Abstract

The manual for assessing safety hardware (MASH) defines crash tests to assess the impact performance of highway safety features in frontal and oblique impact events. Within MASH, the risk of injury to the occupant is assessed based on a “flail-space” model that estimates the average deceleration that an unrestrained occupant would experience when contacting the vehicle interior in a MASH crash test and uses the parameter as a surrogate for injury risk. MASH occupant risk criteria, however, are considered conservative in their nature, due to the fact that they are based on unrestrained occupant accelerations. Therefore, there is potential for increasing the maximum limits dictated in MASH for occupant risk evaluation. A frontal full-scale vehicle impact was performed with inclusion of an instrumented anthropomorphic test device (ATD). The scope of this study was to investigate the performance of the flail space model (FSM) in a full-scale crash test compared to the instrumented ATD recorded forces which can more accurately predict the occupant response during a collision event. Additionally, a finite element (FE) model was developed and calibrated against the full-scale crash test. The calibrated model can be used to perform parametric simulations with different testing conditions. Results obtained through this research will be considered for better correlation between vehicle accelerations and occupant injury. This becomes extremely important for designing and evaluating barrier systems that must fit within geometrical site constraints, which do not provide adequate length to redirect test vehicles according to MASH conservative evaluation criteria.

References

References
1.
AASHTO,
2009
, “
Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware
,” American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
2.
Michie
,
D. J.
,
1981
, “
Collision Risk Assessment Based on Occupant Flail-Space Model
,” Transportation Research Record, Washington, DC, pp.
1
9
.
3.
NHTSA
,
2004
, “
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Crash Protection
,” National Highway Transport and Safety Administration, Washington, DC, Standard No. 49 C.F.R., Part 571.208.
4.
Shoemaker
,
N. E.
,
1961
, “
Summary Report of Highway Barrier Analysis and Test Program
,”
Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory
,
Cornell University
,
Buffalo, NY
.
5.
Mertz
,
H. J.
,
Kroll
,
C. K.
, and
Patrick
,
L. M.
,
1967
, “Cadaver
Knee, Chest and Head Impact Loads
,”
SAE
Paper No. 670913.10.4271/670913
6.
Blamey
,
C.
,
1964
, “
Results for Impact Tests on Telegraphic Poles
,”
Highways and Bridges and Engineering Works
, 32(1576), pp.
7
8
, 13.
7.
Tamanini
,
F. J.
, and
Viner
,
J. G.
,
1970
, “
Energy Absorbing Roadside Crash Barriers
,”
Civ. Eng.
, 40(1), pp.
63
67
.
8.
Silvestri Dobrovolny
,
C.
, Prodduturu, H., Arrington, D., Schulz, N., Rupp, J., and Hu, J.,
2016
, “
Project Investigation on Correlation Between Roadside Safety Hardware and Vehicle Safety Standards Evaluation Criteria
,”
Advancing Transportation Leadership and Safety (ATLAS) Center
, Ann Arbor, MI, Report No. ATLAS-2016-12.
9.
National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC
),
2005
, “
Finite Element Model Archive
,” George Washington University, Washington, DC, accessed Nov. 6, 2019, https://www.ccsa.gmu.edu/
10.
Hallquist
,
J. O.
,
2009
, “
LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual, Version 971
,” Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA.
You do not currently have access to this content.