Analysis of Automotive Safety Issues Related To Depowering of Airbags Using Finite Elements and Lumped Mass Models

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master
UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6 x 9 black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
R eproduced w ith perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w itho ut perm ission.
Analysis of Automotive Safety Issues Related to Depowering of Airbags Using Finite Element and Lumped Mass Models
By
Ahmad Noureddine B.S. M.E. June 1987, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville MS May 1989, The University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The School of Engineering and Applied Science of the George Washington University in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Science
May 17, 1998
Dissertation directed by
Dr. Nabih E. Bedewi Associate Professor of Engineering and Applied Science and Dr. Kennerly H. Digges Research Professor of Engineering and Applied Science
DM! Number: 9831537
UMI Microform 9831537 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103
UMI
ABSTRACT
Current airbag design in the United States is influenced by motor vehicle safety standard FMVSS 208 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This standard requires the airbag to protect an unbelted 50th percentile Hybrid IE dummy in a 30 mph crash into a rigid barrier. In order to meet this standard, the airbag has to be fully inflated in approximately 25 milliseconds and maintain an adequate pressure after occupant impact. The level of
aggressiveness required for this rapid inflation has proven harmful and sometimes fatal to occupants who happen to get in the way of the inflating airbag. Depowering the airbag is being considered as a means of reducing unintended injuries due to airbag inflation. Depowering can have different results due to the complexity of the crash environment: occupants can vary in size and seating position, vehicle interiors incorporate different designs for energy absorption, and crash pulses can vary depending on vehicle size, impact speed, and type of objects impacted. This research investigated all the parameters involved using finite element based computer simulations. A model of the Hybrid EH crash dummy was developed and used -in conjunction with a folded airbag model and a vehicle model- to perform the simulations. In addition, a lumped mass model that represents the airbag as a spring damper system was developed to give more insight on the issues involved. The results indicated that some drivers involved in low severity/late deployment crashes may experience higher chest gs than those involved in 35 mph high severity crashes. Reducing the inflation rate by 25% reduced chest gs by 20 to 25%. However reducing the inflation rate further had marginal benefits while it increased the risk of chest contact with the steering wheel. The results also indicated that a minimum clearance of 2 to 4 inches is required between the airbag and driver at time of deployment to avoid airbag induced injuries.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 ii iii vi ix I
The Search for a Better Restraint System 1 Developing the Necessary Tools for Analysis j Research Achievements 4 The Need for Finite Element Based Computer Simulation in Crash Analysis and the Issue of Reliability 5 A Brief Overview of LS-DYNA3D 7 General Discussion of Material Models and Element Formulation 15 Contact Algorithms 16 Analysis Procedure and Text Organization 17
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HYBRID HI MODEL 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Introduction The Chest Model The Head Model The Head-Neck Model The Lumbar Spine Test The Knee Test Joint Modeling
19 19 21 25 27 34 35 36
THE AIRBAG MODEL 3.1 3.2 3.3 Introduction Concept of a Supplemental restraint System Airbag Volume Calculations Using Element Geometry
41 41 43 46
3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4
Equation of State for Pressure-Volume Relationship Control Volume Analysis of the Airbag Model Airbag Folding and Finite Element Implementation Airbag Model Validation
48 49 51 54
ANALYSIS OF DEPOWERING AND OTHER PARAMETERS IN OUT-OF-POSITION ENVIRONMENT 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Contribution of the Airbag and the Dilemma of Depowering Test Environment and Methodology Simulation Results Effect of Inflation Characteristics 4.4.1 Head Centered on Module 4.4.2 Chest Centered on Module Effect of Module Separation at Time of Deployment 4.5.1 Head Centered on Module 4.5.2 Chest Centered on Module Effect of Initial Velocity Determining the Inertial Effect of Airbag Deployment A More Realistic Combination o f Initial Velocity and Column Crush Characteristics
58 58 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 71 74
4.5
4.6 4.7 4.8
EFFECTS OF INFLATION RATE AND VEHICLE INTERIOR ON INJURY MEASURES IN THE 30 MPH CRASH TEST 74 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Introduction Simulation Set-up and Procedure Baseline Test and Validation Results of Variation Around The Baseline Discussion of Results 77 79 81 86 87
ALTERNATIVE AIRBAG INFLATION RATES 6.1 6.2
92
6.3
Introduction 92 Simulation of Depowered Airbags 93 6.2.1 Varying the Inflation Rate for the 30 mph Crash 93 6.2.2 Low severity: 20 mph Crash Into a Rigid Barrier 96 6.2.3 Investigation of Other Crash Pulses 98 Discussion 100 6.3.1 Head Injury Protection to Unrestrained Population 100 6.3.2 Depowering Benefits to the 5th Percentile Female 100 6.3.3 Limitation of Benefits in More Severe Crashes 101 6.3.4 Benefits of Depowering in Low Severity/Late Deployment Crashes 101
iv
6.3.5 6.3.6
Benefits to Older Population Analysis Based on Statistical Data
102 102
THE CRASH EVENT AS A LUMPED SPRING MASS SYSTEM 7.1 7.2 7.3 Introduction The Lumped Chess Model The Airbag Lumped Mass Model 7.3.1 Determining an Equivalent Airbag Spring Constant 7.3.2 Determining a Damping Coefficient for the Airbag Determining K n and C [2 for Any Inflation Rate and Applications
104 101 106 107 109 110 112
7.4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND FUTURE WORK 8.1 8.2 8.3 Summary Conclusions Future Work
115 115 118 118
REFERENCES APPENDICES A. A Brief history of Automotive Safety A.1 The Unsolved Problem A.2 The I890s A.3 The Pre-World One Era A.4 The 1920s A.5 Internal Design for Safety: The 1930s A.6 Limit of Human Tolerance: The 40s A.7 Understanding the Collision A.8 Accident Investigation and Data Collection A.9 Regulating the Industry A.10 The I960s Rush for Safety Design A .ll The 1970s and Beginning of Airbag Era A Runge-Kutta Program to Solve a System of Simultaneous Differential Equations 5th Percentile Hybrid HI Dummy Protection Reference Values Hybrid HI Dummy External Dimensions and Assembly Weights
119 124 124 125 125 126 127 128 128 129 130 130 132 132
B. C.
134 13 8
D.
140
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15a 2.15b 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 Figure 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8
A Car-to-Car Simulation Using Finite Elements The Hybrid HI Dummy FE Model of the Hybrid EH Dummy Hybrid EH Dummy Chest FE Model of the Hybrid EH Chest Dummy Position for Standard Impact Test Ribcage Deformation of the Finite Element Chest Model Resistance Force: Test vs. Simulation Chest Centerline Deflection: Test vs. Simulation Dummy Head External Dimension and Reference Frame Head Drop Test Head Drop Test Deceleration: Test vs. Simulation FE Hybrid EH Dummy Neck Model Hybrid HI Dummy Neck Neck Pendulum Test Set-Up Neck Pendulum Test: Extension Neck Pendulum Test: Flexion Pendulum Deceleration in Extension: Test vs. Simulation Nodding Joint Bending Moment in Extension: Test vs. Simulation D-Plane Rotation in Extension: Test vs. Simulation Pendulum Deceleration in Flexion: Test vs. Simulation Nodding Joint Bending Moment in Flexion: Test vs. ?rmulation D-Plane Rotation for Flexion: Test vs. Simulation Lumbar Spine Test Results of Test vs. Simulation for the Lumbar Spine Test Knee Test Simulation Results of Simulation for the Knee Impact Test Spherical and Cylindrical Joints in LS-DYNA3D Load Curves Characterizing the Hybrid EH Joints Time Line Showing Sequence o f Events in Airbag Deployment General Schematic of a Supplemental Restraint System Crash Sensor Operation Principle A Typical Pyrotechnic Airbag Inflator Free Body Diagram of the Airbag Control Volume Airbag Folding Patterns for Different Makes Details of Foding Patterns for the overlapped Fold Used in This Model Free Body Diagram of a Typical Airbag Fabric Element
6 19 21 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 27 27 29 29 30 32 32
JJ
33
JJ JJ JJ JJ
34 35 36 36 37 39 42 43 44 45 48 51 52 53
3.9 Front and Side Views of the Simulated Folded Bag 3.10 Airbag Deployment: Test vs. Simulation (Front View) 3.11 Airbag Deployment: Test vs. Simulation (Side View)
54 56 57
Figure 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20
Vertical Alignments: Bag-on-Head, Bag-on-Chest? and Bag-on-Neck Respectively Inflation Curves Used for Analysis Effect of Inflation Rate on Head Acceleration Effect of Inflation Rate on Neck Extension Effect of Inflation rate on Neck Axial Loads Effect of Inflation Rate on Chest Acceleration Effect of Inflation Rate on Rib Deflection Effect of Initial Separation on Head Acceleration Effect of Initial Separation on Neck Axial Loads Effect of Initial Separation on Neck Moments Effect of Initial Separation on Chest Acceleration Effect of Initial Separation on Rib Deflection Effectof Initial Relative Velocity on Chest Acceleration Effect of Initial Relative Velocity on Rib Deflection Inertial Effect of Airbag Deployment on Chest gs Inertial Effect of Airbag Deployment on Rib Deflection Inertial Effect of Airbag Deployment on Reaction forces Steering Column Characteristics of a 1985 Volvo Chest gs Comparison Between a Rigid Column and a More Realistic Column Chest Deflection Comparison Between a Rigid Column and a More Realistic Column
60 61 64 64 65 65 66 67 67 68 68 69 70 71 72 72 73 74 75 75
Figure 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11
A Simple Impact Problem of Two Moving Bodies 77 A Simple Spring Mass System Representing the Impact of Two Moving Bodies 78 Simulation Set Up For Dummy and Vehicle Interior 80 Crash Pulse for the 30 mph Baseline Test 81 Velocity Time History of Vehicle eg for the 30 mph Baseline test 82 Chest Acceleration: Test vs. Simulation 82 Rib Deflection: Test vs. Simulation 83 Head Acceleration: Test vs. Simulation 83 Right Femur Load: Test vs. Simulation 84 Effect of Inflation Characteristics on Chest gs 89 Effect of Inflation Characteristics on Chest CenterlineDeflection 89
Figure 6.1 6.2 6.3
Airbag Inflation Rates Used in Simulation Airbag Pressure Response in 30 mph Crash Dummy Displacement in 30 mph Crash
93 94 96
vii
6.4 Figure 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9
Chest Injury Measures for Five Crash Modes Spring-Damper System Representing the Airbag, Chest, and Crash Pulse The Lumped Mass Thorax Model Under a Blunt Impact Finite Element Simulation to Determine Spring Characteristics of Airbags A Typical Kinematics Plot o f the Isolated Dummy Thorax Impacting the Airbag Determining an Equivalent Airbag Spring Constant Determining an Equivalent Airbag Damping Coefficient Determining Ar from a Lumped Mass System Spring Constants and Damping Coefficients as a Function of Inflation rates System Response for Different Airbag Inflation Rates
99
104 106 108 109 110 110 112 113 114
Figure A. 1
A 1901 Oldsmobile Runabout
126
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 2.2 Table 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7
Dummy Finite Element Model Joint Description General Finite Element Model Description Unintended Fatalities Caused by Airbags Results of Simulation for the Head Centered on Module Cases Results of Simulation for the Chest Centered on Module Cases Results of Simulation for the Neck Centered on Module Cases Results for the Case Where the Dummy Has an Initial AV of 2 m/s (7 mph) and Module Fixed Results for the Case where Module Is Free to Move; Chest Is Centered on Module with 0 mm Separation Results for the Case Where Dummy Has an Initial AV of 2 m/s and Module Attached to a Volvo Like Steering Column Input-Output Relationships Around The Baseline Simulation Results - 30 mph Barrier Crash Simulation Results - 20 mph Barrier Crash Crash Types and Deployment Timing For Inflation Rate Study Simulation Results - 100% and 75% Inflation Rates Values for Ar for Two Inflation Rates and Two Initial Speeds
38 40 59 62 62 63 70 71 74 87 95 97 98 99 111
Table 5.1 Table 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Table 7.1
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Search for a Better Restraint System
Despite all the advances in automotive safety, the chilling fact remains that over 40,000 people are still getting killed and millions are injured every year in automotive crashes [1]. The numbers are alarming and may throw doubt on the effectiveness of crashworthiness and injury prevention. However, when put in
perspective with past records, current statistics reflect a much more effective design in reducing severe injuries and fatalities. In 1930 for example, the number o f people killed for every 100 million miles driven was a staggering 15.6 compared to 1.8 fatalities for the same number o f miles driven in 1993 [2]. On the other hand the more effective designs have not eliminated the problem completely and no prediction is made for finding a perfect solution in the near future. Some credit should be given to new features built into automobiles that help prevent accidents. A simple example is the new High-Intensity Discharge (HID) lighting system that increases illumination substantially while decreasing glare for incoming traffic [3]. More important design features that help avoid accidents are systems that control the stability or traction of the vehicle such as in Traction Control Systems (TCS) or Dynamic Control Systems (DCS) [4]. These systems have the ability to detect when a vehicle is going out of control and apply the necessary amount of braking and throttle to keep the vehicle in its intended lane of travel. The features just mentioned and many others including future Intelligent Highway Systems (IHS) play a big role in avoiding accidents all together. However, crashes are bound to happen. Crashworthiness engineers are working on two areas: vehicle structure and restraint systems. An efficient design o f the vehicle frame would allow energy absorption of the first collision (vehicle impact with outside object) with minimum effect on the occupant compartment. Similarly, an 1
efficient design of the vehicle interior and restraint system would minimise injury to occupants by controlling the energy exchange of the second collision (occupants impacting vehicle interior). A typical restraint system today is composed o f seat belts and one or more airbags. The effectiveness of seat belts has been widely accepted. While the
webbing stiffness of seat belts varies between manufacturers, their performance has not been controversial. On the other hand, the overall effectiveness of airbags have been proven but their level of aggressiveness is still under debate. In the United States for instance, airbags are designed to protect an unbelted occupant in a 30 mph frontal crash into a rigid wall. In Europe and the rest of the world, a smaller less aggressive airbag is used since it is only designed to protect belted occupants. The
present American design of the airbag has the advantage of reducing the risk of
injuries to occupants involved in higher severity crashes but can produce unintended injuries to out-of-position (OOP) [5] occupants involved in low severity crashes. Due to its reduced size -and energy level- the present European design is less likely to be effective for unbelted occupants and those involved in more severe crashes but less harmful to OOP occupants. Recent legislation in the United States allowed manufacturers to depower airbags after several incidents where airbag deployment caused unintended fatal injuries in low severity crashes. The debate over this issue was intense and
continues among researchers, lawmakers, and the general public. The goal of this research is to use mechanics-based computer simulation to study the issues surrounding the depowering of the airbag. The effects o f the most common form of depowering which involves the reduction of the mass flow rate of the inflating gasis investigated. The effects o f other parameters that come in contact with the
occupant or airbag, such as the steering column and knee board, are also studied. These parameters are studied separately and in conjunction with the airbag inflation levels. Crash environments for these studies include static tests, the 30 mph
FMVSS-208 standard test, 16 mph late deployment/low severity tests, 35 mph barrier and car-to-car crash tests.
1.2 Developing the Necessary Tools for Analysis

In order to study the effects of depowering and related parameters using numerical tools, three models were needed: a vehicle model, an airbag model, and a crash dummy model. Validated finite element models that represent a number of different cars and trucks were available through the National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) and other organizations [6]. In addition, a finite element model of a generic folded airbag was available. However, the few finite element models of the Hybrid HI dummy that existed at the time were proprietary and could not be used. The dummy models that were accessible were lumped mass models [7] [8] [9]. Researchers used these models successfully in conjunction with seat belts. The use of lumped mass models was practical with belts since belt loads can be represented as point loads applied to the dummy at specific geometrical locations. Furthermore, with seat belts, no interaction occurs -except for the anchor pointsbetween them and the vehicle interior. With the increased use of airbags in the nineties, and specifically to perform depowering studies in this research, it was necessary to develop a validated finite element model of the dummy. In response to this need, a dummy model that incorporates enough details and flexibility to allow interaction with the distributed nature of airbag loads was developed and validated. This model is comprised of 15,000 rigid and flexible elements and features full joint characterization. The
model was validated for frontal crashes and is available for other researchers to use. A driver side airbag model that is folded and fitted to a steering wheel was also validated. The dummy and airbag models were combined together in a vehicle interior set-up with simplified components. The vehicle set up can be given the weight of a car and the velocity time history o f a crash event. The components of this vehicle set-up that can be easily varied include the steering wheel, steering column, knee board, toe pan, seat, and windshield. The combination of validated models o f the crash dummy, an airbag, and a vehicle interior with the ability to modify any number o f parameters provides an inexpensive and useful research tool to study current automotive safety issues and explore experimental ideas.
1.3 Research Achievements

As mentioned earlier, this research concentrated on the issues of depowering. The results of this research indicate that the general population can benefit from depowering, however protection is shifted from one segment of population -though a smaller segment- to another. The benefits to small-statured persons involved in low severity crashes are increased while unbelted larger persons involved in high severity crashes receive less protection. The need for a multistage -o r at least two stage- airbag combined with a smart restraint system might be needed to provide maximum protection. The results also indicated that the steering column stroking characteristics can influence the performance of the airbag. The level of depowering should take into consideration the stiffness of the column or vice versa: The steering column stiffness may have to be tuned to work better with the depowered bag. Another important outcome of this research is the ability to model the airbag as a lumped mass spring-damper system and assign equivalent spring and damping constants for any inflation level. This airbag model is combined with a lumped mass chest model in a system that accepts the crash pulse as input (similar to ground support motion in vibration problems). The resulting system can be used for crash analysis when rough and quick estimates are required for a large number of parameter variations. Many areas were discovered and pointed out as potential subjects for future research. These areas stem from simplifications or even elimination of physical systems and sub-components for the purpose of focusing on one or more areas. As more sub-models are included or more accurately represented, the ultimate goal of computer crash modeling today, to run crash simulations using full scale models of humans and vehicles, becomes more realistic. It is hoped that the work presented here brings this field one step closer towards achieving this goal.
1.4 The Need for Finite Element Based Computer Simulation in Crash Analysis and the Issue o f Reliability
For years, computer aided engineering (CAE) has played an essential role in the design and performance analysis o f automobiles. More recently, computer
models have been developed for crash analysis. These models are based on the finite element method and are used to analyze vehicle crashworthiness, occupant kinematics, restraint system performance, and roadside hardware design evaluation. Due to the destructive nature o f crash tests, the use of computer models in crash simulation becomes essential in the design process of the automobile. A
future goal of computer modeling is to replace Anthropomorphic Test Devices (crash dummies) with full scale human models. Biomechanic research has already produced sophisticated models of volumetric soft and hard tissue components. Progress is also being made in the areas o f characterizing more complex, life-like behavior such as muscle activation and material properties of brain fluids. Full
scale human models pose a challenge since they require large number of elements due to the complexity of the geometry, but more importantly, due to the difficulties in material characterization [10]. Finite element models rely on proper geometric representation o f the physical object. In the process of discretization, the geometry is divided into
elements connected together via nodes (Figure 1.1). The number o f elements for a given geometry or domain determines the mesh density. Limited by round-off
errors, the accuracy of the solution is a function of mesh density. Accordingly, to accomplish more accuracy, crash models are rapidly increasing in size and complexity. Figure 1.1 is an example of a car-to-car collision with Hybrid HI
dummies and airbags. The size of this model is well in excess of 150k elements.
Figure 1.1 A car-to-car crash simulation using finite elements.
The issue of reliability rises whenever a mathematical model is used to represent a dynamic physical phenomenon. An understanding of the limitations of any solution is important. The analysis based on a mathematical model can only predict a phenomenon that is contained in the model. The reliability is then defined with respect to the phenomenon to be predicted and with respect to the mathematical model chosen. For example, researchers develop different vehicle models for frontal impact, side impact, or rear impact. Each model is only expected to be reliable when used within its intended purpose. In general, the reliability of a finite element model is defined as one that gives reasonably accurate results under any boundary conditions, loading, or material properties [11]. Many finite element codes have been developed to solve a variety of engineering problems. Although the concept o f the finite element method is unique, many finite element-based codes can be implemented in ways that make them more appropriate for specific applications. A popular code for solving the highly
transient non-linear dynamic problems encountered in crash analysis is DYNA3D [12]. This code was originally developed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and became the basis for many commercially available crash codes such as LS-DYNA3D [13], PAM CRASH [14], and RADIOSS [15]. These codes are used around the world for crash analysis, metal forming, and other impact
applications. LS-DYNA3D was available for use in this research and was used to run the simulation analysis. The major characteristics of this code are briefly presented in the following section.
1.5 A Brief Overview of LS-DYNA3D

The crash models developed in this work were constructed using different preprocessors and the analysis was performed using the finite element code LSDYNA3D. LS-DYNA3D is an explicit 3D Finite Element code for analyzing large deformation responses of solids. The governing equations are derived from the virtual work principle. The virtual work is defined as the work done on a particle by all forces acting on the particle while this particle is given a small virtual displacement. This virtual
displacement can not violate the constraints and the forces are held constant as the particle is given the displacement. The virtual work for a deformable body having
surface tractions T , body forces b , an acceleration u , and under going a virtual displacement Su is given as [16]:
SWvirt =
using Cauchys formula:
7)(v)Suid S
dutd u
(1-3.1)
T r = T ijVj
(1.3.2)
where 7(v) are the components o f the stress vectors for any interface, r^-are the components of the stress tensor, and vy are the direction cosines of the unit normal of the interface where the traction force is desired, combining the terms under the triple integrals, the virtual work becomes:
5W ,in = j] \ ( bi ~ P Ui)5u(d u + ^ T ' j v f a d S .
(1.3.3)
Now using Gausss theorem:*
JI{.(V ) / u=
Equation (1.3.3) becomes: *** =
o-3-4)
- P Ui)Suidu + W l i r ^ j d v .
(1.3.5)
Now taking the partial derivative of the term inside the second integral:
= f J l t b ' - p u O f y d v + f f o ( T iJ(&ii )J +Tij'j dui)d u
(1.3.6)
and rearranging:
3Wvirt = W l i b i - p u i + T q J d U i d v + W^TqidUiXjdv
(1.3.7)
The first integral vanishes since the term in parenthesis is the momentum equation. This equation is derived simply from Newtons law for a mass dm:
d f = dmV
(1.3.8)
where f is the sum of total traction forces 7(v) and body forces bt on a mass dm . Integrating this equation over an arbitrary domain having a volume V and surface S and using tensor notation:
u(p d u
(1-3.9)
using Cauchys formula (equation 1.3.2) and Gausss theorem (equation 1.3.4) successively on the second integral, and collecting terms, this equation becomes: J T J /^ - p u ^ T y j)dv= 0 (1.3.10)
Gausss theorem is a generalized form o f the more familiar divergence theorem where the tensor is
and since the domain of the integral is arbitray it can be concluded that:
bi +rij. j - p u i =Q
this is the equation of motion in inertial form.
(1-3-11)
Now going back to equation (1.3.7) and using the equation o f motion (1.3.11), the equation for virtual work becomes:
SW,ir, = J J I rii ( * /) .; d v
(1-3.12)
Equating equation (1.3.12) to equation (1.3.1), rearranging and noting that
(Su() j =S(uLj) = Ss{j defines the principle of virtual work:
H I b,Su,dv +
T ^S u ,d S = H I ZydSjjdv + JJ p u i d u ^ u
(1.3.13)
where 8s j is a kinematically compatible strain field. In essence, what this equation says is that the external virtual work (left side o f equation (1-3.12) must equal the internal work (first term of right side) plus the acceleration term (second term of right side). If the problem is static, the 2n d term of right side vanishes, whereas for rigid bodies the first term of the right side becomes zero. In the more general form, a dissipative term JJ c m Su^du is added to equation (1.3.13). The dissipative term takes into account energy losses. Adding this term and rearranging equation 1.3.13), it becomes:
jJ X bM dv + j T ^ S u ^ S - \\\r p u iS u id u - \ \ \ c u i 8iiid v = W ^ T ^ e ^ d u (1.3.14) = JJV .d A
first degree (i.e. vector): H l d i v V d v
The finite element method makes use of the above equation (1.3.14) by manipulating this mathematical relationship using geometrical approximations. Following the process of discretization, where the body is divided into finite elements, this method transforms equation (1.3.14) into matrix form where it can be solved using a computer. In matrix form, equation (1.3.14) becomes:
\ \ [ m S u } r d o + l [ T M {du}Td S \ \ [ p [ i ] { d u } Td u - \ \ [ c [ u ] { d u } Td u
J*J [r /y] {8 }Td v

rectangular, equilateral, etc....) is defined by the preprocessor.
(1.3.15)
The nodal coordinates of each discrete element (linear, triangular, Interpolation or
shape functions [A/] are used to relate the displacement field for an element to the
nodal displacement for the element {d). displacement field is expressed as: For a three dimensional element, the
u { x , y , z ) = [u] = [N]{d }
and
(1.3.16)
[<fo] = [iV]{<5tf} Similarly,
(1.3.17)
[u] = [N][d] [u] = [N]{d]

form as: M = [>]!>]
(1.3.18) (1.3.19)
The stress is related to strain by Hooks law which is expressed in matrix
(1-3-20)
10
while the strain is related to the nodal displacement as:
\_Se} = {B}{Sd}r
(1.3.21)
The matrix form of equation (1.3.15) then becomes:
( l \ i l b t N Y u + \ [ T l' \ N V S - \ \ [ p [ N m m d u - \ \ l < i N m { N - \ d u \Sd)T =
JJJ( [ ][3 M S ]
YSdfdv
(1.3.22)
Next, several of the parameters in equation (1.3.22) are grouped together:
{q) = l \ [ m N o + ^ ' [ N y s [M \= \[lp [N f[N Y v [C ]= \\l^N f{N V o
(1-3.23) (1.3.24) (1.3.25)
where {q} is normally associated the external forces, [M] is called the mass matrix, and [C] is called the damping matrix. Also, the right hand side of equation (1.3.22) can be written as:
W liD m w m d u =
[d ][b v v w = [ K m
(1.3.26)
Equation (1.3.24) can now be written as: [M ] (d) + [C] {d} + [.K ] {d} = {q} (1.3.27)
Up to this point the governing equaitons were discretized in the spatial domain. The next step is to discretize equation (1.3.29) in the time domain and express at time n as:
[M]{d}n +[C]{d}n H K \ { d } n = {q}n
(1.3.27a)
il
The finite difference method is used here. The choice o f step size and a particular finite difference method determines whether the solution will be implicit or explicit. In the finite difference method, a time dependant differential equation is transformed into an algebraic equation. Taylor series expansions are used to
express the displacement field at two adjacent time points. The two equations are manipulated to obtain the first and second derivatives in discrete forms: W U ={<*} + m d ) . + ^ - { d } n + - { d } + .... 2. o (1.3.28a)
1 = {d}-At{d} +^ - { d } - ~ ( d 2 6
} + ....
(1.3.28b)
By subtracting the above two equations, the first derivative is obtained:
{d)n = ~ m 2A t
obtained:
n^
-^}_ l) + / ( At3)
(1.3 .29 )
Similarly, by adding equations (1.3.328a) and (1.3.28b), the second derivative is
{d} = - k ( {<*}., - 2{d] + {</}_,) + / ( Af3)

At
(1.3.30)
Where f (A t3) is the error term. Deleting this term makes equations (1.3.29) and (1.3.30) suitable for transforming the derivatives into algebraic relations with second order accuracy.

Now substituting the values for {d}n and {d}n , equation (1.3.27) becomes: - 2{d}n + { < / } _ , ) + - {<*}.,)+ IK] {</} = {?}
Ar
2A t
(1.3.31) It is possible to get an expression for {d}n+ [ as follows:
12
W +l J & t 2{ q } - M * [ K ] { d } n + [M ](2 { flf} - { d } _ ,) + M Q {^ _ ,

V
2.
(1.3.32) The problem with equation (1.3.32) from a standpoint of large problem applications as the ones encountered for crash simulations is that it requires the inversion of the non-diagonal damping matrix [ C ] . This matrix inversion requires iterative solutions that involve tremendous storage requirements. This method of solving the matrix equations is called implicit. In order to overcome this difficulty, the time discretization of equations (1.3.28) through (1.3.31) will be manipulated in such a way that an equation expressing [{<^}n+l] does not require the inversion of the damping matrix [C ]. It should be noted here that inverting the mass matrix \_M\ is trivial since it comes out as a diagonal* matrix with the prevailing assumption that the mass of an element is distributed over its nodes. The scheme used to avoid inverting [C ] is to lag the velocity by a half time step in equation (1.3.27). Equation (1.3.27a) is now written as:
[M ]{d}n +\C]{d}n_{ l l +[K-\{d}n ={q}n
(1.3.33)
Equations (1-3.28a) and (1-3.28b) are now rewritten with half time steps as:
{d}n- V 2 = ^ - m n- { d } n.,)
(1.3.34)
hence, using equations (1.3.29), (1.3.30), and (1.3.34), equation (1.3.33) becomes:
' A diagonal matrix [A] is one that has non-zero elements only at the diagonal. In this case [A]-=1/[A]
13
Ar
-m+{d}. i)+^r(w.-w,i)+ma Ar
={ ? >
(1.3.35)
From equation (1.3.35), a new expression for the updated displacement field can be obtained:
w +. =
[M ]-'( a / 2{?> + ( 2 [ M ] - a F [X ]-A /[C ]){ rf} - ([ W ] + A/[C]){rf}_,)
(1.3.36)
The difference between equations (1.3.36) and (1.3.32) might seem trivial but mathematically the difference is very important. In summary, implicit methods of integration use full time step intervals for time discretization. Furthermore, implicit methods use the forward difference
operator to obtain the algebraic equations. The result is a set of equations that are independent of the time step but require iterations for convergence of the solutions. Implicit methods then require a large amount of computer storage and lend themselves to static analysis. In the explicit method however, the velocity is discretized at half-time intervals while displacement and acceleration are discretized at full-time intervals. The successive use of the central difference dynamic operator leads to a set of algebraic equations where only the diagonal mass matrix needs to be inverted. Solution of this system o f equations is trivial and does not require the formulation of global stiffness matrix and thus reduces computer storage. The disadvantage of the explicit method however, is that it puts an upper limit on the time step A t (due to lagging the velocity by a half time step) for stability requirements. A simple form of the stability requirement is the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy criteria: A L At < (1.3.37)
14
where L is the characteristic length of the element and c is the speed of sound or speed of wave propagation. In other words, The numerical time step must be
smaller than the time needed by the shock wave to cross the element. In crash simulation, it is common for an average m inim um side length o f an element to be 5 mm and considering the speed of sound o f steel materials to be 5000 m/s, the minimum time step is approximately 1 microsecond (ps). The small time step required for stability increases running time but it may be justified because large distortions of the structure over relatively short duration may require a small time step regardless of stability. Accordingly, the structural states can be
determined at many discrete points in time in order to allow for an accurate tracing of the complex physical phenomena that occur during a crash. In addition, given that an average 1 ps time step is needed for reasonable running time, a m inim um element characteristic length of 5 mm becomes the lim iting factor for accurate representation of crash model geometry.
1.4 General Discussion of Material Models and Element Formulation

LS-DYNA3D incorporates about 80 material models that are capable of representing a range of material types from simple elastic to more complex ones such as multi-layered composites and crushable honeycomb. Implementing user defined material models is also possible in this code. Additionally, gases can be modeled in this code using equations of state. This option is mentioned here to show versatility of the code but no gas dynamics problems are handled in this work. Many element types are also available. Beam, shell, thick shell, and solid elements are formulated using a choice of algorithms. Each algorithm is useful or preferred for a particular application. The choice of method for element displacement representation, distribution of element mass into the nodes, stress and strain update, reference frames, the number and location o f integration points make each formulation technique different. Computational efficiency is the most important parameter in choosing a particular element formulation. Because of its computational efficiency, the
15
Belytschko-Lin-Tsay shell element is the most popular element and is used as the default shell element. This particular shell element is formulated in such a way that it does not put any restriction on the magnitude of the elements rigid body rotation. Rather the restriction is imposed on the element strain. This makes it suitable for use on vehicle exterior under impact similar to a crash environment As an example o f what is involved in element formulation, the BelytschkoLin-Tsay element is briefly described here. A reference coordinate system is made to deform with the element. The displacement of any point in the element is
partitioned into a mid-surface displacement (nodal translation) and a displacement associated with the rotation of the element fibers (nodal rotation). The velocity of any point in the shell is also partitioned in a similar maimer and according to the Mindlin theory of plates.
1.5 Contact Algorithms

Several contact types are available in LS-YNA3D. The user specifies slave and master surfaces and the direction of no penetration. More advanced contact types allow the user to specify materials. All contact algorithms depend heavily on advanced geometrical manipulation. In contact algorithms, nodes of the slave
surface are checked for penetration against master segments at every time step. When a node is determined to have penetrated a master segment, a force is applied between the slave node and its contact point on the master segment. This force is called in LS-DYNA3D and throughout this work as the interface force. This force can be output in x, y, or z direction or as a resultant force. The magnitude of this force is proportional to the amount of penetration and a stiffness factor that depends on element geometry and element properties. This force can be thought of as an interface spring:
f s = ~lk ni
(1.5.1)
where / is the amount of penetration determ ined from geometry, n is a normal vector to the master segment, and ki is the stiffness factor. The stiffness factor o f
16
an element is defined in terms o f bulk modulus K t , element face area Af and element volume Vt , and a scale factor s :
(1.5.2)
This interface force is added to the slave node. An equivalent force f lmis applied to the nodes comprising the master segment. The magnitude of this force is:
(1.5.3) Where h( is a factor that distributes the force into the nodes comprising the master segment depending on the node location and segment orientation.
1.6 Analysis Procedure and Text Organization

Having defined the scope of this work and the method to be used, an outline o f this dissertation follows. Chapter 2 introduces the Hybrid HI dummy model and its components and discusses the correlation with the physical Hybrid IE. Chapter 3 presents the airbag model and its finite element basis and describes the operation of the supplemental restraint system. Chapter 4 addresses the issue o f depowering as it is related to reducing injuries to out-of-position (OOP) occupants, and investigates the other parameters involved in OOP situations. Chapter 5 deals with the effect of depowering and other pertinent design parameters on injury level requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208. Chapter 6 investigates the effect of inflation rates on occupant kinematics and chest injury measures under a wide range of realistic crash modes. Chapter 7 introduces lumped mass models of the Hybrid m dummy chest and the airbag and uses these models to characterize the airbag at any inflation level as a spring damper system. Chapter 7 provides a
17
summary of results and conclusions. Appendix A is a brief overview o f automotive history while the rest of the appendices provide additional information on pertinent subjects.
18
CHAPTER 2
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HYBRID El DUMMY MODEL
2.1 Introduction
The Hybrid HI dummy is an anthropomorphic test device that mechanically represents the human body (Figure 2 .1 ). By mimicking the geometry, weight, inertia, joint stiffness, and energy absorption characteristics o f humans, anthropomorphic test devices are expected to simulate human response when exposed to a crash environment. Basic instrumentation on the dummy that is required for F M V S S -208 compliance testing include head and chest uniaxial accelerometers, a chest rotary potentiometer, and uniaxial femur load cells. While earlier dummies were not instrumented and were only expected to test the integrity of seatbelt systems and possibility of ejection, todays dummies are far more sophisticated. Recent dummies used for research and development can produce over 80 signals measuring accelerations, forces, displacements, and joint moments in all pertinent locations.
Figure 2.1 The Hybrid IE dummy [17].
19
The meaningfulness o f the numbers obtained from dummy instrumentation and their interpretation as to the level of injury they represent goes to the heart o f dummy design. Once dummies are given the pertinent physical characteristics of hu m a n s, their behavior is expected to represent -in a general and crude sense- human behavior. Engineers ascertain the correspondence early in the development stage by correlating specific test results obtained from cadavers and dummies. The human chest for example is a major area of concern in automobile accidents. To develop a dummy with exact chest would obviously be impossible due to durability requirements o f mechanical parts, the complexity o f geometry and more importantly due to the unknown properties of human bones, muscles, and other live tissues. Rather,
engineers developed a dummy chest made from plastics, metals and viscoelatic polymer materials. The dummy chest is calibrated by a test in which the chest of the dummy is subjected to a blunt impact by a 2 3 .4 kg, 6 diameter pendulum having an initial velocity o f 6 .7 m/s. The response of the chest in this test must be similar to human response. Key parameters such as the deflection time history o f the chest centerline and the load applied are compared. Materials that make up the submodel, their properties, or their shapes are modified until an acceptable response corridor is achieved. correlated and the dummy chest is then said to be biofidelic. The process of correlating results o f simulated dummies (Figure 2.2) with actual dummies is identical to the process used in correlating human test results with actual dummies. In both cases, a certain level o f confidence is to be established between the actual object and a simplified representative o f it. Fortunately, in the process o f creating computer simulation models, repeatability, reproducibility, ease and accuracy o f initial set up, are inherently solved problems. The process of correlating data between actual tests and simulation tests is commonly referred to as validation. The results are then
20
Major parts of the finite element model are validated here.
The process of
validation ensures that results obtained using the model would reflect, to a certain degree of accuracy, the results that would have been obtained if the physical model were used.
Figure 2.2 FE model o f the Hybrid EH dummy. The rest of this chapter is devoted to describing several tests that were performed on the physical dummy as part of design specification or biofidelity assurance. The tests were then simulated using the finite element model. Results of tests vs. simulations are then presented for comparison and proof of validation.
2.2 The Chest Model

The Hybrid HI dummy chest model consists of a rib cage covered by a removable jacket and bolted to a welded steel spine. The ribcage consists of six steel ribs of unequal dimensions and contoured to approximate human form (Figure 2.3). A layer of
polyviscous damping material is bonded to the inside o f the ribs to provide the proper dynamic response in blunt frontal impact. Leaf springs help control bending of the ribs at their narrow attachment to the spine. In the front, the open-ended ribs are connected
21
together by inner and outer vertical stiffeners. Horizontally the ribs are all connected to an aluminum sternum by a thick plastic plate and a urethane bib. A sternum pad helps distribute the weight and a jacket enhances the human like appearance of the dummy. All the above parts are included in the finite element model thorax shown in Figure 2.4 with the bib and jacket removed for illustration purposes. The geometry of these parts is accurately represented using the original dummy engineering drawings. The sternum is modeled as an elastic material with properties of alu m in u m . The ribs damping materials and sternum pad are modeled as solid elements with viscoelastic material properties. The rest of the parts are elastic materials with properties o f steel (see Table 2.2 at the end of the chapter for a complete list of materials and their properties).
Figure 2.3 Hybrid HI dummy chest.
22
Figure 2.4 FE model of the Hybrid III chest. To validate the chest model, the standard thorax impact test was followed (Figure 2.5). Details of this procedure are described in part 572 of the Code o f Federal
Regulation. In this test, the dummy is seated on a flat surface without back and arm support and the angle of the pelvic bone is set to 13. The midsagital plane o f the dummy is centered along the centerline of the pendulum. The probe in the centerline of the pendulum is set to coincide with a point .5 " below the number 3 rib. The pendulum, which weighs 23 kg, is allowed to impact the chest at a speed of 6.7 m/s. The probe is guided during impact so that no significant vertical, lateral, or rotational movement is allowed. The simulation is set up to be identical to the real test shown in Figure 2.5. Figure 2.6 shows deflection patterns of the dummy ribcage under impact loading.
Figure 2.5 Dummy position for standard impact test.
23
The behavior of the system is then compared with test results to confirm a correlation between the two. The standard specifies that the resistance force be 5525 350 Newton, the chest centerline deflection relative to the spine be 68 5 mm. The overall curves for centerline deflection time history and for the resistance force are plotted for both test and simulation as shown in Figures 2.7 and 2.8.
J ..S. T C I '/ v / . V i .W v *
W '.iuijw:tr>. 4
iL '.fK ftt - IV V '.t/.T V .
"igure 2.6 Ribcage deformation o f the finite element chest model.
24
7000
5000
3000
O.
1000
20
-1000
40
60
Time (ms)
Figure 2.7 Resistance force: pendulum test vs. simulation
o < 0 a ja ac
c o
40
20
20 -20
-
40
Time (ms)
Figure 2.8 Chest centerline deflection: test vs. simulation
2.3 The Head Model

The dummy head requirements for the 50th percentile Hybrid III were based on knowledge of human head geometry, weight, inertia, and biomechanical response. The external dimensions o f the head were based on the Hertsbergs sample [18]. These dimensions (Figure 2.9) which represent the average American adult male are: head length (distance from glabella to posterior pole) 196 mm 2.5, breadth (distance from
25
left euryon to right euryon) 155 mm 2.5, and the maximum head circumference above the brow line 572 mm 5.
r .zT O terg fg
N S ii < !^ p r9 rfM a
.v-A-'-'.^..^
guitri
(anions,
v ? rS * 2 Figure 2.9 Dummy head external dimension and reference frame [18]. Experimental results on head weight suggest a weight of 4.54 kg for the average male head. The eg location of the head would have the coordinates (-76.2 mm, 0 mm, 12.7 mm) relative to the reference system shown in Figure 2.9. The mass moment of inertia about a lateral axis passing through the eg is determined as .00238 kg-m-s2. The head drop test is a simple test used to compare dummy head dynamic response relative to biomechanical data. In this test the head is suspended in a tilted position such that the lowest point on the forehead is 13 mm below the lowest point on the nose while the midsagittal plane is kept vertical (Figure 2.10). The head is dropped in this configuration from a height of 376 mm and allowed to impact a rigid plate with a closing speed of 2.7 m/sec. Part 572 of the Code of Federal Regulation specifies that the peak resultant acceleration of the eg be no less than 225 gs and no more than 275 gs. Figure 2.11 shows a comparison between head center of gravity acceleration time history of test and simulation [19],
26
Figure 2.10 Head drop test
250
-Testgs^s
.Simulation
< 0
3
1 150
_
o o (0 C O
0) 50
_ _
-50 i
Time (ms)
Figure 2.11 Head drop test deceleration: test vs. Simulation.
2.4 The Head-Neck Model

The Hybrid EH neck is a one piece design made essentially o f three aluminum vertebral plates molded into a high damping Butyl elastomer material (Figures 2.12).
27
Two end plates are molded in and used to attach the neck to the head and torso. A steel cable is bolted between the end plates and used to limit axial loading o f the neck. The geometry o f the neck is asymmetric in the anterior posterior plane in order to provide more bending resistance to flexion (forward rotation) than extension (backward rotation). Additionally, horizontal slits in the anterior mid section of the rubber elastomer further reduce resistance to extension without affecting flexion. The base of the neck is bolted to a neck bracket, which in turn is bolted to the thoracic spine. The combination of rubber and vertebral plates give the neck flexibility in its motion relative to the upper torso. Except for the neck cable and the holes drilled at the end of the slits, all features o f the Hybrid HI neck are included in the finite element model (Figure 2.13). Ignoring the neck cable in the finite element model has minor effect since the cable would only interfere with the performance of the neck if it were to over-stretch. On the other hand, not including the holes in the neck (which are presumably made to prevent the rubber material from splitting) may stiffen the response of the neck in extension. The neck rubber material is modeled as solid elements with viscoelastic material properties. The aluminum vertebrae are modeled as rigid material with the correct weight. The rigid vertebrae and the viscoelastic elements are merged together. A contact is specified between the horizontal slits for proper flexing motion. The occipital condyle joint between the head and neck is modeled as a pin joint between the upper neck plate and base of the head. The load curve defining moment resistance o f this joint is obtained from the literature [20] and described in Table 2.1.
The new version o f the dummy under development does include the neck holes.
28
Figure 2.12 FE Hybrid HI dummy neck
Figure 2.13 Hybrid HI dummy neck The finite element model for the head-neck complex is validated against the neck calibration test as described in the Code of Federal Regulation. In the test, the Hybrid EH head neck assembly is mounted upside down on a 27.6 kg rigid pendulum as shown in Figure 2.14. The pendulum is released from a height and is allowed to swing and impact a block of aluminum honeycomb. The height is such that the tangential velocity
29
Figure 2.14 Neck pendulum test setup.
at the pendulum accelerometer centerline at the instance of contact with the honeycomb is 23.0 .4 ft/sec for flexion and 19.9 .4 ft/sec for extension. The code specifies ranges for pendulum deceleration, occipital condyles moment, and head D-plane rotation at certain intervals. Simulation of the pendulum test was performed in a modified manner. Instead of impacting the dummy with the honeycomb block -the purpose o f which is to give the pendulum a stepped acceleration pulse- the pendulum was given this pulse as a
30
velocity time history. Figure 2.15 below shows the simulated pendulum test head-neck kinematics in flexion and extension while Figures 2.16 through 2.21 shows correlation between test and simulation. Simulation results show reasonable agreement with test results. Some deviations are observed -especially in D-plane rotation in extension- but the values were within the acceptable corridor of performance. The differences could be due to the deceleration of the pendulum, the modeling o f slits in the neck rubber, or the material properties of the rubber material itself.
31
( ax ' -\ v
ngure 2 .15a Pendulum test: extension

32
igure 2.15b Pendulum test: flexion
^ ggtg^srm glg.^
5
0
5 -10 -15 -20
o -10
| |
-15 -25 -30 40
-20
a. -25
15
30
45
60
Time (ms)
Time (ms)
Figure 2.16 Pendulum deceleration in extension: test vs. simulation.
7igure 2.19 Pendulum deceleration in flexion: test vs. simulation.
1 ^srmuiMtonfeTest
I--.' -l i
50
80 40
o
-50
-40
-80
as
Z -100
-120
25 50 75
100
125
40
80
120
Time (ms)
Time (ms)
7igure 2.17 Nodding joint bending moment in extension: test vs. simulation
7igure 2.20 Nodding joint bending moment in flexion: test vs. simulation
:TestfîSimulatrorr
0
-20
;S|nujaBfflrâgnjest
us
Q
-40
DC
3 o
c
JO
CL 1 Q
-60 -80
-40
-80 -100
120 0
25 50 75
100
125
Time (ms)
Time (ms)
Figure 2.18 D-Plane rotation for extension: test vs. simulation

33
igure 2.21 D-PIane rotation for flexion: test vs. simulation
2.5 The Lumbar Spine Test

The simulated lumbar spine shown in Figure 2.22 represents a 45 curved member made of rubber (polyacrylate elastomer). The curved lumbar spine allows the dummy to assume a slouch position with the proper eye location in order to better simulate a human placed on a vehicle seat [21]. For lateral seating stability, Two steel cables pass through the lumbar spine and attach to the end plates. Though the cables provide lateral stiffness, they do not interfere with the dummys fore and aft flexibility and they are not included in the FE model. The geometry of the lumbar spine is modeled accurately and taken from engineering drawings of the Hybrid III dummy. In order to model the flexibility of the lumbar spine properly, a procedure found in reference [22] was followed. This reference describes a test where a moment (pure bending) ramp function is applied at the top plate of the spine while the base is rigidly mounted on a vertical structure. This test was simulated here and the result is shown in Figure 2.23. The simulation curve shows reasonable correlation with the test at small rotations but tend to be stifter with large rotation. The new version of the dummy
incorporates a better material model for the spine and correlates better with test results. However the current lumbar spine model is acceptable since it compares well with other published simulation results [23] while the standard does not specify a range of values.
Figure 2.22 Lumbar spine test
34
250 Simulation - a - test

200
-
150
| 100 ..
50
-
25 Rotation (degres)
Figure 2.23 Results o f test vs. simulation for the lumbar spine.
2-6. The Knee Test

The knee assembly and particularly the kneepad are important parts of the Hybrid HI design since they influence the calculated femur load. In the finite element model, a pin joint between the femur and the lower leg is used to represent articulation motion between the two. The physical knee assembly also allows translation at this joint. But the finite element model does not incorporate this feature since it is only useful when the load is applied below the knee [24]. The characteristics o f the knee pads, however, influence the amount of force transmitted by the pendulum impact test. According to the knee impact test described in the Code o f Federal Regulations, the knee assembly is detached from the dummy and rigidly connected to a large mass as shown in Figure 2.24. A 5-kg mass pendulum is used to impact the kneecap at a speed of 2.26 m/s. The test specifies that the resultant force on the knee be between 4700 N and 5800 N. In the finite element model, the parameters of the viscoelasic pad material were adjusted to give a reasonable correlation with the test requirements. Since test data was not available for the time history o f the impact forces it was only possible to show that the peak impact force from simulation (5200 N) does fall in the specified corridor (between 4700 N and 5800 N) as mentioned above. The time history of simulation is presented in Figure 2.25.
35
Figure 2.24 Knee test simulation
7000
5000
4 ) O u t m
3
3 .
3000
1000
-1000
Time (ms)
Figure 2.25 Results of simulation for the knee impact test.
2.7 Joint Modeling

The subparts of the finite element model are assembled together using a combination of joint definitions and torsional springs. A joint definition is used to
constrain the motion of two parts relative to each others while a torsional spring is used to apply the correct stiffness. LS-DYNA3D supports the use of nine different joint
definitions. However, only the two joints shown in Figure 2.26 are used in this model:
36
spherical (used between the pelvis and femur) and revolute (or pin) used on all other joints.
Spherical joint
Revolute joint
Figure 2.26 spherical and cylindrical joints in LS-DYNA3D [25]
The way joints are defined between two rigid bodies is through the use o f two local coordinate systems. Three nodes that are attached to the rigid body using extra
nodes for rigid bodies define each coordinate system. Two of the nodes define the rotational degree of freedom of the joint. Each pair of local coordinate system is initially coincident. As external loads are applied, a resisting torque will counteract using the torsional springs load curves of moment vs. angle (Figure 2.27). A torsional spring axis is made to coincide with that of a joint allowing it to define the stiffness of the joint. Joints in LS-DYNA3D are designed to allow for stiffness definition. However, the use of torsional springs with zero joint stiffness was found to give better results. Torsional spring stiffness values are obtained from published reports on Hybrid m dummies and their finite element models [26] [27]. Table 2.1 below lists all the joints used, their local coordinate systems and stiffness values while Table 2.2 lists all the materials used, their properties, and their number designations.
37
joint #
type
Materials connected
Description of materials
local coord. Sys.# used
TORSIONAL SPRING* material #. elem. #, & load curve # I 2 3 (y axis) 20 ( x axis) 21 ( za x is) 4 5 6 ( y axis) 22 ( x axis) 23 ( z axis) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I 2
revolute revolute spherical revolute revolute spherical revolute revolute revolute revolute revolute revolute revolute revolute revolute revolute re vo lute revolute revolute
24 & 23 23 & 22 22 & 25 46 & 47 47 & 48 48 & 25 45 & 44 44 & 42 42 & 43 43 & 3 7 37 & 29 29 & 26 49 & 50 50 & 51 51 & 5 2 52 & 38 38 & 30 30 & 26 53 & 13
L foot * L lower leg L lower leg -> L femur L femur pelvis (y axis) R foot > R lower leg R lower leg -+ R femur R femur > pelvis (y axis) L hand L forearm L forearm > L upper arm L upper arm -> L sh. bracket L sh. Bracket - L shoulder L shoulder -* L clavicle L clavicle -+ thoracic spine R hand > R forearm R forearm -> R upper arm R upper arm -> R sh. bracket R sh. Bracket -* R shoulder R shoulder > R clavicle R clavicle head neck thoracic spine
I&2 3&4
j 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
5& 6 7& 8 9 & 10 11 & 12 13 & 14 15 & 16 17 & 18 19 & 20 21 & 22 23 & 2 4 25 & 26 27 & 28 29 & 30 31 & 3 2 33 & 34 35 & 36 37 & 38
Table 2.1 Dummy finite element model joint description
Load curve Nos 1 & 4

600
JO
Load Curves 10,11,16, & 17

600
3
E z
400
200
-200
3 ( O
- z
300
1n < o
s?
E
0
-600 -2 0 2
-400 -600
-2
c a s -300 E o
joint angle (radians)
joint angle (radians) Load Curves 12 & 18

150
Load Curves 2 & 5

600 400 200
75
E E
o
e m
E z
0
-200 -400 -600
-
E o E
1.5
-1
-
-75 -150
1
-
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
joint angle (radians) Load Curve 19
o o
3 j 0 )E
c
800 400
800 400
o
E o E
-400 -600
2
-1
E E
o
0
-400
-
joint angle (radians) Load Curves 7,8,13, &14

600 800
c c
300
400
E z
as
E o E
-300 -600
E z
-400 -800
C D
E E
o

600 800
3 as
300
3 < 0
400
a E
o
E z
-300 -600 -4
E o E
E z
-400 -800
2
1
Figure 2.27 Load curves for rotational springs representing dummy joints characteristics
39
PART
Taurus part # 53 19 9-13 17 27 29 30 37 38 43 52 15 42 51 20 44 50 21 45 49 26 31-36 1-6 41 40 39 8 28 7 25 14 22 48 16 18 23 47 24 46
weight (kg) 4.51
material type elastic elastic Viscoelas.
Element type Shell Brick Brick Brick Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Brick Shell Shell Brick Shell Shell Brick Shell Shell Shell
Poisson s ratio .3 .499
density kg/m3 rigid 4e-10 rigid 2.1e-9 rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid
head head sidn neck disks neck rubber neck bracket clavicle L clavicle R shoulder L shoulder R shoulder bracket L shoulder bracket R shoulder padding upper arm L upper arm R u. arms skin forearm L forearm R f. arms skin hand L hand R thoracic spine ribs 1-6 ribs damp, materials leaf springs rib stiffeners sternum Jacket bib lumbar spine pelvis pelvis skin upper leg L upper leg R knee cap L knee cap R lower leg L lower leg R foot L foot R
youngs or bulk mod ulus MPA 200e3 100 113
GO
Goo
MP A
MPA
#of elem. 400 364 458 1232 66 254 254 273 273 58 58 208
4.3
3.5
1.9 1.9 2.08 2.08 .32 .32 .5 2.09 2.09

1.73 1.73
rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid .31 7.9e-9 .7e-9 .31 .31 .499 .3? 7.9e-9 7.9e-9 .7e-9 7.9e-9? I.3e-9 rigid 3e-9 rigid rigid ,33e-9 .3e-9 rigid rigid rigid rigid 200e3 1010 200e3 200e3 4.35 I00e3 230 4.35 * 10 5 5
.586 .586
17.6
164 164 284 88 88 192 384 384 575 1028 764 192 68 86 1315 563 572 420 132 254 254 102 102 252 252 142 142
.28 ea. .05 ea.

.3
elastic Viscoelast. Elastic Elastic Elastic Elastic Viscoelast. Elastic
Shell Brick Shell Shell Shell Brick Shell Brick Shell Brick Shell Shell Brick Brick Shell Shell Shell
.2 1.3 .1 .9 1.8 19.8 .40 6.23 6.23
6.6
5.5
.499
Viscoelast. Viscoelast. 3.29 3.29 1.25 1.25
300 300
40 40
3 3
Table 2.2 General finite element model description

All Viscoelastic materials are modeled with a delayed time t=0.5 seconds
40
CHAPTER 3
THE AIRBAG MODEL
3.1 Introduction
Since 1988, it is estimated that 56 million airbags were fitted in vehicles and 800,000 of them were deployed. The result is a total saving of 1664 lives in addition to reducing severe injuries. In 1997 when all cars will be equipped with airbags, it is expected that 3000 lives will be saved annually due to airbag deployment alone [28]. Federal regulation FMVSS-208 influences major aspects of airbag system design. FMVSS-208 requires manufacturers to show that injury levels for an unbelted 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy does not exceed a specified level in a 30 mph frontal crash test into a rigid wall [29]. Figure 3.1 shows a time line schematic of factors involved in a typical 30 mph crash which involves airbag deployment. In the 30 mph crash test, the dummy is seated in normal position that corresponds to mid-setting seat adjustment so that an average distance between the bag and dummy is predetermined. In order for the airbag to perform well, it has to be fully inflated just before occupant impact. The relative distance and relative velocity between the dummy and airbag module in the initial stages of the crash determine the speed of inflation. Another factor that affects the speed of inflation is sensing time. Sensors that trigger airbag deployment via the ASDM (Airbag System Diagnostic Module) require an
additional period o f time to determine a definite crash event.
41
t= l5 ms: ASDM has ju st confirmed a crash
t=20 ms: Airbag breaks cover
t=30 ms: Dummy moved slightly
t=40 ms: Dummy to airbag contact
t=50 ms: Airbag fully inflated (60 Liters)
Figure 3.1 Timeline showing
of events in airbag deployment.
42
It can be concluded from Figure 3.1 that current driver-side airbag technology requires producing 60 Liters of gas in about 45 ms from the time o f initial impact. Generating this volume of gas at this speed requires an explosion like phenomenon. Gas generation is accomplished via the inflator. The inflator is normally housed inside the airbag module and must provide the airbag with predetermined gas flow characteristics for optimum occupant protection.
3.2 Concept of a Supplemental Restraint System
Inflater module
diverter Steering column f assembly
Figure 3.2 General schematic o f a supplemental restraint system [30]. The diagram shown in Figure 3.2 describes one type of a supplemental restraint system. The first task of the system is to react to an impact and issue an electrical signal. Crash sensors are designed to accomplish this task. Crash sensors are electromechanical devices mounted in several front areas o f a vehicle and are designed to trigger at a deceleration that is equivalent to a 16 - 19 mph crash into a rigid barrier. Most sensors use some type of inertia switching mechanism: a ball held captive by a magnet would roll forward under impact closing the contacts (Figure 3.3). This device has to be extremely reliable. It is normally sealed in a can and some of its parts are gold plated.
43
Figure 3.3 Crash sensor operations principle
Most cars use five sensors: two at the radiator support, one at each front fender apron, and one in the passenger compartment, some cars like the Chrysler system shown in Figure 3.2 use only two sensors in addition to a safing sensor. The safing sensor helps the ASDM (Airbag System Diagnostic Module) confirm the magnitude and/or direction of forces involved in an impact. In general, sensors are interlocked and at least two sensors have to issue a signal before a system can trigger a deployment. The ASDM is responsible for issuing the final signal for deployment. Several types of algorithms and criteria are used to make the final decision to deploy the bag. The difference can be found between car makes, car sizes, and countries. Research in this area is intensive and designs are constantly changing to achieve most efficient and safest systems. From the ASDM, the signal goes to the inflator module housed in the steering wheel. The igniter inside the module is a two pin bridge device that allows the applied current to arc as it crosses its two pins. The spark created ignites a charge of gas (often called squib) containing zecronic potassium perchlorate (ZPP) or boron potassium nitrate (BKNO3 ). A small quantity of these highly exothermic materials helps ignite the sodium azide (NaNs) solid propellant. The combustion of sodium azide generates nitrogen gas
44
that fills the bag. Oxidizers and binding agents are mixed with the gas generating propellant in order for the combustible products to form a slag that can be captured by the filters. Nitrogen gas produced by combustion is filtered and cooled as it exits the inflator through holes cut all around the inflator body [31]. The process just described is for a pyrotechnic inflator. Figure 3.4 shows a schematic of such an inflator.
Autoignition c h a rg e Igniter charge- / ^
Label
Figure 3.4 A typical pyrotechnic airbag inflator [31].
Diffuser screen assembly
After exiting the inflator, Nitrogen gas enters the bag and the process o f filling the bag begins. The airbag cover breaks at a specified pressure, usually occuring the first 5 ms after ignition. Nitrogen gas then enters the airbag. The driver-side airbag itself is a 60 to 70 cm diameter (the passenger-side airbag is much bigger) coated nylon bag. It is folded several times to fit inside the steering wheel assembly. When fully inflated, the airbag volume -under standard temperature and pressure- reaches about 60 Liters (2.5 ft3). The process of filling the bag itself with gas takes about 20 ms.
45
3.3 Airbag Volume Calculations Using Element Geometry

Analysis of the inflation phenomenon requires breaking the process into several control volumes. The last control volume in the thermodynamic analysis is that o f the airbag itself. The airbag is defined as membrane shell elements representing the fabric material. The position, orientation, and surface area of every element is computed at every time step. The control volume is then defined as that volume enclosed by the surfaces o f the shell elements [25]. The divergence theorem, with simple manipulation, is used to compute the control volume as follows: the general form of the divergence theorem is:
(3.3.1) where
F = M (x , y, z)i+ N(x, y, z ) j + P(x, y, z)k

is an arbitrary vector field, N is a unit vector normal to the element surface, and
(3.3.2)
divF = dM / dx + dN / dy + dp / dz
. ^
(3.3.3)
Since F is an arbitrary vector, it is chosen as F = xi for simplification, hence
divF = 1.
The divergence theorem then becomes:
(3.3.4)
control volume = V. (3.3.5)
46
Numerically, the volume is then approximated using a summation over the element surfaces : (3.3.6) where xi is the average x coordinate value, is the direction cosine between the element
normal and the x axis, and Ai is the surface area o f each element. In order to avoid numerical errors associated with the direction cosine o f an element becoming nearly zero, the x axis is not chosen as the integrating direction. Rather, this direction is chosen parallel to the maximum moment of inertia of the surface. In the simple airbag model, the gas inside the control volume is assumed ideal with uniform pressure and temperature. The mass flow rate of the gas entering the airbag from the inflator is assumed to be given as a function of time. The input gas temperature is also an input to the model and is typically reported by inflator manufacturer. Exit areas and fabric material porosity are also specified. The principal parameter of interest is the pressure inside the airbag. Determining the pressure inside the bag requires the following calculations: equation of state (Gamma Law; to be discussed below) derived from thermodynamic relations of an ideal gas under adiabatic expansion conservation of mass external forces due to contact with dummy or vehicle interior as well as pressure gradient with surrounding internal forces from tethers, fabric membrane forces, and fabric self contact input gas temperature, density, and other thermodynamic properties such as Cp (specific heat at constant pressure) and Cv (specific heat at constant volume).
A diagram of the airbag model is shown in Figure 3.5. m designates mass flow rate while m is the total mass inside the bag. P, V, and T represent the pressure, volume, and temperature respectively. This model is the simple airbag model. It does not take into considerations the jet effects. Jet effects can have significant influence in cases
47
where the dummy interacts with the deploying bag [32]. But they are not known to influence normal airbag deployment.
m ,P ,V ,T
m i,
Inflator
external
Figure 3.5 Control volume parameters in the airbag model
3.4 Equation of State for Pressure Volume Relationship

The specific heats at constant pressure and at constant volume are defined as: C = ( 0 A /3 7 % , and (3.4.U)
Cv = ( d U / B T ) L
(3.4.1b)
It can be proven [33] that for a perfect gas, the internal energy and enthalpy are independent of all properties except temperature. Hence, Cp and Cvcan be written as
C = (,d h /d T %
and Cv = ( d U / d T \
(3.4.2)
(3.4.3)
Enthalpy is defined as:
h=U+PV
48
(3.4.4)
and in differential form:
dh = dU + PdV
Using equation (3.4.2)
(3.4.5)
Cp = d U /d T + P d V / d T
Dividing by Cv and noting that k=C/Cv and Cv=dU/dT:
(3.4.6)
0dUtdT ) Or
(3.4.7)
PdV = (Jc- l)dU

Integrating both sides:
(3.4.8)
PV = ( k - l ) U
Now dividing both sides by the mass.
(3.4.9)
P - p(k-l)u
Where p is the density and u is the specific internal energy.
(3.4.10)
This equation is known as the Gamma Law" and determines the pressure volume relationship for an ideal gas mixture. The pressure can now be determined if the density (or volume) and the specific internal energy are also known.
3.5 Control Volume Analysis of the Airbag Model

The control volume is defined as described earlier. The specific internal energy is calculated from the energy balance across the control volume. Since the mass flow rate
o f the entering gas and its temperature are known, the energy entering the bag is simply:

(3.5.1) The energy out is a function of the mass flow rate exiting the bag. The mass flow rate of the gas exiting the bag through the vent holes and fabric leakage is defined in Reference [34] as:
49
mcu, = ( C mK , + C l!atAu<lk)^2S' P p ^ k { Q l l k - Q M , k ) K k - \ )
(3.5.2) where
A^^, and A[e a k Cvatl and Q rak gc
= =
vent and leakage orifice areas respectively vent and leakage orifice coefficients respectively gravitational conversion constant
is the greatest of The energy exiting the bag is given by:

(Paternal I
and ( 2 / + l ) * 7* -1
Eout = rriout E lm
Where m is the total mass of the gas and is given by:
m
(3.5.3)
= JO/* ~ m <m)d t
< 3-5-4)
(3.5.5)
E = \(E in- E ' m ) d t - \ P d V
All the variables are discretized and initialized at time n. An iteration loop is used to compute the pressure at time n+I. The new pressure is calculated using equations (3.4.9) and (3.5.1) through (3.5.5):
P ^ = V c -l)^
(3.5.6)
50
3.6 Airbag Folding and Finite Element Implementation

Several patterns are used for folding airbags. The most popular ones are shown in Figure 3.6 below. The effect of folding patterns on airbag performance has not been fully determined. Some manufacturers however claim that their folds can reduce neck
moments that might result from airbag deployment [35]. But what researchers have found is that skin abrasion caused by airbags is directly related to the speed (leading edge velocity) at which the surfaces of the inflating bag slap occupants. This speed, which incidentally averages 200 mph [36] is in turn influenced by folding patterns. Tethers are used on some airbags. By connecting the base of the airbag (which is anchored to the module) to the opposing end, they control the shape and size of the bag. Although this was the original purpose of tethers, researchers have found that they can also reduce abrasions. Tethers limit the extension o f the bag to an average of 10 to 13 inches compared to an average of 15 to 20 inches for non-tethered bags [37].
Figure 3.6 Airbag folding patterns for different makes [37].
51
The airbag used in this work is tethered and it is folded similar to the overlapped design as shown in Figure 3.7. No attempt was made here to model other folds or to determine a fold that provides better protection. Modeling the folds is a complex phenomenon and falls beyond the scope of this work.
Figure 3.7 Details of folding patterns for the overlapped fold used in this model [38].
The pressure inside the bag, multiplied by an area segment contributes a force that becomes an external force applied to the dummy or other car interiors through the fabric. A free body diagram of an airbag element is shown in Figure 3.8. The fabric material itself is modeled as membrane shell elements and can not carry bending or shear. From the free body diagram it becomes obvious that when the airbag is being deployed, hence the velocity of fabric element is high, inertial forces become significant. Conversely, after full deployment, inertial effects become negligible.
52
Figure 3.8 A Free body diagram, of a fabric element showing all forces The airbag model used in this work is simulated after a 1992 Ford Taurus airbag. To simulate the folding sequence of the bag, two preprocessors were chosen (PATRAN [39] and LS-INGRID [40]) to accomplish this complex task. Visualizing the geometry in the folded state and being able to work with several layers stacked on top o f each other is challenging and can only be accomplished with advanced finite element preprocessors. Ensuring that there is no penetration between the layers and especially on the comers is also a difficult task [41]. Similar to the factory procedure, simulating the folded bag starts with a flat piece of material. In LS-INGRID it is possible to define folding lines and then apply the folds one at a time. Having several layers o f fabric stacked on top of each other (Figure 3.9) makes it difficult to manipulate the elements and nodes of the model. This manipulation is accomplished in PATRAN which has effective display, meshing, and mesh modifications capabilities. These capabilities are necessary for
successful airbag folding and ensuring that no penetration exists between the fabric layers.
53
Figure 3.9 Front and side views of the simulated folded bag.
Contact between the fabric layers is accomplished in LS-DYNA3D via a special airbag contact (Type al3) that is particularly suited for folded bags. The concept of this contact algorithm is identical to the general contact algorithm described in the introduction. However, in Type al3 element segments are sorted in different groups of contact regions based on their locations. Consequendy, to save on running time, nodal points are only checked for penetration against the nearest element segment that belongs to their group.
3.7 Airbag Model Validation

The airbag model was validated in previous works for proper volume and pressure representation of the physical airbag. These pressure and volume curves were obtained from test results and were compared to simulation results. Comparison between test and simulation showed reasonable agreement. In addition to comparing volume and pressure data, motion analysis o f high speed film of the unfolding Taurus bag was compared with simulation. Slight differences were noted only in the beginning stages of unfolding with overall general agreement. Figure 3.10 at the end of this chapter shows a comparison of airbag deployment between test and simulation.
54
The airbag was also validated for impact with another object. Simulation results compared well with test results in cases where the object impacted the bag after full deployment [42]. However, in cases where impacting object interfered with the bag as it was still unfolding, more deviation occurred between test and simulation but reasonable accuracy was maintained. This situation is similar to the out o f position environment where the occupant is very close to the airbag at the time o f deployment. Another factor that limit the accuracy o f the airbag model was jet effects. Jet effects are due to the inertial forces of the inflating gas as it impacts the airbag fabric. Jet effects were not included in the finite element model used in this research but they are under development for future research.
55
Figure 3.10 Airbag deployment: test vs. simulation (side view) [42]
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DEPOWERING AND OTHER PARAMETERS IN OUT OF POSITION ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Contribution of the Airbag and the Dilemma of Depowering
The present airbag system has proven to be effective in preventing death and serious injuries in high severity crashes. In 1996, the National Highway Traffic and
Safety Administration (NHTSA) credited airbags with a 34% reduction in fatalities to non-belted occupants involved in fully frontal crashes. This reduction in percentage
translates into a saving o f 600 lives. Additionally, the number of lives that would be saved when all cars become equipped with airbags is expected to rise to 3000 annually^ even without further advances in airbag technology. A more recent analysis by NHTSA o f data collected over the last 10 years estimates with good confidence that airbags are responsible for a 30% reduction in fatalities in head-on crashes and an overall [28]. Along with their benefits, airbags can cause unintended injuries. Although most o f these injuries are minor, a small but alarming number of airbag deployments in low severity crashes have resulted in death of occupants who would otherwise have survived. Most airbag-induced injuries occur while the airbag is still inflating. A typical condition for airbag induced injuries is when unbelted occupants are involved in low severity crashes that cause late airbag deployment. Particularly vulnerable are small stature
11%
reduction in fatalities in all crash modes
female drivers who normally sit closer to the steering wheel in what is called out o f position (OOP). On the passenger side, small-unbelted children are at risk especially if a long period of braking precedes impact, and infants riding in rearward facing infant seats [43]. Table 4.1 summarizes the total number o f fatalities reported for airbag induced
58
injuries. The data covers all reported cases since the introduction of bags and up to the year 1996.
Group involved
Number of fatalities
Small stature females Small children Infants in rearward facing infant seats
19 23 9
Table 4.1 Unintended fatalities caused by airbags [28],
Under these conditions that create airbag injuries (except for the infants case which is a different phenomena), occupants move forward too far and get in the way of the inflating airbag. Large reaction forces can develop and can potentially cause fatal injuries. These forces can increase when the occupants weight prevents the gas in the unfolding bag from expanding freely. Researchers have found that as much as
8
kN of
forces can be measured on the steering column when the module is directly on the chest at deployment [44]. Field analysis of serious and fatal airbag induced injuries show that harm can result to the chest, internal organs, neck, and head [45]. Several parameters are believed to influence type and injury severity in OOP deployment. Perhaps airbag inflation characteristics such as the amount and rate of gas flow into the bag are most important. Deployment timing and occupant seating position, occupant weight and size are also important parameters. Other important factors are crash pulse and inertial
effects. Fabric mass and folding patterns are thought to have less influence on severe injuries. This chapter deals with several o f these factors involved in severe injuries due to airbag deployment. More influential factors are isolated and studied in more details in this chapter and in later chapters when similar studies will be conducted in 30 mph and other crash scenarios.
59
4.2 Test Environment and Methodology

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommends testing OOP adults in two prescribed positions. The first position places the head in close proximity to the airbag module, while the second position places the chest in close proximity to the module. The first position is more realistic and can be attained during pre-impact
maneuvers or during the crash. The second position, however, is only a worst case scenario. It may not be realistic but it tests the chest injury causing potential of the airbag. In this work, an additional position is added where the airbag is placed directly in front o f the neck. This position was added to give additional insight into the airbag induced injuries. The data for this third position is presented but not analyzed since it did not show any unusual trend when compared with the other two positions. The three
positions are shown in Figure 4.1 with 0 mm relative separation between the airbag and the different dummy parts. These positions are referred to as bag-on-head, bag-on-chest, and bag-on-neck, respectively. In the following analysis presented in sections 4.4 through 4.8, several parameters are changed to study their effects on injury levels. parameters are: inflation rate dummy distance from airbag at time of deployment steering column crush dummy initial velocity a combination of initial velocity and a Volvo like column crush with 0 mm separation These
Figure 4.1 Vertical alignments: bag-on-head, bag-on-chest, and bag-on-neck: respectively.
60
4.3 Simulation Results

For every one of the possible combinations of dummy-to-airbag relative positions, three different inflator curves are used (Figure 4.2). These curves represent the mass flow rate o f the gas as a function o f time entering the airbag from the inflator. Along with the entering gas temperature, its specific heats, its density and ambient conditions, they represent the input parameters of the airbag model. The first curve (called A) is though to produce a more aggressive airbag (higher pressure) and is considered as the baseline in this study. The second curve (called .75A) is a simple 75% reduction o f the first one. Finally, the third one (called B) has different characteristics in that it has a smaller amplitude but a more delayed peak.
4 ;Q C )g 6 (% ^
Time (ms)
Figure 4.2 Inflation curves used for analysis
In addition to the 0 mm relative separation shown in Figure 4.1, two othe horizontal alignments were studied: at 50 mm separation and at 100 mm separation. The inflation rate was varied for every one of the possible horizontal and vertical relative distance.
alignm ents
A total of 27 cases were generated (3 vertical alignm ents x 3 horizontal x 3 inflation curves). In all o f those tests the steering wheel and c o lum n were
assumed rigid. The only energy transfer is between the airbag and the dummy. The results are shown in tables 4.2 through 4.4. The Hybrid HI dummy injury assessment reference values (IARV) are listed in parenthesis. These values are developed by General
61
Motors (GM) and do not necessarily reflect NHTSAs (The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration) standards, but they are generally accepted and used by the industry.
Module location
Infl. Type
chest Gs (60) 27 25 25 22 19 21 17 12 14
Head gs
HIC (1000) 314 212 133 228 96 73 94 46 51
Neck Y Mom. (-57 NM) -130 -120 -115 -115 -105 -100 -105 -80 -100
NeckZForce (3.3 KN) 2.6 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8
Neck X-Force (4kN) 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.4 22. 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.8
Peak Bag Pres. (MPA) 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.1
Column Force (kN) 4.3 3.6 4.25 4.3 4.1 3.25 3.5 3.2 3.5
X=0
X=50
x = to o
A .75A B A .75A B A .75A B
90 74 67 80 57 57 56 45 45
Table 4.2 Results of simulation for the head-centered on module cases
Module location
Infl. Type
chest Gs (60) 72 55 36 50 32 28 34 23 24
Chest Defl. (65 mm) 90 81 67 64 52 46 49 34 35
V*C
Head gs
HIC (1000) 116 100 71 79 43 66 95 18 27
Neck Y Mom. (190 NM) +140 +120 +102 +125 +100 +98 +80 +48 +40
Peak Bag Pres. (MPA) 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.6
1.1
Column Force (KN)
X=0
X=50
X=100
A .75A B A .75A B A .75A B
(1) 3.9 3.1 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.4
64 58 49 53 35 49 57 28 54
8.5 7 7.5 8 5 7 5.5 3.5 4.5
Table 4.3 Resu ts of simulation 'or the chest-centered on module cases.
62
Module location
Infl. Type
chest Gs (60) 32 20 28 25 14 18 13 9 14
Head gs
HIC (1000) 336 104 186 245 63 119 85 17 38
Neck Y Mom. (-57 NM) -110 -67 -90 -109 -79 -98 -88 -62 -87
Neck ZForce (3.3 kN) 3.5 2.3 2.7 225 1.8 1.8 1.6 I.l l.l
Neck X-Force (4 kN) 22 1.8 2.5 2.75 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.4
Peak Bag Pres. (MPA) 1.8 1.6 I.l 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.7 1.6 12
Column Force (kN) 6.0 4.7 5.5 4.75 3.7 4.0 3.6 2.9 2.75
X=0
X=50
A .75A B A .75A B A .75A B
100 61 77 86 49 64 61 30 40
Table 4.4 Results of simulation for the neck centered on module cases.
4.4 Effect of Inflation Characteristics

As discussed earlier, the results of the neck-centered on module cases of Table 4.4 will not be analysed but are presented here as a reference for future research. However, the results of the head centered on module and chest centered on module cases of Tables 4.2 and 4.3 are analyzed. The data obtained from Tables 4.2 and 4.3 is plotted in two different ways: in this section the plots show the influence o f inflation rates at any given horizontal separation while the plots of the following section show the influence of relative distance for all the inflation rates studied. Only the relevant values are plotted: In the case where the chest is centered on the module, chest acceleration and chest centerline deflection are plotted. Whereas in the head centered on module case, head acceleration, neck moments and neck axial loads are plotted.
g O o
63
4.4.1
Head Centered on Module

100
x=0
x=50
x=100
separation from module
Figure 4.3 Effect o f inflation rate on head acceleration
x=0
x=50
x=100
Figure 4.4 Effect of inflation rate on neck extension
64
x=0
x=50
x=100
separation from m odule
Figure 4.5 Effect o f inflation rate on neck axial loads
4.4.2 Chest Centered on Module:

80
x=0
x=50 x=100 separation from module
Figure 4.6 Effect of inflation rate on chest acceleration
65
x=0
x=50
x=100
Figure 4.7 Effect of inflation rate on rib deflection It is apparent from Figures 4.3 through 4.7 that reducing the inflation rate by 25% (inflation type .75A) reduced all injury measures at all module separations. Similarly, inflation type (B) also reduced injury measures from the baseline inflation rate (A). Additionally, inflation type (B) reduced injury measures further from the 25% reduction rate (.75A) but only with module separation 0 mm and 50 mm: at module separation 100 mm, most injury measures for inflation type (B) exceeded those of inflation type (.75A). In order to investigate the cause of this peculiar phenomenon, one would have to look in more details into the folding patterns as well as sequence o f unfolding and its effect on energy transfer between the bag and dummy. This is beyond the scope o f this work. Hence, inflation type (B) will not be considered in the rest of the chapter but will be considered in future research.
4.5 Effect of Module Separation at Time of Deployment

In this section the results are plotted with inflation rates on the x-axis to study the influence of module separation at time of deployment. The plots are again divided into two groups: head centered on module and chest centered on module.
66
4.5.1
Head Centered on Module
o 50
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.8 Effect of initial separation on head acceleration
100% inf.
75%infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.9 Effect of initial separation on neck axial loads
67
100% inf.
75%infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.10 Effect of initial, separation on neck moments
4.5.2 Chest Centered on Module

80
70
x=QJm oe=5ulm
60
to
m 40
o 30
20
10
0
o >
50
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.11 Effect of initial separation on chest acceleration
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.12 Effect of initial separation on rib deflection The results of Figures 4.8 through 4 . 1 2 indicate that the vertical and horizontal positions o f the dummy are extremely important variables. Moving the dummy away from the module at the time of inflation always reduced the critical injury measures for the ail the inflation rates studied. The decrease in injury measures due to increased module separation is greater for the baseline inflation rate than the other rates.
4.6 Effect of Initial Velocity

The static tests considered so far in this chapter give a useful insight into the effects of airbag inflation and relative distance on dummy loading with all other parameters fixed. However, real life accidents involve occupants moving at a certain speed AV relative to the passenger compartment. This relative velocity would intuitively increase injuries due to additional kinetic energy to be absorbed. On the other hand, real life steering columns and steering wheels are built with certain energy absorption characteristics that would almost certainly reduce injuries. In this section, the effects o f AV are investigated and the results compared to selected results o f the first part of the chapter where the dummy was stationary at the time o f deployment and the steering wheel was considered rigid.
69
Film analysis, as well as computer models of low severity crashes, was used to determine an approximate AV at the time the airbag-to-dummy interaction begins. A AV of 2 m/s (7 mph) was determined for a low severity late deployment 16 mph crash into a pole. Some of the static tests were then repeated, except this time the dummy had an initial velocity AV. The results are compared to the basic static tests in Table 4.5 and are plotted in Figures 4.13 and 4.14. These results help determine whether a AV has any significant effects when the inertia of the airbag deployment is thought to be more dominant.
Module location
infl type A .75A B
chest G s 76 58 43
Chest Defl. 90 84 75
V*C
head Gs 78 72 52
X=0
3.7 3.1 2.3
Neck Y mom. 153 125 no
Neck Z-force 2.3 1.75 1.2
Neck X-force 3.9 1.5? 2.5
peak bag pres 2.8 2.45 2.0
Column force 8.5 6 8
Table 4.5 Results for the case where dummy has an initial AV of 2 m/s (7 mph) and module fixed.
80
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.13 Effect of initial relative velocity on chest acceleration
100
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.14 Effect of initial relative velocity on rib deflection Although airbag deployment involves a sudden burst of energy, having a small relative velocity between the bag and the dummy increased injury measures. The
increase is not significant and it validates the common assumption among researchers that the results obtained from static analysis can be applied to low-severity late-deployment crashes.
4.7 Determining the Inertial Effect of Airbag Deployment

In the simulations presented in this section, the steering column is allowed to move back freely as the airbag deployed. The reaction forces between the bag and the dummy are now due only to inertial effects or the speed at which the fabric impacts the dummy. The results are presented in Table 4.6. Figures 4.15 through 4.17 compares these results against the results of earlier cases where the steering column was assumed rigid.
Module location infl type A .75A B chest Gs 47 35 25 Chest Defl. 74 72 47 V*C head G s 25 24 31 Neck Y mom. 99 86 59 Neck Z-force 2.0 1.5 0.9 Neck X-force 1.25 1.1 1.0 peak bag pres 2.6 2.4 1.8 Column force 6.0 5.7 4.3
X=0
2.8 2.6 0.9
Table 4.6 Results for the case where module is free to move: chest is centered on module with 0 mm separation
71
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.15 Inertial effect of airbag deployment on chest gs.
iffridi&ddliMrr
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.16 Inertial effect o f airbag deployment on rib deflection
72
100% inf.
75%infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.17 Inertial effect of airbag deployment on reaction forces Figures 4.15 through 4.17 give insight into the limit of what influence the steering column stroke might have on energy transfer between the bag and the occupant. Freeing the column completely determines the maximum benefits that can be expected from altering its characteristics. It can be concluded from Figure 4.17 that the maximum reduction in reaction forces that can be gained is about 30% for the baseline case and over 40% for inflation type (B). Inflation type (B) is clearly more sensitive to column characteristics because for this type of inflation the mass flow rate, and hence the resulting forces, are more distributed over time. These reductions however are only theoretical, the steering column has to give a certain amount of resistance to control dummy forward movement. The chest gs and rib deflection (Figure 4.15 and 4.16) were also reduced in all inflation types due to freeing the column. However, the amount of reduction is not
consistent in going from one inflation type to another or in comparing chest gs and rib deflection. The reason might be due to a coupling between the bag and dummy thorax as they act as spring mass systems. Chapter 7 investigates coupling between the bag and dummy using lumped mass models.
73
4.8 A More Realistic Combination of Initial Velocity and Column Crush Characteristics
In using a rigid steering column it was possible to isolate the effects of other parameters such as the inflation characteristics, initial velocity, and module separation. The next step in the analysis is to assign column characteristics that better resemble real life designs. A load curve (Figure 4.18) describing column characteristics of a 1985 Volvo was used in conjunction with the initial velocity case. The results are shown below and are plotted in Figures 20 and 21 against static cases that were determined earlier in this chapter with the rigid column.
6000
4000 u.
2 2000
20
60 40 Column Stroke (mm)
80
Figure 4.18 Steering column characteristics of a 1985 Volvo
Module location X=0
infl type A .75A B
chest Gs 62 45 34
Chest Defl. 82 68 66
V*C 3.1 2.1 1.7
head Gs 49 42 50
Neck Y mom. 121 110 96
Neck Z-force 2.2 1.6 1.2
Neck X-force
peak bag pres 26 2.4 1.7
Column force 8.5 6 8
22
1.6 2.2
Table 4.7 Resu ts forithe case where dummy has an initial AV of 2 mm/s (7 mph) and module attached to a Volvo like steering column
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.19 Chest gs comparison between rigid column and a more realistic column
rcoIumrBv=2rn/sfc
100% inf.
75 %infl.
mild infl.
Figure 4.20 Chest deflection comparison between rigid column and a more realistic column
75
Figure 4.19 and 4.20 show that chest injury measures are reduced under the combined effects of including a AV. As was shown in previous sections, the existence of AV increased the injury measures while it is seen here that using a realistic steering column reduced those measures. dominated. Clearly the effects of a softer steering column
This may be due to the small AV used but this AV is realistic in low
severity/late deployment crashes. In all the cases studied in this chapter, it was clear that depowering reduced injury measures. The next step is to apply depowering to dynamic cases. The following chapter deals with the 30 mph frontal barrier crash test that has most influence on airbag design as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standard (FMVSS) 208.
76
CHAPTER 5
EFFECTS OF INFLATION RATE AND VEHICLE INTERIOR ON INJURY MEASURES IN THE 30 MPH CRASH TEST
5.1 Introduction
The phenomenon of humans impacting the interior of a vehicle subsequent to a crash is similar to an engineering problem whereby an object traveling at a certain initial speed impacts a slower moving object. A simple example is shown in Figure 5.1 where a sphere moving at velocity F) impacts a much heavier plate moving at a slower speed V2. Given the geometry and material properties o f both objects, a closed form solution can be obtained. Furthermore, if the properties o f the sphere are specified, the plate can be designed with enough flexibility (or stiffness) such that a maxim um reaction force (and hence deceleration) would not be exceeded.
Figure 5.1 A simple impact problem of two moving bodies
77
An even simpler representation o f this impact is a spring mass system like the one shown in Figure 5.2. Given the initial relative velocity between Mi and M2 and the velocity time history of M2 , one can calculate a spring constant K that guarantees that Ml does not exceed a certain acceleration level.
M,
M,
Xi{t)
Figure 5.2 Spring mass system representing two moving bodies in contact
A generalized form of an impact between two objects is an impact between two or more groups of objects. The problem then becomes significantly more complicated. The crash that occurs inside the vehicle compartment between the dummy and vehicle interior -following impact of the vehicle exterior- is similar to the generalized example just mentioned. The head, thorax, pelvis, arms, hands, legs and other parts that form the occupant, impact the steering wheel, knee bolster, windshield, and dashboard which form the vehicle interior. In addition, a restraint system comprised of seatbelts or airbags or both would enter between the two groups of objects resulting in an even more complex problem. Researchers have developed lumped mass models to represent this impact phenomenon [7] [8 ]. In these models, the human body is divided into lumped masses
78
connected together by joints. The masses are represented geometrically by ellipsoids and are given approximate inertial properties. Seatbelts and vehicle interior are also modeled in a similar crude manner. With the use o f the finite element method and elaborate contact algorithms, it became possible to model more details and with more flexibility than what is available in lumped mass models. Nevertheless, major simplifications are still required in order to have a realistic and practical problem. The rest of this chapter describes how computer simulation was used to study the effect of several parameters on injury levels. The results of varying one parameter or a combination of parameters around the baseline test are tabulated. The results show how a single parameter or a combination of parameters can have a dramatic effect on injury levels.
5.2 Simulation Set-up and Procedure

A number of tests that represent a wide spectrum of variables were performed by computer simulation using the finite element method. The three groups mentioned in the introduction: the occupant, the vehicle interior, and the restraint system interact in an environment produced by a 30 mph crash pulse. Although the crash pulse can have an effect on the dynamics of the system, dealing with a single crash pulse makes the parametric study more meaningful. However, it might be necessary to investigate the performance of an optimal parameter in a more or perhaps less severe crash pulse. A numerical optimization scheme using the Quasi-Newton method [46] was investigated as a possible tool to obtain a solution that would reduce the number of runs needed. However, due to the highly non-linear nature o f the problem and the number of parameters involved, it was decided that tabulating the results and using a combination of parameters to obtain an optimal design is more practical. Figure 5.3 shows the simulation set up that will be used for analysis. The vehicle compartment is given the weight of the total vehicle and is assigned a velocity boundary
79
condition, that corresponds to 30 mph crash pulse. In all test runs the whole model is given an initial velocity. Impact starts at time 0 when all parts of the model, excluding the dummy, are subjected to the prescribed velocity boundary condition. The dummy then proceeds with the initial velocity until it comes in contact with the vehicle interior or restraint system.
Figure 5.3 Simulation set up for dum m y and vehicle interior.
The airbag is housed inside the steering wheel and steering column assembly that is connected to vehicle via a joint having spring characteristics (spring set # 1 ) o f a typical column crush. The stiffness characteristics of the knee bolster are represented by spring set #2 that connects the knee board to the vehicle compartment. The driver seat has a coefficient of friction fx and connected to the floor by spring set #3.
80
5.3 Baseline Test and Validation

A sled test of a 1993 Taurus buck is used as a baseline test. This test is also used to validate the finite element model simulation. The crash pulse used for this simulation and the corresponding velocity time history of the vehicle eg are shown in Figure 5.4 and 5.5. The inflation characteristics of the baseline airbag (which produces the peak bag pressure and pressure rise rate) used in this test are identical to inflation type (A) shown in Figure 4.2 in the previous chapter. The resulting FMVSS 208 values of test vs.
simulation are presented in Figure 5.6 through 5.9 below.
20
< 0
e o
5 2
o
< d
<
50
100
150
200
Time (ms)
Figure 5.4 Crash pulse for the 30 mph baseline test
81
35
30
25
5
20 _o o >
& C J
50
100 Time (ms)
150
Figure 5.5 velocity time history of vehicle eg for the 30 mph baseline test
30
20
20
-10
40 time (ms)
Figure 5.6 chest acceleration: test vs. simulation
82
40
E E e o
o < u c 0) TJ X I 40 30
-10 J time (ms)

Figure 5.7 Rib deflection: test vs. simulation
50 40
(0
'<?
c o
30
2 0)
0)
20 10
0
o a < o m a)
40
-10 time (ms)

Figure 5.8 Head acceleration: test vs. simulation
83
8000 6000 z
v cs a
4000
2000
0
-2000 time (ms)

Figure 5.9 Right femur load: test vs. simulation
Peak values for all simulation results are consistently higher than test results. Effort was made to achieve more accurate results but this overall agreement seemed to be the upper limit of simulation accuracy. Since the airbag model was validated for proper volume and pressure representation of the physical bag, attention will be given to the dummy and vehicle interior for interpreting the difference in results. The peak gs (Figure 5.6) are about 15% higher in simulation and occurs about 5 ms later. This trend can also be seen with the femur load (Figure 5.9). This similarity indicates that the chest gs are influenced by femur load. This makes logical sense since the thorax is attached to the pelvis via the lumbar spine. The trend in chest deflection (Figure 5.7) is similar in a magnitude although the simulation peaks earlier than test. However, the peak rib deflection still occurs later than the acceleration gs: a general observation in chest loading in either test or simulation.
84
The rib deflection from simulation results seems to pick up load earlier than the test. In an attempt to understand the reason for this difference, the airbag was moved further away from the dummy. But the less than 5 mm rib deflection observed in the test curve for up to 80 ms could not be duplicated in simulation. It is possible that the
dummy thorax model would have to be adjusted to better represent airbag loading earlier in the crash event. A V z inch light foam pad built into the inside of the dummy jacket was not modeled in simulation. It is worth mentioning here that the simulated dummy thorax was validated against test results using the pendulum impact test described in chapter 2 . The dummy thorax may behave differently under loading from the more distributed and possibly varying stress patterns of the airbag fabric. The other possible cause for differences in chest gs, chest deflection, and head gs (Figure 5.8) is the steering wheel/steering column characteristics. The steering wheel was not validated separately for thorax impact. The steering wheel is designed to behave in a specific manner under thorax impact [47]. Additional simulations are required to ensure proper steering wheel behavior under thorax, head, and airbag loading. The simulated steering column is perhaps more important, cause for discrepancy between test and simulation. Vehicle steering columns are allowed three degrees of freedom while in simulation the steering column was allowed to move backward in one direction and was given a bulk characteristics of a steering column. The weight and inertia o f the column was also shown to affect its behavior [48]. A better steering column representation is certainly a future research goal. The other source of inaccuracy of this model is the knee board. The knee board is simulated as a 45 padded flat plate attached to the vehicle by a set of springs. The springs give the knee board its stiffness characteristics while the padding provide a smooth contact. In reality the knee board is more complicated, non symmetric with This may allow the knees to slide vertically or horizontally and
variable curvature.
loaded unevenly. The knee board is another area o f future research.
85
The seats are modeled as rigid and can turn around a pivot axis between the cushion and seat back. The resistance is provided through spring set #3 as shown in Figure 5.3. Obviously real life seat cushions are not flat. The characteristics of a seat
cushion, and especially its friction coefficient is known to influence dummy loading [49]. In addition, the pelvis was also modeled as rigid while the dummy pelvis has a layer o f skin. The combination of rigid seat and rigid pelvis is though to be another source o f inaccuracy for simulation results.
5.4 Results of Variations Around the Baseline Test

For purposes of running a parametric study, three parameters were varied and the resulting change in injury levels were noted. The following variations were investigated:
- inflation rate: - kneeboard resistance: - column crush resistance:
increase by
12%
and decrease by 1 2 %
increase by 15% and decrease by 15% increase by 15% and decrease by 15%
These changes were numbered as cases. Case #1 represents the baseline test. Cases # 2 through 7 represent the variations for the four parameters listed above. For each parameter, two cases are assigned: one for increase in value and one for decrease. Finally two combinations of input parameters variation are chosen as noted in Table 5.1. The first combination which is termed as case # 8 in Table 5.1 was chosen to represent all the input parameters that produced a decrease in one or more of the output parameters (representing injury levels). The second combination: case #9 was used to isolate the effect of combined inflation rate and column crush resistance from the knee board resistance.
86
run#
Rib deflection (mm) Baseline (100%) 37
Chest gs
Head gs
Femur load
32
42
7000
t Inflation rate
43
41
53
7000
I Inflation rate
t knee board resis.
33
41
45
6850
39
38
44
7200
knee board resis.
39
35
51
6450
t column crush
42
42
51
6650
i column crush
34
31
40
6800
3+5+7
30
33
42
6800
3+7
30
35
42
7100
Table 5.1 Input-output relationships around the baseline test.
5.5 Discussion of Results

Table 5.1 illustrates the complexity and the non-linearity of the crash event. The input and output variables are all dependant in a sense that varying any of the input
87
variables can alter the results o f all output variables. The followings are observed from a quick look at Table 5.1: decreasing the inflation rate decreased rib deflection but increased both chest and head gs decreasing the knee board resistance decreased the chest gs but increased both rib deflection and head gs decreasing the column crush resistance decreased both rib deflection and head gs but did not affect the chest gs increasing any o f the input parameters mainly produced higher injury measures for all output values Although the rib deflection measurement decreased (run #3) with decreased inflation rate, as one would expect, the chest gs increased. The chest g s are taken of the spine which is a tubular piece o f steel in the back of the dummy where the ribs are attached. The chest gs are then affected partially by the overall acceleration o f the dummy while the rib deflection, which is measured near the sternum is more affected by chest loading. The peak values o f the femur load show that this load has actually
decreased for decreased inflation rate. At first this observation implies that the chest gs were not increased because o f femur load or consequently overall dummy acceleration. This counterintuitive result required a look at both femur loads and chest gs (Figures 5.9 and 5.10) as a function o f time. The chest gs for the reduced inflation rate stayed below the baseline case until 75 ms into the crash event. At this time the chest gs for the reduced inflation rate crossed over and exceeded the baseline case. At 75 ms the femur load peaks. Although the peak value is slightly less for the reduced inflation rate, the signal is wider and can produce more energy transfer between the knee board and the lower body. This may be transferred to the thorax in the form o f higher acceleration and could be the explain why chest g s went up with the softer decreased inflation rate case.
88
20
25
50
75
time (ms)
100
125
tSC
Figure 5.10 Effect of inflation characteristics on chest gs
8000 7000 _ 6000
o 5000 n 2 W 4000 I
05
3000
2000
1000
-1000
time (ms)
Figure 5.11 Effect of inflation characteristics on femur loads
89
The decrease in Knee board stiffness allows more dummy forward motion without affecting airbag stiffness. In this particular case a slight increase in both chest deflection and chest gs was observed. Generally it is hard to predict the effect of knee board stiffness as the outcome may be different depending on timing, energy distribution between the upper and lower body, and possibly the angular velocity o f the thorax Decreasing the column crush decreased all values for chest gs, chest deflection, and head gs. Decreasing column stiffness however, has a negative outcome as it
increases the dummy forward movement and may cause head impact with the windshield or the roof frame. In case # 8 all the parameters that reduced at least one o f the injury measures were combined. Case #9 is similar to # 8 except the effect of reducing knee board stiffness was not included. The reason is that the role of the knee board is secondary as one looks at injuries to the upper body. On the other hand the airbag and steering column may be looked at as two springs in series. Hence case #9 investigates the effect of reducing both inflation rate and column stiffness on injury measures. The results of both cases was a significant decrease in chest deflection, a negligible increase in chest gs and no change to head gs. This positive outcome imply that the characteristics of the steering column and the airbag can be tuned to work together as a system for added protection. In general, the results of this chapter showed how each of the parameters investigated: inflation rate, column crush, and knee board resistance, influenced the critical injury measures. Other parameters not investigated here may also influence the critical measures. These parameters include, but not limited to, windshield design
(stiffness, angle), seat tilt angle, seat height, seat friction, steering wheel stiffness, airbag fabric thickness, vent holes diameter, and inflation gas rate of rise. Including all the parameters would certainly make this work more useful. But choosing a limited number o f parameters was necessary due to time limitations.
90
Except for those parameters relating to the airbag, all the others mentioned can not be fixed to a specific setting. Some are adjusted by the occupant for comfort, quick access to driving controls, and proper vision while others are inherent to particular car design or styling. The airbag inflation rate is shown to have a direct effect on injury measures but yet it can be altered independently of other design features of the vehicle. The next chapter deals with this single parameter in a wide variety of accident scenarios and present a large amount of data to help understand its influence in most expected accident cases and to most types of occupants.
91
CHAPTER 6
ALTERNATIVE AIRBAG INFLATION RATES
6.1 Introduction
The effectiveness of airbags in protecting occupants as well as the residual injuries they can potentially cause were introduced in chapter 4. Chapter 4
concentrated on the injuries that airbags might cause and the influence of inflation rate, column crush, and relative velocity, and relative position in a static environment. The static environment was assumed to resemble low severity crashes that are known to involve potential airbag induced injuries. Chapter 5 then investigated the effects of the same parameters of chapter 4 as well as column crush, knee board resistance, column crush, and tilt angle in a 30 mph crash environment. The analysis o f these two chapters clearly indicated that if the airbag inflation rate is reduced, the risk of undesirable side effects may be reduced. However, as a result of depowering, the forward displacement of the
unrestrained occupant will increase. This increased forward displacement reduces the distance between the occupant and the steering wheel at the time the occupants forward velocity is arrested. In higher energy crashes, or in crashes involving
heavier people, the drivers chest or abdomen may contact the steering wheel. In this chapter the effects of airbag inflation rate on occupant kinematics and chest injury measures are explored. The analysis is not limited to the 30 frontal crash test. Rather, several crash pulses ranging from a low severity/late deployment 16 mph crash into a light pole to a high severity 35 mph crash into a rigid barrier. However, the analysis conducted in this chapter is limited to chest injury. Chest injury is selected for a number of reasons. First, for mid-size drivers in frontal crashes, the majority of air bag loads are transmitted to the chest. Consequently, chest injury measures are a good index of the air bag's injury mitigation potential. Second, a reduction in chest injuries is one of the objectives in depowering current
92
air bags. Third, the best validation of the simulation dummy is for chest injury measurement. Fourth, the chest injury measures are more repeatable than head/neck injury measures. The resulting simulations provide a first-order assessment of the chest injury consequences of depowering the driver air bag.
6.2 Simulations of Depowered Airbags

6.2.1 Varying Inflation Rate for the 30 mph Crash The initial simulations compared the airbag performance when the flow rate was varied in three increments. The baseline flow rate o f 100% is similar to the flow rate used to model the Taurus in a 30 mph test. The 75% and the 60%
increments reduce the flow by a proportion such that the load curves for the 75% and the 60% mass flow rates are multiplied by 0.75 and 0.6 respectively. In reality, the load curves for depowered bags might have different rise rate than the baseline test. However, the direct multiplication of load curves was an approximation due to lack o f data on the exact shape of the depowered bag load curve.
0.003
5 0.001
0 0
20
40
60
80
100
time (ms)
Figure 6.1 Airbag inflation rates used in simulation
93
20
40
60
80
100
time (ms)
Figure 6.2 Airbag pressure response in 30 mph crash
The 30 mph compliance test described earlier was simulated for three airbag flow rates. The airbag cover was not modeled in these simulations and the steering column was assumed rigid. The airbag pressure-time histories for three tests are shown in Figure 6.2. The maximum chest Gs and chest deflections and dummy displacement margins for the three cases are shown in Table 6 .1. Chest deflection measurements were made at the centerline of the dummy chest The chest margin is taken as the minimum distances between the centerline of the sternum and the center o f the steering wheel when the dummy's forward motion is arrested. Similarly, The head margin is taken as the minimum distance between the forehead and the top of the steering wheel. millimeters. All displacement measurements are in
94
Inflation rate
Chest Gs
Chest deflection (mm)
Chest margin (mm) 115 75 55
Head margin (mm) 128 93 75
100%
44 44 42
52 49 40
75% 60%
Table 6.1 Simu ation Results - 30 Mph Barrier Cras l
The dummy forward displacements are shown in Figure 6.3. The total length o f the displacement bars in Figure 6.3 represent the 2 0 7 mm. initial distance between the dummy chest and the steering wheel. The dum m y displacement at the time the air bag deploys is designated predeploy. The displacement at the time of
maxim um
penetration of the air bag is designated deploy. The remaining distance
is the closest distance between the chest and steering wheel, designated margin. In these 3 0 mph simulations, the reduced flow to the bag, reduced the chest acceleration and chest deflection. However, the distance margin between the chest and steering wheel was also reduced. For the 100% flow rate, the margin was 115 mm., compared to 55 mm. at the 60% flow rate. Furthermore, the margin would be further reduced in crashes in which the deployment is later that 25 ms, and/or the occupant is seated closer than mid seating position.
95
60%
75%
100%
Inflation Rate
Figure 6.3 Dummy displacement in 30 mph crash. As the inflation rate is reduced, the chest loading builds up more slowly, and the reduced peak loads occur at a later time. The dummy's forward displacement increases from 75 mm. at 100% flow to 135 mm. at 60%. One benefit of the larger displacements of the dummy while in contact with the air bag is a reduction in chest injury measures. The overall stiffness of the air bag is reduced by reduced gas flow. However, a portion o f the additional displacement at low gas flows is caused by additional time to inflate and position the air bag. The result is approximately equivalent to slack in a shoulder belt. The dummy is permitted to move forward with minimum energy absorption. This inefficiency will generally result in higher chest injury measures as the air bag begins to bottom out in the higher severity crashes.
6.2.2 Low Severity: 20 mph Crash Into a Rigid Barrier Benefits of depowering air bags are expected to be greatest in the lower crash severity ranges. A 20 mph barrier crash was selected as a baseline for examining depowered air bags in lower severity crashes. In addition to the three levels of flow rate (100%, 75%, and 60%), three occupant positions at deployment were e xam ined. The occupant positions were selected, based on reasonable
96
variations in conditions for the mid-sized population. The baseline is the mid seating position in the 30 mph test. The 50% male dummy can easily be positioned 50 mm forward of the center position. This position is designated the close position. In addition, the deployment time may be delayed, particularly in low severity crashes. The simulation included a close/late position in which the dummy was positioned 50 mm forward, and the air bag deployment occurred at 60 ms., rather than 25 ms. Position Std Std Std Close Close Close Close/Late Close/Late Close/Late
Flow rate Chest Gs Chest deflection (mm)
100%
Chest margin (mm)
Head margin (mm)
33 31 32 34 28 31 50 48
*
41 39 32 47 24 25 51 37
134
110
176 96 105 214 95 72 134 105
75% 60%
100%
65 95 85 30 60 47
-1 0
75% 60%
100%
75% 60%
Table 6.2 Simulation results - 20 mph barrier crash
The results of the 20 mph simulations are shown in Table 6.2. In all these simulations, chest injury measures are generally reduced at the 75% and 60% flow rates. However, the injury measures are low in all cases. The displacement margin is drastically reduced at the 60% rate, and the contact between the chest and steering wheel occurred in the close/late simulation. The dummy has not been validated for steering wheel contact, and the injury data was not used. The reduction of chest injury measures at the 60% flow rate was only a small improvement over the 75% flow rate. However, the chest margin was greatly reduced.
' Chest-to-steering wheel contact occurred; model not validated for this condition.
97
6.2.3 Investigation of other crash pulses Based on the results of the preliminary simulations, the 60% inflation rate is eliminated from the rest of the analysis. The other two flow rates i.e. the 100% and 75% as shown in Figure 6.1 were selected for paramertic evaluation at different crash severities. The crash severities selected are shown in Table 6.3. Five
different crash conditions were simulated with the unbelted driver dummy in the mid-seating position. The baseline case is the crash at 30 mph as required by FMVSS 208. Two variations of the 30 mph barrier crash were simulated - one at 20 mph, and one at 35 mph. The offset frontal car-to-car crash was also simulated. This is a common crash, and is used for regulation and information in Europe and Australia. The crash pulse for a car-to-car (Taurus to Accord) crash at 35 mph delta-V, and 60% overlap was used as representative of this crash mode. Finally, a 16 mph pole crash, with a deployment time of 115 ms was simulated. This case represents an extreme case of late airbag deployment. The following table list the abbreviations used to identify the different crash types and deployment timing:
Crash Type 35 mph, 60% overlap 35 mph, barrier 30 mph, barrier

20
Deployment Time 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms 115 ms
Abbreviation 35025 35B25 30B25 20B25 16P115
mph, barrier
16 mph, pole
Table 6.3 Crash types and deployment timing for inflation rate study
Results of the simulations are shown in Table 6.4 below.
In all the Table
6.4 cases, a distance margin between the dummy body segments and the steering wheel is maintained. The 75% inflation rate reduces both chest acceleration and rib deflections in all cases except the 35 mph barrier crash. This reduction is at the expense of the distance margin between the chest and the steering wheel.
98
Crash Type 35025 35025 35B25 35B25 30B25 30B25 20B25 20B25 16P115 16P115
Flow Rate
Chest Gs
Chest Deflection (mm)
Chest Margin (mm)
Head Margin (mm)
100%
35 31 52 61 44 44 33 31
68
51 47 62 63 52 49 41 39
66
90
88
131 75
86 22
75%
100%
79 57 115 75 134
110
75%
100%
128 93 176 96 76 46
75%
100%
75%
100%
63 36
75%
50
57
Table 6.4 Simulation results -100% and 75% flow rates.
co
30
C rash Mode
Figure 6.4 Chest injury measures for five crash modes (light columns represent chest g s
and dark columns represent chest deflection. Also, the first two columns o f every set o f four columns represent 100% inflation rate while the second two columns represent 75% inflation rate).
99
Figure 6.4 is a plot of the chest injury measurements for the cases simulated. The simulations of the pole crash (16P115) indicate that the 100% flow rate for this case produces high chest accelerations and rib deflections. These measures are higher than either the 100% or the 75% flow rate in the 35 mph barrier crash. This result suggests that occupants subjected to some of the low severity crashes and located close to the airbag at the time of deployment may experience chest loadings higher than those in very severe crashes. The type of crashes that produce delays in the peak acceleration include low severity impacts with narrow objects, or with the rear or side o f another vehicle.
6.3. Discussion
6.3.1 Head Injury Protection to Unrestrained Population The simulations performed here are all o f unrestrained mid-size drivers. The unrestrained population is believed to be the group most adversely affected by air bag depowering. The belted population does not need as much energy absorption from the air bag because the belt provides a large portion of the occupant's restraint. The greatest benefit of air bags to the restrained population is a very large reduction in head injuries. In frontal crashes, the air bag reduces head injury harm to restrained drivers by 65.4% [50]. The air bag provides even larger benefits in head injury reduction to the unrestrained population [51]. In all the unrestrained cases simulated, head injury measures were changed in the same direction as chest injury measures. Depowering the air bag reduced head injury measures in all cases except the 35 mph barrier crash. As shown in Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4, the head was prevented from impacting the steering wheel or windshield in all depowered cases. Additional tests or simulations are required to insure that head protection for restrained drivers is not degraded by depowering.
6.3.2 Depowering Benefits to the 5th Percentile Female The small stature dummy can be comfortably positioned closer to the air bag than the mid size dummy. Consequently, the risk of air bag induced juries are expected to be higher for the 5th percentile dummy than for the mid-size dummy.
100
The benefits in chest injury reduction from air bag depowering should be even greater than those measured by the mid size dum m y
6.3.3 Limitation of benefits in more severe crashes The simulations conducted to date have not investigated the consequence of vehicles with more severe crash pulses or more aggressive air bags than the Taurus. Vehicles with more severe crash acceleration pulses than those studied, may require more aggressive air bags to provide equivalent protection to an unrestrained dummy in a 30 mph crash. In particular, light trucks may have stiffer structures which result in more severe crash pulses. However, the simulations conducted with the mid-size dummy and a popular passenger car provide insight into the performance o f a depowered air bag for a large population in representative passenger car crashes. Another variable not investigated was the steering column deformation attributes. The steering column energy absorption characteristics may significantly influence the chest injury measures in all crashes with high chest loading. In the simulations, the steering column energy absorption duplicated that in the 30 mph crash test, which was used calibrated the model. Consequently, the benefits of steering column energy absorption at higher chest impact severities was not modeled. Actual hardware may produce lower chest injury measures for crash conditions which fully exercise the steering column energy absorption system.
6.3.4 Benefits of depowering in low severity/late deployment crashes As shown in Figure 6.4, the 75% depowering of the generic air bag reduced chest injury measures in all crashes simulated except the 35 mph barrier crash. The reduction in injury measures was most dramatic in crash 16P115. This 16 mph crash into a pole involved a late deployment. For the 100% flow rate, the chest injury measures were higher in this 16 mph case than in the 35 mph barrier test. The modeling suggests that virtually the entire population subjected to low severity crashes involving late deployment would benefit from air bag depowering. small statured individuals who sit closer to the air bag and are unrestrained, are at higher risk of loadings like case I6P115. About 15% of the females and 5%
101
of the males sit 100 mm. or more closer to the air bag than mid size male [52], Deployment delays of much less than 115 ms. would subject this group to conditions like case 16P115. This group is further disadvantaged because the air bag deploys higher on the chest, resulting in higher head and neck loading. The smallest 15% of the population of females, and 5% of males should benefit most from depowering. However, based on the lower chest injury readings for the 50th percentile male shown in Table 4, modest benefits extend to most o f the male and female population.
6.3.5 Benefit to Older Population The older population has been cited as being at increased risk of adverse side effects from present day air bags [53]. This population has lower injury tolerance than the younger population who is most involved in severe crashes. A reduction in air bag stiffness in low and moderate severity crashes should benefit this population by reducing chest loading. According to NHTSA data, 32% o f the licensed drivers are older than 50, and 19% are older than 60.
6.3.6 Analysis Based on Statistical Data The entire population should benefit from reduced air bag flow rate in low severity crashes involving delayed deployment. Analysis of the NASS/CDS 1990-94 shows that
86%
of airbag deployment in frontal crashes take place at
severity below 20 mph [54]. Consequently, in the vast majority o f deployments, depowering will be beneficial to all drivers. The pole crash pulse produced the latest deployment and the highest injury measures of all cases examined in the simulations. Data from NASS investigations suggest that these type of crashes are over-represented among low-speed crashes with air bag deployment and serious chest injury [55]. Data from NASS/CDS indicates that crashes with narrow fixed objects comprise about 15% o f the frontal tow away crashes [56]. Approximately 10% of the frontal towaway crashes are with narrow fixed objects at crash severities o f less than 2 0 mph. Other crashes that may be difficult to detect early in the crash event include
102
low severity impacts with the rear and sides of other cars. Based on NASS/CDS data, another 34% of light vehicle frontal crashes involve impacts with the side or rear of passenger cars [57]. More than 80% of these crashes occur at speeds less than 20 mph. An unknown number of these crashes may have delayed air bag deployment. In NASS/CDS, approximately 28% of the occupants are unrestrained and unprotected by an air bag. Among those protected by an air bag, less than 10% are unrestrained [57]. The population addressed by the 30 mph crash test with unrestrained dummies is relatively small, and decreasing as belt use increases. However, the unrestrained population in NASS/CDS suffers about 50% o f the life threatening injuries. More than 75% of these injuries occur at crash speeds below 30 mph. The air bag depowered by 75% would appear to address the large fraction of the serious injuries among the unrestrained population. However, depowering will reduce the energy absorption for the 13% of all serious injuries which currently occur to unrestrained occupants at crash speeds above 30 mph. It should be noted that the depowered air bag will still provide a significant amount of chest protection to this population, based on simulations shown in Figure 6.4. The reduction of air bag flow rate appears to be beneficial in improving air bag performance for the population exposed to low severity crashes. Currently more than
86%
of the deployments involve this population [54]. Within this
population, the vast majority should benefit from depowering, and those close to the air bag at deployment should benefit most. Some loss in protection among the unrestrained population occurs in the most severe crashes. A more sophisticated air bag and sensing system will be necessary to maintain current levels o f air bag protection in the higher severity crashes while providing less aggressive air bags in low severity crashes.
103
CHAPTER 7 THE CRASH EVENT AS A LUMPED MASS SYSTEM

7 .1
Introduction
In the previous chapters it was shown that changing the airbag inflation It was also shown, and
characteristics can have a direct impact on injury measures.
common sense agrees, that a depowered bag is a softer bag. It allows more ride down with less resisting forces. It was obvious that the airbag had qualities of a spring. But the stiffness of the spring, its linearity or non-linearity was not determined. Furthermore, the issue of whether the airbag acts as a damper, and whether a damping coefficient can be
determined
was not explored.
A method is developed in this chapter to model the airbag as a spring damper system. A spring constant and a damping coefficient are also determined to represent the airbag at any inflation level. This airbag model, along with an already developed lumped chest model, can be used to run crash analysis virtually instantaneously. The 3-degree of freedom spring-damper system that results from this study is shown in Figure 7.1. A number of cases are rim at the end of the chapter to illustrate the application of these lumped mass models. Airbag M, Thorax
Figure 7.1 Spring-damper system representing the airbag, chest, and crash pulse.
104
The analysis is performed as if this were a vibration problem. The equations of motion are as follows:
X \ = X \ ( t ) =crash pulse Xz = ^- ( X, m2
(7.1.1)
- x , ) +
m2
( X , - X 2) - ^ - ( X , - X 3) - ^ - ( X 2- X 3) m2 m2
(7.1.2)
i 3 = & . ( x , - A r 3) + S i ( x , - X 3 )
m3
m3
(7.1.3)
These second order equations are reduced to first order to enable the use of numerical solution using the Runge-BCutta method. The substitutions are as follows:
W{ = X 2 - X { W2 = X 3 - X 2 W3 = X 2- X
i
(7.1.4) (7.1.5)
(7.1.6)
W4 = X 3- X 2
The resulting set of differential equations become:
(7.1.7)
Wl = X 2- X l =W 3 W2 = X 3- X 2 =W 4 W 3 = X 2- X x= - ^ W x+
m2 m2
(7.1.8) (7.1.9) (7.1.10)
+ ^ - W 4 - ^ W 3 - X x( t)
m2 m2
105
frt =x3 -x, =-/%(+Wi+-!?,-c 1 3 (+wi +^wy m2 m3 m2 m2 m2 m-,

(7.1.11) The system is then solved numerically using a C program (Appendix B) based on a 4th order Runge-Kutta algorithm. The crash pulse ( f ) initiates the motion o f the system.
All masses are given the appropriate initial pre-crash velocity. The initial velocity does not, however, influence the solution of the problem since the differential variables W/ through W4 are based on relative displacements and velocities. The initial velocity o f every mass will influence only its final velocity.
7.2 The Lumped Chest Model

The behavior o f the dummy thorax under a 1.61 lb mass blunt impact has been modeled successfully in the past by Lobdel [58] as a spring damper system. The system used in this previous work is shown in Figure 7.2.
Mi
M, k2
Figure 7.2 The lumped mass chest model under a blunt impact. Lobdel and the other researchers determined the values for spring constancts ki and k2 , and damping coefficients C 2 that were used in conjunction with the blunt impact model. The values were obtained from experimental results based on cadaver test data and are as follows: ki= 19400 lb/ft and it represents the stiffness o f the sternum and padding
106
k2= 1800 lb/ft for the first 1.25 inches but increases to 5400 lb/ft afterwards, kj represents the flexibility of the ribs.
Ci= 36 lb-sec/ft for compression but increases to 8 6 Ib-sec/ft for tension.

C2 represents the damping properties of the ribcage. A mathematical model using these values (ki, k2 , and C2 ) was implemented by Digges [59], and the results of force (calculated as total spring and damper force) versus rib deflection were shown to fall within the corridor o f acceptable performance. However, the chest model used in this work was modified for use in conjunction with airbag loading. Spring ki was eliminated since it would become ineffective when used in series with a much softer spring representing the airbag. Additionally, the values for K2 and C2 were modified because o f the assumption that under airbag loading, the thorax would, behave as a stiffer spring under the distributed airbag forces (as opposed to the more concentrated pendulum loads). Since no test data were available for thorax stiffness under the new load conditions, the same values for k2 and C2 from the blunt impact thorax model were initially used in conjunction with the airbag model (to be discussed below). As expected, a simulation of
the lumped mass model shown in Figure 7.1 o f a 30 mph crash ( X i is given the time history o f a 30 mph crash pulse) showed a much higher rib deflection when compared to test results. The value for k2 was then doubled ( k2=3600 lb/ft for the first 1.25 inches and 10800 lb/ft for higher deflection). The results using the new values showed better correlation with test data.
7.3 The Airbag Lumped Mass Model

Since the airbag is a thermal system rather than mechanical, it was difficult to determine whether it acts as a spring, a damper, or both. Experimental test data similar to those used to develop the lumped mass thorax model were not available. However, the finite element model of the dummy and airbag was used to obtain a spring constant and a damping coefficient for the airbag.
107
To simplify analysis, the dummy jacket was separated from the rest of the finite element model, given the weight of the thorax assembly, and made rigid. It was placed in front o f the airbag but far enough so that it would not interfere with the deploying bag. The thorax was then given an initial velocity and allowed to impact the airbag after it is fully deployed. Figure 7.3 is an illustration of the chest after it is engaged with the bag while Figure 7.4 is a sample acceleration time history of the thorax. This sim ulation was repeated at two thorax speeds. One initial speed is
6
m/s (19 mph) representing a 30mph
crash and another one at 9m/s (27 mph) representing more severe crashes. Inflation rates for every initial speed was varied from baseline (100%) to de-powered (77%). In
addition, a theoretical over-powered inflation rate of 125% was used. The results are shown in Figures 7.5 and 7.6.
Figure 7.3 Finite element simulation to determine spring characteristics o f airbag.
108
Time (ms)
Figure 7.4 A typical kinematics plot of the isolated dummy thorax impacting the airbag
73.1. Determining an Equivalent Airbag Spring Constant A linear approximation of a stiffness constant for the airbag using Figure 7.5 would give roughly a K q of 3400 lb/ft for the baseline airbag and 1700 lb/ft for the 77% depowered airbag. The stiffness seems to increase for both airbags after a displacement o f 5 inches K 12 will be assumed constant and given the values just mentioned. This discussion ignores damping. In reality it is not known yet if the airbag is more of a spring than a damper. Damping is considered next.
109
12000
10000
8000
z
u.
6000 4000 2000
S o
< 0
-4 50
-350
-250
-150
-JO -2000
Airbag Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.5 Determining an equivalent airbag spring constant
7.3.2 Determining a Damping Coefficient for the Airbag

Figure 7.5 is a plot of resultant force vs. velocity. Intuitively, for a perfect spring one would expect the velocity of the impacting object to be fully recovered after impact.
12000 10000 8000
z
e
6000 4000 2000
o u.
-2000
-10 -8
Velocity (m/sec)
Figure 7.6 Determining an equivalent airbag damping constant Accordingly, the curves in Figure 7.6 would all be symmetric about a Y axis passing through the zero velocity. As damping increases, energy loss would cause the
110
area under the right side to be less than the left side. The ratio of these areas could be used as an approximation of the amount o f damping in the airbag. The goal here is to find a damping constant that can be used in the lumped spring mass system. A variable Ar is defined as: Ar=(area on left - area on right)/area on left (7.2.1)
Numerical integration was used to calculate the areas on both sides o f the zero velocity Y axis of Figure 7.6. Values for Ar for the different cases studied are listed in Table 7.1 below: Impact speed Inflation rate Ar 6 m/s 100% .36 6 m/s 77% .64 9 m/s 100% .34 9 m/s 77% .56 Table 7.1 Values for Ar for two inflation rates and two initial speeds While it was possible to determine an equivalent spring constant for an airbag, so far it was only possible to determine a ratio (Ar) that represents energy loss due to damping using the Finite Element model. The next logical step is to find a value that represents damping coefficient which can be used in conjunction with the lumped mass system. The system of Figure 7.1 was modified to resemble the finite element model shown in Figure 7.3. The right hand side (thorax) was rigidized by making k23 very large and eliminating C23 . The base acceleration was set to 0 and an initial value 6 m/s (19 ft/sec) was given to M2 . The airbag was first modeled as a perfect spring using the value obtained earlier (kl2=3400) then C 12 was increased from 0 to 100 Ib-sec/ft. Curves of total forces (spring + damper) vs. velocity were plotted similar to Figure 7.6 and Ar was calculated again. A plot of Ar vs. damping constant C 12 is given in Figure 7.7.
ill
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 0.4 0.3
0.2
0.1
10
20 C12 (Ib-sec/ft)
30
40
Figure 7.7 Determining Ar from the lumped mass system. The curve in Figure 7.7 gives a relationship between C 12 and Ar, while the information given in Table 7.1 gives a relationship between Ar and inflation rate. Hence one can deduce a direct relationship between inflation rate and damping constant C 12. Based on this scheme, one can approximate a damping constant of 13 lb-sec/ft for the baseline airbag and 28 lb-sec/ft for the 77 % de-powered airbag.
7.4 Determining KI2 and CI2 for any Inflation Level and Applications
At this point, both spring and damping constants for baseline and de-powered airbags have been approximated. Further simulation of an airbag that is over inflated to 125% reveals that at this inflation rate the airbag acts a perfect spring with minimum damping and a spring constant of 5800 lb/ft. The results of the analysis of 77%, 100%, and 125% inflation rates and their equivalent spring and damping constant using the analysis outlined here is shown in Figure 7.8. Based on the curves of Figure 7.8, it is possible to draw a direct relationship between an inflation rate and a corresponding spring constant and a damping coefficient. These values for K 12 and C 12 will be used in the lumped spring mass system of the current study.
112
IK
100
125
% Inflation Rate
Figure 7.8 Spring constants and damping coefficients as functions of inflation rates. Using Figure 7.8 it is possible to find an equivalent spring constant and damping coefficient for any airbag inflation rate (between 77% and 125%). Using these equivalent values, the spring mass system o f Figure 7.1 is used to run simulations that corresponds to a 30 mph crash test. The inflation rates are varied between 77% and 125% (by varying ki2 and C 12) and the resulting injury measures are noted. The results of this analysis are plotted in Figure 7.9. These results are not to be validated. Their purpose is to show that the equivalent inflation rates obtained from Figure 7.8 along with the system of Figure 7.1 can be used to roughly and inexpensively simulate a crash scenario. The numbers obtained from Figure 7.9 fall roughly within what is expected from a typical 30 mph test.
II:
35 30 25
20
15
10
5
0
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Equivalent Inflation Rate
Figure 7.9 System response for different airbag inflation rates.
114
CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND FUTURE WORK
8.1 Summary
A finite element model o f the Hybrid EH crash test dummy was developed and validated for use in a simulated automotive crash environment. The model was used in conjunction with a validated finite element model of an airbag. The airbag model was similar to a 1992 Ford Taurus airbag. The analysis also involved a limited use of a simulated vehicle interior model. The validation of the dummy model and its components involved simulations of tests sim ilar to actual tests performed on the physical dummy to ensure correlation between the two (physical dummy and simulated dummy). The finite element code LS-DYNA3D was used in this study because of its ability to handle large displacement impact problems and to characterize a variety of joint types needed for the analysis. Several parameters were investigated in order to understand the issues surrounding airbag depowering. These parameters include: inflation rate or
depowering level, column stroking, knee board resistance, dummy proximity to airbag, inertial effects, and crash modes. The parameters just mentioned are not always independent of each other so that a single conclusion is not possible. Hence, statistical data was used to determine distribution of benefit -or harm- to different segments of the population. The so called Out-of-Position (OOP) environment where the dummy is placed in close proximity to the inflating bag was studied in chapter 4. This crash environment represents low severity crashes that are generally responsible for most of the airbag induced injuries. The results indicate that the vertical and horizontal positions of the dummy are extremely important variables. Moving the dummy
115
away from the module at the time o f inflation always reduced the critical injury measures for the baseline inflation rate. Three inflation rates were investigated in OOP tests. Baseline, 75% of
baseline, and a less aggressive but more delayed peak type. Both the 75% and the less aggressive type decreased injury measures in all cases tested. However, the less aggressive type was inconsistent in its injury reduction as the dummy was moved away from the inflating bag and was dropped from considerations in the dynamic cases of the rest of chapters. Other issues were investigated in the OOP environment. These issues
included the presence of a dummy AV, inertial influence o f airbag loading, and steering column stiffness. The results showed that the presence o f a AV increases the value of critical injury measures. The influence of steering column stiffness was found to be a significant factor in influencing dummy chest gs. Up to 40%
reduction in forces can be gained by completely freeing the motion of steering column under bag loading. The test cases studied in chapter 5 showed the influence o f inflation rate and column stroke on injury measures in 30 mph crash events. Decreasing the inflation rate decreased chest deflection but increased chest gs. However, when the decrease in inflation rate was applied in conjunction with a softer steering column, all injury measures were reduced. This finding suggests that inflation rate and steering
column stroking characteristics may have to be tuned to work together in order to provide optimum protection. Chapter 6 explored the effects of reducing inflation rate on chest injuries and the relationship between a softer bag and a reduced margin*. The lowest level of depowering (60%) considered, showed slight reduction in chest injury measures at the expense of significant reduction o f the margin especially in the
20
mph crash
test with late deployment. It was decided then that the 60% inflation rate produced marginal reduction in moderate severity crashes and was not considered for further analysis.
' The margin was defined as the minimum distance between the abdomen and steering wheel at the time that the dummy forward velocity is stopped.
116
Simulations of airbags with 100% and 75% flow rates at different crash severities indicated an improvement in chest injury measures for barrier crashes of 30 MPH and below, and in the 35 mph car-to-car offset crash. These improvements were at the expense of a modest reduction in the chest to steering wheel distance margin. However, in the 35 mph full frontal barrier crash, chest injury measures were higher for the 75% flow rate while the chest margin was reduced in comparison to the
100%
flow rate.
The simulations of a pole crash with 115 ms delayed deployment and the 100% flow rate produced high chest injury measures. These measures were higher than those in the 35 MPH barrier crash. This result suggest that occupants subjected to low severity crashes and located close to the airbag may experience chest loadings higher than those in very severe crashes. The 75% flow rate reduced chest injury measures by 20% to 25%. A 40% reduction in chest to steering wheel
margin results. However, in low severity crashes, the reduced chest loading may be much more valuable, even at the increased risk of chest to steering wheel contact. A 75% reduction in inflation rate appears to be beneficial in most crashes below 30 mph. Older persons and short statured persons should benefit most from the reduction. However, larger statured persons and unrestrained persons in higher speed crashes will have reduced protection. A more intelligent deployment and inflation system will be required to maintain the present level of benefits for the unrestrained population in high severity crashes. The gap between the two groups just mentioned is very well defined. A two-stage airbag, as a part o f a smart
restraint system, can give protection to both groups. The severity of the crash can be induced from the instantaneous accelerometer readings while a simple optical sensor can detect the size of the occupant. In addition to the finite element analysis discussed above, chapter 7 introduced a method that enables the representation of an airbag with any given inflation rate by a lumped mass spring-damper system. When combined with an already existing lumped model o f the human chest, the system can be used to analyze crash events. The results of the lumped mass model would only be an
117
approximation but can be obtained instantaneously since a PC with a simple C program is needed.
8.2 Conclusions
1- Some drivers involved in low severity-late deployment crashes experience higher chest gs than those involved in 35 mph crashes. 2- A 75% reduction of inflation rate from the baseline reduced chest gs by 20 to 25% in the late deployment events analyzed 3- A 60% reduction of inflation rate from the baseline bag may increase the chance o f injury by allowing the chest to contact steering wheel (airbag bottoming out). 4- The proximity o f the occupant of 50 mm or less to the airbag at the time of inflation could lead to unintended airbag injuries even at very low severity crashes. 5- Airbag stiffness is in the same order o f magnitude as the steering column crush, hence airbag inflation parameters may need to be tuned to steering column crush for optimum performance.
6-
Lumped mass models were successfully developed to represent airbags with different inflation characteristics.
7- The Finite element and lumped mass models developed are useful tools in analyzing current safety issues.
8.3 Future Work

- Run similar analysis for belted occupants Develop a more realistic steering column and energy absorbing steering wheel - Improve dummy model by digitizing parts to get more precise geometry - Study jet effects on airbag modeling especially in OOP cases - Study effects of airbag fabrics, venting, and folding patterns - Repeat analysis with 5th and 95th Hybrid HI dummies - Incorporate human elements in dummy model
118
REFERENCES
1.
Yanik, John History of Automotive Safety, Automotive Engineering, Vol. 104, No. I, Jan. 1996. Berch, Stuart Safety and Its Progress, Automotive Engineering, Vol. 101, No. 9, Sep. 1993. Jost, Kevin Anatomy o f High-Intensity Discharge Headlamps, Automotive
2.
3.
Engineering, Vol. 103, No. 11, Nov. 1995

4. Control of Vehicle Dynamics Automotive Engineering, Vol. 103 No. 5, May 1995. 5. Digges, K., Noureddine, A., and Bedewi, N., Chest Injury Measures for Alternative Airbag Loading SAE Annual Exposition, SAE paper 970129, Detroit, Michigan 6. Bedewi, N. et al, Evaluation of Car-to-car Frontal Offset Impact Finite Element Model Using Full Scale Crash Data, SAE paper No. 95065, Proceedings from the 1995 SAE Congress, Detroit, MI. 7. Fitzpatrick, M., DRISIM-PLUS USERS MANUAL, Fitzpatrick
Engineering, Denver, Co. 8. 9. MADYMO Users Manual 3D, TNO Road Vehicle Research Institute, 1986. Fleck, J., et al, Validation of the Crash Victim Simulator, Report Nos. DOTHS-806-279 through 282, 1982. 10. Bedewi, N. E., et al (1997). Role of High-Performance Computing in Crashworthiness and Highway Safety Research - Present and Future. Keynote address: High Performance Computing in Automotive Design, Engineering, and Manufacturing. In: Proc. O f the 3rd International Conference on High
Performance Computing in the Automotive Industry. Paris, France. 11. Blathe, K. J. (1997). On the Need for Reliable Finite Element Methods in CAE o f Automobile Structures. Keynote address: High Performance Computing in Automotive Design, Engineering, and Manufacturing. In: Proc. O f the 3rd
119
International Conference on High Performance Computing in the Automotive Industry. Paris, France. 12. Whirley, R., DYNA3D A Nonlinear, Explicit, Three-Dimensional Finite Element Code for Solid and Structural Mechanics-Users Manual, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1991. 13. Hallquist J. (1994). LS-DYNA3D Users Manual, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, California. 14. 15. 16. PAM-SYSTEM Reference Manual, ESI Group Software Company, 1996. RADIOSS CRASH Users Documentation, France, 1996. Shames, I. H., Energy and Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics, Taylor & Francis, Bristol, Pa, 1985. 17. Backatitis, S. and Mertz, H., Hybrid HI: The First Human-Like Crash Test Dummy, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA. 18. R. Hubard and D. McLeod, Definition and Development of a Crash Dummy Head. SAE paper No. 741193, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa. 19. Khalil, T. and Lin T, Simulation o f the Hybrid HI Dummy Response to impact by Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis. SAE paper No. 942227, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa. 20. K. Yang and J. Le, Finite Element Modeling of Hybrid HI Head-Neck Complex. SAE paper No. 922526, Society of Automotive Engineers, Laurendale, Pa. 21. Foster, J., Kortge J., and Wolanin, M., HHI- A Biomechanicaly-Based Crash Test Dummy, SAE Paper No. 770938, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa. 22. Deng, Yih-Chamg., Analytical Study of the Interaction Between the Seat Belt and a Hybrid EH Dummy in Sled Tests. . SAE paper No. 880648, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa. 23. Khalil, T. and Lin T, Simulation of the Hybrid EH Dummy Response to impact by Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis. SAE paper No. 942227, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa.
120
24.
Horsh and L. Patrick, Cadaver and Dummy Knee Impact Response. SAE paper No. 760799, Society of Automotive Engineers, Laurendale, Pa.
25.
Kaleps, I. and Whitestone J. Hybrid III Geometrical and Inertial Properties. SAE paper No. 880638, Society o f Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa.
26.
Wismans J. and Hermans J., MADYMO Simulation o f HH[ Dummy Sled Test, SAE paper No. 880645, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
27.
NHTSA memo: Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Actions to Reduce the Adverse Effects of Air Bags, FMVS 208, Depowering, December 1996.
28.
Prasad, P., and Laituri, T. R., "Consideration for Belted FMVSS 208 Testing", Fifteenth International Technical Conference on Enhanced Safety o f Vehicles, Melbourne, Australia, 1996. Paper No. 96-S3-0-03.
29.
Eijavec, J., et al, Automotive Technology: A Systems Approach Delmar Publishers, 2nd edition, Albany, NY, 1992
30.
Martena, Peter, Advances in Analytical Modeling of Airbag Inflators, SAE Paper No. 920120,1992?
31. 32.
Ls-dyna theo manual Bedewi, N. E., Motewali, V., and Marzougui, D., "Evaluation o f Parameters Effecting Simulation of Airbag Deployment and Interaction with Occupants", International Journal of Crashworthiness, Vol. 1, No.4 pp. 339-354, 1996. Keenan, Joseph H., Thermodynamics, 4th edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York 1946.
33.
34.
Wang, J. Recent Advances in Modeling o f Pyrotechnic Inflators, ASME AMD- Vol. 106 and BED Vol. 103, 199?.
35.
Malczyk, A. and Adomeit H., The Airbag Folding Pattern as a Means for Injury Reduction of Out-of-Position Occupants, SAE paper No. 952704, Society o f Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa.
36.
Kress, T. A., A Discussion of the Air Bag System and Review of Induced Injuries, SAE Paper No. 960658, 1996.
37.
HHS Status Report, Vol. 28, No. 11, October 9, 1993. Pages 4-5.
121
38.
Lakshminarian, V., and Larsy, D. Finite Element Simulation o f Driver Folded Air Bag Deployment, SAE paper # 912904
39. 40.
P3/PATRAN Users manual, PDA Engineering, Costa Mesa, Ca, 1993. LS-INGRID Users Manual, Lawrence Livermore Software Co., Livermore, Ca, 1992.
41.
Motevali, V., and Bedewi, N., An Overview o f the Airbag Deployment Models, IEMS 95, Cocoa Beach, Florida 1995.
42.
Bedewi, N. et al, Evaluation of Prameters Effecting Simulation of Airbag Deployment and Interaction with Occupants, International Journal of Crashworthiness, Vol. I, No. 4, 1996.
43.
Augenstein, J. et al, Chest and Abdominal Injuries Suffered by Restraint Occupants, SAE Paper No. 950657, 1995.
44.
Melvin, John, et al, Assessment of Airbag Deployment Loads with the Small Female Hybrid HI Dummy, SAE Paper No. 933119, 1993
45.
Augenstein, J.S,. and others, "Heart Injuries Among Restrained Occupants in Frontal Crashes", SAE 970392, 1997.
46.
Burden, R., and Faires J. D., Numerical Analysis, PWS publishers, Boston, MA, 1985.
47.
Khalil, T. and Lin, K., Hybrid IE Thoracic Impact on Self Aligning Steering Wheel by Finite Element Analysis and Mini-Sled Experiment, SAE paper No. 912894, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa.
48. 49. 50.
verbal communication with Professor Ken Digges. Verbal c o m m unication with Professor Ken Digges. Dalmotas, D., Hurley, J., German, A., and Digges, K.,"Air BagDeployment Crashes in Canada", Paper 96-SI-0-05, Fifteenth ESC Conference, May, 1996.
51.
Malliaris, A.C., DeBlois J.H., and Digges, K.H., "Air Bag Field Performance and Injury Patterns", SAE 960659,1996.
52.
Cullen, E., Stabler, K. M., Mackay, G. M., and Parkin, S.,"How People Sit in Cars: Implications for Driver and Passenger Safety in Frontal Collisions - The Case for Smart Air Bags", 40th AAAM Proceedings, October, 1996.
122
53.
Martinez, R, "Statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Regarding the Effectiveness o f Air Bags", March 7, 1996.
54.
Werner, J. V., Roberson, S. F., Ferguson, S. A., and Digges, K. H., "Air Bag Deployment Frequency and Injury Risks", SAE Technical Paper No. 960664, 1996.
55.
Augenstein, J.S,. and others, "Heart Injuries Among Restrained Occupants in Frontal Crashes", SAE 970392, 1997.
56.
Malliaris, A.C., "Vehicle Narrow-Object Crashes in Highway Travel" An Investigation conducted for the Crash Analysis Center, George Washington University, DeBlois Associates, Washington, D.C., 1993.
57.
DOT Report, "Traffic Safety Facts 1995", DOT HS 808 471, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, September, 1996.
58.
T. E. Lobdell et al, Impact Response of the Human Thorax, Impact Response Measurement and Simulation pp. 201-245, Edited by W. King and H. Mertz, Plenum Press, New York, 1973.
59.
Digges, K., Dynamic Response o f the Human Thorax When Subjected to Frontal Impact, University of Oxford Engineering Laboratory Report No. 1453/83, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1983.
123
APPENDIX A
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY 1893-1996
124
A.1 The Unsolved Problem

As early as 1900 and only seven years after the introduction of the first horseless carriage, a reporter at the very first auto show wrote: "A cursory exam ination o f the American automobile shows that the question of safety has been solved". But over h a lf a century later, in 1964, automotive collisions claimed the lives of 4 8 ,0 0 0 in addition to the 4 million injured. Moreover, in the sixties numerous auto safety experts outlined the features that needed be implemented in order to achieve a safe car. The modem car has built in safety features that exceed, by far, the recomended changes. But the c h illin g fact remains that thousands o f people are still being killed and injured every year in automotive collisions with 3 9 ,0 0 0 fatalities and 5 m illion injuries in 1993. Safety has not been neglected nor has it failed to protect occupants from injury during a collision. motorists. Rather, tremendous progress has been achieved in protecting
For instance, 15.6 fatalities were recorded for every 100,000,000 miles
driven in the 1930s. This number decreased to 3.5 in 1980 and a record 1.8 in 1993. The statistics clearly show that safety works and that more of it is needed. The fact that accidents and injuries persist is an indicator of an unusually difficult problem.
A.2 The 1890s

When the automobile was first introduced in 1893, as a horseless carriage it actually looked like a carriage (Fig. A.1). The most obvious mechanical difference of this car with todays car was the use of a tiller that steered the car by turning the whole front axle.
125
Figure A.1 A 1901 Oldsmobile Runabout. Braking was primitive as well, it was applied only on the rear wheels and frequently caused lock-up. Accidents, however, were rare since the speed o f an average car did not exceed 10 to 15 miles per hour. Incidentally, the first documented fatality involving an automobile did not occur until 1899 when a pedestrian was hit by a taxi driver in New York City.
A.3 The Pre-World War I Era

This period marked a successive application of creativity and common sense to the automobile (as it came to be called after the French automobile). The round, more manageable steering wheel replaced the tiller in 1900. Steering was then refined a step further with the introduction o f the steering knuckle which enabled the front wheels to be turned directly without engaging the front axle. Windshields appeared in 1904 but it took another six years before hand operated windshield wipers, were invented. Night driving became more feasible as lighting progressed from oil lamps hanging over the driver to gas filled spot lamps in 1904 and to electric lamps by 1908. Electric lighting, along with the electric self starter that was invented in 1910, created a need to recharge the battery and keep it charged. The generator (a primitive version o f the alternator
used on todays cars), introduced in 1912, solved this problem and opened the way for many more electric gadgets to be used in future cars.
126
A.4 The 1920s

The most important change in automobile manufacturing after World War I was the trend toward closed cars. In the 1920s closed steel body cars with wooden roofs became popular. Laminated shatter-proof glass was introduced in 1926 as a safety feature since more glass was being used in the vehicle compartment. More effort was done to isolate passengers in the vehicle compartment while being able to control the outside. The Tilt Ray headlamp that enabled switching between high and low beams was introduced in 1924 and was followed by the electric windshield wiper in 1925. Defrost vents first appeared in Studebaker, in 1928, was another much needed vision aid in inclement weather. Vehicle interaction with the road was greatly enhanced in the early 20s after Chrysler introduced four-wheel hydraulic brakes that produced quicker and more balanced response. In addition, the wider low pressure balloon tire that is familiar today replaced the older slim tire considerably improving traction and ride. Enhancements were also made to the engine, power train, and suspension system while the chassis frame and passenger cabin were built stronger. The result was a more comfortable and secure ride. Naturally then, attention would now be on visual appeal. Indeed, the year 1927 marked the beginning of a styling era. In that year, Ford lost its sales lead to General Motors due to the styling of Buick La Salle. Auto industry critics claim that styling has been given precedence over safety since that date. While the number o f automobiles increased from 8000 in 1900 to 2 0 million in
1925, m aximum
speeds o f 6 0 miles per hour became possible. Consequently, accidents
were getting more common and injuries more severe. The safety features that are taken for granted today such as seat belts, airbags, collapsible steering columns, padding, and crashworthy frame were not existant. It was not uncommon that, for example, during an accident, a steering wheel would break in the hands of the driver turning the wooden spokes and hom rings into stakes that would then penetrate the impacting body. The general attitude, in the early years, was that an accident happened as a result o f driver error. Car buyers were guaranteed the safest design possible that featured reliable steering and braking systems. Hence mechanical failures were not suspected
127
nor were they investigated. The absence of a systematic accident investigation and a national or regional data bank made it impossible to find a trend wthat could pinpoint a design problem. In addition, no attempt was made to study the phenomena o f a
collision and the injury that followed. In fact, the two phenomena were not separated: injury was an inevitable result o f a collision. That attitude meant that preventing
injuries that might result from an acident was not considered. The focus was rather directed at eliminating the accident itself, merely through driver education and better roads.
A.5 Interior Design for Safety, the 1930s

The general outlook on safety was changing in the thirties.
Thanks
in part to
few outspoken highway patrolmen and physicians. Dr. Claire Straith, who was a plastic surgeon, held many conferences on the importance of safe interior design. The efforts of Dr. Straith and others convinced Chrysler and Studebaker to add to their 1937 models crash padding in potential contact areas. In addition, the new models featured control buttons that were made flush with the instrument panel, and door handles that were curved into the door. Another major safety feature of the thirties was that manufacturers were able to overcome the challenging problem of building an all steel car body. Consequently, roll bars were built in to keep occupants from being smashed in a rollover accident.
A.6 Limit of Human Tolerance: the 40s

During the 1940s, the Air Force began conducting research on the effects of mechanical force on living tissues. The objective was to determine the amount of force humans can withstand in an airplane crash. The research was performed under the leadership of Colonel John Stapp who was a physician and a biophysicist. By using a rocket propelled sled to simulate actual accidents, Stapp soon demonstrated that humans can tolerate much higher crash forces than it was believed if properly restrained and protected. Stapp then realized that the results of his research could be applied to
automobile crashes. Live animals were then used in sled tests to determine the type of
128
injuries they sustained when impacted against steering wheels and the effectiveness o f seatbelts. Stapps deceleration tests received national publicity. His meeting with the Society of Automotive Engineers(SAE) committee on standards for automobile seatbelts was so successful that it became an annual event for researchers to present papers in automotive safety.
A.7 Understanding the Collision

The real explanation for what happens in a crash came, ironically, not from an engineer but from a policeman. Sergeant Elmer Paul of the Indiana State Police was assigned to a special unit of troopers to exclusively investigate the causes of injuries in auto accidents. Paul soon perceived what he called the second collision which is the impacting of occupant into the vehicle interior instantaneously after the vehicle hits an object. In an accident, the car stops almost instantaneously while the occupant proceeds with the initial pre-accident speed. The transfer of energy between the still moving occupant and the stopping vehicle takes place in three major contact areas: the kneeknee board, chest-steering wheel and finally head-steering wheel or head-windshield. Engineers quantify these impacts with the terms femur load, chest Gs, and HIC\ The human tolerance for these loads has been studied by scientists and a
threshold limit has been established. The limit is surprisingly high: femur load :10 kn (about 2000 lb), chest gs: 60, and HIC:1000. The number of gs is a multiple o f the acceleration of gravity. Acceleration, or deceleration in this case, indicates how fast and object is stopped. A typical accident has a duration of less then 2/10 th of a second. During this short period a tremendous amount of energy is transferred. This translates into high gs. Newtons law then dictates the high, and sometimes deadly, impact forces that crash victims receive.
129
A.8 Accident Investigation and Data Collection

Sergeant Pauls accident investigation work helped him realize that the actual speed o f accidents causing severe injuries were actually much lower than it was believed. During that period of time, it was not believed that a 20 MPH crash into a light pole, could be fatal. Due to Pauls findings and his persuasion, the state o f Indiana launched the first systematic and comprehensive investigation o f injury occurrence on its highways. The objective of the investigation was to determine what objects inside the car were responsible for injuries and what was the severity and frequency of these injuries. Other states and cities launched projects similar to the Indiana project. The result was that a national data collection was under way. Special accident report forms were developed and photos were used. Physicians were also asked to help by filling
out medical reports on accident victims. Data was then collected and analyzed. By the mid 50s, tens of thousands of cases were documented. In addition, experimental
crashing of cars with instrumented anthropomorphic dummies was underway at the University of California at Los Angeles. Experts were now able, for the first time, to answer many mysteries surrounding the automobile accident. Two years of accident investigation by the Indiana project and others revealed that at least one door opened in most accidents. They also revealed that forcible
ejection through the door increased the risk o f injury to the extent that almost half of all people that were ejected were killed. The fate of the occupants that stayed inside was not much better. The doors, the steering wheel, the instrument panel, the windshield area and the top inflicted most of the fatalities inside the car. Accident investigators concluded that almost half of those fatalities would have been interior design. survivable with proper
A.9 Regulating the Industry

On the political front, the early 50 s marked the beginning of congressional involvement in the safety issue. Few senators attempted, but failed, to pass resolutions calling for a senate investigation on highway safety.
130
It was not until 1956 that
congressman Kenneth Roberts managed to get the House to approve a resolution calling for the establishment of a subcommittee to study traffic safety. The Roberts Committee attempted in the following year to introduce legislation requiring the installation of seatbelts on all automobiles. Its effort was not successful due to the opposition of the auto industry. It took another decade before the Roberts Committee would have an impact on auto safety. In 1964, a bill passed both houses of Congress requiring the installation of safety devices on all automobiles purchased by the federal government through the General Services Administration (GSA). The list included among other things, seatbelts, dual braking systems, collapsible steering columns, and padded dashboards. During that same period, other senators began to take an interest in the automotive safety issue. In 1965, Senator Abraham Ribicoff's committee held hearings on the establishment of a National Safety Center. Those hearings were much publicized since the presidents of the major auto companies were unprepared for the kinds of questions asked by the committee staff. General Motors, for instance, had to reveal that it only spent less than 1/10* of 1% of its profit on safety in 1964. The press was very critical of the auto industry for its opposition to safety legislation. To further dramatize events, a scandal broke out about General Motors and its hiring of private eyes to investigate a lawyer called Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader had helped the Ribicoff committee to prepare tough questions for the auto industry executives and had just finished publishing Unsafe at any Speed: a book that was very critical of the industry. The publicity of these events led then President Linden Johnson to publicly criticize the auto industry for its continuing opposition to safety legislation. The industry reacted by agreeing to a safety standard. The result was the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that President Johnson signed into law on September 9, 1966. Consequently, all cars made in 1968 would incorporate seventeen safety features required by federal law. Most of these features were equivalent to those required by congress in 1964 to be installed on all GSA vehicles.
131
A.10 The 1960s Rush for Safety Design

As accidents increased drastically in the sixties, and w hile the federal government and the states were passing laws to control the increased number of fatalities on the highway, the industry responded with a number of significant safety improvements in car design. The 3-point safety belt is believed to be the largest lifesaver of all in automotive crashes. The energy-absorbing steering column first
introduced by GM in 1967 was also a very important safety design. This column would compress upon impact of the drivers thorax reducing the risk of injury -especially laceration- significantly. Also, the 60s saw the birth of high penetration-resistant
windshields to prevent occupant ejection and door beams for protection in side impacts. It was also during the sixties that front disk brakes replaced drum brakes and the first anti-lock brake system was introduced. Other safety innovations included better door latches, energy absorbing front seat backs and the all-familiar today amber signal lights and cornering lamps. The use of anthropomorphic test devices (ATD) that started in the sixties with the Hybri 13 family of dummies, has perhaps influenced the design for crash safety more than any thing else. Todays more advanced Hybrid LH dummy has given researchrs great insight into the design of safe automobiles by providing them with the ability to predict human behavior under complex crash conditions.
A.11 The 1970s and Beginning of Airbag Era

After initial experimental success with air bags in the late sixties the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) was separated from the Federal Highway administration (FHWA). A major NHTSA agenda was to study feasibility of requiring airbags on all cars by 1972. Since airbags were emerging new technologies with many unanswered questions, especially concerning reliability and side effects, the date was pushed back until 1975. Meanwhile, General Motors began, equipping air bags on some 10,000 full size cars over a period of 3 years. Soon the industry followed and
132
hundreds of thousands of airbags were in use. What happened after that was a classic case o f free market vs. regulatory forces in a field where a tremendous amount of money was involved. As a result, NHTSAs original target date of requiring airbags on all 1972 cars was not implemnted fully until 1995. In addition, starting with the year 1997, all passenger cars are required to have dual airbags, and all light truck are required to have driver-side airbags.
133
APPENDIX B
4 th o r d e r r u n g e - k u t t a p r o g r a m t o s o l v e SYSTEM OF SIMULTANEOUS DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS
a
134
/* this is a C program */ /* Use 4th order Runge-Kutta to solve a system of diff. eq. */ înclude <stdio.h> #include <math.h> FILE *fp; int i, j,l,m=4, N=750; float h,a=0,xend, t,wl,w2,w3,w4,fn,w[6] [1000],k[4] [6],gl,deltax, xl2, x23,d2, bb; float ml,m2,m3, kl2, k23i, k23, cl2, c23, c23ex, y2t, xdd[1000],xd[1000],msec; float maxg,maxdefchest,maxdefab,maxforce; float accl, acc2, acc3 [1000] ,vl [1000], v3 [1000], fs [1000] ,fd[1000],ft [1000] ,ec [1000] ; float kk23[1000],kkl2[1000]; float choose(int j,float t,float wl,float w2, float w3,float w4); main ( )
{
fp=fopen("inpbag", "r") ; fscanf(fp,"%f %f %f %f %f %f %f %f %f %f %f %f %f %f %f ", &ml,&m2,&m3,&kl2, &k23, &cl2, &c23, &w[l] [0],&w[2] [0],&w[3] [0],&w[4] [0], Sxend,&y2t,&k23i, &c23ex); fclose (fp); fp=fopen("outpbag","w"); h=(xend-a)/N; /* intial conditions*/ v l [0]=20; v 3 [0]=20; e c [0]=0;
f o r (i= 0; i<=N; i++)

{
t=a+i*h; xdd[i] = (28e7*pow(t, 3) - 9e7*pow(t,2) 8e6*t 33273)/(25.5*12); if (t>.125) xdd[i]=0; x d [i]=-.2668*pow(t, 3)+18.838 *pow(t,2)-18.0433*t-13149;
+
kk23[i]=l*(-7000000*w[2][i]*w[2][i]*w[2][i] +2000000*w[2][i]*w[2][i]-89262*w[2][i]+3638); k23=kk23[i]; /*if (w[2][i]<=.075) k23=1800;*/
kkl2[i]=1*(0.6585*pow(xl2, 6)-15.208*pow(xl2, 5)+118.32*pow(xl2,4)340.66*pow(xl2, 3) +27 9.78*pow(xl2,2)+4 9.956*pow(xl2,1)+1800); kl2=kkl2[i];
135
kl2=5800; cl2=0.0; /*if (t<.002) cl2=t*100000; else if (t>=.002) cl2=200;*/
if (w[4] [ij >0) c23=86; if (w[4][i]<=0) c23=36; /*if (w[2][i]> .05) k23=3600;*/ /*if (w[2][i]<=.104) k23=3600; else if ((w[2][i]>.10) && { w [2][i]<.104)) k23=(1800000*w[2][i]-176400); else if (w[2] [ij >.104) k23=10800; */ /*if (w[l][!]>=-.!) cl2=0; if (w[1][i]<=-.1) cl2=10;*/ for(j=1;j<=m;j ++) k[l][j]=h*choose(j,t+h/2,w[1][i],w[2][i],w[3][i],w[4][i]);
f o r ( j = 1 ; j <=m;j ++)
k [2][j]=h*choose(j,t+h/2,w[l][i]+k[l][l]/2,w[2][i]+k[l][2]/2, w[3] [i]+k[l] [3]/2,w[4] [i]+k[l] [4]/2); f o r (j = 1 ; j <=m;j ++) k[3] [j]=h*choose(j,t+h/2, w[1] [i]+k[2] [l]/2,w[2] [i]+k[2] [2]/2, w [3][i]+k[2][3]/2,w[4][i]+k[2][43/2); for(j=l;j<=m;j++) k [4] [j]=h*choose(j,t+h,w[1] [i]+k[3] [1],w[2] [i]+k[3] [2], w[3][i]+k[3][3],w[4][i]+k[3][4]); for (j=l;j<=4;j++) w[j] [i+l]=w[j] [i] + (k[l] [j]+2*k[2] [j]+2*k[3] [j ]+ k [4] [j])/6; xl2=w[l][i]*12.0; x23=w[2][i]*12.0; ec[i+1]= ec[i]+((ft[i]+ft[i+1])/2)*(w[1][i+l]-w[l][i]); msec=t*1000; /*if (acc3[i+1]<acc3[i]) mex=acc3[i+1];*/ fprintf(fp," %8.If %7.2f %7.2f %7.2f %6.2f %6.2f %6.2f %6.0f %6.0f %6.Of %6.2f %8.2f %8.2f \n", msec,xdd[i],xd[i],acc3[i],w[3] [i],xl2, x23,fs[i],fd[i],ft[i],k23,w[4] [i],ec [i] ); printf("\n %8.4f %7.2f %7.2f %7.2f %6.2f %6.2f %6.2f %8.2f %8.2f %8.2f %8.2f%8.2f %8.2f", msec,accl,acc2,acc3[i],xl2,w[3][i],x23,w[4][i],v3[i],fs[i],fd[i],ft[ i],ec[i]);
]
fclose(fp);
136
for(j=l;j<500;j++)
{
if (abs(acc3[j+1])>abs(acc3[j])) maxg=acc3[j+1] ; if (w[2][j+1]>w[2][j]) maxdefchest=w[2] [j+ 1]*12.0; if (w[l] [j+1]>w[l] [j]) maxdefab=w[1] [j+1]*12.0; if (ft[j+1]<ft[j]) maxforce=ft[j+1]; printf("\n %8.0f %8.0f %8.0f %8.0f %8.3f %8.3f %8.3f %8.0f" ,kl2,kk23[j], cl2, c23,maxg,maxdefab,raaxdefchest,maxforce);
}
/*printf("\n %8.4f %8.4f %8.4f %8.4f %8.0f %8.4f %8.4f %8.4f" ,kl2, k23,c!2,c23,maxg, maxdefab,maxdefchest,maxforce);*/
return 0;
}
float choose(int j,float t, float wl,float w2,float w3,float w4)
{
if (j=l) fn=w3; if {j= 2 ) fn=w4; if (j=3) fn= -kl2* ((0) + (l/m2))*wl + (k23/m2)*w2 + (c23/m2) *w4cl2*w3/m2-xdd[i]; if (j=4) fn= -k23* ((l/m2) + (l/m3) )*w2 + (kl2/m2)*wlc23* ((l/m2) + (l/m3))*w4+cl2*w3/m2;
accl=xdd[i]/32.2; acc2=( -kl2*w[l][i] + k23*w[2][i] + c23*w[4][i] cl2*w3)/ (m2*32.2) ; acc3[i]=(-k23*w[2] [i]-c23*w[4] [i])/(m3*32.2); v3 [i+1] =v3 [i] + (acc3 [i] +acc3 [i+1] )*32*h/2; vl [i+1]=vl[i] + ((xdd[i]+xdd[i+l])/2)*h; fs [i] = (-kl2*w[l] [i])*4.4 ; fd[i] = (-cl2*w[3] [i])*4 .4; /*if (fd[i]>0) fd[i]=0;*/ ft[i]=(fs[i]+fd[i]); return fn;
137
APPENDIX C
50 th PERCENTILE HYBRID in DUMMY PROTECTION REFERENCE VALUES
138
Hvfanc Eli Adult Dummy Protection Reference Vaiues

.jmponent Head
1
Bodv Segment Keaa

Seek
Cntena. HIC Flexion Sending Moment (Nm> Extension Bending Moment (NM) Axial Tensile Loading vs Time Duration (N) Axial Compressive loading vs. Time Dunoon
Small Female I I 13. I Sms 104 31 1201 max. rig.4A2 2668 max. Fig. 4AJ 1068 max. Fig. 4A4 73. 3ms 41 mm 55 mm
Mid>ze Male
L ine Male
'
tooo.
I Sms 190 57 3300 max 4000 max.
9J7. lims 258 78 4CS2 max. 4912 max.
HesdiNeck : [menace
00
Fore*Ait Shear Force vs Time Duranon (TO Chest Thoracic Organs Thoracic Organs Thoracic Organs Resultant Chest Spine Acceleration (Os) Compressive Defection Due to Shoulder Beit Compresssive Dctlectton Due to Air Bag 8k Steering Wheel Hub 3100 max. Fig. 4A4 6 0 .3ms SOmm 65 mm 5807 max. Fig. 4A4 54.3ms 55 mm 72 mm
Viscous Cntenon Femur Patella. Femur. Petois PCL Tibia! Plateau
1
Axial Compressive Femur Load vs. Time Duration (K) Tibia to Femur Translation Mdd/lat. Clevis Comp. Loading (K) Comp. Loading (K) Tibia Index. TI -M/Mc
1I
6186 max..
1
11537 max..
9070 max. 15 mm 4000 8000
iCnee (Cnee Clevis
12 mm 2252 S104 1 l!S 22.9
17 mm 4920 9840 N t 307
I
222 32.9 4000 inferred
PfPc
where Me * Cnuca! Bending Moment, and Pc Critical Comp.
442
Force
Ankle Ankle compressive Loading (S)
139
APPENDIX D
5 PERCENTILE AND 95 th PERCENTILE HYBRID III DUMMY EXTERNAL DIMENSIONS AND ASSEBLY WEIGHTS
140
Hybrid ill * 5th Percentile Small Female Dummy

Instrum entation The Hybrid til 5tn Percentile Femaie Test Dummv can aeeaot tne same inseumenutton ss me f-ryooa ill 50m Perrennie Mate Tdst Oummy Standard mstrumentaaon is: Three uniaxial < or one trtaxiai) accelerometers m haaa ana enesr
Product Verification Standard nanufacturm ând tnspecaon procedure: resuit m nign duality maetunee ana molded oarts Procedures induoa certifieatiart ot materials, venfieanon or dimensions and tnsoeeaon ot weid quality and evened aooeaiance or fintaneo eemeonem. The assem cied dummy w men weighed, measured and tested. The following calibration tasts performed by First Technology Safety Systems, inc. are eased on these specified t tne Hybrid 1 1 1SOm Peteenttte Male Teat Oummy wrc reeccnaa eomeera modified ey tne SAE Task Fores Head imoaer Test Neck R eaon ana Extension Tests Thorax impact Test PaNte Compresuort Test Knse impaot Test (left and right) Knee Shear Test (slider te s t left and ngfit) First Tesnneiogy Safety System s, tne. gives caretui attention to designing, mararfacturing and testing state of tne ait aiflhrooomorpnie teat oeviees. This attention to detail ensures tnat the customer receive a Hybrid lit 5th Peieantite Teat Oummy known for it reesMity, durability, repeatability and reprodudWrty
Chestaisaaeemantttansaucer (suopued with dummy):

Two uniaxial lemur load calls. This instrumentation allows tasting aiong tha sam e lines a s me Hybrid H i 50th Pereemna Male Oummy casts mandated in Federal Meter Vehioa Safety Standard No. 208.
Optional Instrumentation
Three or 6ax* nedr transducer Five-axs lower neex transducer Chest toao celts Five-axis tnorsec some loao cell Fwe-exie tumoar spme loao eefl Three uniaxial (or one tnasai) accelerom eters in peNie Submarining mrtcacno transducers. t left. 1 ngnt Six*axa lemur force load can Tlble-femur diaoiaeomant transducers Denton* instrumented lower tegs - Knee oew s toao call. 2 z-axa - upper tibia transducer. 2-axis - Lower tibia transducer. 3-axis
EXTERNAL M U N SO N S Dimension Head Circumference / Head Width ' H aM Lingei ' Erect SHtmg *wignt . Simwwer b EBew langst sBOwB Pineer Tip Langvi fruitnc* b k d m langei Knee w Woor nwgre U n gtn iin ) 21.4 5.6 (cm) 54.4 142 1 86 a j 40.1 52.1 4S.7
72
31.1 11.6 1U 205 io o
78.0
AaSSW LYW BO H .* W f s i|in M i HW Naoc Upper Torao Lower Tone upper 4im t Lower Am s end Heeo* uppercase l w e n eye end Peat Total w eign
wetgm <B) S.1
2U 304 5.1 U ISA 17.7 1102
za
36 6 ti.7: 1X7 26 XX 7 a* 495
2-
p w rr tec h n o lo g y sa pety system s, inc .
47460 Galleon Orwe PtynwUBL Mcrugan 46170 Taecnone 3131481-7876 TeWeopy 3131454-4784
141
Hybrid II! * 95th Percentile Large Male Teet Oummy

Instrumentation The nyona if19Stn Percentile Mai* Test Dummy can aeeaot me same instrumentation as tne rtyonew 501ft Percamila Maw Tast Dummy. Stanoare instrumarttaaon is: Three uniaxial (or one maxiai) aeceierematars in head ana cnesu Chest displacement transducer (supoiiao with dummy); Two umasai femur toad ceus. This mamanentatcn allows tasting aiong the same lines as tne Hyorrd H i SOth Percentile Male Test Dummy tests msndaMd m Federal Motor vehicle Safety Standard No. 200.
Product Verification Standard manufacturing ana msoecton sroceaurcs result in ntgn quality macnmea ana matecc sans. Procedures tneuae certrtcatsn of raatenais. venfieauon of dfmensiens and nspectran of wetd duality ano over-all appearance of fintsned components. The assem eied dummy is men wetgned. m easured and tasted. Calibraoon tests performed oy First Tacnnaogy Safety Systems, tne. are baaeo on mane specified for the Myond III 50tn Percentue Male Test Dummy witn resoonaa ccrrwers modrtiee oy the SAE-Taa* Force.
Head Impact Test Neoc Flexion and Extension Tests
Opttonai instrumentation
Three or frauds node transducer Six-ass tower nedc transducer Chest toad ceils Five a s s thoiadc some load eaii Three a ss lumoar spine load can Three uruassi (or one triasai) accelerometers m Three-axis upper femur force s e e e e l Six-axis femur force food cell TOa-femur dispfacament transducers Denton instrumented louver legs - Knee cwvts load cad. 2 z-ass - Upper trOia transducer. 2*axn - Lower tf&ia transducer. 3-axis
PaMe Coneyess r n Test Knee impact Test (left ano nght) Knaa Shear Test (slider ta st left and right)
First Technology Safety Systems. Inc. gives careful aeneon to oaaignng. manufacturing and tasttng state of tha art antnropemorpnte teat devices. This aaemioR to camil ensures that tha eustemar receives a Hybrid HI 95th Percentile Male Tast Dummy Known for its reUabttty. ducabiity. repeatability ano leproducfciSty.
Thorax Impact Test
e x te rn a l o m vm o m Haas Orcumwisnes Haas wien Maesuanesi Eiea san e Haigm Snewmrte BBaw cangn Boom w FUtgmTip langei iuaoocttKnaeiangn Kaeaio Floor Hegnt fin)
A8S8M8LY W8JQHTS
.i u 140 108 24.S 23.4
30.7 1i 203
S3J
3U 47.S 602 SM
lower tags and Feat TouweKpt
Maas , I P n mi Hack Uppar Torso lower Torso uppar a m a lower Aima and Manas Upper legs
waters (IP)
108 14 44J 08 114 114 304 33.1 221.4
m 444 1.SS 2244 3080 342 546 1081 t841 101.31
47440 Qaaaon Drive ffymauai. MteNan 40170 Tataonona 313*481-7878 Tataeapy 3131454-4784 142
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
savr TietwieLoav aapcry svstsm s. me.
IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (Q A -3 )
r
/
| B
I .O 1 * 1
2.2
12.0
1.8
1.25
1.4
1.6
15 0 m m
IIW IG E .Inc
1653 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14609 USA Phone: 716/482-0300 Fax: 716/288-5989

Analysis of Automotive Safety Issues Related To Depowering of Airbags Using Finite Elements and Lumped Mass Models

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Analysis of Automotive Safety Issues Related To Depowering of Airbags Using Finite Elements and Lumped Mass Models

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master

May 17, 1998

DM! Number: 9831537

300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4

4.6 4.7 4.8

ALTERNATIVE AIRBAG INFLATION RATES 6.1 6.2

Benefits to Older Population Analysis Based on Statistical Data

104 101 106 107 109 110 112

115 115 118 118

Figure 6.1 6.2 6.3

104 106 108 109 110 110 112 113 114

A 1901 Oldsmobile Runabout

Table 5.1 Table 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Table 7.1

1.2 Developing the Necessary Tools for Analysis

1.3 Research Achievements

Figure 1.1 A car-to-car crash simulation using finite elements.

1.5 A Brief Overview of LS-DYNA3D

5W ,in = j] \ ( bi ~ P Ui)5u(d u + ^ T ' j v f a d S .

Now using Gausss theorem:*

= f J l t b ' - p u O f y d v + f f o ( T iJ(&ii )J +Tij'j dui)d u

Equating equation (1.3.12) to equation (1.3.1), rearranging and noting that

(Su() j =S(uLj) = Ss{j defines the principle of virtual work:

jJ X bM dv + j T ^ S u ^ S - \\\r p u iS u id u - \ \ \ c u i 8iiid v = W ^ T ^ e ^ d u (1.3.14) = JJV .d A

first degree (i.e. vector): H l d i v V d v

J*J [r /y] {8 }Td v

The nodal coordinates of each discrete element (linear, triangular, Interpolation or

[<fo] = [iV]{<5tf} Similarly,

[u] = [N][d] [u] = [N]{d]

The stress is related to strain by Hooks law which is expressed in matrix

while the strain is related to the nodal displacement as:

The matrix form of equation (1.3.15) then becomes:

( l \ i l b t N Y u + \ [ T l' \ N V S - \ \ [ p [ N m m d u - \ \ l < i N m { N - \ d u \Sd)T =

Next, several of the parameters in equation (1.3.22) are grouped together:

{q) = l \ [ m N o + ^ ' [ N y s [M \= \[lp [N f[N Y v [C ]= \\l^N f{N V o

(1-3.23) (1.3.24) (1.3.25)

[M]{d}n +[C]{d}n H K \ { d } n = {q}n

By subtracting the above two equations, the first derivative is obtained:

Similarly, by adding equations (1.3.328a) and (1.3.28b), the second derivative is

{d} = - k ( {<*}., - 2{d] + {</}_,) + / ( Af3)

(1.3.31) It is possible to get an expression for {d}n+ [ as follows:

W +l J & t 2{ q } - M * [ K ] { d } n + [M ](2 { flf} - { d } _ ,) + M Q {^ _ ,

[M ]{d}n +\C]{d}n_{ l l +[K-\{d}n ={q}n

1.4 General Discussion of Material Models and Element Formulation

1.5 Contact Algorithms

1.6 Analysis Procedure and Text Organization

Figure 2.1 The Hybrid IE dummy [17].

Major parts of the finite element model are validated here.

2.2 The Chest Model

Figure 2.3 Hybrid HI dummy chest.

Figure 2.5 Dummy position for standard impact test.

iL '.fK ftt - IV V '.t/.T V .

"igure 2.6 Ribcage deformation o f the finite element chest model.

Figure 2.7 Resistance force: pendulum test vs. simulation

Figure 2.8 Chest centerline deflection: test vs. simulation

2.3 The Head Model

Figure 2.10 Head drop test

Figure 2.11 Head drop test deceleration: test vs. Simulation.

2.4 The Head-Neck Model

Figure 2.12 FE Hybrid HI dummy neck

Figure 2.14 Neck pendulum test setup.

ngure 2 .15a Pendulum test: extension