Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to...

21
Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush Research Donald T. Willke National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SAE Government/Industry Meeting May 10, 2004

Transcript of Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to...

Page 1: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Status of NHTSA’sRoof Crush Research

Donald T. WillkeNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SAE Government/Industry MeetingMay 10, 2004

Page 2: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof Crush

• Phase 1 – Determine Plate Angles

• Phase 2 – Initial Fleet Evaluation

• Phase 3 – Expanded Fleet Evaluation

Page 3: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 1 - Approach

• Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions– 5° pitch, 25° roll– 10° pitch, 45° roll

• Tested 3 Pairs of Vehicles– 1997 Dodge Grand Caravan– 1998 Chevrolet S-10 Pickup– 2002 Ford Explorer

• Compared Force vs. Displacements• Compared Damage to Real World

Page 4: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 1 - Summary

• No Trend in Energy ‘Absorbed’• No Trend in Peak Force• No Trend in Far-Side Lateral Crush• More Vertical Crush in 5° x 25°• Any Differences Were Very Subtle

– Not distinguishable in subjective evaluation of photographs of roof damage

Page 5: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 2 - Approach

• Test 10 Recent Model Vehicles• Load Plate Angles - 5° pitch, 25° roll• Test to 254 mm of Load Plate

Displacement• Collect Force vs. Displacement Data• Collect Headroom Measurement Data

Page 6: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 2 - Vehicles: One From Each Type/Size

• Passenger Cars:– 2002 Ford Mustang– 2002 Toyota Camry– 2001 Ford Crown Victoria

• Sport Utility Vehicles:– 2002 Honda CR-V– 2002 Ford Explorer*– 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe

* Data from Phase 1

• Pickup Trucks:– 1998 Chevrolet S-10

Pickup*– 2002 Dodge Ram 1500

Pickup

• Vans:– 1997 Dodge Grand

Caravan*– 1999 Ford E-150

Econoline Van

Page 7: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 2 - Roof Attachment Point

• Seat Track Position & Seat Back Angle for 50th

Male per FMVSS 208• Locate H-Point Using OSCAR Device

– x and z coordinates

• Identify ‘Top of Head’– Located for first vehicle by seating H-3 dummy– Used translation of OSCAR x and z coordinates for

remaining vehicles– y coordinate from centerline of seat

• Locate Point Vertically Above ‘Top of Head’– On interior roof liner– On exterior hard roof

Page 8: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 2 – Initial Headroom

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

Mustan

g

S-10 P

UCam

ry

Explor

er

Crown V

ic

Carav

an CR-V

Ram PU

Taho

e

E-150

Van

Hea

dro

om

(m

m)

to roof

to brace

to liner

Page 9: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 2 – String Potentiometer Attachment

3 string potentiometers were used to track the roof point initially above the drivers head

Page 10: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 2 - Results

Percent of Vehicle Weight vs. Displacement To 254 mm Load Plate Displacement

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Average Displacement (mm)

Per

cen

t of V

ehic

le W

eig

ht

1997 Dodge Grand Caravan 1998 Chevrolet S10 Pickup 2002 Ford Explorer 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup2002 Toyota Camry 2002 Ford Mustang 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe 2002 Ford Crown Victoria2002 Honda CRV 1999 Ford E150 Van

Page 11: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 2 - Results

Maximum Force Achieved Within 125 mm External Crush

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mini-Coo

per*

S-10 P

U

Mustan

gCam

ry

Mazda

6* CR-V

Carava

n

Crown V

ic

Explo

rer

Soren

to*

Windsta

r*

Ram PU

TrailB

lazer*

Taho

e

E-150

Van

Per

cen

t Veh

cile

Wei

gh

t (%

)

Page 12: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 2 - Results

Percent of Vehicle Weight vs. Headroom Remaining to Roof To 254 mm Load Plate Displacement

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

-120-100-80-60-40-20020406080100120140160180200220240260

Headroom Remaining (mm)

Per

cen

t of V

ehic

le W

eig

ht

1997 Dodge Grand Caravan 1998 Chevrolet S10 Pickup 2002 Ford Explorer 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup2002 Toyota Camry 2002 Ford Mustang 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe 2001 Ford Crown Victoria2002 Honda CRV 1999 Ford E150 Van

Page 13: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

All vehicles reached 150% of vehicle weight with significant head room remaining

* to brace

Only 1 vehicle did not have a peak force above 200% of vehicle weight, but it still had positive head room at the end of the test

Headroom Remaining at 150% Vehicle Weight

0

50

100

150

200

250

300M

usta

ng

Cam

ry

Cro

wn

Vic

CR

-V *

Exp

lore

r

Taho

e

S-1

0 P

U

Ram

PU

Car

avan

E-1

50 V

an

Hea

dro

om

Rem

ain

ing

(mm

)

to roofto liner

Headroom Remaining at 200% Vehicle Weight

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Mus

tang

Cam

ry

Cro

wn

Vic

CR

-V *

Exp

lore

r

Taho

e

S-1

0 P

U

Ram

PU

Car

avan

E-1

50 V

an

Hea

dro

om

Rem

ain

ing

(mm

)

to roofto liner

Page 14: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

* to brace

4 vehicles had a peak force above 300% of vehicle weight, and 2 of these had positive head room remaining

8 of the 10 vehicles had a peak force above 250% of vehicle weight, and 6 of these had positive head room remaining

Headroom Remaining at 250% Vehicle Weight

-50

0

50

100

150

200M

usta

ng

Cam

ry

Cro

wn

Vic

CR

-V *

Exp

lore

r

Taho

e

S-1

0 P

U

Ram

PU

Car

avan

E-1

50 V

an

Hea

dro

om

Rem

ain

ing

(mm

)

to roofto liner

Headroom Remaining at 300% Vehicle Weight

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

Mus

tang

Cam

ry

Cro

wn

Vic

CR

-V *

Exp

lore

r

Taho

e

S-1

0 P

U

Ram

PU

Car

avan

E-1

50 V

an

Hea

dro

om

Rem

ain

ing

(mm

)

to roofto liner

Page 15: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 3 - Approach

• Test 10 Recent Model Vehicles• Load Plate Angles - 5° pitch, 25° roll• Test to 254 mm of Load Plate

Displacement• Collect Force vs. Displacement Data• Document Time of Liner-to-Head

Contact

Page 16: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 3 - Vehicles

• Passenger Cars:– 2003 Ford Focus– 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier– 2001 Ford Taurus– 2003 Chevrolet Impala

• Sport Utility Vehicles:– 2003 Subaru Forester– 2002 Nissan Xterra– 2003 Ford Expedition

• Pickup Trucks:– 2003 Toyota Tacoma– 2003 Ford F-150

• Van:– 2003 Chevrolet Express

(15-passenger)

Page 17: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 3 – Dummy Placement

• Hybrid-III 50th Male• Positioned per

FMVSS 208• Arms and Legs

Removed• Contact Switch on

Head and Liner

Page 18: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 3 - Results

Percent of Vehicle Weight vs. DisplacementTo 254 mm Load Plate Displacement

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Displacement (mm)

Per

cen

t of V

ehic

le W

eig

ht

Ford Focus Chevrolet Cavalier Ford Taurus Chevrolet Impala Subaru Forester

Nissan Xterra Ford Expedition Toyota Tacoma Pickup Ford F-150 Pickup Chevrolet Express Van

Page 19: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 3 - Results

Percent of Vehicle Weight vs. DisplacementTo Head Contact

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Displacement (mm)

Per

cen

t of V

ehic

le W

eig

ht

Ford Focus Chevrolet Cavalier Ford Taurus Chevrolet Impala Subaru ForesterNissan Xterra Ford Expedition Toyota Tacoma Pickup Ford F-150 Pickup Chevrolet Express Van

Page 20: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

Roof CrushPhase 3 - Results

Maximum Force Prior to Head Contact

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

Focu

s

Cavali

er

Tauru

s

Impa

la

Fores

terXter

ra

Exped

ition

Taco

maF-1

50

Expre

ss Va

n

Per

cen

t o

f V

ehic

le W

eig

ht

Page 21: Status of NHTSA’s Roof Crush ResearchRoof Crush Phase 1 - Approach • Computer Simulation to Select Test Conditions – 5 pitch, 25 roll – 10 pitch, 45 roll • Tested 3 Pairs

THE END


CRUSH 2: Maddie's Camp Crush - Excerpt

CRUSH 2: Maddie's Camp Crush - Excerpt

CONAE orbit tested, verified, and implemented Roll, pitch, and yaw implemented

CONAE orbit tested, verified, and implemented Roll, pitch, and yaw implemented

The Effect of Roll and Pitch Motion on Ship Magnetic Signaturekomag.org/journal/download.html?file_name=1482736653.pdf−504 − The Effect of Roll and Pitch Motion on Ship Magnetic

The Effect of Roll and Pitch Motion on Ship Magnetic Signaturekomag.org/journal/download.html?file_name=1482736653.pdf−504 − The Effect of Roll and Pitch Motion on Ship Magnetic

0.5 cm Position accuracy (PPK) 0.03 deg Heading accuracy ... · Pitch and Roll Units INS-B-OEM Range: Pitch, Roll deg ±90, ±180 Angular Resolution deg 0.01 Static Accuracy in whole

0.5 cm Position accuracy (PPK) 0.03 deg Heading accuracy ... · Pitch and Roll Units INS-B-OEM Range: Pitch, Roll deg ±90, ±180 Angular Resolution deg 0.01 Static Accuracy in whole

Roll, Pitch and Yaw: 3-D rotation matrices

Roll, Pitch and Yaw: 3-D rotation matrices

Pitch, roll and yaw Damper yawd… · • Pitch damper will tends to oppose any pitch rate away from the reference input. • In a steady and level flight the reference pitch rate

Pitch, roll and yaw Damper yawd… · • Pitch damper will tends to oppose any pitch rate away from the reference input. • In a steady and level flight the reference pitch rate

CRUSH 1: Lauren's Beach Crush - Excerpt

CRUSH 1: Lauren's Beach Crush - Excerpt

OPERATOR´S MANUAL - Defender · The Pitch wheel controls the trim or pitch angle, while the Roll wheel normally controls the list or roll angle. In Steering mode (chapter 6.2), ...

OPERATOR´S MANUAL - Defender · The Pitch wheel controls the trim or pitch angle, while the Roll wheel normally controls the list or roll angle. In Steering mode (chapter 6.2), ...

Introduction Magnetic Field Basicskionixfs.kionix.com › en › document › AN006-Handheld...perpendicular axis (pitch ). The MEMS accelerometer supplies pitch ( ) and roll ( ) angles

Introduction Magnetic Field Basicskionixfs.kionix.com › en › document › AN006-Handheld...perpendicular axis (pitch ). The MEMS accelerometer supplies pitch ( ) and roll ( ) angles

Roll pitch Yaw 23 4 - SysCom · Roll pitch Yaw 23 4 . Title: 1611_ NGIMU_A4ﾍﾟﾗ Created Date: 20170110104103Z

Roll pitch Yaw 23 4 - SysCom · Roll pitch Yaw 23 4 . Title: 1611_ NGIMU_A4ﾍﾟﾗ Created Date: 20170110104103Z

TransducerM TM100 Datasheet - RobotShop...The TransducerM TM100 main performance • Static accuracy for Roll and Pitch, 1.0 degree RMS • Dynamic accuracy for Roll and Pitch, 3.0

TransducerM TM100 Datasheet - RobotShop...The TransducerM TM100 main performance • Static accuracy for Roll and Pitch, 1.0 degree RMS • Dynamic accuracy for Roll and Pitch, 3.0

Crush Ng Crush Ko_001

Crush Ng Crush Ko_001

Effects of Vessel Heave, Roll, Pitch

Effects of Vessel Heave, Roll, Pitch

Roll-Pitch-Yaw Integrated Robust Autopilot Design for a ...€¦ · This paper explores the feasibility of roll–pitch–yaw integrated autopilots for a high angle-of-attack missile.

Roll-Pitch-Yaw Integrated Robust Autopilot Design for a ...€¦ · This paper explores the feasibility of roll–pitch–yaw integrated autopilots for a high angle-of-attack missile.

Mitigating Excessive Pitch and Roll Motions on Semi ... · • The overall pitching and rolling can be reduced • A significant damping of the low frequency pitch and roll motions

Mitigating Excessive Pitch and Roll Motions on Semi ... · • The overall pitching and rolling can be reduced • A significant damping of the low frequency pitch and roll motions

OPERATOR´S MANUALnewcontent.westmarine.com/documents/pdfs/Owners... · The Pitch wheel controls the trim or pitch angle, while the Roll wheel normally controls the list or roll angle.

OPERATOR´S MANUALnewcontent.westmarine.com/documents/pdfs/Owners... · The Pitch wheel controls the trim or pitch angle, while the Roll wheel normally controls the list or roll angle.

Bakit Hindi Ka Crush Nbakit hindi ka crush ng crush mog Crush Mo (ELves)

Bakit Hindi Ka Crush Nbakit hindi ka crush ng crush mog Crush Mo (ELves)

HobbyKing€¦ · RC UPDATE PARAMETERS 3D Militirotor flight controller PITCH a.øaø PITCH a.eaa a.øga SAVE - PITCH e.eøa PITCH e.aae g.ggg ROLL e.eaa ROLL— g.øag ROLL e.eaa

HobbyKing€¦ · RC UPDATE PARAMETERS 3D Militirotor flight controller PITCH a.øaø PITCH a.eaa a.øga SAVE - PITCH e.eøa PITCH e.aae g.ggg ROLL e.eaa ROLL— g.øag ROLL e.eaa

CYPR1 Yaw, Pitch, and Roll Technical Information Manualfiles.danfoss.com/documents/cypr1 yaw, pitch, and roll sensor... · The CYPR1 Yaw, Pitch, and Roll Sensor is designed for use

CYPR1 Yaw, Pitch, and Roll Technical Information Manualfiles.danfoss.com/documents/cypr1 yaw, pitch, and roll sensor... · The CYPR1 Yaw, Pitch, and Roll Sensor is designed for use

CRUSH SYNDROME ICD 10: T79.5 Mohit Chhabra Roll no. : 47.

CRUSH SYNDROME ICD 10: T79.5 Mohit Chhabra Roll no. : 47.