Simulation Method for Dynamic Out-of-Position Crash Tests
Hank Frech, Edward Burley, Timothy W. Hill, Mike Rossey and Kurt Schulz.
Breed Technologies, Inc

Reprinted From: Occupant Protection (SP-1432)

International Congress and Exposition Detroit, Michigan March 1-4, 1999
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

S. Printed in USA .00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center. Copyright Law. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. contact the SAE Publications Group.The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. contact the SAE Publications Group. for creating new collective works. or for resale. All SAE papers. ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers. without the prior written permission of the publisher. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution. and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. that the copier pay a $7. Engineering Meetings Board. This consent is given on the condition. Operations Center. in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise. 222 Rosewood Drive. SAE. SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U. for advertising or promotional purposes. standards. Inc. To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works. Inc. however. Danvers. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

and validation must be augmented to thoroughly and efficiently complete these tasks for the highly complex adaptive restraint systems. occupant position. This “at-risk zone” is a subset of the condition commonly referred to as an “out-of-position” occupant (OOPO). The expected accelerations associated with these movements are shown in Table 1. ABSTRACT The on-going industry effort to improve air bag systems for out-of-position occupants has created the need to reexamine the existing design criteria and development means to be used in the implementation of advanced air bag technologies. pre-impact vehicle dynamics and/or crash dynamics. Mike Rossey and Kurt Schulz. • A control algorithm: the means to transform the sensor readings into restraint hardware control. The occupant response to various vehicle input parameters and restraint hardware configurations and settings need to be evaluated. • Electronic circuits and microprocessor code that filters the sensor inputs and implements the control algorithms. distinctive “at-risk zones” can be defined for occupants where the injury levels produced by the air bag deployment would exceed the acceptable injury criteria as defined by FMVSS 208. This paper will review the development of a unique dynamic test fixture and test methodology to simulate the pre-deployment movement of an occupant concantenated with a conventional crash pulse on a HYGE sled. Inc. This test methodology provides for efficient development of dynamic occupant tracking systems. and the outputs of the various restraint systems components will be modified. and belt usage. The fixture is used to simulate the movement of occupants during both pre-impact and crash events. The authors will review the development of a new test methodology and Pre-Impact Event (PIE) Sled Fixture. crash severity. Prior to deployment. Adaptive restraint development requires a complete understanding of the out-of-position occupant phenomenon. This allows the total performance of dynamic tracking systems and adaptive restraint systems to be evaluated in a more realistic crash environment. Inc Copyright © 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers. These systems will dynamically detect a combination of occupant mass. now under development. Timothy W. 1 . (1) The control of the adaptive restraints system requires development of the following: • A biomechanic algorithm: the means to describe the desired occupant response to restraint system inputs. Edward Burley. Breed Technologies. development. OUT-OF-POSITION OCCUPANT DYNAMICS – An “outof-position occupant” (OOPO) is defined as one who is not in his normally assumed seating position. Hill. Current methods for restraint system design. (The values shown were estimates made by the authors) INTRODUCTION Advanced adaptive restraint systems. Development procedures and test techniques must be augmented to include appropriate testing of the out-of-position occupant. For every vehicle. including dynamic occupant tracking with biomechanic algorithms and restraint systems controls.1999-01-0638 Simulation Method for Dynamic Out-of-Position Crash Tests Hank Frech. The information will be processed. biomechanic algorithms and restraint system controls. the occupant may move out-of-position due to voluntary movement. are being designed to optimize protection for occupants of various sizes and position while minimizing inflation induced injuries. The risk of injury to an out-of-position occupant increases when the occupant is very close to the air bag when it deploys. These conditions must be simulated and tested with the complete restraint systems.

Other general observations about the pre-impact events are as follows (3. Modeling tools such as MADYMOTM. or other non-rigid object.Table 1: Acceleration level associated with occupant motion.Type of collision . • Pre-impact braking effects “occupant sensing systems” by changing the location or position of the occupant.5-1. • Delta velocities of up to 11 km/hr can be achieved. Movement Mode Acceleration Description Voluntary 0. (3) Another study by Stalnacker et al determined that the time required for a human surrogate head to enter a 100mm zone about the Instrument panel varied due to onsets of vehicle deceleration. (2) PRE-IMPACT EVENTS – Pre-impact events include hard braking. Studies by Takeda et al. Voluntary movements of the occupant (i. FEM. These events are severe enough to displace an occupant from their normally seated position.5 g’s . the deceleration level and RESTRAINT DEVELOPMENT METHODS – Current occupant restraint systems are far less complicated than the proposed advanced adaptive restraint systems. METHODOLOGIES Figure 1. pre-impact events. Occupant vicinity to IP as a function of velocity and displacement. This is due to lower moment of inertia.and Vehicle crush Figure 1 describes the velocity verses displacement for these movement modes. being seated out-of-position to see better. the initial position of the head. such as multi-level seat belt load limiters.9 g pulse . In all cases studied the head was the first to enter the 100-mm zone. Conversely.2 g’s . tree.4. where the likeliness of having a late deploying air bag is high. SABERTM.e. Occupant movement due to vehicle dynamics such as hard braking can produce both large velocities and large displacement prior to air bag deployment due to the length of time that the acceleration pulse is applied. but not severe enough to trigger passive restraint systems. moving to adjust the radio or other controls) have slow velocities and generate large displacement due to the large time interval of the movement.Rough road . • Smaller adults and children are more susceptible to being thrown out-of-position due to pre-impact braking.2-30 g’s . place the occupant out-of-position and into close proximity to the deploying air bag (2). or hitting a curb or rock.Leaning forward Vehicle Dynamics 0. less contact surface area.. Electronic features are also increasing with multiple threshold deployments.0–0. and DADSTM (kinematics analysis) are used to simulate the component and system responses and appropriately size the various component 2 .Occupant size . • Unbelted or improperly belted occupants are more likely to be thrown out-of-position by pre-impact braking. such as hard braking. Current development and test methods will need to be augmented to facilitate these developments. CFD.7 to 0. These positions make the child unstable and susceptible to pre-deployment events.5. hitting a pole.6): • Pre-impact braking takes place in approximately 70% of frontal collisions. pre-impact braking was evident. AT-RISK CHILDREN – In most instances of air bag induced fatalities. • The occupants seating position prior to pre-impact braking is critical to his position just prior to impact. with delta velocity of less than 20 mph.Hard braking . variable vent cans and bags and variable function air bag tethers are being proposed for these adaptive systems. dual or multi-level air bag inflators. Most of these fatalities occurred under low severity crashes. (4) In over 80 % of the fatalities reported in the NHTSA database for children under eleven. • Normally seated buckled or unbuckled occupants of various size ranges are affected minimally by preimpact braking. found that children sitting on the front passenger seat are more likely to sit in abnormal positions.Hard maneuvering Crash Dynamics 1. It also imparts a multi-level velocity profile to the occupant. and feet are less likely to touch the floor. weight sensing and occupant tracking systems development. the occupant movement due to collision produces large velocities and relatively small displacements due to the smaller time increment that the acceleration is applied prior to the air bag deployment. New restraint hardware features.Seating position . • Panic braking is usually classified as a 0.

a HYGE Pre-Impact Event (PIE) Sled Fixture. At the appropriate time. Correlation of the models. A winch pulls the seat and ATD to a predetermined distance and locks it in place. DESCRIPTION OF PRE-IMPACT EVENT SLED OPERATION – To better understand the effects of sudden deceleration. This test technology has now been incorporated into a new fixture. a new fixture that simulates a pre-impact pulse followed by a crash pulse was built. The fixture consists of a seat mounted on a horizontal surface that slides on linear bearings. If this coupling can be accomplished in a sled environment. The test device must be capable of simulating all pre-deployment occupant movements. By simulating the complete event. The rapid deceleration causes the ATD to slide forward out of the seat. The bearings are mounted to an Ibeam section. a sled was developed to place an ATD out of position with a repeatable velocity. The current test methodologies overlook the pre-deployment occupant dynamics. clothing. These simulation and test methods are adequate for predicting the potential injury levels to an OOP ATD with today’s systems but are not sufficient to test a complete adaptive restraint system. which are 11ft long. Although other test techniques were 3 considered. In some instances sled tests are also conducted with the ATD pre-positioned in an “out-of-position” configuration and then tested dynamically. but can also be used to develop complete restraint systems. the HYGE sled can be used not only for sensor development. or hitting a curb. the development objectives stated in the preceding paragraph could be expeditiously completed using existing development facilities. the HYGE sled fires and provides the crash pulse to this sled fixture. as well as the development and interaction of the system’s subsystems and components. Testing the occupant tracking or suppression systems for voluntary occupant movement and/or movement by a head form or body profile at constant velocity is not difficult. This was accomplished by ruggedizing and mounting a Pre-Impact Event Sled Fixture on a HYGE carriage. the restraint hardware. This Pre-Impact Event (PIE) Sled decreased the length required to place an ATD out of position (OOP) at constant velocity by exposing it to a higher deceleration for a shorter time. and control algorithms. Once released the bungee cords accelerate the seat and ATD to a constant velocity then the seat is decelerated rapidly. (7) Sled testing is conducted to determine the performance of the restraint system for normally seated adults. The sled environment would also avoid the expense of conducting large quantities of full vehicle barrier tests incorporating a pre-impact deceleration pulse. which mount to the HYGE sled carriage. its vehicle environment and the occupant tracking system are accelerated upon their own sled towards the HYGE piston. etc. A loose tether around the ATD’s waist stops the forward motion and rotates the upper torso towards the IP (see Figure 2). and either half of an instrument panel to simulate the driver side or passenger side of a vehicle. the sled is a valuable tool for not only the development of an occupant position sensor. Static testing using anthropomorphic test devices (ATD’s) are used to determine risk levels for “out-of-position” occupants. HYGE PRE-IMPACT SLED FIXTURE – The one limitation of the first fixture was its inability to reproduce a crash pulse at the end of the pre-impact event. the sled offered a more realistic simulation of various occupant properties that can affect dynamic occupant sensing. These include various modes of occupant trajectory. This fixture was developed to look at only the pre-impact event. (2. The buck slides on linear bearings. This development must include the simulation and response of the complete restraint systems. a seat. the dynamic tracking sensors.. HYGE sled and barrier tests. development and verification testing of the proposed restraint systems are completed using static stand.features. This new fixture incorporates a more robust PIE sled mounted to a HYGE carriage that is used to duplicate the pre-impact event and concatenate it with the vehicle crash pulse.4. the occupant. followed by a crash. The dashpots can be adjusted. Simulation and tests were conducted to establish repeatability of the test method. but also as a tool to test a complete “advanced occupant protection system”. The buck is accelerated to a constant velocity of up to 16 km/hr with a set of bungee cords and decelerated with a set of dashpots located at the end of the linear bearings. The HYGE pre-impact event sled consists of a buck that can carry an occupant. The seat is accelerated using bungee cords. effective torso cross section. The purpose of the test method being discussed is to simulate a pre-impact deceleration event. repetitive testing of tracking sensors. as well as combinations of these movements. It is more difficult to simulate the pre-deployment movement coupled with the vehicle crash pulse. to develop the biomechanical algorithm and test the total adaptive restraint system. DESCRIPTION. This sled was then placed within the Electronics Laboratory at Breed for rapid. the control algorithms and the electronic control and processors. To study OOP more extensively. hitting a brake-away pole. i.e. During the pre-impact simulation phase. a very important factor in adaptive restraint system development. With this technology extension. or various lengths can be . NHTSA in their NPRM for FMVSS 208 released in September 1998 has suggested several methods. such as hard braking.7). electronic conditioning circuits. DEVELOPMENT OF PRE-IMPACT EVENT SLED – Early research of dynamic occupant sensing required the development of a small laboratory sled to simulate occupant movement when exposed to a low level deceleration pulse.

At this point the ATD begins to translate forward in the seat (Frame 4) and pivot about the waist (Frame 5). Operation of the Pre-Impact Event Fixture. This reproduces the accelerations caused by breakaway pole. HYGE Pre-Impact Event Sled Operation When the buck reaches the end of the linear bearings it hits a pair of adjustable dashpots (Frame 3) which begins the pre-impact event motion. The buck is accelerated via the Bungee cords (Ref. The acceleration information from a PIE sled test was used as input into the MADYMOTM model.1 meters was used to accelerate the buck to constant velocity. Frame 1) and reaches a constant velocity (Frame 2). The HYGE ram then imparts a crash pulse onto the main HYGE sled carriage (Frames 6-8) and further exacerbates the ATD’s pre-impact event motion. Longer stroke dashpots can be used to produce long duration pulses at a low acceleration level to simulate hard panic braking. In addition the number of bungee cords may also be increased to effect the final velocity of the buck. One of the constraints faced was the usable length the buck could travel. . If less length were used. signal is sent to initiate the HYGE sled firing. Short stroke dashpots can be used to produce a short duration pulse with a high acceleration. a fire signal is sent from the HYGE control room to a solenoid on the release mechanism. To make pre-impact event testing work in a fixed lab environment. OPERATION OF HYGE PRE-IMPACT SLED FIXTURE – The buck is pulled back by an electric winch to begin the PIE sled sequence. The tension of the bungee cords can be adjusted.6 meters of usable length. some design liberties had to be taken. the acceleration on the ATD would be large and possibly displace it while bringing it up to speed.used to create different pre-impact event pulses. Figure 3. Figure 2. When the buck comes to a complete stop. The displacement versus time results of the MADYMOTM validation can be seen in Figure 4. At some point during the constant velocity phase a trigger 4 RESULTS MADYMOTM SIMULATION – A MADYMOTM model was constructed of the Pre-Impact Event Sled and validated against the actual test results. The cords are tensioned when the buck is pulled into position using an electric winch. curb-hit and non-deployment level crash events. Figure 3. A distance of 2. The predicted kinematics was compared to video analysis results of a PIE sled test. There is an inherent delay in when the fire sequence is initiated and when the HYGE ram begins the crash pulse. to increase or decrease the buck velocity. When the buck reaches the desired release point. it is locked in place by a ratcheting lock mechanism (Frame 5) to prevent the buck from moving backward during the event. by positioning the mounting points to increase or decrease the bungee cord length. A CVC HYGE carriage has 3. The buck had to accelerate and decelerate within the length of the HYGE carriage.

Comparison of MADYMOTM to Real Test Using this MADYMOTM model. From 600ms to 800ms the buck maintains constant velocity.3 0.1 0 0 50 100 15 0 200 250 PIE SLED 14. Figure 5 shows the three displacement curves.5 0. The maximum displacement for the PIE pulse during the pre-impact is approximately 0.4km/hr no-fire crash pulse.8g and 1. The Figure 5.Figure 6. The buck is accelerated up to velocity until approximately 600ms. The distance traveled by the head just prior to the 24km/ hr crash onset for the PIE pulse is most similar to the 0. Two distinctive slopes of displacement over time (velocity) can be seen in each of the different conditions. The constant velocity portion of the event allows the ATD to stabilize prior to the pre-impact event deceleration.4km/hr no-fire crash PIE PULSE RESULTS – The actual acceleration and velocity data achieved on the PIE Sled Fixture can be seen in Figures 8 and 9.6 1.8g and 1. Thus the PIE sled would be more severe.8g brake pulse.4 0. A comparison can also be made with a 14.3m respectively.8g and 1.0g pre-impact brake pulses during the pre-impact phase of the event.21 and 0. the results of the PreImpact Event Sled Fixture were compared to a 0. The PIE pulse displaces the occupant at a higher rate for a shorter duration than the 0.3 seconds and is associated with the pre-impact event. The PIE sled provides the occupant with a velocity of approximately 2m/s or one half the velocity of 4m/s found in a 14. H e a d to I/P D is ta nce M A D YM O 0.0 g PULSE D i st an ce (m ) 0. If one aligns the displacement curves with the start of the deceleration pulse instead of the 24km/hr crash pulse.7 0.0g pulse just prior to the 24km/hr crash onset (Figure 6).0 g deceleration pre-brake pulse. The second is caused by the 24km/hr crash pulse and occurs after 0. 5 . This would provide an upper bound to judge the relative severity of the PIE sled. Figure 7 shows these four curves.0g deceleration brake pulse of a 270 millisecond duration concatenated with a 24km/hr crash acceleration pulse. Head to IP distance MADYMO TM Results The velocity of the PIE pulse initially exceeds both the 0.4km/hr no-fire crash pulse.3 seconds. Head to IP velocity MADYMO TM Results Figure 4. Head to IP distance MADYMO TM Results PIE Comparison to 14.4km/hr pole test. while the 0.2m.8g and 1. these curves can then be compared to a 14. The MADYMOTM simulation predicts at the time of HYGE fire that the displacement and velocity of the occupant in the PIE sled is equivalent to that obtained respectively with a . This graph shows that the results obtained from the HYGE PIE sled fixture lie within the realm of real world pre-impact event motions.0g pulses produce 0. The first slope occurs between 0 and 0.0g brake pulses but then slows to approximately the same velocity as the 1.8 g PULSE 0.2 0.8g and a 1.4 km/hr NO-FIRE IMPACT T im e (m s) Figure 7.

To establish repeatability a series of tests were conducted utilizing the 3 year old. The time corrected data for the 3 year old.3 Figure 12. The results of these tests can be seen in figures 10-12.3 -8 T ime (ms) Figure 11.1 1. Before a comparison of the curves could be made they first needed to be time corrected so that the 24km/hr crash pulse occurs at the same time frame in each test. 6 yr. To time correct the data an 8g target was used to shift the data.3 0. 6 year old and 5th Percentile ATD. Acceleration of PIE Fixture On Hyge Sled 30 20 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 portions of the event.15 Time [sec] 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.3 Time (ms) Figure 8. The slopes and displacement values for both the pre-impact and the crash phase are almost identical from test to test. The 8g value was chosen because it was sufficiently higher than the pulse created by the pre-impact event pulse.4 0. old repeatability tests 6 Year Old Child ATD Head to IP Distance (Time Corrected) 5 MPH Pre-Impact Brake / 15 MPH Crash Pulse 0. The ATDs were all tested with a pre-impact event velocity of 8 km/hr and a 24km/hr crash pulse.3 0.15 Time [sec] 1.6 Acceleration (g) 0.1 1.7 0.05 1. PIE Buck Velocity REPEATABILITY-HYGE PRE-IMPACT SLED FIXTURE – In order for a test devise to be a useful tool for developing occupant protection systems it must be repeatable.1 1.pre-impact deceleration begins at approximately 870ms and lasts for a 20-30ms duration. the PIE sled can be used to investigate the effects of air bag deployment timing on out-of-position occupants.05 1. The air bag deployment can be triggered by fixed time delay. PIE Buck Acceleration Velocity of PIE Sled 6 Figure 10.3 0.1 -50 0 -60 1 1.7 4 0. A minimum of four tests was conducted for each size ATD.5 Distance [m] 0.05 1.2 -40 0. 3 yr.25 1.2 0.1 0 2 Velocity [m/s] 0 0 -2 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 -4 -6 1 1. This is especially true of a test utilized to develop the next generation advanced air bag systems. old repeatability tests 5th %ile Female ATD Figure 9. The 24km/hr crash pulse begins at approximately 1000ms.15 Time [sec] 1.1 0 1 1.6 0. 3 Year Old Child ATD Head to IP Distance (Time Corrected) 5 MPH Pre-Impact Brake / 15 MPH Crash Pulse 0.4 0.4 0.25 1.25 1.5 Distance [m] 0.2 1.5 Distance [m] 0.2 0. 6 year old and 5th Percentile ATDs all show good repeatability for both Head to IP Distance (Time Corrected) 5 MPH Pre-Impact Brake / 15 MPH Crash Pulse 0. by position of the moving buck on the PIE 6 .6 0. 5th % ATD repeatability tests DISCUSSION CONVENTIONAL OOP TESTING – For standard systems. The 24km/hr crash pulse was obtained from a vehicle barrier test.

the PIE sled can be used off the HYGE sled to provide a pre-crash pulse only. • Frame 5. Occupant positioning system components include transducers or sensors and an occupant sensing module (OSM) which contains signal conditioning circuits. This provides the electronics laboratory or sensor system vendor a means to conduct repetitive testing with ATD’s at significant lower cost than a full HYGE sled or barrier test. tracking and control algorithms. With the flexibility of the PIE sled. the HYGE sled has been fired rearward with a 24km/hr pulse. This will provide additional test data at minimal cost. A test series has been planned to evaluate the differences between pre-positioning the ATD statically verses imparting a pre-impact velocity and deceleration pulse. the ATD is in free flight. A typical output of film verses occupant tracking output is shown below in Figure 14. OCCUPANT POSTIONING OR TRACKING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT – The PIE Sled Fixture can be used both off and on the HYGE sled for occupant position development.38 4 5 TRACKING SENSOR DISPLACEMENT . the movable buck section of the PIE sled is being accelerated after release. The HYGE sled using the PIE Sled Fixture can provide numerous simulations of the pre-impact events concatenated with various crash pulses at a lower cost than full barrier tests. Film Analysis Data . Occupant Tracking vs. • Frame 1. The occupant sensing module (OSM) signals the system diagnostic module (SDM) when the occupant is within an at-risk zone which would require suppression or low stage firing of the air bag. the complete occupant tracking system must be proven to be robust. Figure 13 below shows a video sequence of an air bag deployment using the PIE sled in combination with the HYGE sled. a 5th percentile adult ATD. the movable buck has been accelerated to 8-km/hr velocity immediately prior to being snubbed by the dashpots. • Frame 2. and the air bag has started to deploy.fixture. Air Bag Deployment on PIE Sled Without the PIE Sled Fixture. • Frame 3. tion. The air bag is still inflating and has not yet reached its full shape. Occupant position and tracking data can be crosschecked with film analysis from both PIE sled tests and vehicle barrier tests. pre-brake velocities of up to 16km/hr and 15g’s can be obtained. the laboratory would have pre-positioned the ATD statically into its deployment posi7 TIME [ms] Figure 14.50 DISTANCE [m] . In early development of an occupant position or tracking system.13 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 130 140 160 Figure 13. Since the OSM data will control or alter the performance of the air bag. Figure 13. the PIE sled has been decelerated. • Frame 4.63 SHOULDER DISPLACEMENT 1 2 3 . the ATD continues to move forward into the air bag. the air bag has been activated based on a pre-set HYGE sled acceleration level. by occupant position during the pre-impact event or acceleration level produced by the HYGE sled. fired the HYGE with a 32km/hr pulse and fired the air bag with a pre-set delay after the initiation of the pulse. .25 HEAD DISPLACEMENT . These components or complete tracking systems can also be included in the OOP testing and at-risk zone development with no disruption to the OOP tests. the ATD has rebounded off the bag but has yet to rebound off the seat. The ATD used represented a small female occupant.

is to automatically suppress the air bag when either a child or 5th percentile female ATD enters an at-risk zone. The HYGE with PIE Sled Fixture uses ATD’s exposed to both the pre-impact event velocity of 11km/hr and the various concatenated crash pulses. the occupant tracking system. The system is tracking a dummy rather than a head form. When testing for OOP children. the variability of the time to sense the crash and fire the CONCLUSION Results from the initial test series conducted on the HYGE using the Pre-Impact Event (PIE) Sled Fixture are encouraging. does the air bag suppress if the head form enters the suppression zone? Where as. Once derived. A test series would map out one or more zones within which the ATD provided unacceptable injury values. This would preclude cross checking on-board instrumentation with video analysis. Unlike the standard OOP test. Confirmation of this position could be made by film analysis. By utilizing the sled fixture. Hypothetical At-Risk Zone The HYGE sled with PIE Sled Fixture can be used to develop the location of these zones in lieu of the static OOP testing discussed above. making real time decisions that can be evaluated via ATD injury numbers. 8 . This is especially critical with the number of OOP ATD’s and OOP positions required. the PIE sled is superior to the head form test procedure suggested by the NPRM (2). by breaking a light curtain. It the crash sensor could not meet these performance specifications consistently.4 meters begins to pick up the shoulders. v) environmental conditions. the air bag would be triggered when the occupant reached a predetermined position within the buck on the PIE sled. procedures and sled fixture to achieve higher confidence of the test repeatability and correlation to real-world pre-impact events. For those systems. In barrier testing the doors must be left installed which obscures the side views. these at-risk zones will need to be extended to encompass the performance variability of the various system components. the ATD’s dynamics would not be visible in the side views. and viii) variability of the restraint and control hardware components. one test fixture can be used to evaluate the system performance with various dummies undergoing different pre-impact events and crashes. vi) sensing tolerances. Figure 14 shows a hypothetical at risk zone for a 5th Percentile passenger. ii) the crash sensor time to fire.As shown in Figure 14. the entire vehicle interior can be filmed from boom mounted cameras. AIR BAG SUPPRESION ZONE DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING – One option of the NPRM for FMVSS 208 (2). The head form test simply monitors the tracking system and occupant sensing control module. These efforts will include: • Additional refinement of the procedures and hardware for the HYGE sled. It certainly would provide more testing in a shorter period of time and at lower cost. As a development tool. For example. In this case. this particular tracking system initially tracks the occupant’s head and at approximately 0. system diagnostic module and restraint hardware to be tested in one controlled test. Distinct zones may be configured for each size ATD. the PIE sled should provide a more consistent and repeatable test method than a full barrier test. This testing would be performed in a full vehicle barrier test. The tracking transducers were mounted in a mid-mount air bag location. the at-risk zone would need to be increased. by an occupant position sensor or by the occupant tracking system. iv) type of real world crash. the HYGE with PIE Sled Fixture can simulate not only the OOP condition but also investigate the interaction of these factors. the PIE Sled Fixture enables the complete restraint systems including restraint hardware. For development purposes. Some of the factors that increase the at-risk zone as derived by OOP testing include: i) the sensor sample time. which includes a pre-impact braking event. DYNAMIC TRACKING SYSTEM TESTING – Another option of meeting the NPRM for FMVSS 208 (2) is to dynamically track the occupant and adjust an adaptive restraint system to produce injury numbers which are below the requirements set by the standard. It answers the question. iii) normal seating position. At Risk Zone Extended At Risk Zone air bag can be studied and upper and lower bounds established for a particular at risk zone. Figure 15. which include both dynamic tracking and suppression to control the advance adaptive restraint systems. • Round-robin test series on three HYGE sleds. This position could be measured by actuating a string potentiometer. Improvement efforts will continue to refine the test methodology.

and Wolanin. L. 587 and 595. 1997. 4. Crandall. J. 1982. PA 1980.. Society of Automotive Engineers. J. The occupant achieves higher velocities and would require an occupant sensing system to update at a higher rate to give true position. Warrendale. Horsch. and Pilkey. Brian Blackburn.. Bill Gottwalt. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge H. Scott Gentry. Also.C. SAE Paper # 971052. W. 1995 Ircobi International Conference. and Mertz. Klopp. Florida facility.... Notice 1 RIN 2127-AG 70. Warrendale. “Simulation of Muscle Tensing in Pre-Impact Bracing”. Docket No.. “Predictions of Child Motion During Panic Braking and Impact. It should be noted that for purposes of developing an advanced restraint system the PIE sled pulse is more severe. the PIE Sled Fixture is a valuable tool to investigate the response of current and advance restraint systems on the OOP occupant.. 7.. Sieveka. Matt Owen. L. E. REFERENCES 1. Warrendale. H. Warrendale . Steve Coffey and all other support personnel at the Lakeland. 6. L. 8th International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. Takeda.• Development and performance analysis of the PIE Sled Fixture on two Shenk Sleds. Norgan-Curtiss.. G. PA. Wideman. M. 1993. J. And Wilkins. J.” SAE Paper # 821166...” SAE Paper # 933119. NHTSA 984405. In its current state. PA. S. I. Jensen..”.. Society of Automotive Engineers. and Marcus. G. 49 CFR Parts 571. and Kobayashi. H. White. McCleary. “Assessment of Air Bag Deployment Loads with the Small Female Hybrid III Dummy. Warrendale.. J. Smith.Klusmeyer. John Miller.. Jim Lotito. Joe Mazur. Front Seat. • Computer and sled test simulation of various preimpact events and sensor evaluation tests. Ty Miller. 1982. PA. 9 . 585. “Control and Application of Intelligent Restraint Systems.. 2. John Moloney. These simulations will be compared to data and video of pre-brake dynamics. J. Musiol. Melvin. Society of Automotive Engineers. Peel. Stalnacker.. dynamic OOP barrier and sensor barrier tests.” SAE Paper #806030. Society of Automotive Engineers. “Injuries to Children from Air bag Deployment.. J. Kaleps. Mohannad Murad and John Burdock for their help in developing the PIE sled. R. “Unrestrained. M. Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Advanced Air Bags. 5. 3.. PA. H.. Child Surrogate Trajectories Produced By Hard Braking”’ SAE Paper # 821165. Society of Automotive Engineers.