SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

1999-01-0638

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

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group. 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, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

1999-01-0638

Simulation Method for Dynamic Out-of-Position Crash Tests

Hank Frech, Edward Burley, Timothy W. Hill, Mike Rossey and Kurt Schulz.
Breed Technologies, Inc
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

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. Development procedures and test techniques must be augmented to include appropriate testing of the out-of-position occupant. 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. This test methodology provides for efficient development of dynamic occupant tracking systems, biomechanic algorithms and restraint system controls.

Electronic circuits and microprocessor code that filters the sensor inputs and implements the control algorithms. Adaptive restraint development requires a complete understanding of the out-of-position occupant phenomenon. The occupant response to various vehicle input parameters and restraint hardware configurations and settings need to be evaluated. These conditions must be simulated and tested with the complete restraint systems, including dynamic occupant tracking with biomechanic algorithms and restraint systems controls. Current methods for restraint system design, development, and validation must be augmented to thoroughly and efficiently complete these tasks for the highly complex adaptive restraint systems. The authors will review the development of a new test methodology and Pre-Impact Event (PIE) Sled Fixture. The fixture is used to simulate the movement of occupants during both pre-impact and crash events. This allows the total performance of dynamic tracking systems and adaptive restraint systems to be evaluated in a more realistic crash environment. OUT-OF-POSITION OCCUPANT DYNAMICS An outof-position occupant (OOPO) is defined as one who is not in his normally assumed seating position. The risk of injury to an out-of-position occupant increases when the occupant is very close to the air bag when it deploys. For every vehicle, 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 at-risk zone is a subset of the condition commonly referred to as an out-of-position occupant (OOPO). Prior to deployment, the occupant may move out-of-position due to voluntary movement, pre-impact vehicle dynamics and/or crash dynamics. The expected accelerations associated with these movements are shown in Table 1. (The values shown were estimates made by the authors)

INTRODUCTION
Advanced adaptive restraint systems, now under development, are being designed to optimize protection for occupants of various sizes and position while minimizing inflation induced injuries. These systems will dynamically detect a combination of occupant mass, occupant position, crash severity, and belt usage. The information will be processed, and the outputs of the various restraint systems components will be modified. (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. A control algorithm: the means to transform the sensor readings into restraint hardware control.

Table 1: Acceleration level associated with occupant motion. Movement Mode Acceleration Description Voluntary 0.00.5 gs - Occupant size - Leaning forward Vehicle Dynamics 0.5-1.2 gs - Seating position - Hard braking - Hard maneuvering Crash Dynamics 1.2-30 gs - Rough road - Type of collision - and Vehicle crush Figure 1 describes the velocity verses displacement for these movement modes. Voluntary movements of the occupant (i.e., moving to adjust the radio or other controls) have slow velocities and generate large displacement due to the large time interval of the movement. Conversely, 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. 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.

the initial position of the head. In all cases studied the head was the first to enter the 100-mm zone. (4) In over 80 % of the fatalities reported in the NHTSA database for children under eleven, pre-impact braking was evident. Most of these fatalities occurred under low severity crashes, with delta velocity of less than 20 mph, where the likeliness of having a late deploying air bag is high. (2) PRE-IMPACT EVENTS Pre-impact events include hard braking, hitting a pole, tree, or other non-rigid object, or hitting a curb or rock. These events are severe enough to displace an occupant from their normally seated position, but not severe enough to trigger passive restraint systems. Other general observations about the pre-impact events are as follows (3,4,5,6): Pre-impact braking takes place in approximately 70% of frontal collisions. Panic braking is usually classified as a 0.7 to 0.9 g pulse . The occupants seating position prior to pre-impact braking is critical to his position just prior to impact. Normally seated buckled or unbuckled occupants of various size ranges are affected minimally by preimpact braking. Smaller adults and children are more susceptible to being thrown out-of-position due to pre-impact braking. This is due to lower moment of inertia, less contact surface area, being seated out-of-position to see better, and feet are less likely to touch the floor. Unbelted or improperly belted occupants are more likely to be thrown out-of-position by pre-impact braking. Pre-impact braking effects occupant sensing systems by changing the location or position of the occupant. It also imparts a multi-level velocity profile to the occupant. Delta velocities of up to 11 km/hr can be achieved.

METHODOLOGIES
Figure 1. Occupant vicinity to IP as a function of velocity and displacement. AT-RISK CHILDREN In most instances of air bag induced fatalities, pre-impact events, such as hard braking, place the occupant out-of-position and into close proximity to the deploying air bag (2). Studies by Takeda et al, found that children sitting on the front passenger seat are more likely to sit in abnormal positions. These positions make the child unstable and susceptible to pre-deployment events. (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, the deceleration level and RESTRAINT DEVELOPMENT METHODS Current occupant restraint systems are far less complicated than the proposed advanced adaptive restraint systems. New restraint hardware features, such as multi-level seat belt load limiters, dual or multi-level air bag inflators, variable vent cans and bags and variable function air bag tethers are being proposed for these adaptive systems. Electronic features are also increasing with multiple threshold deployments, weight sensing and occupant tracking systems development. Current development and test methods will need to be augmented to facilitate these developments. Modeling tools such as MADYMOTM, CFD, FEM, SABERTM, and DADSTM (kinematics analysis) are used to simulate the component and system responses and appropriately size the various component

features. Correlation of the models, development and verification testing of the proposed restraint systems are completed using static stand, HYGE sled and barrier tests. Static testing using anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are used to determine risk levels for out-of-position occupants. (7) Sled testing is conducted to determine the performance of the restraint system for normally seated adults. In some instances sled tests are also conducted with the ATD pre-positioned in an out-of-position configuration and then tested dynamically. These simulation and test methods are adequate for predicting the potential injury levels to an OOP ATD with todays systems but are not sufficient to test a complete adaptive restraint system. The current test methodologies overlook the pre-deployment occupant dynamics, a very important factor in adaptive restraint system development. This development must include the simulation and response of the complete restraint systems, as well as the development and interaction of the systems subsystems and components, i.e., the restraint hardware, the dynamic tracking sensors, the control algorithms and the electronic control and processors. The test device must be capable of simulating all pre-deployment occupant movements, as well as combinations of these movements. 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. NHTSA in their NPRM for FMVSS 208 released in September 1998 has suggested several methods. (2,4,7). It is more difficult to simulate the pre-deployment movement coupled with the vehicle crash pulse. If this coupling can be accomplished in a sled environment, the development objectives stated in the preceding paragraph could be expeditiously completed using existing development facilities. The sled environment would also avoid the expense of conducting large quantities of full vehicle barrier tests incorporating a pre-impact deceleration pulse. The purpose of the test method being discussed is to simulate a pre-impact deceleration event, such as hard braking, hitting a brake-away pole, or hitting a curb, followed by a crash. By simulating the complete event, the sled is a valuable tool for not only the development of an occupant position sensor, but also as a tool to test a complete advanced occupant protection system. Simulation and tests were conducted to establish repeatability of the test method. 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. 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. Although other test techniques were 3

considered, the sled offered a more realistic simulation of various occupant properties that can affect dynamic occupant sensing. These include various modes of occupant trajectory, effective torso cross section, clothing, etc. This sled was then placed within the Electronics Laboratory at Breed for rapid, repetitive testing of tracking sensors, electronic conditioning circuits, and control algorithms. This test technology has now been incorporated into a new fixture, a HYGE Pre-Impact Event (PIE) Sled Fixture, to develop the biomechanical algorithm and test the total adaptive restraint system. 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. During the pre-impact simulation phase, the occupant, its vehicle environment and the occupant tracking system are accelerated upon their own sled towards the HYGE piston. At the appropriate time, the HYGE sled fires and provides the crash pulse to this sled fixture. With this technology extension, the HYGE sled can be used not only for sensor development, but can also be used to develop complete restraint systems. DESCRIPTION OF PRE-IMPACT EVENT SLED OPERATION To better understand the effects of sudden deceleration, a sled was developed to place an ATD out of position with a repeatable velocity. The fixture consists of a seat mounted on a horizontal surface that slides on linear bearings. The seat is accelerated using bungee cords. A winch pulls the seat and ATD to a predetermined distance and locks it in place. Once released the bungee cords accelerate the seat and ATD to a constant velocity then the seat is decelerated rapidly. The rapid deceleration causes the ATD to slide forward out of the seat. A loose tether around the ATDs waist stops the forward motion and rotates the upper torso towards the IP (see Figure 2). This fixture was developed to look at only the pre-impact event. DESCRIPTION, 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. To study OOP more extensively, a new fixture that simulates a pre-impact pulse followed by a crash pulse was built. This was accomplished by ruggedizing and mounting a Pre-Impact Event Sled Fixture on a HYGE carriage. The HYGE pre-impact event sled consists of a buck that can carry an occupant, a seat, and either half of an instrument panel to simulate the driver side or passenger side of a vehicle. The buck slides on linear bearings, which are 11ft long. The bearings are mounted to an Ibeam section, which mount to the HYGE sled carriage. 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 dashpots can be adjusted, or various lengths can be

used to create different pre-impact event pulses. Short stroke dashpots can be used to produce a short duration pulse with a high acceleration. This reproduces the accelerations caused by breakaway pole, curb-hit and non-deployment level crash events. Longer stroke dashpots can be used to produce long duration pulses at a low acceleration level to simulate hard panic braking. The tension of the bungee cords can be adjusted, to increase or decrease the buck velocity, by positioning the mounting points to increase or decrease the bungee cord length. In addition the number of bungee cords may also be increased to effect the final velocity of the buck. The cords are tensioned when the buck is pulled into position using an electric winch.

signal is sent to initiate the HYGE sled firing. There is an inherent delay in when the fire sequence is initiated and when the HYGE ram begins the crash pulse.

Figure 3. 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. At this point the ATD begins to translate forward in the seat (Frame 4) and pivot about the waist (Frame 5). When the buck comes to a complete stop, it is locked in place by a ratcheting lock mechanism (Frame 5) to prevent the buck from moving backward during the event. The HYGE ram then imparts a crash pulse onto the main HYGE sled carriage (Frames 6-8) and further exacerbates the ATDs pre-impact event motion.

Figure 2. Operation of the Pre-Impact Event Fixture. To make pre-impact event testing work in a fixed lab environment, some design liberties had to be taken. One of the constraints faced was the usable length the buck could travel. The buck had to accelerate and decelerate within the length of the HYGE carriage. A CVC HYGE carriage has 3.6 meters of usable length. A distance of 2.1 meters was used to accelerate the buck to constant velocity. If less length were used, the acceleration on the ATD would be large and possibly displace it while bringing it up to speed. OPERATION OF HYGE PRE-IMPACT SLED FIXTURE The buck is pulled back by an electric winch to begin the PIE sled sequence. When the buck reaches the desired release point, a fire signal is sent from the HYGE control room to a solenoid on the release mechanism. The buck is accelerated via the Bungee cords (Ref. Figure 3, Frame 1) and reaches a constant velocity (Frame 2). 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 acceleration information from a PIE sled test was used as input into the MADYMOTM model. The predicted kinematics was compared to video analysis results of a PIE sled test. The displacement versus time results of the MADYMOTM validation can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 6. Head to IP velocity MADYMO TM Results Figure 4. Comparison of MADYMOTM to Real Test Using this MADYMOTM model, the results of the PreImpact Event Sled Fixture were compared to a 0.8g and a 1.0g deceleration brake pulse of a 270 millisecond duration concatenated with a 24km/hr crash acceleration pulse. Figure 5 shows the three displacement curves. Two distinctive slopes of displacement over time (velocity) can be seen in each of the different conditions. The first slope occurs between 0 and 0.3 seconds and is associated with the pre-impact event. The second is caused by the 24km/hr crash pulse and occurs after 0.3 seconds. The PIE pulse displaces the occupant at a higher rate for a shorter duration than the 0.8g and 1.0g pre-impact brake pulses during the pre-impact phase of the event. The distance traveled by the head just prior to the 24km/ hr crash onset for the PIE pulse is most similar to the 0.8g brake pulse. The maximum displacement for the PIE pulse during the pre-impact is approximately 0.2m, while the 0.8g and 1.0g pulses produce 0.21 and 0.3m respectively. 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 .8g and 1.0 g deceleration pre-brake pulse. Thus the PIE sled would be more severe. A comparison can also be made with a 14.4km/hr no-fire crash pulse. This would provide an upper bound to judge the relative severity of the PIE sled. If one aligns the displacement curves with the start of the deceleration pulse instead of the 24km/hr crash pulse, these curves can then be compared to a 14.4km/hr no-fire crash pulse. Figure 7 shows these four curves. The PIE sled provides the occupant with a velocity of approximately 2m/s or one half the velocity of 4m/s found in a 14.4km/hr pole test. This graph shows that the results obtained from the HYGE PIE sled fixture lie within the realm of real world pre-impact event motions.
H e a d to I/P D is ta nce M A D YM O
0.7

0.8 g PULSE
0.6

1.0 g PULSE
D i st an ce (m )
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 50 100 15 0 200 250

PIE SLED 14.4 km/hr NO-FIRE IMPACT

T im e (m s)

Figure 7. Head to IP distance MADYMO TM Results PIE Comparison to 14.4km/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. The buck is accelerated up to velocity until approximately 600ms. From 600ms to 800ms the buck maintains constant velocity. The constant velocity portion of the event allows the ATD to stabilize prior to the pre-impact event deceleration. The

Figure 5. Head to IP distance MADYMO TM Results The velocity of the PIE pulse initially exceeds both the 0.8g and 1.0g brake pulses but then slows to approximately the same velocity as the 1.0g pulse just prior to the 24km/hr crash onset (Figure 6). 5

pre-impact deceleration begins at approximately 870ms and lasts for a 20-30ms duration. The 24km/hr crash pulse begins at approximately 1000ms.
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. The slopes and displacement values for both the pre-impact and the crash phase are almost identical from test to test.
3 Year Old Child ATD
Head to IP Distance (Time Corrected) 5 MPH Pre-Impact Brake / 15 MPH Crash Pulse
0.7

0.6

Acceleration (g)

0.5 Distance [m]

0.4

0.3

0.2 -40 0.1 -50 0 -60 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 Time [sec] 1.2 1.25 1.3

Time (ms)

Figure 8. PIE Buck Acceleration

Velocity of PIE Sled
6

Figure 10. 3 yr. old repeatability tests

6 Year Old Child ATD
Head to IP Distance (Time Corrected) 5 MPH Pre-Impact Brake / 15 MPH Crash Pulse
0.7

0.6 0.5 Distance [m] 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Velocity [m/s]

0
-2

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

-4

-6

1.05

1.1

1.15 Time [sec]

1.2

1.25

1.3

-8

T ime (ms)

Figure 11. 6 yr. old repeatability tests

5th %ile Female ATD

Figure 9. 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. This is especially true of a test utilized to develop the next generation advanced air bag systems. To establish repeatability a series of tests were conducted utilizing the 3 year old, 6 year old and 5th Percentile ATD. A minimum of four tests was conducted for each size ATD. The ATDs were all tested with a pre-impact event velocity of 8 km/hr and a 24km/hr crash pulse. The 24km/hr crash pulse was obtained from a vehicle barrier test. The results of these tests can be seen in figures 10-12. 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. To time correct the data an 8g target was used to shift the data. The 8g value was chosen because it was sufficiently higher than the pulse created by the pre-impact event pulse. The time corrected data for the 3 year old, 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
0.7 0.6 0.5 Distance [m] 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 Time [sec] 1.2 1.25 1.3

Figure 12. 5th % ATD repeatability tests

DISCUSSION
CONVENTIONAL OOP TESTING For standard systems, the PIE sled can be used to investigate the effects of air bag deployment timing on out-of-position occupants. The air bag deployment can be triggered by fixed time delay, by position of the moving buck on the PIE

fixture, by occupant position during the pre-impact event or acceleration level produced by the HYGE sled. Figure 13 below shows a video sequence of an air bag deployment using the PIE sled in combination with the HYGE sled. The ATD used represented a small female occupant, a 5th percentile adult ATD. Frame 1, Figure 13, the movable buck section of the PIE sled is being accelerated after release. Frame 2, the movable buck has been accelerated to 8-km/hr velocity immediately prior to being snubbed by the dashpots. Frame 3, the PIE sled has been decelerated; the ATD is in free flight; the HYGE sled has been fired rearward with a 24km/hr pulse; the air bag has been activated based on a pre-set HYGE sled acceleration level; and the air bag has started to deploy. Frame 4, the ATD continues to move forward into the air bag. The air bag is still inflating and has not yet reached its full shape. Frame 5, the ATD has rebounded off the bag but has yet to rebound off the seat.

tion; fired the HYGE with a 32km/hr pulse and fired the air bag with a pre-set delay after the initiation of the pulse. 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. OCCUPANT POSTIONING OR TRACKING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT The PIE Sled Fixture can be used both off and on the HYGE sled for occupant position development. In early development of an occupant position or tracking system, the PIE sled can be used off the HYGE sled to provide a pre-crash pulse only. With the flexibility of the PIE sled, pre-brake velocities of up to 16km/hr and 15gs can be obtained. This provides the electronics laboratory or sensor system vendor a means to conduct repetitive testing with ATDs at significant lower cost than a full HYGE sled or barrier test. Occupant positioning system components include transducers or sensors and an occupant sensing module (OSM) which contains signal conditioning circuits, tracking and control algorithms. 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. Since the OSM data will control or alter the performance of the air bag, the complete occupant tracking system must be proven to be robust. 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. 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. This will provide additional test data at minimal cost. Occupant position and tracking data can be crosschecked with film analysis from both PIE sled tests and vehicle barrier tests. A typical output of film verses occupant tracking output is shown below in Figure 14.
.63
SHOULDER DISPLACEMENT

.50 DISTANCE [m]

.38

TRACKING SENSOR DISPLACEMENT

.25
HEAD DISPLACEMENT

.13

20

40

60

80

100

120

130 140 160

Figure 13. Air Bag Deployment on PIE Sled Without the PIE Sled Fixture, the laboratory would have pre-positioned the ATD statically into its deployment posi7

TIME [ms]

Figure 14. Occupant Tracking vs. Film Analysis Data

As shown in Figure 14, this particular tracking system initially tracks the occupants head and at approximately 0.4 meters begins to pick up the shoulders. The tracking transducers were mounted in a mid-mount air bag location. AIR BAG SUPPRESION ZONE DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING One option of the NPRM for FMVSS 208 (2), is to automatically suppress the air bag when either a child or 5th percentile female ATD enters an at-risk zone. Figure 14 shows a hypothetical at risk zone for a 5th Percentile passenger.
At Risk Zone Extended At Risk Zone

air bag can be studied and upper and lower bounds established for a particular at risk zone. It the crash sensor could not meet these performance specifications consistently, the at-risk zone would need to be increased. As a development tool, the PIE sled is superior to the head form test procedure suggested by the NPRM (2). The HYGE with PIE Sled Fixture uses ATDs exposed to both the pre-impact event velocity of 11km/hr and the various concatenated crash pulses. The system is tracking a dummy rather than a head form, making real time decisions that can be evaluated via ATD injury numbers. The head form test simply monitors the tracking system and occupant sensing control module. It answers the question; does the air bag suppress if the head form enters the suppression zone? Where as, the PIE Sled Fixture enables the complete restraint systems including restraint hardware, the occupant tracking system, system diagnostic module and restraint hardware to be tested in one controlled test. 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. This testing would be performed in a full vehicle barrier test, which includes a pre-impact braking event. For development purposes, the PIE sled should provide a more consistent and repeatable test method than a full barrier test. It certainly would provide more testing in a shorter period of time and at lower cost. This is especially critical with the number of OOP ATDs and OOP positions required. By utilizing the sled fixture, the entire vehicle interior can be filmed from boom mounted cameras. In barrier testing the doors must be left installed which obscures the side views. When testing for OOP children, the ATDs dynamics would not be visible in the side views. This would preclude cross checking on-board instrumentation with video analysis. For those systems, which include both dynamic tracking and suppression to control the advance adaptive restraint systems, one test fixture can be used to evaluate the system performance with various dummies undergoing different pre-impact events and crashes.

Figure 15. 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. In this case, the air bag would be triggered when the occupant reached a predetermined position within the buck on the PIE sled. This position could be measured by actuating a string potentiometer, by breaking a light curtain, by an occupant position sensor or by the occupant tracking system. Confirmation of this position could be made by film analysis. A test series would map out one or more zones within which the ATD provided unacceptable injury values. Distinct zones may be configured for each size ATD. Once derived, these at-risk zones will need to be extended to encompass the performance variability of the various system components. Some of the factors that increase the at-risk zone as derived by OOP testing include: i) the sensor sample time, ii) the crash sensor time to fire, iii) normal seating position, iv) type of real world crash, v) environmental conditions, vi) sensing tolerances, and viii) variability of the restraint and control hardware components. Unlike the standard OOP test, the HYGE with PIE Sled Fixture can simulate not only the OOP condition but also investigate the interaction of these factors. For example, 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. Improvement efforts will continue to refine the test methodology, procedures and sled fixture to achieve higher confidence of the test repeatability and correlation to real-world pre-impact events. These efforts will include: Additional refinement of the procedures and hardware for the HYGE sled. Round-robin test series on three HYGE sleds. 8

 Development and performance analysis of the PIE Sled Fixture on two Shenk Sleds. Computer and sled test simulation of various preimpact events and sensor evaluation tests. These simulations will be compared to data and video of pre-brake dynamics, dynamic OOP barrier and sensor barrier tests. In its current state, the PIE Sled Fixture is a valuable tool to investigate the response of current and advance restraint systems on the OOP occupant. It should be noted that for purposes of developing an advanced restraint system the PIE sled pulse is more severe. The occupant achieves higher velocities and would require an occupant sensing system to update at a higher rate to give true position.

2. Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Advanced Air Bags, 49 CFR Parts 571, 585, 587 and 595; Docket No. NHTSA 984405; Notice 1 RIN 2127-AG 70. 3. Takeda, H. and Kobayashi, S. Injuries to Children from Air bag Deployment. SAE Paper #806030, 8th International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA 1980. 4. Stalnacker, R.,Klusmeyer, L., Peel, H., White,C., Smith, G., and Mertz, H., Unrestrained, Front Seat, Child Surrogate Trajectories Produced By Hard Braking SAE Paper # 821165, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale , PA, 1982. 5. Klopp, G., Crandall, J. Sieveka, E., and Pilkey, W., Simulation of Muscle Tensing in Pre-Impact Bracing, 1995 Ircobi International Conference. 6. Kaleps, I., and Marcus, J., Predictions of Child Motion During Panic Braking and Impact. SAE Paper # 821166, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1982. 7. Melvin, J., Horsch, J., McCleary, J., Wideman, L., Jensen, J., and Wolanin, M., Assessment of Air Bag Deployment Loads with the Small Female Hybrid III Dummy. SAE Paper # 933119, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1993.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge H. John Miller, Brian Blackburn, Joe Mazur, Scott Gentry, Jim Lotito, Matt Owen, Mohannad Murad and John Burdock for their help in developing the PIE sled. Also, John Moloney, Bill Gottwalt, Ty Miller, Steve Coffey and all other support personnel at the Lakeland, Florida facility.

REFERENCES
1. Musiol, J., Norgan-Curtiss, L., And Wilkins, M., Control and Application of Intelligent Restraint Systems., SAE Paper # 971052, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1997.