Frontal Offset Crash Testing for Approx. 15 Years: Results, Experiences and Consequences

Baumann, K; Groesch, L.; Holtze, H.; Schwede, W.

doi:10.4271/900413

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was used to define the range over which the tests would be performed. Acceleration pulses of vehicles striking narrow objects in offset frontal configurations were analyzed to establish a reasonable time duration over which the 90°rotation occurred [2][3][4][5][6][7]. From the literature, a range of 110-to 170-ms impact duration was identified.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of an alleged mechanism of finger injury in an automobile crash

Stacey

Kent

2005

Int J Legal Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This investigation centers on the case of an adult male whose finger was allegedly amputated by the steering wheel of his car during a crash. The subject claimed to have been driving with his left index finger inserted through a hole in the spoke of his steering wheel and was subsequently involved in an offset frontal collision with a tree. The finger was found to be cleanly severed at the mid-shaft of the proximal phalanx after the crash. This injury was alleged to have been caused by inertial loading from the rotation of the steering wheel during the crash. To determine whether this injury mechanism was plausible, three laboratory tests representing distinct loading scenarios were carried out with postmortem human surrogates loaded dynamically by the subject's steering wheel. It was found that the inertial loads generated in this loading scenario are insufficient to amputate the finger. Additionally, artificially constraining the finger to force an amputation to occur revealed that a separation at the proximal interphalangeal joint occurs rather than a bony fracture of the proximal phalanx. Based on these biomechanical tests, it can be concluded that the subject's injury did not occur during the automobile crash in question. Furthermore, it can be shown that the injury was self-inflicted to fraudulently claim on an insurance policy.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of an alleged mechanism of finger injury in an automobile crash

Stacey

Kent

2005

Int J Legal Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mercedez was one of the first car manufacturers to conduct offset crashtests (Baumann et al 1990). Currently, most manufacturers, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) and European, Canadian and Japanese governments conduct frontal offset crash-tests with 40% overlap against a deformable barrier to better conform to real world accident circumstances (Hobbs and Williams, 1994) and to address the more demanding conditions on the vehicle's structural integrity and compartment intrusion risk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vehicle Acceleration and Compartment Intrusion for Far-Sided Occupants v. Near-Sided Occupants in Frontal Offset Collisions

Jewkes

2003

SAE Technical Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vehicle acceleration and compartment intrusion play major roles in occupant injury causation, in frontal offset collisions. The knowledge of injury causation may enable the injury risk to be directly assessed from accident conditions, once a relationship between accident conditions and vehicle response is known. To establish such a relationship, a simulation study was carried out, in which vehicle acceleration and local compartment intrusion were calculated for various crash speeds and overlap configurations. The simulation model was validated against crash-tests in terms of the local vehicle deformation, acceleration and local dash and toepan intrusion. It was found that average acceleration generally decreased with reduced overlap, while intrusion increased for narrower overlap and impact locations more closely to the dash and/or toepan. This general trend indicates the relatively high injury risk for nearside occupants and a low risk for far-side occupants. Farside, low-overlap (<50%) offset collisions at 45 or even 50 mph resulted in similar average acceleration and local intrusion levels as those seen in full overlap at 35 mph. However, crush reaching into the stiff firewall may cause vehicle peak accelerations to rise above expected levels in low overlap and high speed, especially in case the engine enhances firewall deformation. Furthermore, far-side intrusions may reach similar levels as nearside intrusions in offset collisions (>33% overlap), due to induced damage and the load distributing effect of the engine. Vehicle average acceleration and local intrusion levels may reach injurious levels for the far-side occupant in offset collisions. Vehicle crashworthiness improvements with a sole focus on nearside occupants may result in reduced protection of the far-side occupant.

show abstract