Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Dec 2014
established for over 20 years, is focussed on crash structural loading. Where crumple zones are designed to have structural compliance in order to absorb energy, and a rigid safety cell is designed to protect occupants.
In1951, Daimler-Benz AG registered a patent [8] for the passenger car body with a passenger safety cell. This innovation is still seen as the fundamental feature of passive automotive safety to this day. Automotive design engineers previously thought that a body that was as rigid as possible was the best way to protect the driver and passengers in an accident. In fact it means that the forces generated during the impact are transferred to the occupants with hardly any prior absorption. Whereas, controlled body deformation at the front and rear of the passenger safety cell, absorbs the kinetic energy during a collision. At the same time a rigid passenger safety cell in the middle of the vehicle enclosed the occupants and protected them from the impact forces acting on the vehicle structure.
In order to facilitate direct evaluation of occupant risks and injuries in automotive crash scenarios using simulation data, Marzougi
et al [9] developed and
validated a non-linear FE model. The model consisted of a full size car, a 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy, and a driver side airbag. The FE model was used for the simulation of an NCAP full scale crash test, which involved frontal impact with a full rigid barrier at 30mph using LS-DYNA3D crash code. The validation process focused on the crush depth in the front of the vehicle, the acceleration at different locations of the vehicle as well as the head and chest accelerations and the femur loads of the dummy. The simulation results were found to be in agreement with the crash test data.
Teng et al [10]
examined the dynamic response of the human body in a frontal collision event and assessed the injuries sustained to the occupant’s head, chest and pelvic regions. They used Kane’s method to obtain the governing equations describing the response of the occupant. The numerical models were capable of predicting the severity of the injuries sustained by the vehicle occupant in an impact. They proposed that the multibody dynamics modeling method provides a valuable tool for engineers to study different design concepts and to evaluate the safety of vehicles at an early stage development process.
of the research and
In the early 1990's in order to evaluate the impact response of the human body in car pedestrian accidents, a mathematical multibody-system model of the whole human body was developed by Ishikawa et al [11]. The aim of the model was to achieve better correlation with results from impact tests with cadaver specimens. In order
to verify the pedestrian model with pervious
cadaver experiments, the computer simulations were carried out to replicate the conditions of cadaver tests. The model response to the following parameters were evaluated in simulations: impact speed, bumper height and bumper compliance. The responses from the model
in various impact pedestrian behaviour, resultant
configurations, such as overall head
velocity,
acceleration of the segments, were validated. The output parameters calculated from computer simulations with the new pedestrian model
corresponded well to
observations in cadaver studies and indicate its ability to analyse pedestrian kinematics in car-pedestrian accidents.
The vehicle safety and roadside safety communities utilize full-scale crash tests to assess the potential for occupant
injury during collision loadings. While the
vehicle community uses instrumented full-scale crash test dummies, the roadside community relies on the flail space model and the Acceleration Severity Index (ASI) models, which are based primarily on the deceleration of the test
vehicle. Gabauer and
investigated the correlation of these differing metrics to gain insight into potential differences
Thompson [12] in threshold
occupant risk levels in the roadside and vehicle safety communities. Full-scale vehicle crash tests were analyzed to compare the flail space model and ASI to crash test dummy injury criteria for different impact configurations, including frontal and frontal offset crash tests. The Head Injury
Criterion
acceleration, peak chest deflection, and maximum femur force were each compared to the ASI, and flail space parameters. In terms of the vehicle crash test injury criteria, the occupant impact velocity and ASI are found to be conservative in the frontal collision mode. The occupant ridedown acceleration
correlation to HIC while the ASI had the strongest correlation to peak chest acceleration.
Considering the occupant risks and injuries in the CLF combines the traits of both occupant and pedestrian in the automotive sector. As a vessel passenger may be seated unrestrained or might be upright and walking at the time of impact. Here the impact with a table or other fixed objects would be analogous to a pedestrian being hit by a car. The opportunity for the transfer of innovation of active safety systems such as multiple airbag configurations would require a CAE application and study as an integral part of the vessel design process. Feng [13] reported on the CAE applications for balanced curtain airbag design meeting FMVSS226 and system/component performance as an integral part of the vehicle programme. The curtain airbag is a key restraint component to protect occupants in the event of side impact and rollover. It has to meet the requirements of restraint
system performances and in rollover
requires increased and side
component
performances such as the low risk deployment of Out- Of-Position (OOP) and component integrity. FMVSS226 Ejection Mitigation containment
occupant crashes for
belted/unbelted occupants. The rule requires the linear impact tests at two energy levels and two inflation times. This has resulted in the introduction of larger curtain airbags with higher power inflators for longer inflation. This has been a challenge to the integrity of the curtain
(HIC), peak chest
had the strongest
© 2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
C-139
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188