Impact absorber Fixed Cylinder Pipe (Aluminum) barrier Pre-crash sled Braking Running time Cutting off from the pulling unit Crash (Pulling by the wire) ECE Velocity corridor Up to 1G Deceleration Fig. 1. Concept of crash experiment with pre‐impact Fig. 2. Pre‐impact braking sled apparatus braking - 301 - IRC-11-72 Ircobi Conference 2011 concept of the crash experiment with the pre‐crash sled system. This pre‐crash sled (Figure 2) is a decelerating sled with a braking system, and the experiment is done on the rail for a frontal collision. In this experiment, the pre‐crash sled is tugged by the pulling unit of the collision test facility until it reaches the prescribed running speed. Then the sled is released at the setup point from the pulling unit. Finally the sled is impacted with braking deceleration against the shock absorber in front of the fixed barrier. In this test, the pre‐crash sled was running at the speed of 67 km/h, braking started with 0.8 G, and after around 0.873 seconds, the sled collided at the speed of 48 km/h. It is necessary to reconstruct the driver’s posture change caused by pre‐crash braking by means of a dummy. In this experiment, Hybrid 3 is employed as the dummy for the impact test. Before the experiment, an impact simulating the harsh braking was given to the dummy, and the forward‐bending behavior of the dummy was compared with the data from the volunteer tests. As a result, the forward‐bending characteristics of the dummy were improved by changing the mechanical property of the lumber rubber tube. Because muscle reaction is not considered in the dummy, the results of the lower‐impact frontal collision volunteer test in a relaxed state were employed [2]. In this test, a constant acceleration 8.0m/s2 (duration 600ms) was given to the 4 male volunteers using the horizontal sled. In order to compare the forward‐bending behavior with that of the driver, a lower‐impact test was implemented with the dummy under the same conditions as the volunteer test. Figure 3 shows the experiment apparatus. The biofidelity evaluation of the flexion features of the dummy was done by the comparison between the volunteers and the dummy by using the flexion angle history of the upper torso against the thighs in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the comparison of the time history of the flexion angles between the dummy and the volunteers. The flexion features of the 4 volunteers are indicated by their corridors (dotted gray line: ±1SD) and the flexion feature of the improved dummy with the thick black line, while the normal features of the dummy are indicated by the thin gray line. Compared with the dummy with the original lumbar feature, the dummy with the improved lumbar feature indicates better flexion angle, and the maximum flexion angle and the angle history are close to those of the volunteers. As a result of this improvement of the lumbar feature of the dummy, it became possible to reconstruct the forward‐bending behavior of the human torso at the time of braking. 50 HY-3 45 T1 HY-3 (Modified Lumber) T1 40 Volunteer Corridor +SD 35 Volunteer Corridor -SD 30 25 20 Knee Angle[deg] Knee 15 10 Hip 5 Hip 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Time[ms] Fig. 3. Pre‐impact simulation sled illustrating the flexion Fig. 4. Time history of the flexion angle of the angle upper body with respect to the femoral region Japan Automobile Research Institute, 2530 Karima, Tsukuba, Ibaraki Japan, 305‐0822 Tel:+81‐29‐856‐0883, Fax: +81‐29‐856‐1135 e‐mail: [email protected] - 302 - IRC-11-72 Ircobi Conference 2011 Test Scenario In order to examine the influence of the braking in Scenario 1 Restraint System the pre‐crash phase, three tests are implemented Speed: 67 km/h Speed at Crash: 48 km/h employing mass‐produced seat belts. In this Mass-produced 0.8 G research, three scenarios shown in Figure 5 were Seatbelt established focusing on the influence of braking Scenario 2 and the effect of the motorized seat belt. The Speed: 67 km/h Speed at Crash: 48 km/h details of the scenarios are as follows: a) Scenario 1 (With‐braking (SB)): The running 0.8 G Motorized Seatbelt speed of the sled is decelerated from 67 km/h to 48 km/h by braking, and then the sled Scenario 3 collides against the barrier with the SB. Speed: 48 km/h Speed at Crash: 48 km/h b) Scenario 2 (With‐braking (MSB)): The running Mass-produced speed of the sled is decelerated from 67 km/h Seatbelt to 48 km/h by braking, and then the sled Fig. 5. Test Scenarios collides against the barrier with the MSB. c) Scenario 3 (Without‐braking (SB)): The sled collides against the barrier at the speed of 48 km/h with SB. III. RESULTS Figure 6 shows the comparison of the dummy’s posture change in Scenarios 1 and 2. The posture control effect of the MSB is shown by comparing the seating postures, which were measured by the high‐speed camera. Figure 6(a) indicates the dummy’s seating posture with the representative points of each part of the body. In addition, the stick‐figures indicate the amount of the movement at every 20ms from the time of braking in Figure 6(b) and (c). The "Braking Start" (‐873ms) indicates the posture at the starting time of braking while the "Target Marker Posture" indicates the posture at the time of collision (0ms). In Figure 6(b), the dummy’s torso at the time of collision is bending due to the inertial force, which is different from its posture at the time of “Braking Start”. On the other hand, it can be confirmed that because the MSB’s activation is synchronized with the starting time of braking, the dummy’s posture is similar to its initial seating posture at the time of collision against the barrier (Figure 6(c): 0ms). In addition, the MSB worked effectively on the dummy’s posture change because the amount of posture change of the dummy with the MSB at around 60ms is smaller than that of the dummy with the SB. This figure also indicates the difference of the dummy’s behavior on the head‐CG and the chest, which shows rather big motions in a frontal collision. By activating the MSB at the time of 0ms, head‐CG and chest are located on the right side compared with the SB. Since the amount of forward movement (X‐direction) is also restrained by the MSB, it can be expected that the driver can maintain the distance between his/her head and the steering wheel until the time of the collision and thereby occupant protection devices such as the airbag can work effectively.