Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
872
where Amax is the maximum value of 3 ms clip spinal
acceleration, Dmax is the maximum value of the dummy chest
deflection, and Aint and Dint are the respective intercepts.
D. Model Verification
One sled test on the Hybrid III 50th percentile dummy is
performed in this study. The sled acceleration data are filtered
according to the SAE J211 recommended practice. The crash
pulse is shown in Figure 3. The pulse has a maximum
$)+!'&'6*&,)+!'&'(()'/!%+%*
Other test data, such as head accelerations and chest deflection,
are all collected and filtered in compliance with SAE
recommended practice, respectively.
(a) Head Resultant Acceleration
200
Crash Pulse (m/s2)
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (ms)
(b) Chest Resultant Acceleration
Figure 3. Crash pulse curve
873
In Figure 4, the peak value of the chest deflection curve in posture in the simulation has a short delay compared with that
tests is a little bit higher than that in simulation results while in !&+ +*+,*!+6* )+'()+$0*!%,$++ ,%%0
other response curves, peak values do not show an obvious hands adhering to the steering wheel by sellotape. Generally
difference. In the head injury response, there is a lag in the speaking, the MADYMO model can reproduce the sled test
simulated response change trend compared to the test results. very well and the dummy injury responses are highly close to
The dummy movement comparison at various moments is the experiment records. The proposed simulation model is
shown in Figure 5. The dummy torso motion posture in the verified and thus suitable for further research and discussion in
simulation model corresponds well to that in the sled test the following paragraphs.
during the whole process. But the dummy arms movement
(a) t = 0 ms (b) t = 60 ms
III. SIMULATION AND RESULT scenario, the dummy is restrained by a conventional seat belt.
Usually, the pretensioner comes into effect about 20 ms after
A. Simulation Scenario Description
the crash begins. In the last scenario, the dummy is restrained
This study focuses on assessing the potential benefits and by a seat belt which is set manually to pretension the belt
effects on injury responses if occupants are restrained before before the crash. In this way, the function of a motorized seat
crash by seat belts, such as by the motorized seat belt. belt is simulated and realized. In all scenarios, the crash
Different from the conventional pyrotechnic pretensioner in pulses are exactly the same and the dummy injury responses
the seat belt assembly, the motorized seat belt can pretension are observed and analyzed.
the belt with the help of other advanced driver assistant
systems (ADAS) and then eliminate the slack between the
occupant and the belt ahead of crash.
200
In this paper, it is assumed that the sled in the model
moves faster than the sled in tests at a start velocity of 45.8
Crash Pulse (m/s2)
of 40 kmph which just equals to the sled impact velocity in Figure 6. Crash pulse with braking deceleration
the tests.
In this paper, three scenarios are simulated and discussed
in detail. In the first scenario, the dummy is restrained by a
3-point seat belt without any pretensioning. In the second
874
In the scenario where the motorized seat belt is involved, the braking deceleration of the vehicle and the impact
the time when the pretensioner begins to work and the force velocity.
applied by the pretensioner can be two important factors to
affect the dummy injury responses. To have a better insight, 500
several more simulations are performed with different
pretensioning time and forces as listed in Table II.
400
100 2000
50 200 0
HIC36 HIC15 Head Acc. Chest Acc. Deflection CTI (*100)
150 200 100 ms, 150 N 100 ms, 200 N 100 ms, 1000 N
100 ms, 2000 N 50 ms, 200 N 150 ms, 200 N
B. Results and Analysis
Figure 7. Dummy injury responses with the motorized seat belt under
Under the three situations above, the dummy injury different control factors
responses are listed and compared in Table III. Although
under the regulation ECE R16 *+$+* ',$&6+(,$$ IV. DISCUSSION
out more than 50 mm when vehicle acceleration exceeds 0.45 This paper presents a novel method using a verified
g, the dummy head still hit the steering wheel, which causes simulation model to estimate safety benefits of different seat
high head injury values in Scenario 1. And the chest injury belt pretensioners with precrash braking maneuvors and study
value is less than that in Scenario 2, because more percentage the control factors of the motorized seat belt pretensioner
of the dummy kinetic energy is absorbed by the head. In coupled with precrash systems. This method integrates both
Scenario 2, pyrotechnic pretensioner restrains the dummy active safety and passive safety and could be a part to develop
torso from forward moving just after crash, and the dummy an integrated safety system.
'*&6+ !++ *+)!&. $*' !&",)0-$,*) Nevertheless, there are also some limitations in this study.
not very high. But the pretensioning force in Scenario 2 can There are some simplifications in sled test lay-outs. The
reach about 3,000 N, which is harmful to the chest. In steering wheel, the seat back and the foot plate are all
Scenario 3, for the motorized seat belt, 200 N pretensioning regarded as rigid in the tests, which cannot perfectly
force is loaded 100 ms ahead of the crash, and that not only reproduce the vehicle crash accidents situation in the real
restrains the dummy torso but also compresses the chest world. And in this study, some factors of seat belt such as the
mildly. ()+&*!'&!& !*+& !*&6+ +#& !&+' ',&+ ')
precrash braking deceleration situations should also be
TABLE III. SIMULATION RESULTS OF DUMMY INJURY RESPONSES
considered. These are also some research focuses in the near
Seat Belt Pretensioning Pretensioning future.
Injury
without Seat Belt Seat Belt
Response
Pretensioner Postcrash Precrash
HIC15 (s) 536.75 168.28 158.33
V. CONCLUSION
HIC36 (s) 536.75 237.16 260.24 In this paper, a verified MADYMO sled model was
ahead,3ms
proposed to estimate the safety benefits of belt pretensioning
489.01 436.32 417.29 with precrash braking maneuvers. The result indicated that
(m/s2)
achest,3ms the motorized seat belt which could pretension the belt before
279.95 297.25 280.84
(m/s2) crash under proper control factors showed a better occupant
Chest protection effect than the 3-point seat belt without
Deflection 35.27 36.72 35.03
(mm) pretensioner and the seat belt with a convention pyrotechnic
CTI 0.67 0.71 0.67
pretensioner. By optimizing pretensioning time and forces
under various precrash braking maneuvers, an optimum
Among the simulations of the motorized seat belt with occupant protection effect can be achieved.
different control factors, the dummy injury responses are The conclusion of this study can also be introduced to
illustrated in Figure 7. From the simulation results, the other advanced driver assistant systems and active safety
pretensioning force of the motorized seat belt should stay at a
systems, and more safety potential can be released with the
lower level than that of the seat belt with pyrotechnic development of intelligent vehicle. And the methodology
pretensioner, because it could be triggered before crash. used in this study can also support the researches integrating
Pretentioning action time and pretensioning force should be vehicle passive safety technic into intelligent vehicle technic.
optimized in conjunction with precrash systems according to
875
The future study will also take into account the control of an
airbag and the vehicle pitch movement before crash.
REFERENCES
[1] P. D. Bois, C. C. Chou, B. B. Fileta, et al., 3Vehicle Crashworthiness
and Occupant Protection,5 Southfield, Michigan: AISI, 2000, pp.
2712279.
[2] W. Reidel
'$1 3 -& *+)!&+ 0*+% '&(+*5
SAE Technical Paper, 790321, 1979.
[3] J.E. Mitzkus, H. Eyrainer, 3 )-point Belt Improvements for
&)* ,(&+ )'++!'&5 Warrendale, Pa: SAE International,
1984.
[4] !&'3!%!+*& $$&*')* )'++!'&5 ! &$
& Prev., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 421-429, Dec. 1988.
[5] D.C. Viano, C.S. P)&+,
,)&++ 3&$,& '
$+
Pretensioning on Dummy Responses in 40 km/h Rear-impact Sled
*+*5)!&")--'$&'((5-71, 2012.
[6] S. P. Jung, T. W. Park, C )# 30&%! &$0*!* & *!&
'(+!%!*+!'&'+ *+$+()+&*!'&)5 !$0*+%0&%!*
vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 65-78, Jan. 2010.
[7] F. Muehlfeld, R. Ertlmeier, J. Happe, et al., 3Criticality Estimation of
Pre-Crash Scenarios,5 in IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 121121216.
[8] C. Zhang, H. Wang, R. Fu, 3Automated Detection of Driver Fatigue
Based on Entropy and Complexity Measures5 IEEE Trans. on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15(1), pp. 168-177, Feb 2014.
[9] P. Ru#) 3)* *+* .!+ ,+'%+! )-)*
)#!& )*5
SAE Technical Paper, 2013-01-0200, 2013.
[10] X. Luo, W. J,
&3 Safety Benefits of Motorized Seat Belt
as a Component in ADAS in Front-end Collisions5 in IEEE Conf. on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Qingdao, China, 2014, pp.
6612666.
[11] M. S. Tavakoli, J. B.-Fornari, V. Shetty, 3Effect of Seat Belts Equipped
with Pretensioners on Rear Seat Adult Occupants in High-Severity
Rear Impact,5 SAE Technical Paper, 2008-01-1488.
[12] K. D. Kusano, H. C. Gabler, 3Injury Mitigation in the Collision
Partners of Pre-collision System equipped Vehicles in Rear-end
Collisions,5 in IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 184621851.
876