FEA of Impact On Steering Wheel PDF

Finite Element Analysis with Experimental Verifkation
of Impact Loading on a
Three Spoke Steering Wheel
BY
William Aitenhof
A Dissertation submitted to the

College of Graduate Studies and Research
through the
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
in partial fulfilment for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
at the University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
1999
1*1 National Library
of Canada
Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A ON4 OnawaON K l A û N 4
canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exciusive permettant à la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la fonne de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or otheMrise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
O William Altenhof. 1999
ABSTRACT
The focus of this dissertation is based upon two objectives. Firstly, experimental
tests were conducted with collisions between a three spoke steering wheel and a
deformable chestform. A large amount of testing was completed which examined the
effects of variations in the column angle and wheel angle of the steering wheel, as well
as the velocity of the chestform as it collided with the steering wheel. Secondly, detailed
finite element models of the testing apparatus were developed, and simulated under
identical testing conditions to see if explicit finite element simulations may be used to
predict the performance of the three spoke steering wheel in a collision type situation.
Through an analysis of the experimental data, it was observed that the calculated
energy absorbed during the impact process by the steering wheel and deformable
chestform depended significantly upon the column angle, wheel angle, and impact
velocity. Surface contours have been developed which illustrate the effect of the three
independent variables on the peak impact load, the peak impact displacement, and the
calculated energy absorption. Furthemore, a met hod to quanti the energy absorption
characteristics of a steering wheel has been developed.
Explicit finite element simulations were conducted for twelve different testing
situations. Overall, a good relationship between numerical simulations and experimental
testing was found, indicating that finite element modeling may be used as a predictive
tool in steering wheel design and development.

Dearest Father in Heaven, you have blessed me with an infinite number of gifts.
May you grant me the insight to never take for granted what you have given me.
Most importantiy, rnay I use the gfts which You have given me to do Your WiH.
To an understanding and loving family, without which I would never have been able to
complete this work, to al1 of them, even those not with us now, al1 my love. You have
been, and will continue to be one of the best ways of attaining knowledge.
The author would like to take this opportunity to express his deepest gratitude and
appreciation to Dr. Nader Zamani, and Dr. Robert Gaspar. With the aid of these two fine
professors the author has grown intellectually, and attstined talents which \vil1 better his
life. Thank you for your time, efforts, guidance, recomrnendations, and encouragement
during this work.
Furthemore, an enormous amount of thanks is extended to the entire engineering
staff at K.S. Centoco, especially, Mr. Saverio Paonessa. You have al1 provided
encouragement and support for this investigation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LISTOFFIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
LISTOFTABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mii
.. *
CONVERSION FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxrii
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiv
1 . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . - - . - - . - - - . . . . . . . . . .1 - .
2. LITERATUREREVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Documentation Regarding Experimental Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. Existing Relevant Standards and Accident Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Testing Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 - 1 3 The Prototype Testfng Machine . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Other Considerations in Experimental Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
23. Documentation Regarding Finite Element Mode1ing and Experimental
Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
2.3.1. Simulation of Body Block Steering Wheel Impacts Using Dyna3d . . . . 12
2.3.2. Designing Energy Absorbing Steering Wheels Through Finite Element
Impact Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.3. An Investigation of Steering Column Collapse Behavior Using Finite
Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4. Documentation Regarding Crashworthiness Testing o f Automobiles and
Associated Vehicle Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5. Documentation Regarding Occupant Modeling and Crash Test Dummies . . 16
2-6. SumrnaryofPastResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. FOCUS OF RESEARCH WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS .CONTINUED
4 . EXPERIMENTAL TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 2 1
4.1. Terminology Associated with Steenng Wheel Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.1. The Column Angle and Impact Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 2 1
4.1.2. The Wheel Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 2 2
4.1.3. Peak Impact Load, Peak Impact Displacement, and Calculated Energy
......................................................... 23
4.2. The Steering Wheel Selected for Experimental Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3. A Background Discussion of the Experimental Testing Conditions . . . . . . . 24
4.4. The Experimental Testing Machine Used in this Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.4.1. A Basic Description of the Mechanisms in the Testing Machine . . . . . . 27
4.4.2 The Data Acquired During an Impact Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4.3 Analysis of the Acquired Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.4.4 The Experimental Testing Procedure Used in this Investigation . . . . . 34
4.4.4.1 Checking on the Integrity of The Chestfonn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4.4.2 Experimentai Testing Procedure Used for Impacts on Steering Wheels
................................,.............. . 36
5 . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ACQUIRED FROM EXPERiMENTAL TESTS . . . - 3 8

5.1. A Discussion of the Energy Tmnsfer During an Impact Test . . . . . . . . . . . - 3 8
5.2. Utilization of the Calculated Energy Profile for Development of More Energy
Absorbing Steering Wheels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4 1
3 The Energy Absorption Factor (E.A.F.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.4. The Coefficient of Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4 7
5.5. The Peak Impact Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.6. ~ e v e l o ~ m eof
n ta Topographic Profile of the Experirnental Observations
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Effect of Column Angle and Wheel Angle on Peak Vertical Load
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Comments on the Variation of Peak Vertical Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 5 5
The Effect of Column Angle and Wheel Angle on Peak Vertical
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 5 5
Comments on the Variation of Peak Vertical Displacement . . . . . . . . 60
The Effect of Column Angle and Wheel Angle on Calculated Total
Energy Absorbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 6 0
Comments on the Variation of Calculated Total Energy Absorbed . . . 64
The Effect of Column Angle and Wheel Angle on the Average E.A.F.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Comments on the Variation of the Average E.A.F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.6.9. The Effect of Column Angle and Wheel Angle on the Coefficient of
Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.6.10. Comments on the Variation of the Coefficient of Restitution . . . . . . . . . 75
5.6.1 1. The Effect of Column Angle and WheeI Angle on the Peak Impact Force
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.6.12. Cornments on the Variation of the Peak Impact Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.7. Data Acquired and Calculated for Each Experimental Test Conducted . . . 85
6. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND SlMULATION OF THE EXPERiMENTAL

TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.1. The Software Selected for the Simulation of the Impact Experiments . . . . . 86
6.3 . The Finitc Element Models Developed and Used in This Study . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.2.1. Development of the Alurninum Crosshead Finite Element Model . . . . . 88
6.2.2. Development of the Wooden Backing Plate Finite Element Model . . . . 90
6.2.3. Development of the Chestform Finite Element Mode1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.2.3.1. Geometry of the Chestform Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.2.3.2. Detemination of the Material Properties of the Chestform Finite
Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 9 5
6.2.4. Development of the Three Spoke Steenng Wheel Finite Element Model
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.2.4.1. Geometry of the Three Spoke Steering WheeI Finite Element
Mode1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6 2 - 4 2 Determination of the Material Properties of the Three Spoke
Steering Wheel Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.3. Veri fication of The Chestform and Three Spoke Steering Wheel Finite
Element Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.3.1. Verification the Chestform Finite Element Mode1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO4
6.3.1.1 . The Expenmental Setup and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO4
6.3.1.2. The Numerical Simulation Setup and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.3.1.3. Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.3.1.4. Additional Considerations in the Finite Element Model of the
Chestfom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3 .î. Venfication of the Three Spoke Steering Wheel Finite Element Model
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.3.2.1. The Experimental Setup and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.3.2.2. The Numerical Simulation Setup and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.3.2.3. Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.3.2.4. Additional Investigations Completed on the Three Spoke Steering
Wheel Finite Element Mode1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.4. Numerical Simulation and Comparison with Experimental Tests of the

Deformable Chestfonn impacting the Deformable Three Spoke Steering
Wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.4.1. The Testing Methodology Utilized in the Numerical Simulations . . . . 126
6 - 4 2 Dificuities Encountered %ySimulating the Deformable Chestform
Impacting the Deformable Three Spoke Steering Wheel . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.4.2.1. Howglassing Control in the Chestfonn Finite Elernent Model
. . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.4.2.2. Problems Conceming Contact Between the Chestform and the
Steering Wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 132
6.4.3. Comparisons of the Vertical Load versus Crosshead Displacement Curves
from Experimental Tests and Numerical Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.4.4. An Energy Comparison from Experimental Tests to Numerical
Simulations - The True E.A.F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.5. CD-ROM Containing Related Files from Finite Element Simulations . . . . 155
7. CONCLUSIONS AND REC0MMEM)ATIONS FOR FüTURE WORK . . . . . . . 156

7. 1. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.1.1. Conclusions Dealing with Expenmental Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.1.2. Conclusions Dealing with Finite Element Modeling and Simulation . . 158
7.2. Recommendations for Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
APPENDIX A . Resolution of the Measunng Devices Used in this Investigation .. 166
APPENDIX B . Data Acquired and Calculated for Each Experimental Test Conducted
..................................................... 168
APPENDIX C . Material Properties and Sample Input Data for the Aluminum
Crosshead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
APPENDIX D . Material Properties and Sample Input Data for the Wooden Backing
Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
APPENDIX E . Material Properties and Sample Input Data for the Low Density
PolyurethaneFoam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
TABLE OF CONTENTS .CONTLNUED
APPENDiX F . Material Properties and Sample Input Data for the Steenng Wheel
A!uminumAlloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
APPENDiX G . Sample Daia From the LS-DYNA Input File Regarding Hourglass
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
APPENDIX H . Sample Data From the LS-DYNA Input File Regarding Contact and
MassScaiing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
VITAAUCTORIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1 . Basic apparatus and setup for the SAE 5944 testing procedure . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2 . Droptower testing machine .................................... 8
Figure 3 . The column angle and impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 4 . The wheel angle ............................................ 23
Figure 5 . Lower portion of impact testing machine ....................... -27
Figure 6 . Typical crosshead displacement versus time curves from the Mathcad
worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 3 1
Figure 7 . Typical "z-axis" load versus time curves from the Mathcad worksheet
Figure 8 . Typical crosshead displacement versus "z-axis" or vertical load curves

......................................................... 33
Figure 9 . Experimental setup used to test the integrity of the chestform over the
course of the 420 impact tests considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 3 4
Figure 10 . Experimental test setup for a typical "chestform to steering wheel" impact
test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 1 I . Deformed geometry of the steering wheel and chestform after an impact
test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 12 . Calculated energy versus crosshead displacement curve for experimental

test#345 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 13 . Annotated graph of experimental test #345 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 14 . [Ilustration of the total energy the dropping assembly has at any point
during the experimental impact test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4 3
Figure 1 5 . Typical crosshead velocity versus time curve illustrating the impact
velocity and rebound velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4 9
xii
LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED -
Figure 16 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical load at 8 rnph [3.58 m/s]
impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 5 2
Figure 17 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical load at 9 rnph 14-02 m/s]
impactvelocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 18 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical load at 10 rnph [4.47 m/s]
impactvelocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 19 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical Ioad ai 1 1 rnph C4.92 m/s]
impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. 53
Figure 20 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus peak vertical load at 12 rnph C5.36 m/s]
impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 21 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical load at 13 rnph [5.8 1 m/s]
impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 22 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus peak vertical displacement at 8 rnph
f3.58 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . - 5 7
Figure 23 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus peak vertical displacement at 9 rnph
[4.02 d s ] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 24 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical displacement at 10 rnph
[4.47m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8
Figure 25 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical displacement at 1 1 rnph
r4.92 d s ] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 5 8
15-36m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9
[5.8 1 d s ] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9
Figure 28 - Wheel and column angles versus peak calculated total energy absorbed at
8 mph l3.58 d s ] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 61
..-
Xlll
9 mph [4.02 d s ] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1
10 mph [4.47 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . 6 2
1 1 mph [4.92 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 6 2
12 mph r5.36 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 6 3
Figure 33 - Wheel and column angles venus peak calculated total energy absorbed at
13 mph [5.81 mls] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3
Figure 34 - WheeI and column angles versus the average energy absorption factor
(E.A.F.) at 8 mph [338 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6
Figure 35 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus the average energy absorption factor
(E.A.F.) at 9 mph [4.02 d s ] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 6 6
Figure 36 - Wheel and column angles venus the average energy absorption factor
(E.A.F.)at 10 mph [4.47 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 37 - Wheel and coiumn angles versus the average energy absorption factor
(E.A.F.) at 1 1 mph l4.92 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 6 7
Figure 38 - Wheel and column angles versus the average energy absorption factor
(E.A.F.) at 12 mph [5.36 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 6 8
Figure 39 - Wheel and column angles venus the average energy absorption factor
(E.A.F.) at 13 mph f5.81m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 6 8
Figure 40 - Wheel and column angles versus the coefficient of restitution at 8 rnph
[3-58 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 7 2
Figure41 - Wheel and column angles versus the coefficient of restitution at 9 rnph
r4.02 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
xiv
Figure 42 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus the coefficient of restitution at 10 rnph
r4.47 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure43 - Wheel and column angles versus the coefficient of restitution at 1 1 rnph
[4.92m/s] impact veloçity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
[5.36 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
[S. 8 1 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 46 - The coefficient of restitution versus the average energy absorption factor
for 8 mph 13-58 d s ] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -77
Figure 47 - The coeficient of restitution versus the average energy absorption factor
for 9 mph 14-02 mk] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
for 10 mph 14-47 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
for 1 1 mph [4.92 d s ] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
for 12 mph [5.36 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 7 9
for 13 mph r5.81 m/sJ impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.-79
Figure 52 - Wheel and column angles versus the peak impact force at 8 rnph
[3S8 mis] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Figure 53 - Wheel and column angles versus the peak impact force at 9 rnph
E4.02 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 8 2
LIST OF FIGURES .CONTINUED
Figure 54 . Wheel and column angles versus the peak impact force at 10 mph
t4.47 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 55 . Wheel and column angles versus the peak impact force at 1 1 mph
[4.92 mis] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 56 . Wheel and column angles versus the peak impact force at 12 mph
f5.36mis] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 57 . Wheel and colurnn angles versus the peak impact force at 13 mph
[5.81 m/s] impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 58 . I h ~ r a t i o nof the finite element aluminum crosshead mode1 . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 59 . Finite element models of the wwden backing plate and the aluminum
crosshead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 9 1
Figure 60 . The cross-sections used in development of the finite element model of the
chestfom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 9 2
Finite element models of the chestfonn. wooden backing plate. and

crosshead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 9 4
Figure 63 . Engineering stress versus engineering strain curve for the polyurethane
chestform material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 63 . CAD mode1 of the three spoke steering wheel .

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 9 8
Figure 64 . Finite element mode1 of the three spoke steering wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 65 . Stress versus effective plastic strain curve for the aluminum alloy of the
three spoke steenng wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 66 . Expenmental setup used to ver@ the finite element model of the
chestforni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 67 . Finite element models for the chestform. wooden backing plate.
crosshead. and n'gid cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
LIST OF FIGURES CONTLNUED -
Figure 68 - Graphical cornparison between the experimental tests and LS-DYNA

simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 69 - Cornparisons between the two modified finite element models and the
original finite element mode1 . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10
Figure 70 - Experimental setup used to ver@ the finite element model of the three
spoke steering wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 12
Figure 71 - Finite element models of the three spoke steering wheel and the rigid plate
used to veriQ the model of the steering wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 14
Figure 72 - VerticaI load versus crosshead displacement comparing two experimental

tests to the five different finite element modefs considered for the three
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
spoke steering wheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 1 1 7
Figure 73 - Expenmental versus numerical results for testing conducted at

experimental conditions #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19
Figure 74 - Expenmental versus numerical results for testing conducted at

experimental conditions #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 75 - Experimental versus numerical results for testing conducted at

experimental conditions #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1
Figure 76 - Experimental and numerical vertical load versus crosshead displacement

curves compating the effects of strain rate on the simulation results . . 123
Figure 77 - Experimental and numerical vertical load versus crosshead displacement

curves comparing the effects of modeling the rigid plate as a solid,
deformable, elastic entity . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 78 - Al1 four flnite element models used in simulating the chestfoxm impacting
the deformable steering wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 79 - Three orthogonal axes used to il l ustrate the testing methodology for the
first seven numerical simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
xvi i
LIST OF FIGURES .CONTLNUED
Figure 80 . Chestfom finite element model with massively distorted elements.

without using hourglass control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 81 . Deformation of the chestform finite element model with hourglass control
impIemented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Figure 82 . Contact without the proper values of the penalty factors for the chestfonn
and the steering wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 83 . Contact between the chestfonn and the steering wheel with the proper
values of the scale factors for the SURFACE-TO-SURFACE contact
algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 84 . Geometry of al1 the finite element rnodels before impact between the
chestfonn and the three spoke steering wheel . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Figure 85 . Geometry of al1 the finite element models after impact . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Figure 86 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test # 1 . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 87 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test if2 . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 88 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test #3 . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure 92 . Experimental and numencal findings for simulation test #7 . . . . . . . . . 140
Figure 95 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test # 10 . . . . . . . . 141
Figure 96 . Experimental and numericaI findings for simulation test #I 1 . . . . . . . . 142
xvi ii
LIST OF FIGURES .CONTINUED
Figure 97 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test fC 12 . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 98 . An energy cornparison behveen experimental tests and numerical

simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 99 . Percentage of total interna1 energy absorbed by the three spoke steering
wheelandchestfonn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
xix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Crosshead dropping heights required for the impact velocities considered
inthisstudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 2 Maximum E.A.F. with corresponding coefficient of restitution and wheel

and column angles for each test conducted within the range of impact
velocities considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1
Table 3 Percentage difference between experimental and numerical simulation

results for peak vertical load and peak crosshead displacement . . . . . . 108
Table 4 Summary of the three FE models investigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1
Table 5 Expenmental testing conditions considered for the ngid plate impacting
the three spoke steering wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13
Table 6 The details of the five different finite element models considered at
experimental testing situation X 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 15
Table 7 Approximate computational times required for the five finite element
models considered for the three spoke steering wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 18
Table 8 Testing parameters for the twelve numerical simulations to be conducted

........................................................ 128
Table 9 Computational time required to complete the twelve numerical

simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Table 10 Testing parameters for the twelve numerical simulations conducted with
the corresponding Figure # illustrating the cornparison between numerical
andexperimental findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Table 1 1 Percentage difference of the peak vertical load and peak crosshead
displacement fiom numerical and experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Table 12 Intemal energies and calculated energies from finite element simulations
(not considering strain rate effects) and expenmental tests . . . . . . . . . 149
Table 13 Intemal energies and calculated energies from finite element simulations
(consideringstrain rate effects) and experimental tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
LIST OF TABLES .CONTINUED
Table 14 . The true E.A.F. calculated based upon the interna1 energy within just the
steering wheel and the expenmentally detemined average E.A.F. . . . . 151
Table 1 5 . Description of each fi le on the accompanying CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . 1 55

NOMENCLATURE
acceleration (length/time2)
area (length') density of 'material'

(mass/length3)
Cowper-Syrnonds strain rate
parameter ( Mime) engineering stress
(mass/(length*time2))
energy (mass=length2hirne')
true stress
Young's Modulus of 'material' (rnass/(length-time'))
(massl(1ength-time2))
tnie stress at specific strain
force (mass-length/time2) rate, f (mass/(length-time2))
acceleration due t o gravity tnie stress at quasi-static strain

(length/time2) rate (mass/(length*tirne2))
acceleration (length/time2) engineering strain
height, distance, o r true strain

displacement (Iength)
true strain rate ( Mime)
Cowper-Symonds strain rate
parameter (dimensionless) change in displacement
( length)
CONVERSION FACTORS
LENGTH ACCEt ERATION

1.0 inch = 2.54 cm = 25.4 m m 1.0 g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.174 ft/s2
1.0 m = 3.208 fi = 39.37 inch
FORCE
MASS 1.0 Ibf = 4.448 N
1.0 kg = 2.204 Ibm
1 slug = 14.59 kg = 32.174 ibm ENERGY
1.0Ibf.in = 0.113.i = 0.113N-m
SPEED
1.0 mph = 1.61 km& = 1.467 ft/s STRESS / PRESSURE
1.0 m/s = 3.28 Ws = 2.24 rnph 1.0 psi = 1.O Ibf/in2 = 6.894 Wa
1.0 kpsi = 1000 psi
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
ASCII - Amencan Standard Code FEA - finite element analysis

for Information
Interchange FE - finite element
AVI - Audio Video Interleave I-E-muv - interna1 energy wi-thin the

object referred to as
BDC - Bottom Dead Centre "entiw"
E.A.F. - Energy Absorption Factor iGES - Initial Graphics Exchange

Standard
E.A.F.T. - Energy Absorption Factor
based upon Impact LVDT - Linear Variable
Energy Di fferential Transformer
E.A.F.P. - Energy Absorption Factor SAE - Society of Automotive

based upon Potential Engineers
Energy
TDC - Top Dead Centre
EEC - European Economic
Community
xxiv
1. INTRODUCTION
In the present automotive industry, al1 corporations are focusing on developing
automobiles which are light weight, fuel efficient, confonn to a level of safety outlined
by government regulations, and are available to the consumer at a reasonable cost. The
automobile industry has placed a significant amount of time and research funding into
developing vehicles which can meet these requirements.
In a period of approximately fifteen years, automobile manufacturers have k e n
faced with the requirement of meeting several more govemmental regulations and
criteria focusing on the safety or crashworthiness of their automobiles. Furthemore,
corporations have developed their own "in-house" safety criteria which also must be
followed in the development of automobiles and their components.
The steering wheel represents the most dangerous vehicle component for the
driver of the automobile. Unfortunately, this rnandatoly piece of equipment is
responsible for the loss of many lives in collision situations between the steering wheel
and the driver. Automotive manufacturers realize this problem and have devoted a
significant amount of time to the design and development of various safety components.
The seat belt and the driver's side air bag represent only a few of many engineering
accomplishments in the effort to minimize impact situations between the driver and the
vehicle's steering wheel.
With the development of the supercornputer and finite element software,
automobile corporations found a method of testing proposed designs and simulating their
products before fabrication. This represented a significant advancement in the
engineering design phase of vehicle components, and significantly decreased the costs of
development. Furthemore, design modifications could be considered on a component to
see how the changes would affect its performance, without actually performing costly
modifications to the equiprnent used in producing the component.
K.S. Centoco, a steering wheel manufacturer located in Windsor, is attempting to
develop steering wheels which rnaximize the absorption of energy in an impact situation.
In 1997, K.S. Centoco, in conjunction with the University of Windsor, developed a
prototype machine which perfoms experimental tests of impacts between a defomable
chestform and any of the steering wheels K.S. Centoco manufactures. The key feature of
the machine is its ability to investigate several independent variables, such as location of
impact on the steenng wheel, and observe how well the steering wheel mechanically
behaves in such a situation. Characteristics such as peak impact load between the
chestform and steering wheel, peak impact displacement of the steering wheel, and
e n e r a absorbed by the two cornponents are very important in the design of a "safe"
steering wheel.
Finite element simulations are also an integral part of steering wheel design.
Dynamic simulations using explicit finite element software have onty become a reality in
the past three to five years with the advent of faster personal computers. In addition,
only a handful of software companies are developing explicit finite element code. The
extreme deformations and non-linear material charactenstics, associated with driver to
steering wheel impacts, require sophisticated computer sottware.

The present investigation is undertaken for two principal reasons. First, and most
importantly, the experimental testing machine shall be utilized to examine the effects of
location of impact between the chestform and the steering wheel, as well as, the impact
velocity of the chestform ont0 the steering wheel and observe how these variables
influence the performance of a steering wheel during collision. Secondly, finite element
(FE) models of the experimental testing equiprnent sha1l be developed, and simulated
using explicit finite element code (LS-DYNA), and compared with experimental testing
results, to see if the performance of a steering wheel can be predicted by FE software.

The purpose of utilizing an experimental testing machine for impact Ioading of
steering wheels is to aIlow engineers and designers to predict how the steering wheel will
perform in an actual car crash situation. It is much more feasible to test a single steering
wheel in a destructive test than to perfonn a full car crash test, which unfortunately
destroys the entire vehicle. The author has completed prior work with the University of
Windsor and K.S.Centoco and has developed and fabricated a testing machine for
impact loading on steering wheels [l].
2.1. Documentation Regarding Experimental Testing
Reference [ I l dealt with three specific areas of concern in the design and
deveiopment of the testing machine. Firstly, a background search into past standards
associated with impact testing of steering wheels was performed. Secondly, a testing
methodoIogy, which attempts to experimentally simulate real world automobile crashes,
was described. Finally, the development and manufacturing process of the machine was
detailed.
2.1.1. Existing Relevant Standards and Accident Statistics
The development of the testing machine was based primarily upon two very
significant past and current testing standards; the Society of Automotive Engineers -
Steering Control System - Passenger Car - Laboratory Test Procedure SAE 5944 [SI
(which was canceled and not replaced) and a very similar European testing standard,
Annex III to Directive 74/297/EEC of the European Economic Community [3] (which is
cunently in use).
SAE 5944 involves experimentally testing the entire steering assembly and not
just the steering wheel. Figure 1 illustrates the testing apparatus and test setup.
This past testing
standard util izes a
deformabie
chestform or
DIRECTION O F LOAD CELL
bodyform. The LOCATION
requirements on the POINT O F THE

DRIVER
material properties, BODYFORM

REFERENCE LIN E
geometry, and weight UNE THROUGH SEATING ' L - - - ---i ROM ~
REFERENCE POIN-?' OF THE DRIVER PACKAGE DW~NG

PARALLEL TO 1HE VEHICLE'S
are al1 detailed in HORIZONTAL REFERENCE
SAE J944. The Figure 1 - Basic apparatus and setup for the SAE J944 testing
procedure.
standard is also
specific to the type of steering assembly being tested; the location of the chestfonn and
the column angle (as illustrated in Figure 1 ) are determined from the vehicle into which
the steering assembly is integrated.
Some details of the 5944 standard are vague. Fintly, the standard does not detail
the orientation of the steering wheel itself (the angle that the wheel is being tumed).
Secondly, and most importantly, this testing procedure does not specify a required impact
velocity.
The European standard, Annex UI to Directive 74/297/EEC, is much more
elaborate than SAE 5944. Although very similar to 5944, it considers several situations
which will significantly alter the loading profile between the bodyform and the steering
assembly. Firstly, the testing standard requires that the steering wheel be tested at the
most rigid and most weak positions on the wheel. This requirement considers the effect
of the orientation of the steering wheel. Secondly, if the steering system which is k i n g
tested utilizes an airbag, then the testing procedure must be conducted with the airbag
device inflated. Finally, this testing procedure places a requirement on the impact
velocity of the chestform on the steering wheel to be 15.0 * 0.7 mph [6.7 1 0.3 1 m/s].
Reference [ 1] also documents a large number of accident statistics associated
with collisions between a driver and the steering wheel. Moms et al. 141 have found that
collisions between the driver's chest and the steering assembly represent the greatest
percentage of accident data. The second greatest percentage of accident data involved
collisions between the driver's abdomen and the steeting assembly.
Cohen [ 5 ] , has determined that the steering assembly is also responsible for the
most serious injuries inflicted upon the driver in an accident. Collisions between the
chest of the driver and the steering assembly represent the greatest percentage of serious
injuries caused by the assembly. The second greatest percentage of serious injuries is
due to interactions between the driver's abdomen and the steering assembly, similar to
the findings documented by Moms et al. [4].

2.1.2. Testing Methodology
Perhaps the most significant contribution developed by Altenhof [ l ] is the testing
methodology for impact testing of steenng wheels to simulate real world accident
situations. Based upon past accident statistics, it is very difficult or impossible to predict
the exact location of an impact between the driver and the steering assembly. Accident
statistics do indicate a probability of impact between the steering wheel and either the
driver's chest or the driver's abdomen. However, the orientation of the steering wheel
and location of impact on the steering wheel cannot be predicted. This is primarily
because al1 drivers are different in geometry and weight and al ter the steering assembly
(tilt steering) and seating position to the orientation they most prefer.
Altenhof [1] has developed a steering wheel testing procedure which shows that
in order to be able to predict steering wheel performance in an actua1, real world, impact
situation the experimental testing must investigate al1 the parameters associated with
these types of collisions. Experiments m u t be completed with variations in impact
velocity, location of impact (between the chestform and steering wheel), and the steering
wheel orientation to be able to simulate the most likely real world collision.
Ultimately, this testing procedure is used to examine the effects of location of
impact, impact velocity, and steering wheel orientation in collisions between a
deformable chestform, representing an actual human driver, and a steering wheel.

2.1.3. The Prototype Testing Machine
Reference [ I l also details the design, development, and manufacturing of a
prototype testing machine. This machine is illustrated in Figure 2. The device uses
gavity to accelerate the chestform and provide an impact velocity to the rigidly mounted
steering wheel. The chestform is allowed only to translate in the vertical direction.
A triaxial load cell is used to determine the impact force acting between the
chestfom and the steering wheel. As well, a linear variable differential transformer
(LVDT) is rigidky attached
to the translating crosshead Pneumatic

Assist Cylinder
to detem ine the
displacements of the
crosshead during an impact
test-
LVDT
One axis of the load
ce11 is in the same direction

Crosshead
as the displacements
Bodyform
measured by the LVDT.
Steering Wheel
This axis, the 'z' axis, is
Triaxial Load Cell
used together with the
displacements attained by WY Translation

Table
the LVDT to detennine an
experimental arnount of
Figure 2 - Droptower testing machine.
-8-
energy which was transferred to the steering wheel and chestform in an impact. The
equation relating force and displacement to energy is:
where, 'E' represents the amount of energy transferred to the steering wheel and
chestform, 'F' represents the force acting in the interface of the steering wheel and
chestfonn (in the direction of the measured displacements), 'q'represents the
displacement at the beginning of the test, and 'x,' represents the final displacement
observed during the test.
Only a finite number of data points are COllected by the testing mach ine so
equation ( 1 ) is approximated by:
where, Zload, represents the z axis load for the ith data point, Ivdt,., represents the LVDT
displacement measurement for the i+ 1 data p i n f and Ivdt,., represents the LVDT
displacement measurement for the i-1 data point.
The testing machine also incorporates three accelerometers, one located at the
head of the chestform, another located at the lett shoulder of the chestfonn, and a third
located at the lower right abdomen area. These devices are used to determine how the
acceleration in an impact test varies over the length of the bodyfom (from the head of
the chestform to the abdomen of the chestform).
2.2. Other Considerations in Experimental Testing
Unfortunately, no other references regarding experimental testing of steering
wheels, employing the SAE J944 standard or equivalent, were found. In addition, no
documentation regarding data, or the analysis of data, was found, based upon the 5944
standard for laboratory testing of steering wheels.
However, experimental testing and data has been documented for droptower
testing of steering wheels from one of K.S. Centoco's clientele [6] and has k e n
provided as a source of reference. The testing procedure and testing equipment, from
K.S. Centoco's clientele, does not follow the 5944 standard. The chestfonn that is used
in this expriment is a rigid dome-like structure which does not deform, or deforms to a
negligible extent, in an impact test.
Data that is acquired by this testing machine is analyzed in a similar marner to
the testing machine developed by Altenhof [ I l . Energy is calculated based upon the area
underneath the vertical load versus displacement curve.
Experimental testing of head shaped structures (headforms) impacting steering
wheels has been completed and documented. Unfortunately, these types of experiments
focus on peak accelerations (or decelerations) which the head may see in an impact
situation and do not focus on the energy absorption characteristics of the steering wheel.
As well, full automobile testing has also been completed and documented. Yet this
information is proprietary to the Company which has developed the automobile. Similar
to the headforrn testing, full automobile tests do not focus on the energy absorption
performance of steering wheels.
A procedure for analyzing deformed steering wheels from crashed automobiles
has been demonstrated by Culver [7].Large amounts of data, acquired fiom typical
"field test" crash testing (completed on an entire automobile), was analyzed and
summarized in this literature. All measurernents were recorded From instrumentation
developed by Culver and used to determine the impact force, energy absorbed, and
deflection of the instrumentation during impact.
Documentation regarding current and future trends for steering wheel matenals
and safety concems has been completed by Rodrigues et al. [8]. An analysis of the
geometry and surface hardness of the steenng wheel and its related compnents was
completed to conclude that steenng wheel development is still needed in ternis of
materials and geometrical design.
2.3. Documentation Regarding Finite Element Modeling and Experimental

Testing
There are a number of documents which address finite element modeling and
esperimental testing of impacts between a chestform and the steering assembly. For the
majority of testing, whether it be numerical (using finite element simulations) or
experimental, the J944 standard, or its equivalent, is used as the basis for a testing
procedure.
2.3.1. Simulation o f Body Block Steering Wheei Impacts Using Dyna3d [9]
McKie 191 has cornpleted work using Dyna3d, an explicit finite element software
program (now named LS-DYNA), to simulate a European standard similar to SAE 5944.
The chestform utilized in this standard is identicat to the deformabte chestform used in
5944. As well, experimental testing was completed and used to compare results with
fini te et ement (FE) predictions.
The method used by McKie was sornewhat different from the testing procedure
outlined in the European testing standard. McKie developed a FE model of the
chestform, and simulated a spherical dome impacting the chest of the bodyform.
Experiments were completed at the same conditions and a good relationship between
experimental testing and numerical simulations was found for the velocity of the
spherical shell throughout the duration of impact.
McKie then developed a full FE model of the steering wheel which was
considered in the analysis. However, the testing procedure used for impacts on the
steerinç wheel significantly differed from that required by the European standard.
McKie replaced the deformable chestform with a rigid, non-deformable, chestform, and
hence deviated from the experimental testing procedure.
In this documentation the performance of a steering wheel, in an impact situation,
is based upon peak impact load, and not energy absorption characteristics of the steering
wheel. Although experimental testing was completed using a deformable chestform, and
numerical simulations were completed using a rigid chestform, the results indicated a
good relationship between experimental and numerical tests. Furthemore, McKie

documented the material models used for both the chestform and steering wheel, which
provide information for developing FE models of both entities.
2.3.2. Designing Energy Absorbing Steering Wheels Through Finite Element

Impact Simulation (101
Shyu et al. [IO]conducted experimental testing and numerical simulations (using
the PAM-CRASH software program) in order to investigate the energy absorption
characteristics of a steering wheel in an impact situation. The SAE J944 standard was
utilized as the procedure for conducting both numerical and experimental tests. It should
be noted that this documentation is very similar to McKie [9] with the exception that
energy is used as the bais for determining the performance of the steering wheel (in an
impact situation) rather than peak impact load. As well, a modified steenng wheel
design was developed based upon FE predictions.
The procedure implemented by Shyu et al. was identical to the approach outlined
in SAE J944 wïth the exception that a ngid chestform, instead of the required deformable
chestform, \vas used in the numerical simulations. Similar to McKie [9], Shyu et al. have
deviated frorn the required testing methodology outlined by 5944.
A very good relationship, in terms of impact toad versus time during impact, was
found between experimental testing and numerical simulations.
2.3.3. An Investigation o f Steering Column Collapse Behavior Using Finite

Elernent Analysis 1111
Gotoh et al. [I 1 1 have investigated the behavior of a steering column in impact
situations. Although this document focuses primarily on the steering column, and not the
steering wheel, it does provide some information regarding finite element modeling of
the apparatus used in SAE 5944. The 5944 testing rnethod was utilized in this
investigation.
Similar to the other studies, Gotoh et al. have chosen to use a rigid chestform as
the impacting entity on the steering assembly. However, the FE chestform modeled in
this investigation is very crude compared to FE models from the other references. The
mode1 does not conform to the geometry or shape of the chestform required by the 5944
standard.
As previously mentioned, this work dealt with steering columns (rather than
steering wheels) and unfortunately it did not present any data or analysis of data
regarding the steering wheel. However, Gotoh et al. have found that a good relationship
between experimental testing and numencal simulations was evident on the bais of the
deceleration of the chestform throughout the duration of impact.
2.1. Documentation Regarding Crashworthiness Testing of Automobiles and

Associated Vehicle Components
A significant arnount of documentation regarding the study of vehicle
crashworthiness has been reviewed for this dissertation. Omar et al. [ 121, Pries et
al. [ 133, Bennett et al. [14], Saha et al. [ l 51, and Scott Lui [16] have al1 completed
extensive work in the field of crashworthiness. These references did not focus on the
steering wheel but discussed the general principal of crashworthiness for automotive
design and addressed the use of explicit finite element software for the numerical
simulation of crashworthiness testing.

Belytschko [ 171 has addressed some of the computational methods for
crashworthiness. Adaptive meshing methods, explicit and implicit time integration
techniques and new element formulations are three areas of concem which have been
mathematically developed and are only now, in present day, being developed and
implemented in finite element software used for crashworthiness simulations.
Energy absorption has become a significant role in the evahation of the
crashworthiness of a vehicie andfor its related components. Weinhold et al. [ 181,
Rowberry [19], and Fan [20], have each addressed crashworthiness from an energy
absorption perspective. Proper selection of the materials and the geometrical
arrangement of the structures (varying fiom rail y a r d s to polyurethane dashboards)
which undergo massive deformation in a collision are a significant factor in the energy
absorption characteristic of automotive related components.
Ano ther dynarnic maneuver which is general ly addressed in crashworthiness
testing is rollover. Rollover is defined as any maneuver in which the vehicle rotates
ninety degrees or more about its longitudinal axis such that the body makes contact with
the ground. Literature regarding rollover and the cause of this situation has been
docurnented by Gillespie [2 1 ] and Chou et al. [22]. Mathematical models for the quasi-
static and transient rollover of vehicles has been reviewed. Furthemore, Bathe [23],has
discussed the proper procedure for the finite element modeling of rollover simulations.
Bathe believes that quasi-static rollover simulations are best conducted using implicit
finite element software (or implicit integration techniques) due to the fact that unrealistic
artificial oscillations become present in the solution deterrnined from explicit integration
methods.
2.5. Documentation Regarding Occupant Modeling and Crash Test Dummies
A literature review regarding occupant modeling and crash test dummies was
conducted in an effort to better understand the numerical modeling procedures of these
crash testing devices.
Neathery [24] has cornpieted an analysis of data obtained fiom experimental
impact testing conducted on actual human cadavers and has cornpared results, in terms of
impact force and displacement, for males and females without any relationship found
between the two genders. This information was utilized for recommendations in the
development crash test dummies.
A large amount of documentation regarding the experimental and numerical
testing of the Hybrid III crash test dummy has been reviewed [25-301. In general, a very
good relationship between experimental and numerical modeling of sied testing,
conducted on the entire Hybrid III body, and more localized testing, conducted on just
the head and neck structure of the Hybrid III, was observed. In addition, experimental
test cornparisons between older crash testing dummies (Fart 572) and the Hybrid III body
was conducted with a good correlation found between the two entities.
In an effort to determine the forces and pressures which act on the face of the
human body during a coHision between the head and the steering wheel Warner et
al. 1311 developed a load sensing faceform. This faceform contained extensive
instrumentation and high speed data acquisition capabilities which proved to be a very
significant advancement in experimental testing for collisions between a facefom and
the steering wheel.
2.6. SummaryofPastResearch
Based upon the literatue reviewed, several observations can be made conceming
impact testing of steering wheels:
- Little or no variation in impact velocity or the location of impact between a
steering wheel and a deformable chestform is considered in either
experimental testing or flnite element simulations. SAE 5944 does not place a
requirement on either the impact velocity or the orientation of the steering
wheel in an impact test. Furthemore, the column angle is specified as per the
âctual column angle within the automobile. This does not consider the option
of tilt steering assemblies, which are oflen a standard option in the majority of
automobiles. European standards are more robust in the fact that they do
specify an impact velocity. However, there is no guarantee that the driver of
an automobile will hit the steering wheel at a speed of 15.0 mph [6.71 rn/s].
European standards do address the weakest and stiffest part of the steering
wheel in experimental tests, but again, there is no guarantee that an impact
will occur at one of these two positions.
- There is a very small amount of documentation regarding the impact testing
of steering wheels. This is probably due to proprietary considerations.

- No work has been performed on the colIision between a deformable
chestform and a deformable steering wheel in FE simulations. Al! p s t work
considered only a rigid chestform impacting a deformable steering wheel.
- Finally, it is generally observed that a good relationship between experimental
testing and FE predictions exists.
The first observation Iisted above, indicates that even if experimentd testing is
completed, there exists a very good chance that this information may not be usefui in an
actual real world collision situation. Since, there is a very low probability that the dnver
will impact at a speed of 15.0 mph [6.71 m/s] and at either the weakest or stiffest part of
the steering wheel, then the experimental information obtained in these types of tests
may prove to be worthless if a n impact occurs at Iower (or higher) speed and at any other
position on the steering wheel other than the weakest or stiffest locations.
If experimental testing is conducted using the SAE 5944 standard or its European
equivalent (Annex III to Directive 74/297/EEC), then at a maximum, two locations of
impact between the steering wheel and chestform are required. However, in a real world
collision situation there rnay exist an infinite number of possibilities as to how the dnver
will hit the steering wheel based upon the location of impact, the orientation of the
steenng assembly, and the velocity at which the driver collides with the steenng wheel.
The need to hlly understand how a steering wheel will perforrn at any impact
position, velocity, or steering wheel orientation very much exists. This wilI enabte
engineers to properly estimate the abilities of a steering wheel in a real world collision as
wel 1 as modiQ their current steering wheel designs so as to improve on the performance
of the steering wheel in an impact.

3. FOCUS OF RESEARCH WORK
The work associated with this dissertation focuses on two specific concems
which have not been considered in the p s t :
- Select a specific type of steering wheel and complete e-xtensiveexperimental
tests on that wheel. The experimental testing will consider variations in the
orientation and location of impact on the steering wheel, the impact velocity
of the chestform, and the column angle of the steering wheel. The variation
of these three independent variables will be used to examine how they affect
the resulting peak impact load, peak impact displacement, and calculated
energy. An in depth analysis of the energy absorption characteristics of the
steering wheel and chestform dunng an impact wil1 also be conducted.
- Development of highly detailed finite element models of the experimental
apparatus 4 1 also be completed. Similar to the experimental testing,
simulations will be conducted with a variation in the orientation and location
of impact on the steering wheel, the impact velocity of the chestform, and the
column angle of the steering wheel. Simulation predictions will then be
compared with experimental tests. Most importantly, an attempt to simulate a
deformable chestform impacting a deformable steering wheel will be
completed (rather than a rigid chestform impacting a deformable chestform).

4.1. Terrninology Associated with Steering Wheel Testing
There are a number of terms associated with steering wheel testing which need to
be defined prior to discussing the actual experimental setup and procedure.
4.1.1. The Column Angle and Impact Velocity
The column angle represents the angular displacement fiom a horizontal
reference line to the centre line of the steering column. Figure 3 illustrates a steering
wheel and a bodflorm which are used to define the column angle. In measuring the
column angle, positive values are taken in a cIockwise sense from the horizontal
reference line. Furthemore, a zero degree column angle represents the centre line of the
steering column in line with the horizontal reference line.
Impact Velocity - velocity at ..
Bodyform
i instant contact is made (directed
towards steering wheel,parallel
to the horizon)
only
translates
towards (or
away) from
steering
wheel
1 Column Angle - angle between
horizontal aGd steer& column
Figure 3 - The column angle and impact velocity.
Typically, in modem automobiles the column angle ranges from 25 degrees to 35
degrees. However, with the addition of tilt steering, the actual column angle, referenced
to the steering wheel, may not be the actual column angle specified by the automobile
manufacturer. Depending upon the preference of the driver, the column angle referenced
from the steering wheel may be significantly different fiom the actual column angle.
For this study, a "low column angle" indicates that the column angle is smali' in
the range of 15 degrees to 20 degrees. As weli, a "steep or high column angle" indicates
the angle is large, typically greater than 35 degrees.
The impact velocity, as illustrated in Figure 3, is defined as the vetocity of the
impacting chestform at the instant contact is made between the chestform and the
steering wheel. The impact velocity represents the maximum value of the velocity of the
chestform over the duration of impact. It should be noted that the bodyform only
translates in a direction parallel to the horizontal reference line. Thus, the impact
velocity will be in a direction toward the steering wheel.
4.1.2. The Wheel Angle
This angle represents the orientation or angular displacement which the steering
wheel is being tumed during an impact test. Figure 4 illustrates the wheel angle and
different wheel angle locations over the entire steering wheel. The wheel angle is
commonly measured using an identical approach to that of an analog clock, or in
degrees. The wheel angle varies kom the 12 o'clock position ( O 0 position), which is the
top dead centre (TDC) of the steenng wheel (in normal driving conditions, ie. driving
"Normal" 12 o'clock or O
driving position. ..,/ -
4
; degree wheel angle
y'- \.
3 o'clock or
1L - 3 If---. an APUWP
6 o'clock or ' . < y' f'
Figure 4 - The wheel angle.
straight ahead), to the 6 o'clock position (1 80" position), which is the bottom dead centre
(BDC) of the steering wheel (in normal driving conditions), and back to the 12 o'clock
position.
It should be noted that any collision between the chestforrn and steenng wheel
\vil1 always occur at the B K of the steering wheel. However, depending upon how the
steering wheel is turned, this may not represent the 6 o'clock ( 180") position. If the
wheel is tumed, then in general, impact will not occur at the 6 o'clock position. In
addition, al1 impacts on the chestforrn occur along the centreline (midline or a i s of
symmetry) of the chestform.
4.1.3. Peak Impact Load, Peak Impact Displacement, and Calculated Energy
The peak impact load and peak impact displacement represent the maximum
values of the force and LVDT measurements in the direction of the impact velocity or
along the horizontal reference line.

The calculated energy is determined by utilizing equation (2) for the discrete
number of data points attained in a test. Equation (2) basically determines the area
within the curve bounded by the force versus displacement profile observed in an
experimental test. The force and disptacement measurements are al1 taken in a direction
along the horizontal reference line (which is in the vertical direction on the testing
machine).
4.2. The Steering Wheel Selected for Experimental Testing
The steering wheel selected for experimental testing is a three spoke wheel which
is manufactured by K.S. Centoco Ltd., in Tilbury, Ontario, Canada. The three spoke
wheel is currently widely used in the automobile industry.
A die casting process is used to produce the steering wheel. Furthemore, the
steering wheel is fabricated fiom a proprietary alurninum alloy, developed specifically
for the steering wheel industry. To minimize differences in steering wheels due to any
variation in the manufacturing processes, al1 steering wheels tested were talcen from a
batch of wheels which were produced during the same manufacturing run with the same
die.
4.3. A Background Discussion of the Experimental Testing Conditions
As previously indicated, one of the goals of this study involved the investigation
of how the location of impact, column angle of the steering wheel, orientation of the
steering wheel, and impact velocity of a chestfom ont0 the steering wheel effect the
peak impact load, peak impact disptacement and calcuIated energy during a collision
between the chestfonn and steering wheel. The orientation, column angle, and location
of impact on the steering wheel can be defined by the value of the wheel angle and
column angle. As well, the impact velocity defines the speed of impact.
The manufacturer o f the automobile, which utilizes the three spoke steenng
wheel, has provided information regarding al1 the possible values of the col umn angles
under normal driving conditions [32]. The actual steering colurnn angle is twenty eight
degrees (28"), however, the tilt steering provides ten ( 10) increments of two and one
quarter degrees (2.25" ) gaps, or spaces. Thus, the values of the cotumn angles with tilt
steering are 38. i X 0 , 35.875 O, 33.62s0, 3 1.375", 29. l25", 26.875", 24.625". 22.375 O,
20.1 X O and
, 17.875".
During an actual car crash situation the steering column generally has a tendency
to push upwards toward the driver and in effect increases the column angle [33]. Thus,
for experimental testing, the range of values of column angles that were chosen vaned
from 1 5 to 42"- in increments of 3

O O. This range provided ten ( 10) different column
angle values which were considered in this study; 1 S O , 18", 2 1 O, 24", 27"- 30". 33"- 36",
39", and 42".
Due to the symmetry of the wheel, when considering the variation in the wheel
angle, only half of the possible wheel angles were needed to be investigated. For
example, an impact at the 3 o'clock position is syrnmetrically identical to an impact at
the 9 o'ctock position. Thus the range of wheel angles considered in this investigation
were from the 12 07cIockposition (O " wheel angle) to the 6 o'clock position ( 180" wheel
angle), in increments of 1 hour or 30". Hence, seven (7) different wheel angles were
considered: 12 o'clock, 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock, and 6 o'clock.
It has been shown that impacts at speeds greater than 13 rnph [5.81 m/s] tend to
develop a very large degree of deformation in the steering wheel, which does not actually
occur in real world dnver/steerîng wheel collisions [34]. This is based upon testing
conditions similar to which al1 the experimental tests for this study were conducted with
no airbag deployment and no airbag supporting M u r e being present. Thus, 13 rnph
f5.81 mis] was selected as the high end for the range of impact vetocities. Based upon
past testing observations, a low end value for the impact velocity was selected as 8 rnph
[3S 8 m/s]. Impacts with speeds lower than 8 rnph i3.58m/s] and at a stiff location on
the steering wheel generatly illustrated deformations similar to low speed car crash
situations. The increment on the impact velocity was selected to be 1 mph [ M l m/s].
Thus, six (6)different impact velocities were considered in this investigation; 8 rnph
[3.58m/s], 9 rnph C4.02 rn/s], 10 rnph E4.47 mls], 11 rnph [4.92 d s ] , 12 rnph C5.36 m/s],
and 13 rnph t5.81 m/s].
Based upon the nwnber of increments for the wheel angle (7),column angle ( IO),
and the impact velocity (6), the total nurnber of tests conducted in order to investigate al1
possible combinations were 420 experimental runs. This value represents the products of
the increments for each independent variable (wheel angle, column angle, and impact
velocitv) considered in this study.

4.4. The Experimental Testing Machine Used in this Investigation
44.1. A Basic Description of the Mechanisms in the Testing Machine
The testing machine used in this study is the testing machine developed by K.S.
Centoco and the University of Windsor as outlined in reference [ 11. A detailed
discussion of the components and devices incorporated into the testing machine is
presented in this section.
Illustrated in Fi y r e 5 is the lower portion of the droptower testing machine. The
bodyfom and LVDT are rigidly attached to a translating crosshead constrained to move
only in a vertical direction. The LVDT provides displacement rneasurements from a
referenced or "zeroed" position. In al1 impact tests, completed in this study, the
reference position was set at a location such that a gap of 0.5 inches [12.7 mm] existed
1 LVDT mounted on crosshead Crosshead

(translating
vertically only,
along guide posts)
Three spoke
steering wheel
Column Angle Joint
1 Triaxial Load Cell

Figure 5 - Lower portion of impact testing machine.
between the bodyfonn and the steering wheel. The three spoke steering wheel is rigidly
fastened to the colurnn angle joint in a similar manner as it is fastened to the steering
column of an actual automobile. The locking column angle joint is allowed to rotate
with the aid of a hydraulic release mechanism. If hydraulic power is supplied to the
hydraulic cylinder, the release mechanism is activated, permitting adjustment of the
column to any required angle. The hydraulic power can then be disengaged which
deactivates the release mechanism and the column angle is rigidly locked into position.
Located near the column angle joint is a similar arrangement of devices that allow
rotation of the wheel angle. Similar to the column angle joint the wheel angle joint also
utilizes a hydraulic clarnping device to lock the wheel angle in a specified position.
Located directly below the column angle joint is the triaxial load cell. This
device measures forces in three mutually perpendicular directions. The most important
direction is the vertical sense or direction of impact and is identified as the --z-axis". The
other two directions of measurernent are termed the "x-ais" and "y-ais", which
measure the force in a direction along the width and depth of the machine respectively.
The " z - a d ' also represents the direction that LVDT displacement measurements are
made.
The testing machine has an approximate maximum crosshead drop height of
70 inches [1.78 ml. This distance, depending upon tubrication conditions between the
guideposts and bushings on the crosshead, can provide a maximum impact velocity of
roughly 13 mph [5.8 1 m/s]. In addition, a pneumatic cylinder can be utilized to provide
an "initial push" which can cause the crosshead to develop higher impact velocities, if
necessary. A calibration of dropping height versus impact velocity has been developed
[ X I . For the impact velocities which will be considered in this study the following
crosshead dropping heights, given in Table 1, are required. Table 1 also provides the
theoretical impact velocity calculated using equation (3), based upon constant
acceleration. without any fnction losses between the guideposts and bushings.
*
In equation (3,
,,,y is the theoretical impact velocity, h is the theoretical dropping
height, and 'g' is the local acceleration due to gravity. Note that the calibrated dropping
heights are, in general, higher than the theoretical dropping heights. This should be
expected as the theoretical dropping heights do not consider Fnctional losses.
Furthemore, at higher impact velocities, the difference between the calibrated dropping
heights and theoretical dropping heights decreases.
-
Table 1 Crosshead D ~ O D D Heights
~ E Reauired
for the Impact Velocities Considered in this Study
Impact Velocity (mph Calibrated Dropping Height Theoretical Dropping Height

Ws]) (inches [mm]) (inches [mm])
8 [3.58] 30 [762] 25.65 [652]
4.4.2. The Data Acquired During an Impact Test
Typically, in an experimental test, the duration of impact has been found to be
approximately O. 1 seconds. To obtain experimental information in this very short time
interval requires the incorporation of a high speed data acquisition card in the testing
machine.
For al1 the experiments considered in this investigation, the testing machine
recorded five hundred data points of information during the impact period. The
observations recorded include the three directions of loading €rom the triaxial load cell,
measurements from the three accelerometers mounted to the back of the chestform at the
head, lefi shoulder, and lower abdomen region, and the displacements from the LVDT.
In addition, the high speed data acquisition board also kept a record of the time at which
each data point was observed.
Ail the information observed in a test was stored in an ASCII text file which was
uti l ized for analysis and cornparison between di fferent tests.
4.4.3. Analysis of the Acquired Data
Analysis of the data acquired in any experimental test is generally needed to
detennine the peak loads, accelerations, impact velocity, and displacement of the
crosshead and steering wheel. As well, time history information for the loads,
accelerations, velocity and displacement are also required to be able to generate
graphical depictions of each observation throughout the time of collision.
Mathcad was selected as the s o h a r e for the analysis of the experimental data,
pnmarily due to its excellent abilities with unit conversions and mathematical
operations. Unfortunately, the data files generated by the testing machine require
reformatting in order for Mathcad to be able to properly read the obsewed information
from an ASCII data file. Thus, a Visual Basic program was developed by the author to
provide the data format required by Mathcad
The Mathcad worksheet analyzes the data file from the droptower testing
machine and determines the impact velocity of the chestform, the maximum load in al1
three directions fiom the triaxial load cell, the peak crosshead displacement, the peak
acceleration measured by each accelerometer, and the calculated energy absorbed during
Crosshead Displacement Versus Time
Testina Reiults (Max. Crosshard Displrcement~

TEST #1: 3.85 in / 97-79 mm
--. TEST #2: 4.43 in 1 11252 mm
-.-
TEST H: Impact at 6-85 mph 1 3.06 m/s
- TEST #2: Impad at 8.82 mph 1 3.94 m/s
TEST #3: Impact at 10.77 mph / 4.81 mis
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Time (seconds)
--
Figure 6 - Typical crosshead displacement versus time curves fiom the Mathcad
worksheet (note: each curve is offset in the time axis to better illustrate each
curve).
the impact. From equation (2), the calculated energy is detennined by integrating the
"z-axis" force versus LVDT displacement curve. Furthemore, the Mathcad worksheet
also provides a graphical output of al1 the loads, accelerarions, crosshead velocity, and
crosshead displacement as functions of time. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate respectively,
typical LVDT displacement versus time and "z-axis" load versus time curves frorn the
analysis completed within the Mathcad worksheet.
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Dis~lacement
-TESTntl: lnpad at6.85 nph 13.06 nJs

TESTW:- 1 at 8.82 nph 13.94 rds
TEST #3: lrnpad at 10.77 14.81 Ws
0.00 0.02 O. 04 0.06 0.08 0.10 O. 12

Tirne (seconds)
Figure 7 - Typical "z-axis" load versus tirne curves from the Mathcad worksheet. A
summary of the peak vertical loads is also provide in the upper Rght region
of the graph.
To determine the calculated energy a b s o h d during an impact test requires the
inteçration of the "z-axis" load versus crosshead displacement curve. If one cross-plots
the displacement versus time curve (as illustrated in Figure 6), with the ' ' z - a ~ i sload
~~
Crosshead Displacement (metres)
I I I 1 1 1 1 1
Tostina Result. 1Max. E n o m v Absomtlonl

teaT n: iaom.ao IM in 1300.4s J i 20000
f E S T ni: 4OU.8S lbf ln 1457.46 J
I
1- TEST # T : Impact st 6 85 mph 13.06 mis

TEST # 2 Impact at 8.82 mph 13.94 m k
-4 -2 O 2 4 6
Crosshead Displacement (inches)
Figure 8 - Typical crosshead displacement versus "2-axis" or vertical load

curves. These curves are integrated to determine a calculated
energy absorbed dunng the impact.
versus time curve (as illustrated in Figure 7) a typical "z-axis" ioad versus crosshead
displacement curve results. An example of this type of curve is presented in Figure 8. It
should be noted that one of the curves, in Figure 8, is offset in the x-axis to illustrate
differences in the curves presented. Furthemore, a summary of the calculated energy
absorbed in the impact test is presented in the top lefi corner of the vertical load versus
displacement plot (as illustrated in Figure 8).

4.4.4 The Experimental Testiag Procedure Used in this Investigation
As previously indicated, 420 experimental tests were required to be completed in
this investigation to fully consider the variations in the column angle, wheel angle, and
impact velocity. The procedure for each individual test was identical. The only variation
from test to test was the settings (column angle, wheel angle and impact velocity)
associated with each test.
4.4.4.1. Checking on the Integrity of the Chestform
The chestfonn is made from a low density polyurethane foam. To ensure that the
chestform was not degrading during the course of the 420 experimental tests, a rigd
cylinder was manufactured and used as a control to veriw if, over the span of the tests,
variations in the vertical load versus crosshead displacement curve developed. The
Adhesive Tape
(to hold chestjorm to wooden
bockplate)
- Velocity Direction (îowards cylinder

only, no other rotations or
translations)
1 Mount ing Device

(connecteci to triarial load c d )
Figure 9 - Experimental setup used to test the integrïty of the chestform over the course
of the 420 impact tests considered.
chestfom was dropped ont0 the rigid cylinder from an elevation of 32 inches [8 13 mm]
above the cylinder and at a location across the chest of the bodyform. Figure 9 illustrates
the test setup. A leather covering was developed, for the chestfom, to minimize any
tearing that may occur on the surface of the chestfom. The total mass of the dropping
assembly , tncluding the chestform, wooden backing plate, and aluminum crosshead was
104.06 Ibm [47.18 kg].
These "integrity checking" tests were completed after every fiftieth experimental
test. Over the entire 420 tests compteted, no significant variation in the load versus
displacement curve was observed, indicating that little or no degradation of the
chestfom occurred. Furthemore, littie or no physical signs of ripping, tearinç, or
degrading of the bodyfonn structure were evident.

4.4.4.2. Experimental Testing Procedure Used for Impacts on Steering
Weels
The experimerital testing apparatus is illustrated in Figure 10. For each test a new
steering wheel was bolted to the steering column shaft. if necessary, the hydraulic power
supply was energized to unlock the column angle and wheel angle joints. The position of
the wheel angle and column angle was then modified to the required testing conditions.
The hydrauiic power supply was then de-energized to clamp down the column angle and
wheel angle joints. A one half inch [12.7 mm] gauge block was then placed on the BDC
of the steering wheel (where impact will first occur), and the chestfonn was lowered so
that it was just touching the gauge block. The gauge block was then removed fiom
Wooden Backing Plate
' Adhesive Tape
Deformable cheslform
with leather wrap
Steering Wheel
fiflustratedas i m ~ a cat
t 6 O 'dock) other translations or rotations).
Figure 10 - Experirnental test setup for a typical "chestform to steering wheel" impact
test. The experimental testing conditions for this exact test involve a
column angle of 27", a wheel angle of 180" (6 o'clock), and an impact
velocity of 1 1 mph i4.92 d s ] .
l Wooden Backing Plate
A dhesive Tape
'Deformable c h e s t f m
with leather wrap
Deformed Steering Wheel

(illuswared as impact ut 6 o 'clock)
Figure 11 - Defonned geometry of the steering wheel and chestform after an impact
test. The testing conditions for this exact test are a coiumn angle of 2ï0,a
wheel angle of 180" (6 o'clock), and an impact velocity of 1 1 mph
C4.92 rn/s].
between the chestfom and steering wheel and the triaxial load cell, LVDT, and
accelerometers were zeroed (placed into the reference position). The chestform was then
raised to the appropriate dropping height and released. Figure 1 I illustrates a completed
test. Data acquisition was completed and the chestfonn t a s elevated to a safe distance
above the deformed steering wheel. The defonned steering wheel was replaced with a
new steering wheel and the testing procedure was repeated.

5. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ACQUIRED FROLMEXPERIMENTAL TESTS
Upon completion of the 420 expenmental tests, each data file was modified,
using the Visual Basic program, and analyzed in the Mathcad worksheet. One of the
focuses of this investigation was to examine the effect of colurnn angle, wheel angle, and
impact velocity on peak vertical (or "2-axis") Ioad, peak vertical displacement and
calculated energy absorbed in the impact. A discussion of the energy absorbed during
the collision \vil1 first be conducted.
5.1. A Discussion of the Energy Transfer During an Impact Test
Afler integration of the vertical ioad versus vertical displacement, a resulting
calculated energy profile is obtained. Figure 12 illustrates the graph of calculated energy
Calculated Enerciv Versus Crosshead Displacement

0.00 O.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
O 2 4 6
Figure 12 - Calculated energy versus crosshead displacement curve

for experimental test #345.
versüs crosshead displacement. This curve is from experimental test number 345 which
\vas conducted with a column angle of 2 î 0 , a wheel angle of 180" (or at the 6 o'clock
position), and an impact velocity of 12 mph [5.36m/s]. There are several key positions
on the curve that should be discussed. Figure 13 illustrates the identical curve presented
in Figure 12 with annotations used to describe specific positions on the graph.
Calculated Enerav Versus Crosshead Dis~lacement

0.O0 0.04 0.08 0.12 O.16
Maximum Energy Absorbed

E i h c Response of me s,mng
Wheel and Chestform
VJ a
O 2 4 6
Figure 13 - Annotated graph of experimental test #345.
First, the green vertical reference line represents the peak crosshead (or LVDT)
displacement. This value is the experimental measurement obtained minus the height of
the gauge block used in the "zeroing" procedure. Hence, the values along the horizontal
axis of the curve represent actua1 steering wheel and chestform displacements from their
original, undeformed positions. This value indicates the maximum displacement of the
steering wheel and chestform in an experimental test. At this displacement, the
chestform has little or a very small amount of kinetic energy, and is beginning to enter
into the rebound phase of the impact.
Secondly, the peak value on the vertical portion of the curve, represents the
maximum amount of energy absorbed during the impact (this is illustrated with the red
horizontal reference line). Finally, the blue horizontal reference line illustrates the total
amount of energy absorbed during the impact test.
There are two distinct regions of the curve that need to be discussed. The
difference between the maximum energy absorbed and the total energy absorbed
represents the elastic response of the system (the chestform and steenng wheel). This
arnount of energy is &en back by the system in an impact test, and generaily causes the
chestform to move in the opposite direction of the impact velocity (Le., causes the
chestform to rebound off the steering wheel). The value of the total energy absorbed
represents the amount of energy transfened to the steering wheel and the chestform, to
plastically deform the two entities. The value of the total energy absorbed is the most
sipificant information as it indicates the amount of energy that both the steenng wheel
and chestform absorbed in an impact. This value is very important in the design and
development of energy absorbing steering wheels.
In general, it has been observed that the maximum amount of energy absorbed
coincides with the peak crosshead displacement. This should be expected as in this
position, the chestform is beginning to rebound from the steering wheel. This can only
occur if energy is k i n g transferred back to the chestform. The transfer of energy back to
the bodyform occurs from the elastic response of the system.
The calculated energy profile given in Figures 12 and 13 do not actually represent
the total arnount of energy absorbed in the impact process. These curves fail to consider
any energy absorbed in the other two perpendicular directions (Le. in the direction of the
"x-axis" and "y-a.is7*,which are directions mutually perpendicular to the "z-axis?'
direction). Wi th the experimental testing machine used, measuring the energy in the
other two directions is physically impossible. This is primarily due to the fact that
displacement measurernents are needed to determine a load versus displacement profile,
which can then be numerically integrated to find the energy absorbed.
Nevertheless, the numerical integration of the vertical load versus vertical
displacement curve does give an excellent approximation to the actual amount of energy
absorbed in the impacting process. This can be stated since the primary amount of
energy before impact, which is the combination of kinetic and potential energy, are both
derived from the vertical direction-
5.2. Utilization of the Calculated Energy Profile for Development of More Energy
Absorbing Steering Wheels
As can be seen in Figure 13, and from the previous discussion, the task of
developing more energy absorbing steering wheels requires a maximization of the total
energy absorbed in an impact. This requires an investigation into the physicai geometry
of the steering wheei and the materials of the steering wheel.

Modification of the geometry of a steering wheel can be conducted to develop a
steering wheel which can be more energy absorbing. Unfortunately, there are probably
an infinite number of geometries which c m be considered (with the inclusion of design
constraints) but the principal idea is that modification of the geornetry of a steering
wheel can make it more or less energy absorbing. Although not considered in this
investigation, optimized section thickness, of the spokes, rirn, and hub of the steering
wheei could be considered in a similar experimental process to aid in maximizing the
total energy absorbed.
Selection of a material with good energy absorbing characteristics or a very small
elastic response should be utilized in a steering wheel. The three spoke steering wheel
tested in this investigation is manufactured fiom an aluminum alloy. Typically,
aluminum is a very ductile material, which indicates it requires a large amount of strain
(or deformation) to cause actuat failure of the material. Having a very small elastic
cornponent of the stresdstrain relationship, followed by a very large plastic reglme,
before failure, will aid in increasing the total energy absorption in an impact.
5.3. The Energy Absorption Factor (E.A.F.)
A process of quantifjing the energy absorbing characteristics of a steering wheel,
based upon experimenial testing, will now be introduced. Figure 14 provides an
illustration of the energy transfer dunng an experimental impact test.
At position "1 ",just prior to the dropping of the crosshead/çhestform assembly,
there exists only potential energy in the structure, which is equal to the product of the
- Position of chestform
before dropping (i.e.
dropping height +
displacement due to impact)
f e l o c i t y = O (no motion)
:hestform (and attached assembly)
Height "Hzw= dropping height

displacement due to impact
Velocity = Impact Velocity

Position of Chestform just
before impact
"H," = displacement due to impacl
Position of maximum vertical
displacement of chestform.
..-
Reference position for potential
energy due to gravity.
s ~ o k esteenne wheel -Y
Figure 1 1 - Illustration of the total energy the dropping assembly has at any point during
the experimental impact test.
mass of the system, "m", the height from a referenced position, "Hzy, and the local
acceleration due to gravity, "g". Equation (4) is used to calculate the potential energy at
position "1 ".
'p,ent,a/ = m . g o4 (4)
At position "3", just before impact, the dropping assembly wilf possess kinetic and
potential energy. The total energy at impact (or the impact energy) can be calculated
using the following equation:

-
'impact - 'ptentja! + E ~ t i c (5)
where "Ep,md" is the potential energy at impact and "Ek-," is the kinetic energy at
impact. The potential and kinetic energies at impact can also be hrther simplified to the
fol lowing equation:
where, "H," is the height from the reference position (position at maximum deflection of
the steering wheel and chestform) and "v,"is the impact velocity of the dropping
assembl y.
I f one considers the ratio of the calculated energy absorbed to the amount of
energy available in the system before an experimental test, the following equation can be
generated:
where, "E.A.F." is the energy absorption factor,

",b, , , , E
," is the area below the
vertical force versus vertical displacement curve, and 'E,,m," is the energy before
impact, either at the dropping height, "Hz" (E,,,), or just before impact (EimPCI).
The available energy before impact can be calculated by two different
procedures. It can be calculated using the potential energy, just before the dropping of
the crosshead assembly, or using the impact energy, just pnor to impact of the chestform
on the steering wheel. Theoretically, both methods should result in an identical value for
the E.A.F.. However, depending upon the amount of fnctional iosses that occur between
the bushings of the crosshead and the guideposts, along which the bushings travel, the
E.A.F. based upon potential energy (E.A.F.P.) may be higher than the value determined
from the E.A.F. based upon energy at impact (E.A.F.I.). In addition, if an inadequate
numerical algorithm for differentiating the displacement versus time curve (obtained
from the LVDT) is used, then the impact velocity (which is calculated using the LVDT
measurements) will have excessive numerical error and thus the E.A.F.I. will also have a
high degree of error.
The value of the E.A.F. should always be less than, or equal to, unity. A value of
unity indicates that the calculated energy absorbed by the steering wheel and chestform is
equal to the energy availabfe before impact. This represents the ideal case for steering
wheel design. A "perfect" steering wheel is one in which it is capable of absorbing al1
the mechanical energy that the chestform possesses just before the collision. Steering
wheel designers can use the energy absorption factor (E.A.F.) as a numerical means of
quantifjing the performance of their steering wheels in an impact situation.
Furthemore, an E.A.F. value of unity, indicates the situation of perfectly plastic impact,
where the coefficient of restitution between the two impacting bodies is equal to zero.
Ail the energy, which the dropping assembly possessed before impact, has been
transferred to the steering wheel and resulted in the plastic, or permanent, deformation of
the wheel. In the case where the E.A.F. equats unity, no rebounding of the chestfonn
occurs.
Unfortunately, as long as the steering wheel material possesses an elastic
response (or an elastic portion of a stresdstrain curve), then the E.A.F. will always be
Iess than unity.

In the case where the E.A.F. is equal to zero, a perfectly elastic response occurs.
This is identical to the perf'ectly elastic impact situation, where the coefficient of
restitution between the two deformable bodies in impact is equal to unity. In this case,
where the E.A.F. is equal to zero, the rebound velocity of the dropping assembly is equal
to the impact velocity which it possessed before the collision. For steering wheel design,
this represents the worst design case. Al1 the energy that the dropping assernbly
possessed before impact is transferred back to the dropping assembly afier impact.
Unfortunately, for drivers of automobiles, this would result in serious or life-threatening
injuries. In a real world situation, the E.A.F. will generally be greater than zero but less
than one.
For experimental impact test #345, which had a column angle of X O a, wheel
angle of 180" (or impact at the 6 o'clock position), and an impact velocity of 12 mph
[5.36 m/s], the energy absorption factor based on potential energy (E.A.F.P.) was found
to be 0.69. The energy absorption factor based on impact energy (E.A.F.1) was
calculated to be 0.70. The difference between the two indicates losses due to friction or
errors in the calculation of the impact velocity. The percentage difference between the
two values is, however, very small; calculated to be 1.45 %. These calculated energy
absorption factors indicate that the steering wheel and chestform are absorbing
approximately 70 % of the total available energy before impact.
Unfortunately, for steering wheel designers, who are most concemed with the
steering wheel, this value is somewhat incorrect. The calculated E.A.F. gives an
indication of the total absorbed energy by the steering wheel and the chestform, not just
the steenng wheel alone. By using the deformable chestform in this experimental study
separating the amount of energy absorbed by the steering wheel and the amount of
enerw absorbed by the chestform is very difficult. A more robust method for
determining the E.A.F. would require the use of a rigid or non-deformable chestform in
the experimental test. Since the chestform would not deform, no amount of energy
available before impact could be transferred to the intemal energy within the chestform.
Hence, only the steering wheel would be able to absorb energy in the experimental
impact test.
5.4. The Coefïicient of Restitution
Based upon experimental data, the coefficient of restitution between the
chestform and the three spoke steering wheel can be determined. The coefficient of
restitution represents a ratio of the impulsive forces during the period of restitution to the
impulsive forces during the period of deformation. Mathematically, the coefficient of
restitution is determined frorn equation (8).
The period of deformation represents the duration of time in which the two
bodies (the steering wheel and chestform) deform and at the end of the period of
deformation both entities will have the sarne velocity. The period of restitution follows
the period of deformation and in this time the entities will attempt to regain their initial
shape.
Using the impulse-momentum equation, equation (8) is modified to consider the
velocity of two objects (the chestform and steering wheel) in impact, as presented in
equation (9):
chestfom aAer impact respectively. As well, ''vaenW . ,," and "vchafim ," are the
respective velocities of the steering wheel and chestform before impact In addition,
both " V ,tccn,,g ,

77
and "v am., ,, ,"are zero. Thus, equation (9) can be simplified to
equation (IO), which ultimatety can be used to determine the coefiicient of restitution
from an espenmental impact test.

-
chesi/om2
e =
chesr/onn,
The impact velocity ( v , , , , , ,) is the maximum velocity attained in the
experïmental test and the rebound velocity (v,,,,, ,) is equal to the minimum veIocity
attained in the collision. Figure 15 illustrates the procedure to determine the impact
velocity and rebound velocity from an experimental test curve of velocity versus time.
Calculation of the coefficient of restitution for any experimental test can be
completed using the velocity versus time curve and equation ( 10). Based upon
experimental data from test #345 the coefficient of restitution was calculated to be 0.40,
indicating a more plastic impact situation is occumng for this experimental test.
Crosshead Velocitv Versus Time
Impact Velocity (max. velocity attained) 6

- 5
- 4
ty Versus Time Curve - 3
- 2
1;
I
Time (seconds)
Figure 15 - Typical crosshead velocity versus time curve iltustrating the impact velocity
and the rebound velocity.
5.5. T h e Peak lmpact Force
Another important observation that should be discussed is the peak impact force.
During an experimental test, the steering wheel is tilted at a specific column angle, which
will sigiificantly affect the "y-axis" direction of load (which is the plane in which the
column angle lies, the y = O plane). Furthemore, the wheel angle of the steering wheel
may be set so that a symmetric impact will not occur. This experimental testing
parameter will affect the "x-axis" loading profile during an impact test.
To consider the effect of the x and y axes of loading, during an impact test, the
concept of the peak impact load has been developed. Mathematically, it is the square
root of the surn of the squares of the loads in the x, y, and z axes direction, as presented
in equation ( l 1 ).
The peak impact force is another method of quantiGing the effect of wheel angle,
column angle, and impact velocity on the performance of a steering wheel during an
impact situation.
For the above experimental test (test #345) the peak impact load was calculated
to be 2353.75 lbf [10.47 W], just slightly higher than the peak vertical impact force of
3280.5 1 lbf [IO. 14 W.
5.6. Development of a Topographie Profile of the Experimental Observations
To illustrate the experimentaI observations acquired frorn this investigation
effectiveiy, a topographie, or surface plot, procedure has been selected to illustrate the
effects of coIumn angle, wheel angle, and impact velocity on peak vertical load, peak
vertical displacement, calculated energy, and the energy absorption factor.
Atthouçh three (3) independent variables are considered in this study, if one of
t hem is maintained constant, the development of surfaces il Iustrating the effects of the
other two independent variables on one of the experimental observations, can be
completed. In the presentation of the data the impact velocity will be maintained
constant and variations in the wheel angle and the column angle are considered.
5.6.1. The Effeet of Column Angle and Wbeel Angle on Peak Vertical Load
Figures 16, 17, 18, 19,20, and 2 1 illustrate the effects of column angle and wheel
angle on the peak vertical load for impact velocities of 8 rnph [3.58 m/s], 9 rnph
[4.02 m/s], 10 rnph 14.47 mis], 1 1 rnph [4.92 m/s], 12 rnph [5.36m/s], and 13 rnph
[5.8 1 mis], respectively. It should be noted that the colour variation (lower values on the
peak vertical load axis indicated by red, and higher values on the peak vertical load mis
indicated by blue) on the surface plots is used only to illustrate the shape and contours of
the topographie profile better.

Wheel and Column Anales Versus Peak Vertical Load
at 8 m ~ (3.58
h mls) Impact Velocity
Figure 16 - Wheel and colwnn angles versus peak vertical load at

8 mph [3.58 d s ] impact velocity.
\Mieel and Column Anales Versus Peak Vertical Load

at 9 r n ~ h
(4.02 mis) Impact Velocity
Figure 17 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical load at

9 mph [4.02 m/s] impact velocity.
Wheel and Colurnn Ansies Versus Peak Vertical Load
at 10 mph (4-47 mis) Impact Velocity

10 mph 14-47m/s] impact velocity.
VIIheel and Column Anales Versus Peak Vertical Load

(4-92 mîs) Impact Velocity
at 1 1 r n ~ h
- - - - -

1 1 mph [4.92 m/s] impact velocity.
I M e e l and Column Anales Versus Peak Vertical Load
at 12 moh (5.36 m/s) Impact Velocity

12 mph [5.36 m/s] impact veloçity.
Wheel and Column Anales Versus Peak Vertical Load

at 13 mph (5.81 mls) Impact Velocity
--

13 mph [5.81 m/s] impact velocity.
5.6.2. Comments on the Variation o f Peak Vertical Load
By obsewing the variations in each individual surface plots in Figures 16 through
2 1, the peak vertical load of impact varies over the location and orientation of the
steering wheel. In other words, the peak vertical load during impact does not remain
constant over al1 the different wheel angles and column angles considered in this study.
If the peak vertical load was to remain constant, then for each surface plot (at a specified
impact velocity) a constant, flat surface would be observed, which is obviously not the
case.
The peak vertical load alço varies depending upon the velocity of impact. Since
changes in the topography of the surface plots are observed frorn a low impact velocity
(8 rnph l3.58 mh]) to a higher impact velocity (13 rnph [5.81 mk]) then the peak vertical
load also depends on the impact velocity, which should be expected. As well, a greater
"valley" begins to occur, in the surface profile, for a wheel angle of approximately 40" to
50" when impact velocities increase.
5.6.3. The Effect o f Column Angle and Wheel Angle on Peak Vertical
Displacement
Figures 22,23,24,25,26, and 27 illustrate the effects of column angle and wheel
angle on the peak vertical displacement for impact velocities of 8 rnph [ 3 S 8 mis], 9 rnph
[4.02 m/s], I O rnph [4.47 d s ] , 1 1 rnph [4.92 d s ] , 12 rnph [5.36m/s], and 13 rnph
[5.8 1 d s ] , respectiveiy. Again, the colour variation (lower values on the displacement
asis indicated by red, and higher values on the displacement axis indicated by blue) on
the surface plots is used only to illustrate the shape and contours of the topographie
profile better.
M e e l and Column Anales Venus Peak Vertical Displacement
at 8 m ~ (3.58
h mis) lmpact Velocitv
Figure 22 - Wheel and column angles versus peak vertical

displacement at 8 mph [3.58 m/s] impact velocity.
M e e l and Column Anales Venus Peak Vertical Displacement

at 9 rnph (4.02 m/s) Impact Velocity
Figure 23 - Wheel and column angles venus peak vertical

displacement at 9 mph [4.02 m/s] impact velocity
M e e l and Column Anales Versus Peak Vertical Displacement
at 10 mph (4.47 mis) l m ~ a cVelocity
t

displacement at 10 mph C4.47 m/s] impact velocity.
M e e l and Column Anales Versus Peak Vertical Displacernent

at 1 1 mph (4.92 mis) Impact Velocity
Figure 25 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus peak vertical

displacement at 1 1 mph [4.92 m/s] impact velocity.
I Wheel and Column Anales Versus Peak Vertical Dis~lacement
at 12 mph (5.36 m/s) Impact Velocity
i
displacement at 12 mph [5.36 m/s] impact velocity.
Wheel and Column Andes Versus Peak Vertical Dis~lacement

at 13 mph (5.81 mis) lm~act
Velocitv
- - -- - -
Figure 27 - Wheel and column angles venus peak vertical

displacement at 13 mph f5.81m / s ] impact velocity.
5.6.4. Comments on tbe Variation of Peak Vertical Displacement
Figures 22 through 27 illustrzte that there is a negtigible effect in the peak
vertical displacement with ch'anges in impact velocity. All the surfaces (in Figures 32
through 27) take on a very similar appearance and possess very similar magnitudes of
peak vertical displacement, with changes in impact velocity. Thus, the impact velocity
has only a rninor affect in determining the peak vertical displacement. It should be noted
that, regardiess of impact velocity and column angle, at low wheel angles the peak
vertical displacement is much more predorninant than at high wheel angles. In addition,
at low wheel angles and high column angles, the peak vertical displacement is generally
the greatest for a given impact velocity. This should be expected since the tilt of the
column angle provides more vertical clearance between the outer rim of the steering
wheel and the inner hub of the steering wheel. At higher wheel angles, from the
4 o'clock position to the 6 o'clock position, peak vertical displacement is generally
considerably smaller than at al1 other positions, regardless of impact velocity or column
angle. This should also be expected as impact is occumng on a position of the steering
wheel where the spokes wi11 aid in stiffening its structure.
5.6.5. The Effect of Column Angle and Wheel Angle on Calculated Total
Energy Absorbed
Figures 28, 29, 3 0 , 3 1,32, and 33 illustrate the effects of column angle and wheel
angle on the calculated total energy absorbed for impact velocities of 8 rnph [3.58 m/s],
9 rnph [4.02 m/s], 10 rnph 14.47 d s ] , I I rnph [4.92 d s ] , 12 rnph [5.36 m/s], and 13 rnph
[5.8 1 m/s J, respectively.

l M e e l and Column Anales Versus Calculated Eneray
Figure 28 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus calculated total energy

absorbed at 8 mph 13.58 m/s] impact velocity.
VIIheel and Column Anales Versus Calculated Enerfiy

at 9 mph (4.02 mis) Impact Velocihr
Figure 29 - Wheel and colurnn angles venus calculated total energy

absorbed at 9 mph [4.02 m/s] impact velocity.
I m e e l and Column Anales Versus Calculated Enerav
at 1O mph (4.47 mis) lmoact Velocity
-- - --- -
Figure 30 - Wheel and column angles venus calculated total energy

absorbed at 10 mph 14.47 d s ] impact velocity.
M e e l and Column Anales Versus Calculated Energy
Il
Figure 31 - Wheel and colwnn angles versus calculated total energy
absorbed at 1 1 mph [4.92 m/s] impact velocity.
M e e l and Column Anales Versus Calculated Energy
at 12 rnnh (5.36 m/s) Impact Velocity
Figure 32 - Wheel and column angles versus calculated total energy

absorbed at 12 mph r5.36 m/s] impact velocity.
M e e l and Column Angles Versus Calculated Energy

Figure 33 - Wheel and column angles versus calculated total energy

absorbed at 13 mph [5.8 1 m/s] impact velocity.
5.6.6. Comments on the Variation of Calcuiated Total Energy Absorption
Similar to the peak vertical load at impact, the calculated total energy absorbed
varies over the location of impact on the steering wheel. Furthemore, the calculated
total energy absorbed also varies significantly with impact velocity. This should be
expected as the energy at impact is proportional to the square of the impact velocity.
Slight increases in the impact velocity will cause significant changes in how much energy
the dropping assembly possesses before impact and will, in tum, directly affect the
amount of energy the steenng wheel and chestform absorb in an impact test.
The magnitude of the calculated total energy absorbed is related to the amount of
plastic deformation that occurs within the steering wheel and the energy absorbed by the
chestform. As previously discussed, to develop a better, more energy absorbing, steering
wheel, requires the investigation into the optimization of the steenng wheel geometry,
such as section thickness of the spokes, rim and hub, as well as the use of a very energy
absorbing material. The energy absorbing material would require a relatively low yield
stress, with a high Young's Modulus, and a significantly large plastic regime in the
material's stresslstrain curve with a large strain to faiiure.
5.6.7. The Effect of Column Angle and Wheel Angle on the Average E.A.F.
[n this section the effect of wheel angle and column angle on the average E.A.F.
is considered for impact velocities of 8 mph r3.58 m/s], 9 mph r4.02 m/s], 10 mph
14.47m/s], 1 1 mph [4.92 d s ] , 12 mph [5.36 m/s], and 13 rnph [5.81 mk]. The average
E.A.F. represents an average value calculated from the E.A.F.P. (energy absorption factor
based upon potential energy) and the E.A.F.I. (the energy absorption factor based upon
energy at impact).
M e e l and Column Anales Versus Averaae E.A.F. I
W at 8 mph 13.58 mls) Impact Velocitv
I
Figure 34 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus the average energy absorption
factor (E.A.F.) at 8 mph [3.58 mis] impact velocity.
l
m e e l and Column Anales Versus Average E.A.F.
at 9 moh 14.02 m/s) lmnact Velocity
-
- - - - -
Figure 35 Wheel and column andes versus the average energy absorption
factor (E.A.F.) at 9 mph [4.02 ds]
impact velocity.
M e e l and Column Anples Versus Averaae E.A.F.
at 1O mph l4.47 mis) Impact Velocity
Figure 36 - Wheel and column angles versus the average energy absorption
factor (E.A.F.) at 10 mph E4.47 d s ] impact velocity.
Wheel and Column Angles Versus Averaae E.A.F.

at 1 1 mph (4.92 mis) Impact Velocitv
factor (E.A.F.) at I I mph [4.92 d s ] impact velocity.
M e e l and Column Anales Versus Averaae E A F .
at 12 mph (5.36 m/s) Impact Velocitv
factor (E.A.F.) at 12 mph i5.36 d s ] impact velocity.
I Wheel and Column Angles Versus Averaae E.A.F.

at 13 mph (5.81 mis) l m ~ a cVelocity
t
Figure 39 - WheeI and column angles versus the average energy absorption
factor (E.A.F.) at 13 mph [5.81 m/s] impact velocity.
5.6.8. Comments on the Variation of the Average E.A.F.
The average E.A.F. can provide steerïng wheel designers and engineers with a
tool that they can use to develop extremely energy absorbing steering wheels. The E.A.F.
value gives an insight into how much energy the steering wheel and chestfonn absorbed,
based upon the total available amount of energy before the impact test.
A perfect steering wheel is one in which the value of the E.A.F. is unity. This
indicates that the steering wheel absorbed al1 the available energy (before impact) and
little or no energy will be absorbed by the driver of the automobile. Furthemore, for a
perfect steering wheel, this value should be independent of the steering wheel
orientation, location of impact, or velocity of impact. Regardless of how the steering
wheel is hit by a driver or chestfom, it will absorb al1 the energy that the impacting body
possesses. For the driver of the automobile, this is the perfect impact situation.
Unfortunately, the average E.A.F., which is illustrated in Figures 34 through 39,
for the range of velocities considered in this investigation accounts for the three spoke
steering wheel and the chestform. Ideally, one requires the E.A.F. for just the steering
wheel; however, isolation of the energy absorbed by just the steering wheel cannot be
quickly and effectively determined €rom the observations attained in the experiment. If
one assumes that the chestform absorbs a similar amount of energy in each impact,
regardless of impact location, impact velocity, or wheel orientation, then one can
visualize (from the surface plots in Figures 34 through 39) which combination of wheel
angle, column angle, and impact velocity represent the best or worst design cases for the
three spoke steering wheel. If designers and engineers are going to improve on the
design of this three spoke steering wheel then they should focus their attention on the
regions that exhibit a low E.A.F..
Experirnentally it was found that, for the range of impact velocities considered,
the average E.A.F. ranged fiom 0.85 to 0.61. Indicating that at the best situation, which
occurred with test #23 1 with a column angle of 15", a wheel angle of 60" (impact at the
2 o'clock position), and an impact velocity of 1 1 mph [4.92 rn/s], the steering wheel and
chestfom absorbed approximately 85% of the energy available before impact. In the
worst situation, which occurred with experimental test $49 with a column angle of 39", a
wheel angle of 120" (impact at the 4 o'clock position), and an impact velocity of 8 mph
13.58 mis], the steering wheel and chestform absorbed approximately 6 1% of the
avai lable energy before impact.
From the observations obtained in this study, one finds that the average E.A.F.
varies depending upon the location of impact and steering wheel orientation, for a given
impact velocity. This is evident since each surface plot illustrates diffenng E.A.F. values
for changes in the wheel angle and the column angle. In addition, the E.A.F., for this
three spoke steering wheel, is also a function of the impact velocity. By cornparing the
surface plots over the range of impact velocities considered in this study, one notices that
each surface plot changes, indicating a dependency on the impact velocity.

5.6.9. The Effect of Column Angle and Wheei Angle on the Coeff~cientof
Restitution
Figures 40,4 1,42,43,44, and 45 illustrate the effects of column angle and wheel
angle on the coefficient of restitution between the chestforrn and three spoke steering
wheel for impact veloçities of 8 rnph [3.58 m/s], 9 rnph [4.02 mls], 10 rnph [4.47 m/s],
1 1 rnph [4.92 m/s], 12 rnph l5.36 rn/s], and 13 rnph [5.81 rn/s], respectively. The
coefficient of restitution is calculated using equation ( 1 0).

M e e i and Column Angles Versus The Coefficient of Restitution
Figure 40 - Wheel and column angles versus the coefficient of

restitution at 8 mph [3.58 m/s] impact velocity.
Wheel and Column Anales Versus The Coefficient of Restitution

at 9 mph (4.02 m/s) Impact Velocitv

restitution at 9 mph [4.02 mls] impact velocity.
1 Wheel and Column Anales Venus The Coefficient of Restitution
Il at 1O mph (4.47 mls) Impact Velocity

M e e l and Column Anales Versus The Coefficient of Restitution

at 1 1 m ~ (4.92
h mis) lmoact Velocitv
Figure 43 - Wheei and column angles versus the coefficient of

restitution at 1 I mph [4.92 d s ] impact velocity.
11 M e e l and Column Angles Venus The Coefficient of Restitution
Il at 12 moh (5.36 mis) Impact Veiocitv
Figure 44 - Wheel and colurnn angles versus the coefficient of

restitution at 12 mph [5.36m/s] impact velocity.
Il Wheel and Column Anales Versus The Coefficient of Restitution

at 13 mph (5.81 mis) Impact Velocitv

5.6.10. Comments on the Variation of the CoeCCicient of Restitution
Similar to the peak vertical load of impact, it appears, based upon the surface
plots in Fi y r e s 40 through 45, that the coefficient of restitution varies depending upon
the wheel and column angles. At lower impact velocities however, surface plots are
significantly flatter than at higher impact velocities. This indicates that at lower impact
velocities, the coefficient of restitution is less dependent upon the column angle and
wheei angle. In addition, at higher impact velocities, the coefticient of restitution
appears to be more dependent upon the wheel angle than on the column angle. For
example, at an impact velocity of 12 mph [5.36 m/s], and if viewing the surface plot
alonç a line in the direction of the column angle axis, one sees a parabolic relationship
between the coefficient of restitution and the wheel angle. However, if viewing the same
plot, in a direction along the line of the wheel angle axis, one notices that the coefficient
of restitution appears to be constant (for a given wheel angle) for any value of the column
angle. This was also observed to occur for the experimental tests conducted at 1 1 rnph
14.92 m/s] and 13 mph C5.8 1 m/s] impact velocities.
AIso, based upon experimental observations, the coefficient of restitution appears
to V a r y depending upon the impact velocity. Each individual surface plot changes shape
from experimental tests conducted at 8 mph [3.58m/s] to experiment tests conducted at
13 mph [5.8 1 d s ] . This should be expected as the coefticient of restitution is generally
dependent upon the speed of impact between the two bodies in impact [36].
The value of the coefficient of restitution is always between zero and one. Zero
indicates a perfectly plastic impact situation, where the two bodies in impact physically
stay together after impact. Also, in this case, where the coefficient of restitution is zero,
the period of restitution is zero, implying that no impulsive forces exist afker the
deformation stage is completed. If the coefficient of restitution has a value of unity,
then, in the case of the chestform impacting the three spoke steenng wheel, the impact
velocity will equal the rebound velocity. The case where the coefficient of restitution
equals unity represents the worst possible situation for a driver hitting the steering wheel.
The rebound velocity will equal the impact velocity and thus more energy will be
available to do damage or bodily h m to the driver. In addition, the driver's body will
also experience very significant magnitudes of acceieration, which also may play a very
important role in determining the amount of bodily harm which the driver may have to
endure. If the coemcient of restitution is equal to zero then the driver will have no
rebound velocity and thus a low amount of energy available to cause bodily harrn. As
well, the magnitude of the acceleration which the driver wiil have to endure will be
significantly less then the case where the coefficient of restitution is equal to one.
The relationship between the coefficient of restitution and the average E.A.F., is
illustrated in Figures 46 through 5 1. The blue colour filled circles represent actual
experimental data, and the smooth red curve (for each plot) illustrates a second order
polynomial curve fit to the experimental data. Each plot is for a specific impact velocity.
Coefficient of Restitution Versus Enerav Absomtion Factor
For 8 mph (3.58 m/s) Impact Velocity
0.6 - Experimental Data
- 2nd Order Polynomial Cuwe Fit
h
a
w e(E.A.F.) = 2.251 - 4.361 *(EA.F.) + 2 . 4 7 * ( ~ ~ . ~ . ) ~
t
O 0.5 - 'Y a
*-
u
7 .\.+a
.-
w
u
-a
V)
0.4 -
l .@
+
.o
.-:. a
' '
u
f
O
C
aa
-0
0.3 - O
*
*
ha 0
O
U
'
O.* -
0.60 O .ô5 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85
Energy Absorption Factor (E.A.F .)
Figure 46 - The coefficient of restitution versus the average energy

absorption factor for 8 mph l3.58 d s ] impact velocity.
~ Coefficient of Restitution Versus Enerav Absorption Factor

For 9 mph (4.02 m/s) Imoact Velocitv
h
0,
0.6 - r
.
Experimental Data
I
I
e(E.A.F.) = 3.395 - 7.35lo(E.A.F.) + 4 . 3 8 5 * ( € . ~ . ~ . ) ~
. *-
V
0.5 -
.-
c
O
1
. "y,.a *
.-
u
C
'
\
\a.
rn
-
8
O
0.4 -
O
a
a
.'
c.
E * O
al - a 0.
O
O
- . ' a
a.:
.
0.2
0.62 0.64 0.66 0-68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82
Energy Absorption Factor (E.A.F.)

absorption factor for 9 mph [4.02 mk]impact velocity.
Coefficient of Restitution Versus Enerav Absorption Factor
For 10 mph (4.47 m/s) Impact Velocity
0.6-
A Experimental Data
Y
Qi - 2nd Order Pofynomial Curve Fit
.-8
u
0.5- 2, e(E.A.F.) = 4.259 - Q.52S9(EA.F.)+ s . ~ ~ ' ( E A . F . ) ~
--
3
C
u
cn
2 0.4 -
+
O
C * m
C
Q)
0.3 - O mm
m a *
O
O
0.2 -
0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84
Figure 48 - The coefficient o f restitution versus the average energy

absorption factor for 10 mph [4.47 d s ] impact velocity
Coefficient of Restitution Versus Eneray Absor~tionFactor

For 11 mph (4.92 mls) Impact Velocity
0.50 - Experimental Data
- 2nd Order Polynomial Curve Fit
e(EA.F)=2.408-4.769'(E.A.F)+2.682°(E.A.F)2
,.
h
a -
l
0.44 *m
.-O \ l l mmm
C \\ 0
:
3
.-
C
8 0.38 -
u
m
rt
O
2 0.32 -
.-al
O
5 0.26
O
-
0.20-
0.65 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85
- - -

absorption factor for 1 1 mph 14.92 d s ] impact velocity.
Coefficient of Restitution Versus Energv Absorption Factor
.
For 12 mph (5.36 m/s) Impact VelociN
Experimental Data
0.45 -
..
h
aa 0 e(E.A.F.) = -1.603+5.769'(E.A.Ç.)-4.237YE.A.F)'
Y
3 g
-0 0.40 -
C 0
C
3 a%; a .
.-
c
u
.
Y,
$ 0.35 -
0.62 0.66 0.10 0.71 O . 0.k 0.86

Energy Absorption Factor (E.A.F .)
Figure 50 - The coefficient o f restitution versus the average energy

absorption factor for 12 mph [5.36 d s ] impact velocity.
Coefficient of Restitution Versus Enerav Absorption Factor
0-45 - .
For 13 mph (5.81 mis) Impact Velocitv
Experimental Data
~
1
O
0)
*-
C
3
.-
C
0.40 -
.. .
0 -
. b
-8y
-...
( E . A . F . ) = -0.679 + 3 196'(E.A.F.) - 2.467'(E A.F )'
O. . O
0 0.35 -
u
-
E
O
E 0.30 -
O
aa
-3
k 0.25 - I a
. .
O a
. a
' 0.k 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.84

Figure 51 - The coefticient of restitution versus the average energy

absorption factor for 13 rnph [5.81 mk] impact velociiy.
At lower impact velocities (8 mph [3.58m/s] to 10 mph [4.47 m/s]) the
experimental data appears to agree significantly better with the second order least
squares curve fit approximation. At higher impact velocities, the experimental data is
more scattered, indicating that there is little or no relationship between the average
E.A.F. and the coefficient of restitution (at higher impact velocities).
It should be noted that, regardless of the impact velocity, the maximum E.A.F.
(for each set of tests in the range of the impact velocities considered) appears to occur
with a coefficient of restitution approximately equal to 0.3 1. This value indicates an
impact closer to the "perfectly plastic" situation. This should be expected since a lower
value of the coefficient of restitution causes a slower rebound velocity, which ultimately
synbolizes a test in which the steering wheel is absorbing the maximum amount of
energy it can. This value varies slightly for each specific impact velocity. Most
significantly, it has been observed that the maximum E.A.F., for each specific impact
velocity, occurs with very similar testing conditions. Table 2 lists the tests with the
maximum E.A.F., for each impact velocity considered, the corresponding coefficient of
restitution, the wheel angle, and column angle specified in the test.
Table 2 - Maximum E.A.F. with Correswndine Coeficient of Restitution
and Wheel and Column Andes for Each Test Conducted
Within the Range of Immct Veloçities Considered
Coefficient of Colwnn Angle Wheel Angle

Restitution ( e ) (degrees) (deg/07clock)
0.36 1 39" 1 30°/1 o'clock

0.32 1 36" 1 30°/1 o'clock
0.~71 1 60°/2- O ~ C ~ O C ~
0.30 1 15" 1 60°/2 o'clock

0.27 1 15" 1 60°/2 o'clock
0.29 15" 0°/12 o'clock
0.3 1 -NA- -NA-
Std. Dev. 11 0.01
5.6.1 1. The Effect of Column Angle and Wheel Angle on the Peak Impact Force
Figures 52, 53, 54,55, 56, and 57 illustrate the effects of colurnn angle and wheel
angle on the peak impact force for impact velocities of 8 rnph [3.58 m/s], 9 rnph
[4.02 m/s], 10 rnph [4.47 m/s], 11 rnph [4.92 m/s], 12 rnph [5.36 rn/s], and 13 rnph
[5.8 1 d s ] , respectively. The peak impact force is calculated using equation ( 1 1).
M e e i and Cdumn Andes Versus Peak lm~actForce
at 8 mph (3.58 m/s) lmpact Veiocity
Figure 52 - Wheel and column angles venus peak impact force at

8 mph l3.58 d s ] impact velocity.
Wheel and Column Anales Versus Peak Impact Force

Figure 53 - Wheel and colwnn angles versus peak impact force at

9 mph 14-02m/s] impact velocity.
W e e l and Column Angles Versus Peak lmpact Force
at 10 moh (4.47 m/s) lrn~actVelocity
Figure 54 - Wheel and column angles venus peak impact force at

IO mph [4.47 mk] impact velocity.
l
Wheef and Column Anales Versus Peak lmpact Force

at 11 mph (4.92 m/s) lmpact Velocity
Figure 55 - Wheel and column angles versus peak impact force at

1 1 mph [4.92 d s ] impact velocity.
at 12 muh (5.36 mis) Impact Velocity
Figure 56 - M e e l and column angles versus peak impact force at

12 mph C5.36 m/sJimpact velocity.

at 13 rnph (5.81 mis) Impact Velocity
Figure 57 - Wheel and column angles versus peak impact force at

13 mph [5.81 d s ] impact velocity.
56-12. Comments on the Variation of the Peak Impact Force
Comparing the surface plots for the peak impact force to that of the peak vertical
Ioad, one finds that the topography of the surfaces are almost identical for each specific
impact velocity. This indicates that magnitudes of the forces in the "x-axis" and "y-awis"
are generalty considerably smaller than the load along the "z-axis" direction.
Similar to the peak vertical load surface plots, the peak impact force also varies
over the location of impact on the steering wheel and the orientation of the steering
wheei. Furthemore, the peak impact force is also dependent upon the impact velocity,
since changes in the impact velocity significantly affect the magnitude of the peak
impact load.
5.7. Data Acquired and Calculated for Each Experimental Test Conducted
Appendix B documents al1 the experimental and calculated data for each test
conducted in this investigation. The tests are arranged based upon the test number
(Test 8) corresponding to a specific dropping height, impact velocity. wheel angle and
column angle.
6. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND SIMULATION OF THE
EXPERIMENTALTESTS
6.1. The Software Selected for the Simulation of the Impact Experiments
A large variety of finite element (FE) s o h a r e packages are used in industry
today. An important consideration in any engineering project is the proper selection of a
FE software program for the simulations that it must conduct. For the purposes of this
investigation, the FEA software must incorporate highly non-linear material models,
large deformation capabili ty, dynamic analyses, and contact between deformable bodies.
Most FEA programs utilize highly non-Iinear material mode1 algorithms.
However, the experimental testing utilizes a polyurethane foam chestfom that absorbs
energy, and an elastic-plastic alurninurn steering wheel. Thus the FEA software must
incorporate some matenal models which will consider both foam and an elastic-plastic
alurninurn alloy.
As well, a large number of FEA programs also consider contact between bodies.
However, the experirnental study incorporates a deformable chestforrn impacting onto a
deformable steering wheel. Thus the numerical contact algorithms, within the FEA
software package, must be able to analyze "deformable to deformable" contact
situations.
Finally, the necessity of large deformation capabilities and dynamic analyses,
generally refers to the requirement of an explicit finite element code. Explicit FE codes
do not require the inversion of a stiffness matrix; however, since a central difference
scheme is generally used to detemine velocities and accelerations, corn calculated
displacements, the explicit rnethod is conditionally stable. To ensure a stable solution is
found, a small timestep, with which to integrate (or move) through in time in the
dynamic analysis, must be used. Unfortunately, this last requirement generally increases
the computational time for the FEA program.
A vanety of explicit FEA programs are available in indus- today. For the
purposes of this investigation LS-DYNA was selected, due to its excellent contact
capabilities. non-linear material models (including both foam and highly non-finear
metal modeis), and its explicit solution algorithm.
LS-DYNA is simply a numeric solver to an input file (or input "deck") which the
user specifies. Thus, a pre-processor is required for the developrnent of the finite
element model's geometry, types of elements, elernent formulations, material propenies,
contact algorithms, and time history information of specific nodes, al1 of which are to be
analyzed in a typical simulation. The pre-processor utilized in this study was Finite
Element Model Builder (FEMB), which also served as a pst-processor for analyzing the
results of the numerical simulations.
6.2. The Finite Element Models Developed and Used in This Study
To best simuiate the experimental testing procedure, finite element models were
developed for the three spoke steering wheel, the chestform, the wooden backing plate
and the aluminum crosshead.

6.2.1. Development of the Aluminum Crosshead Finite Element Model
The aluminurn crosshead serves two purposes on the droptower testing machine.
First, it connects the guideposts to the chestform, which provides a means of motion for
the chestfom. The crosshead allows the bodyforrn to translate along the yideposts, only
verticalty upward or downward. Secondly, it adds rnass, and hence weight, to the
dropping assembly (consisting of the crosshead, wooden backing plate, and the
chestfom). Thus, the aluminum crosshead provides a means of constraining the motion
of the chestform, and adds a considerabIe amount of mass to the entire dropping
assembiy. The mass of the entire dropping assernbly (including the crosshead, wooden
backinç plate, and chestforrn) on the experimental testing machine, has been found to be,
104.06 Ibm [47.18 kg] (corresponding to a weight of 104.06 lbf or 462.87 N).
Furthermore, as shall be discussed later, the m a s of the chestform was found to be
9.86 Ibm [4.47 kg3 (corresponding to a weight of 9.86 lbf or 43.88 N). Experïmentally,
rneasuring the masses (or weights) of the individual crosshead and ~voodenbacking plate
was impossible. However, the di fference between the entire dropping assembly mass
and the chestform mass will give the mass of the crosshead and wooden backing plate.
This was calculated to be 94.16 Ibm [42.71 kg]. Thus, for the FE models of the
al uminum crosshead and wooden backing plate, the combined masses are to total
94.16 1bm [42.71 kg].
The experimental aluminum crosshead is an arrangement of a number of
aluminum plates, steel plates, bushings, bushing holders, bolts and rubber bumpers. To
mode1 the entire aluminum crosshead is unnecessary since the crosshead serves only as a
means of constraining the chestform and adding mass to the dropping assembly. Thus, a
lumped mass approach was taken in developing the alurninum crosshead.
Based upon the geometry of the actual alurninum crosshead a FE model was
developed and is illustrated in Figure 58. The FE modet, identical to the actual
Figure 58 - Illustration of the finite element alurninum crosshead model.
aluminum crosshead has a rib that is rigidly fastened to the wooden backing plate. Also,
in the FE model of the aluminum crosshead, there are a number of large cubic elements
near the centre of the structure, which act as the lumped mass used in this FE model.
The FE crosshead incorporates a non-deformable (rigid) material model. The density of
the aluminum crosshead was moditied so that, afier inclusion of the wooden backing
plate, the entire dropping assembly (excluding the chestfonn) had a mass of 94.16 Ibm
142.71 kg]. Appendix C lists the materiai properties of the aluminum crosshead and data
from the LS-DYNA input file.
In al1 FE simulations, boundary conditions are applied to the aluminum crosshead
FE mode1 so that oniy translational motion is permitted in a direction toward the steering
wheel. These boundary conditions simulate the constrained motion of the actual
aluminum crosshead in the experimental testing machine.
6.2.2. Development of the Wooden Backing Plate Finite Element Mode1
In experimental tests, it has been observed that the majority of deformation,
which occurs within the structures of the droptower testing machine, involve distortions
of the chestform and steering wheel. Although, deflection of the wooden backing plate
may be occurring, they are probably negligible with respect to the magnitude of the
deformation occumng within either the three spoke steering wheel or the chestform.
Thus, in the FE model of the wooden backing plate a rigid material mode1 was utiI ized.
Young's Modulus, and an estimate for Poisson's ratio (for wood) was taken to
respectively be 1595.4 kpsi [ I l GPa], and 0.33 from reference [37]. An approach sirnilar
to the aluminum crosshead was completed for the determination of the density of the
wooden backing plate. Appendix D lists the material properties of the wooden backing
plate and data from the LS-DYNA input file.
Figure 59 illustrates the wooden backing plate FE model (with the aluminum
crosshead FE model included). The creation of the FE model of the wooden backing
plate \vas conducted after completion of the FE model of the chestform. This is
pnmarily because the profile of the wooden backing plate is identical to the profile of the
Figure 59 - Finite element m d e l s of the wooden backing plate (green) and the
aluminum crosshead (blue).
back portion of the chestform, thus, simple element copying (with an offset) was used to
determine the profile of the wooden backing plate. Finally, a drag mesh operation was
completed to produce the solid elements which define the w d e n backing plate.
It should be noted that the wooden backing plate and aluminurn crosshead are
rigid bodies with some nodes which are shared (merged) by the two parts. In LS-DYNA,
if rigid body merging is to be completed, a keyword command,
* C O N S T W E D-RIGID-BODIES, must be incorporated. This keyword command has
been utiiized in al1 simulations conducted where the wooden backing plate and
al urninum crosshead are utilized.

6-2-3. Developmeot o f the Cbesttorm Finite Element M d e l
The FE model of the chestform was accomplished in two steps; development of
the geornetry of the FE chestform model, and experimental testing to determine the
material properties of the polyurethane foam (which is the material of the chestform).
6.2.3.1. Geometry of the Chestform Finite Element Model
The geometry of the FE chestform model was developed using the dimensions
and illustrations provided in the SAE J944 laboratory testing procedure. The two
dimensional outline of the chestfiorm's front and side profile was optically scanned, using
a typical persona1 computer scanning device, and saved as a bitmap image. The bitmap
image was then imported into Corel OCR-Trace, which is a software package which
vectorizes Iine segments fiom bitrnap outlines. Vectorization is a process which takes
Figure 60 - The cross-sections used in development of the finite element model of the
chestform.
the small pixels from the bitmap image, interpolates the connectivity of the pixels and
vectorizes or makes an entire line from the individual pixels. The bitmap file was
vectonzed. manually modified, and saved as an Autocad drawing file (a " . D W file).
The Autocad drawing file was imported into Cadkey 7.5 1, where cross-sections of the
chestform were developed. Figure 60 illustrates the cross-sections taken for only half of
the bodyform (the remaining half was completed by rnirroring the sectional splines). The
principal reasoning why al1 the spline drawing was completed in a CAD software
package (Cadkey) was due to the fact that FEMB (the pre-processor used in this
investigation) has considerable limitations in drawing and editing spline entities. Afier
the final spline drawing was developed in Cadkey, the file was exported as an IGES
(Initial Graphics Exchange Standard) file, which was then imported into a FEMB
session.
After importing and setting up the IGES file, development of the finite element
model took place. The splines, which were created in Cadkey, were used to develop the
finite eIements from drag meshes, and solid meshes. A finer mesh distribution was
developed from the neck portion to the lower abdomen region of the chestform. The
reason for this was to ensure a good discretiziation of the actual bodyform in the region
where contact will occur between the steering wheel and chestform which, ultirnately,
will give more accurate results in FE simulations. Figure 6 1 illustrates the completed
bodyform FE model (with the wooden backing plate and crosshead also shown).
Figure 61 - Finite element models of the chestform, wooden backing plate, and
crosshead.
It should be noted that the nodes in the intefiace between the FE models of the
chestform and the wooden backing plate are not coincident or merged nodes. There
exists a very smail gap between the two rnodels. The nodes along the very back of the
chestform, directly adjacent to the \vooden backing plate, are constrained to move with
the motion of the two merged rigid bodies (the crosshead and wooden backing plate).
This is completed by employing a *CONSTRAiNED-EXTRA-NODESkeyword
command in the LS-DYNA input file. Using this command places constraints on the
nodes on the chestform, closest to the wooden backing plate. in experimental tests, the
bodyform is significantly secured to the wooden backing plate, using adhesive tape and
velcro strapping- Constraining the nodes along the back of the chestfonn simulates the
adhesive tape and velcro strapping which occurs in experimental testing. No other
constraints are placed on any other node in the chestform FE model. The entire final
bodyform model consists of 15251 nodes, and 12517 elements, 12290 of which are
hexahedron type elements, and 227 of which are wedge type elements.
6.2.3.2. Determination of the Material Properties of the Chestform Finite

Elemeat Model
The SAE 5944 standard outlines the required material characteristics of the
c hestform. During the development of the droptower testing machine, experimental
investigations were conducted, as outlined in 3944, to determine the material properties
of the bodjorm. These experimental tests were conducted at the University of Windsor
on a tensile/compression testing machine in a quasi-static manner. An investigation of
the material properties, of the chestform, in a dynamic situation is necessary, since this
would provide matenal properties, for the FE model, at similar experimental testing
conditions (higher impact speeds and higher strain rates).
The experimental tests completed to determine the matena1 properties of the
chestform in a dynamic situation, were conducted with the droptower testing machine.
The chestform was dropped fiom three different heights and collided with a rigrd
cylinder (usinç the same setup for checking the integrïty o f the chestform, illustrated in
Figure 9). A vertical load versus vertical displacement curve was experimentally
determined and used to deveiop an engineering stress versus engineering strain curve.
The approximate area of impact on the rigid cylinder was determined, which provided a
means of calculating the engineering stress from equation ( 12):

where, ''F,hd" is the vertical load and "A" is the area of contact between the rigid
cylinder and the bodyform. The engineering strain was calculated from equation (13)
based the displacement measwements (Al) obtained by the LVDT, and the initial
thickness (1,) of the bodyform.
Experimentai results and equations ( 12) and (13) were utilized to generate an engineering
stress venus engineering strain cuve for the chestform matenal, which is illustrated in
Figure 62.
Enclineerincl Stress Versus Enaineerina Strain

for the Poivurethane Foam Chestform Material
100 - - - - .
1
I1 [ 600
.-v,
h
Q
80 - 1 .- 500
I'
Y
V)
Y,
E 60 - 400
5 /
0,
C
/'
/ 300
-5 40 -
0, /'
.-C ,
, 200
:- 100
. O
0.0 O. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Engineering Strain ( M n ) (m/m)
Figure 62 - Engineering stress versus engineering strain curve for the

polyurethane chestform material.
Based upon the work completed by McKie 191,the material model which was
first selected as a possible candidate for the polyurethane foam was LS-DYNA matenal
mode1 57, *MAT-LOW-DENSITY-FOAM. This material model requires the following
matenal properties for input:
1 ) Density of the material.
2) Young's Moâulus of the material.
3) An engineering stress versus engineering strain curve.
4) A hysteretic unloading factor (for energy dissipation).
5) A shape factor for unloading (for energy dissipation).
Additionally, optional information may be provided, but for the purposes of this study
these material characteristics are not needed and cannot easily be determined [38].
The density of the material was determined expenmentally by taking rnass measurements
and finding the volume of the FE model. Young's Modulus was determined with the aid
of the engineering stress versus engineering strain curve. Thus, only determination of the
hysteretic unloading factor and the shape factor are needed to be determined.
Experimentally, these material properties cannot be found; initial FE simulations must be
conducted and compared with experimental tests to find these two material
characteristics 1391. AAer preliminary simulations were conducted and compared with
experimental tests, the optimal values of the hysteretic unloading factor and the shape
factor were found to be 0.39 and 5.00 respectively. Appendix E summarizes the material
properties of the polyurethane foam and includes data from the LS-DYNA input file
regarding the *MAT-LOW-DENSITY-FOAM material model.

6.2.4. Development o f the Three Spoke Steering Wheet Finite Element M d e l
The development of the FE model of the three spoke steering wheel was
conducted in a similar manner as the chestform. Firstly, development of the geometry of
the FE model was completed then the material properties were determined.
6.2.4.1. Geometry of the Three Spoke Steering Wheel Finite Element

Mdel
A cornplete wirefiarne drawing, for the three spoke steering wheel, was provided
by Centre Tool, who is responsible for the development and manufactunng of steering
wheels engineered by K.S. Centoco. The wirefrarne drawing, which is illustrated in
Figure 63, was imported into a Cadkey session. There existed a number o f duplicate
Figure 63 - CAD model of the three spoke steering wheel.
-98-
lines and splines in the CAD model, al1 of which were deleted in the Cadkey session-
Afier considerable work the CAD rnodel was exported as an IGES file and imported into
FEME3, where the finite element model w a s created.
Since FEMB provides no "automatic" solid mesh generation procedure, the entire
FE model of the three spoke steering wheel was completed manually, which
unfortunately took considerable time to develop, approximately 40 hours. Drag meshing
and solid rneshing were completed several times to eventually produce the completed FE
model of the steering wheel. The six thin ribs on the steering wheel, which stiffen the
joint between the 3 spokes and the outer rim of the steering wheel, were initially al1
modeled using shell elements. A later version of the FE model was created, in which the
ribs were modeled using solid elements. Afier initial verification testing, which is
discussed in section 6 . 3 2 3 , it was observed that there was no difference in modeling the
ribs as either solid or shell elements. Figure 64 illustrates the completed FE model of the
three spoke steering wheel. The completed FE rnodel of the three spoke steering wheel
consists of approximately 2248 1 nodes and 16676 elements, 15406 of which are
hexahedron type elements, and 1270 are wedge type elernents.

I Rim, spokes (3), and hub in red
Ribs
2-
Figure 64 - Finite element model of the three spoke steering wheel with the rim, three
spokes and hub in the colour red and the thin ribs in colour green.
6.2.4.2. Determimation o f the Material Properties o f the Three Spoke

Steering Wheel Finite Element Mode1
As already mentioned, the tbree spoke steenng wheel is made from a proprietary
aluminum alloy used specifically for steering wheels. The majority of the material
properties for the aluminurn alloy were available from K.S. Centoco. Tensile testing was
previously completed by K.S. Centoco, in a quasi-static manner, and an engineenng
stress versus engineering strain curve was available for use.

LS-DYNA matenal model 24, MAT-PECEWISE-LiNEAR-PLASTICITY, was
selected for the numetical rnodeling of the aluminum alloy. The basis for this selection
was due to the fact that McKie [9] and DuBois [39] used this material model as a means
of nurnerically simulating an aluminum alloy. This material model requires the
following information for input:
The density of the material.
Young's Modulus of the material.
Poisson's ratio for the material.
The yield stress of the material.
Two parameters needed for strain rate considerations (if these two pieces of
information are not provided, strain rate effects are not considered).
A stress versus effective plastic strain curve for the matenal.
Al1 the information necessary for this material model either was available or
could be calcuiated. The only two points of concem were the strain rate constants and
the stress versus effective plastic strain curve.
Strain rate effects are accounted in LS-DYNA by using the Cowper-Syrnonds
model. The stress is scaled according to the values of the strain rate and the Cowper-
Syrnonds strain rate parameters based upon equation (14):

where, a', is the stress at the strain rate E, a, is the stress based upon a quasi-static tensile
test, D and q are the strain rate parameters. For ahminum alloys, Bodner and Symonds
have found that the vaiues for D and q are 6500/s and 4 respectively 1401. If necessary,
strain rate effects can now be considered in the simulation of the chestform impacting
the three s p k e steering wheel.
To develop the stress versus effective plastic strain curve requires two main steps.
Firstty, equations (1 5) and (16) are used to transform the engineering values of stress and
strain to the true values of stress and strain:
where, "amc"is the mie stress, "

,
a is the engineering stress, "E", is the true strain,
and "e," is the engineering strain. Once the true stress and true strain have been
determined, then the stress is simply equal to the tme stress (in the plastic regime) and
the effective plastic strain is calculated fiom equation ( 17).
The basic idea behind the conversion from the engineering stresdstrain curve to
the stresdeffective plastic strain curve 1s to eliminate the elastic regime of the true
stressktrain curve. Figure 65 illustrates the stress versus effective plastic strain curve
used in the material model for the steering wheel. Appendix F summarizes the material
properties of the steering wheel aluminum alloy and includes data from the LS-DYNA
input file regarding the materiai model used in al1 FE simulations.

Stress Versus Effective Plastic Strain
For the Three Smke Steerim \Mieel
Effective Plastic Strain (infin) (rnim)
Figure 65 - Stress versus effective plastic strain curve for the aluminum
alloy of the three spoke steering wheel.
6.3. Verification of The Cbestform and Three Spoke Steering Wheel Finite
Element Models
Rather than combining al1 the FE models together and begm simulations, a
verification of the two deforrnable FE modcls was considered. Firstly, the dropping
assembly, consisting of the chestform, wooden backing plate, and crosshead, were
verified by experimentally and numerically simulating the chestform impacting a rigid
cylinder. The principal idea behind these simulations is to investigate if the correct
materiai properties and degree of discretization were utilized in the chestfonn FE model.
Cornparisons between the experimental and FEA predictions for the vertical load versus
crosshead displacement curves were used to detect any differences in either the loading
or displacement profiles existing between the experimental and numerical tests. Since
the chestform is the only deformable body in this situation (with the chestform impacting
the rigid cylinder), the only variable that need be considered, in this situation, is the FE
model of the chestform, and not the FE model of the three spoke steering wheel.
Experimental and numerical simulations were then conducted with a rigd plate
impacting the deformable three spoke steering wheel. The polyurethane foam chestform
was replaced with a thick, rigid, alurninum plate, which simuIates a rigid body irnpacting
the deformable steenng wheel. The procedure only considers the steering wheel as a
deformable body and thus will verify the material properties and discretization of the
three spoke steering wheel FE model.
6.3.1. Verification of the ChesHorm Finite Element Model
To verifi the chestfom FE model, experimental tests and numerical simulations
where conducted with the deformable chestform impacting a rigid cylinder. A rigid
cylinder, with a holding stem, was fabricated and rigidly mounted in the droptower
testing machine.
6.3.1.1. The Experimental Setup and Procedure
Figure 66 il tustrates the experirnental setup used to veriQ the FE of the
chestform. The setup and procedure is identical to the process used to veriw the integnty
of the chestfom dunng the 420 experimental tests. The procedure involved dropping the
chestform, and attached accessories, from three different heights to generate three
Adhesive Tape
00 hold chesrform io wooder
backplate)
-Velocity Direction (towards

only, no other rotations or
translaiions)
-RÏgzd Cylinder
-Rigid Cylinder stem
Figure 66 - Experimental setup used to veriw the finite element model of the chestform.
different impact velocities. The impact velocities for the experimental tests were
6.85 mph [3.06m/s], 8.82 mph [3.94 d s ] , and 10.77 mph [4.81 m/s]. The data files
acquired from the tests were then modified, using a Visual Basic program, and anal yzed
in a Mathcad worksheet.
6.3.l.t. The Numerical Simulation Setup and Procedure
The chestform, wooden backing plate, and crosshead FE models were combined
with a FE model of the ngid cylinder. Figure 67 illustrates al1 four parts used in the
process of veri@ing the chestform FE model. Al1 nodes of the rigid cylinder, which were
modeled using shell efements, were totally constrained from motion and a rigid material
model. using properties of steel ( E , = 3 0 Mpsi=207 GPa, p,=0.282 Ibm/in3
=7798 kg/m3)was selected for the cylinder. A single contact algorithm,

Figure 67 - Finite element models for the chestfom, wooden backing plate, crosshead
and rigid cylinder.
CONTACT-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE, was implemented for impact between the
chestform and the rigid cylinder. The chestform, and the attached accessones, were
given an initial velocity by utilizing the keyword command
NITIAL-VELOCITY-GENERATION. The parameters associated with this keyword
command were modified in subsequent LS-DYNA simulations to consider the
differences in the three experimental impact velocities (6.85 mph [3.06 m/s], 8.82 mph
13-94mls], and 10.77 mph [4.81 d s ] ) .
6.3.1.3. Discussion of Results [4 11
A graphical cornparison between the experimental and LS-DYNA predicted
values of the vertical load versus crosshead displacement curves are presented in
Fi y r e 68. Curves at different impact velocities are offset in the x-axis (crosshead
vertical Load versus Crosshead Disdacemerit
Crosshead D i c e m e M (rnetres)
425 4.10 4.15 4.10 4.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Crosshead Disphcement (in.)
Figure 68 - Graphical cornparison between the experimental tests and

LS-DYNA simulations.
displacement a i s ) to provide a better presentation of the results. In addition, Table 3
surnmanzes the numerical tindings of the experimental and numerical simulations. It
should be noted that in detennining the percentage difference between experimental and
numencal results, equation ( 1 8) was utilized.
Percentage Djfference =
(LS-DYNA Resuit - Experimentul Resrrlr )
Experirnental Result
Table 3 - Percentaee Di fference Between Ex~erimental
and Numerical Simulation Results for
Peak Vertical Load and Peak Crosshead Dis~iacement
Impact
Velocity 1 Peak Vertical Load (lbf
kW)
Peak Crosshead
Displacement (in
% Diff.
on Peak
Vertical
% Diff. on
Peak
Crosshead
Load Displacement
Exp. LS-DYNA Exp. LS-
(%) (Oh)
Experimental testing was not conducted at higher speeds as there [vas concern
that, at higher impact velocities, damage may occur to the testing machine. Typically,
peak vertical Ioads, for impacts between the deformable chestform and deformabte
steering wheei, generally are not higher than 3500 lbf [lS.57 W. This value is
considerabty less then the peak vertical load, with the chestform impacting the rigid
cylinder, at 10.77 mph [4.8 1 m/s]. Hence, the range on impact velocities in this
verification of the chestform FE mode1 is adequate, as it encompasses the range of
vertical ioads that will occur in actual experimental impacts between the chestforrn and
the three spoke steering wheel.
Based upon the findings presented in Table 3 and Figure 68, an excellent
relationship between experimental tests and numerical simulations is evident. However,
at lower impact velocities, the percentage difference in the peak vertical load between
- 108-
experimental and numencal simulations approaches 16%. It is felt that this value is
acceptable due to the high degree of non-linearity in the material model of the
pol yurethane foam. In al1 three cases, the magnitude of the percentage difference in the
peak vertical displacement of the crosshead is very low, indicating a good relationship
between numerîcal and experimental tests.
6.3.1.4. Additional Consideratioas in the Finite Element Mode1 o f the

Chesttorm
To venfy the FE model of the chestform fùlly, an increase in the nurnber of
elements (mesh sensitivity study) and a fulty integrated solid element formulation
(element type study), was implemented into the chestform FE model.
The FE model of the chestform was modified so that an additional 1328 elements
were added to the chestform, in the area where contact occurs between the bodyform and
rigid cylinder, and an impact simulation was conducted at 8.82 mph [3.94 m/s]. It should
also be noted that only hexahedral elements were used in this chestform FE model.
Furthermore, the element formulation, which pertains to the number of
integration points within each solid element, was also varied. In past numerical
simulations the LS-DYNA standard, under-integrated, solid element was used (element
formulation # 1 in LS-DYNA). In a subsequent simulation, conducted at an impact
velocity of 8.82 mph [3.94 d s ] the element formulation was changed so that a fully
integrated solid element, with 8 integration points, was used. To illustrate if any
differences were an'sing due to changes in the FE mode1 and the element formulation,
three curves of the vertical load versus crosshead displacement were plotted on the same
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead üisolacement
For lm- Velocihr of 8.82 mph 13.94 mlsl
JFEd e l Cornnarison)
Crosshead Displacement (rnetres)
-002 000 002 004 O06 008 O10 O12
t
-Element Fomnilabon #1 mtfi Hex. 8 Wedge Elements
-Element Formulabon #l wiih al1 H e n Uamnts
-Element ForrnulatJon #2wrth Hex & M d g e Elemnts
-
-1 O 1 2 3 4 5
Crosshead Displacement (in.)
Figure 69 - Cornparisons between the two modified finite element models and
the original finite element model.
graph, as illustrated in Figure 69. The black colour curve illustrates the findings from the
normal simulations, the red curve illustrates the findings for the entire hexahedral mode1
with added elements, and the green curve illustrates the findings for the FE model using a
fully integrated solid element formulation (element formulation #2 in LS-DYNA).
From Figure 69, it was concluded that, firstly, adding more elements to the
chestfom FE model did not effect the results, and, secondly, the element formulation
had no effect on the results. However, there was a significant increase in computation
time observed. Table 4 summanzes the chestfom FE model specifications, the number
of elements, the element formulation implemented, and the approximate run time to
complete the simulation.
-
Table 4 Summary of the Three FE Models lnvestieated
Element Formulation
FE model Number of Elements Associated with Each Approx,mate
Specifications Type of Element l
Run Time
--
,
Solids Shells Solids Shells

- - , I I
Hex. & Wedge
25 17 896 1 B&T* 1 h 38 min**
FE Model
Total Hex.
13845 896 1 B&T 3 h 47 min
Mode1
Hex. & Wedge
FE Model
,25 17 896 2 B&T
L
8 h 25 min
* - refers to the Belytschko-Tsay shell element

** - al1 simulations were conducted on a Dual Pentiurn II 300 MHz system with 256
Megabytes of RAM using the senal version o f LS-DYNA (v.940).
Since little or no changes were evident by altering the FE model, and simulation
tirnes were significantly tess, the first FE m d e l developed was selected as the model for
impacting the three spoke steenng wheel. Furthemore, an excellent relationship
between experimental and numerical results was observed for this FE model.
6.3.2. Verification o f the Three Spoke Steering Wheel Finite Element Model
To verifL the three spoke steering wheel FE model, experimental tests and
nurnencal simulations were conducted with a rigid plate impacting the deformable three
spoke steering wheel. A rigid plate, fabricated by the author, was designed such that it
would replace the deformable chestform and rigidly mount to the aluminum crosshead.
6.3.2.1. The Experimental Setup and Proceâure
Figure 70 illustrates the experimental setup employed to ver@ the FE model of
the three spoke steenng wheet. The deformable chestform was replaced with a rigid
plate and fastened to the aluminum crosshead. Testing was conducted in a similar
manner as with the deformable chestform impacting the rigid cylinder. Different impact
~WoodenBacking
Plate
Deformable chestform
replaced with rigid
aluminum plate
Steering Wheel Impact Velocity (towards wheel no

other translations or rotations).
Figure 70 - Expenmental setup used to verify the finite element model of the three
spoke steering wheel.
velocities and locations of impact on the steering wheel were completed to determine if
differences between experirnental testing and numerical simulations resulted.
Experimental tests were conducted at four different conditions. Table 5 lists the
experimental testing conditions for the four situations investigated.
Table 5 - Exmximental Testing Conditions Considered

For the RiPjd Plate Im-pactine the Three S-wke Steering Wheel
/ Espenmental
Testing
Conditions #
Wheel Angle
(degreedo' dock
position)
Column Angle
(degrees)
Impact Velocity (mph
[mjsl)
7
1 1 *O0 / 6 o~clock
90" 1 3 o'clock
25
25
O
O
7.18 mph [3.2 1 mls]
7.3 1 mph [327 m/s]
3 1 180'/6o~c1ock 25 O 4.74 mph 13-13d s ]
The experirnents were completed on the steering wheel impact testing machine and each
data file was modified (using the Visual Basic Program) and analyzed in the Mathcad
worksheet.
6.3.2.2. The Numerical Simulation Setup and Procedure
A FE model of the ngid plate was developed and combined with the FE model of
the three spoke steering wheel, which is illustrated in Figure 71. A rigid material model
was used for the non-defonnable plate FE model and material properties were based
upon aluminum (see Appendix C). Boundary conditions were applied to nodes of the
rigid plate FE model, to permit only translational motion in a vertical direction, identical
to the experimental constraints placed upon the plate.

Figure 71 - Finite element models of the three spoke steering wheel and the rîgid plate
used to v e m the model of the steering wheel.
The keyword command, MITIAL-VELOCITY-GENERATTON,was used to
speci@the initial veloçity of the FE rigid plate model. Furthemore, a surface to surface
contact algorithm was used to rnodel contact between the rigid plate and the three spoke
steering wheel.
Simulations were also conducted at the identical experimental testing conditions
(wheel angle, column angle, and impact velocity) as specified in Table 5 . The first
experimental/numerical situation considered was experimental test situation # 1 , which
involved a wheel angle of t 80" (or impact at the 6 o'clock position), a column angle of
25 O , and an impact vetocity of 7.18 mph [3.2 1 rnls]. Five different FE models were
considered for evaluation at this testing condition. Table 6 details the five different FE
models of the three spoke steering wheel.

Table 6 - The Details of the Five Different Finite Element Models
Considered at Ex~erimentaiTestinp Situation # 1
Finite Element
Description
Mode1 #
- Normal FE model.
- Used as a benchmark for other comparisons.
- Ribs of steering wheel modeled as shells with shell nodes
merged to solid nodes at interface.
- Identical model as outlined in model # 1 except mass scaling
was incorporated into FE model.
- Total mass scalingcaused wheel to have 1.2 times itsactual
mass.
- Identical model as outlined in model ff 1 except mass scaling
was incorporated into FE model.
- Total mass scaling caused wheel to have 2.0 tirnes its actual
mass.
11 -- Identical model as outlined in model #3, except ribs were

modeled using solid elements instead of shell elements
identical rnodel as outlined in model if3, except rib shell
5 1 elements were "tied" to solid elements, causing rotational
1 constraints to be applied to shell nodes at interface.
Mass scaling is a technique used in explicit finite element codes to lower the
computational time of the problem being considered. The critical timestep, which is the
only requirement needed to be satisfied for a stable solution, is a function of the FE
model geometry and the material properties of the modeis. If the mass (or indirectly the
density) is increased artificially, then a solution can be found in a much lower time.
Unfortunately, the effects of mass scaling are sometimes unknown and this is why FE
model # 1 was simulated, with no mass scaling, to see if artificially scaling the mass of
the three spoke steering wheel affects the results.

Another point that needs to be addressed is the use of shell elements for the ribs
of the three spoke steering wheel. By using shell elements, and merging the nodes of the
shell eIements to the solid elements (at the interface between the two dir'ferent element
types), no rotational constraints are placed on those shell element nodes. Ultimately, this
gives inaccurate and unrealistic results. By employing a
"CONTACT-TED-SHELL-EDGEETOOSURFACE"keyword command in the FE input

file, rotational constraints are applied to the nodes at the interface of the shell and solid
elements. However, this cornes at a cost. This contact algorithm also requires
cornputational time. Thus, to see if the effects of the rotational constraints are significant
FE model #5 was considered.
Finally, to see if solid elements could be used to model the rib sections, FE
model #4 was simulated. By modeling the ribs as solid elements, nodes could be merged
without any concerns for rotational constraints. However, since only one and two layers
of solid elements where used in the modeling process, fully integrated solid elements
(element formulation CC2 in LS-DYNA) were implemented for these solid elements only
(those solid elements used in modeling the ribs).
6.3.2.3. Discussion of Results
To venQ the FE model of the three spoke steering wheel, corn pansons between
the experimental tests and the numerical simulations were conducted on the basis of the
vertical load versus crosshead displacement curves. Cornparisons were completed by
graphical methods only, the percentage difference (between experimental and numencal
tests) was not calculated for the rigid plate impacting the three spoke steering wheel as
significant numerical noise was present in the resultant contact interface forces between
the FE ngid plate model and the FE three spoke steering wheel model. Numerical noise,
which is generally common in FE simulations with materials that exhibit little damping
(which iç the case here), make it difficult to approximate the peak vertical load and
consequently the percentage difference is not presented.
Figure 72 shows the vertical load versus crosshead displacement curves for two
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Displacement

Riaid Plate Im~actina3 Spoke Steerina Wheel
Com~arisonsBetween Experimental and
Finite Element Simulation Results
Crosshead Dispfacement (metres)

-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
17500
-Expefirnental Test 111
Experimental Test t 2
FE Sim. tl (no change)
- FE Sirn. #2 (mass scaling 1 2 . shells)
FE Sirn. #3 (rnass scaling 2x. shells)
- FE Sim. #4 (mass scaling Zr.solids)
FE Sim. US (ms. 2x. with Tied Interface)
Testing Conditions:
-
Colurnn Angle 25 degs
t O
-
Wheei Angle 180 degs (6 o'clock impact) - -2500
-
Impact Velocrty 7.18 rnph / 3.21 mis
I I I 1 1
-2 -1 O 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 72 - Vertical load venus crosshead displacement comparing two experimental

tests to the five different finite models considered for the three spoke
steering wheel.
experimental tests (conducted at the identical conditions), and the five FE models
considered as detailed in Table 6.
A number of conclusions can be reached by inspection o f Figure 72. First, a good
relationship between experimental tests and numerical simulations is evident. Secondly,
including mass scaling in the FE model of the steering wheel has only a minor effect on
the results. However, a significant difference in computational times was observed and
these are listed in Table 7. Thirdly, results are independent o f whether the ribs are
modeled as shell elements o r solid elements, since no change in the load versus
crosshead displacement curve is noticed. Finally, little or no differences occurred in the
results by implementing the "lied" shells to the solid surfaces.
Table 7 - A~proximateComgutational Times Reauired for

the Five Finite Element Models Considered
for the Three S m k e Steerinp:
- Wheel
Finite Element Model # Approximate Computational Time

1 120 hours
I 2 1 32 hours I
3 27 hours
-. -
38 hours
Based upon the comparisons between the experimental and numerical fmdings,
FE model #4 was selected as the model which would be used in the simulations
considering impacts, at different positions and orientations o f the steering wheel,
between the rigid plate and the steering wheel. Although FE model #3 did exhibit a
lower computational tirne, FE mode1 #4 was selected since al1 elements are similar (i.e.,
solid elements), with the exception that fulty integrated elements are used in modeling
the rïb portion of the steering wheel.
Figure 73 shows the vertical load versus crosshead displacement curves for an
expenmental test and a numerical simulation conducted with experimental testing
conditions #2 (outlined in Table 5). As discussed previously, FE mode1 type #4 was used
in the simulation. Again a very good agreement between experirnental and numerical
findings is evident.

Riaid Plate lmpactinq 3 Spoke Steerinq Wheel
Com~arisonsBetween Ex~erirnentaland
I I l l ! 1
-- FE
Experirnental Test
Simulation
1
4
7500
f 1
Tesbng Conditions
1 -
Colurnn Angle 25 degs
-
Wheel Angle 90 degs (3 o'clock impact)
-
l m p a d Valocrty 7 31 mph 1 3 27 m h
'4 2
.< u
Figure 73 - Experimental versus numencal results for testing conducted at

experimental conditions #2.
Figure 74 compares experimental and numerical findings based upon
expenmental testing conditions #3. These conditions specified an impact velocity of
4.74 mph (2.12 m/s] which is slower than previous tests, yet, a good numerical prediction
to the experimental results is observed-
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Dis~lacernent

Riaid Plate lm~actina3 S ~ o k e
Steerina Wheel
Com~arisonsBetween Experimental and
Column Angle - 25 degs
O 1 2
Figure 74 - Experimental versus numerical results for testing conducted at experimental

conditions ff3.
Figure 75 shows the vertical load versus crosshead displacement curves for the
experimental and numerical tests completed based upon testing conditions #4 (outlined
in Table 5). Again a good relationship between expenmental and numerical results is
evident. However, the peak vertical deflection differs from expenmental findings by
approximately 0.75 inch [19.05 mm] over a maximum deflection of approximately
4 inches [IO1.60mm]. For the amount of deformation occuming, and the highly
non-iinear material modefs used in these types of simulations, this amount of difference
is acceptable [42] [43].

I R i ~ i dPlate Impacting 3 S ~ o k eSteerinp Wheel
Cornparisons Between E x ~ e r i m e n t aand
l
Experimental Test
FE Simulation
Crosshead Oisplacement (inches)

--
Figure 75 - Ëx&xirnentai and numerical results for testing conducted at experiment

conditions #4.
6.3.2.4. Additional Investigations Completed on the Three Spoke Steering
Wheel Finite Element Model
Two other investigations, concerning the verification of the FE model of the three
spoke steering wheel, were addressed in this study. First, the effects of strain rate on the
material model of the steering wheel were considered. Secondly, a sotid deformable
plate model was created and tested at identical conditions to see if modeling the rigid
plate as a defonnable plate affected the results.
By incorporating the strain rate parameters for the aluminum alloy into the input
file for the simulation, strain rate effects are automatically considered. Figure 76
illustrates the vertical load versus crosshead displacement curves for two experirnental
tests, the FE simulation conducted without considering strain rate effects, and an
additional cuve with strain rate effects considered in the numerical simulation.
Riaid Plate Impactinca 3 S ~ o k eSteerina Wheel
Com~arisonsBetween Ex~erimentaland
Crosshead Oisplacement (metres)
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
-Experimentaf Test #l
Expanmental Test #2
FE Sim. #l (without Strain Rate Effects)
- FE Sim #2 (with Strain Rate Effects)
-
Column Angle 25 degs
-
Wheel Angle 180 d e g s (6o'clack impact)
Figure 76 - Experimental and numerical vertical load versus crosshead displacernent

curves cornparing the effects of strain rate on the simulation results.
Based upon the findings presented in Figure 76, it is evident that strain rate
effects are a factor in the FE mode1 of the three spoke steering wheel. Results are closer
to actual experimental findings and thus indicate that strain rate effects are a necessary
consideration in the impact loading of deformable steering wheels. Predicted FE
displacements of the crosshead are considerably closer to the actual experimental
deflections.
The ngid plate was also modeled as a true solid entity using solid elements and an
elastic, deformable material model was incorporated into the modified FE model of the
rigid plate. Simulations were conducted at identical testing parameters previously
utilized, and resuits, based upon the vertical load versus crosshead displacement curve,
were compared with the experimental and past simulation findings. Figure 77
graphical ly il lustrates the results frorn two experimental tests; one simulation completed
Finite Elernent Simulation Results

-Experimental Test #1
- -- Experimental Test #2
FE Sim. #l (Rigid Plate as Shells)
- FE Sim. 12 (Rigid Plate as SolidsIDef.)
Testing Conditions-
Column Angle 25 degs -
-
Wheel Angle 1 8 0 degs (6 o'cfock impact)
-2 -1 O 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 77 - Experimental and numerical vertical load venus crosshead displacement

curves companng the effects of modeling the rigid plate as a solid,
defonnable, elastic entity.
with the rigid plate modeled as a rigid body using shell elements, and one simulation
completed with the rigid plate modeled as a solid, deformable, elastic body.
The resuits, presented in Figure 77, indicate that only a slight difference in peak
crosshead displacement occurs if the rigid plate is modeled as a solid and deformable
entity. Hence, the approximation of modeling the experimental rigid plate as a rigid
body in the FE analyses is valid-
6.4. Numerical Simulation and Cornparison with Experimental Tests of the

Deformable Chestform Impacting the Deformable Three Spoke Steering
Wheel
One of the principal focuses of this investigation is to determine if explicit FE
software can be utilized to simulate the performance of a steering wheel in collisions
with a deformable chestfonn. Both the deformable chestfonn and the deformable three
spoke steering wheel FE models were verified by perfonning numerical simulations and
experimental tests. Simulations of a deformable chestform impacting a deformable three
spoke steering wheel were then conducted and compared with the past experimental
testing results.
The experimental test setup \vas as previously illustrated in Figure 10. The
LS-DYNA input file consists of the deformable steering wheel, deformable chestform,
the wooden backing plate, and the aluminum crosshead FE models. Figure 78 illustrates
al1 the FE models used in simulating the chestform impacting the three spoke steering
wheel. It should be noted that mass scaling was invoked for al1 simulations only to an
extent where the mass of the steering wheei was only adjusted. Alteration of mass of the
chestfonn was not perfonned in any numerical simulations (see Appendix G).
- - --
Figure 78: Al1 four finite element models used in simulating the chestform impacting
the deformable steering wheel. The testing conditions for this exact
numerical simulation involve a column angle of No, a wheel angle of 120 O
(4 o'clock), and an impact velocity of 12 mph l5.36 m/s].
For this investigation, two dual Pentium-I'I based machines, running at interna1
dock speeds of 300 MHz and 450 MHz were utilized. Based upon initial simulation
testing (completed on the dual Pentium-11450 MHz machine) it was observed that the
computational time to evaluate a single impact test was approximately 85 hours. This
included mass scaling as a means of decreasing the computational time. Thus it was
proposed to simulate twelve different experimental testing situations and compare the
numerical simulation results with the experimental test data.
6.4.1. The Testing Methodology Utilized in the Numerical Simulations
Since only twelve numerical simulations were to be conducted, it was proposed
that the first seven FE analyses should investigate the effects of wheel angle, column
angle and impact velocity in a FE simulation. Numerical simulations were to be
conducted by varying the impact velocity, while holding the column and wheel angles
constant. This same procedure was to be repeated by varying the wheel angle, while
holding the impact velocity and colurnn angle constant, and by varying the column angle,
while holding the impact velocity and the wheel angle constant. Figure 79 illustrates 3
orthogonal axes, one axis representing impact velocity, another axis representing the
column angle, and a third mis representing the wheel angle. This illustration is an aid to
describing the numerical testing procedure. Test # 1 is completed at a specific impact
velocity, column angle, and wheel angle. Test #2 is completed by increasing the impact
Figure 79 - Three orthogonal axes used to illustrate the testing methodology for
the first seven numerical simulations.
velocity, and holding the column and wheel angles constant. Test # 3 is completed by
decreasing the impact vetocity, and holding the column and wheel angles constant. This
procedure is repeated to also consider variations in the wheel and column angles.
Table 8 lists the first seven testing situations and an additional five situations that were
selected for numerical simulation.
Table 8 - Testinp: Parameters for the Twelve

Numerical Simulations to be Conducted
- -- - - -
Test # Column Angle Wheel Angle (degrees / Impact Velocity

(degrees) 07cloçkposition) (mph [m/s])
1 24" 120" / 4 o'clock 12 mph 15.36 m/s]
3 1 24O 1 120" / 4 07clock 1 1 1 mph r4.92 m/s]

1 15" 1 120' 1 4 o'clock 1 12 mph [5.36 mls]
5 1 33 O 1 120" / 4 07clock 1 12 mph [5.36 m/s]

6 24 O 60" /2 07clock 12 mph [5.36 mis]
7 24 O 180" / 6 o'clock 12 mph [5.36 mk]
8 18" 150" / 5 07clock 13 mph C5.81 m/s]
9 21" 30" / l 07clock 20 mph 14-47 m's]
1O 27" 90" / 3 07clock 9 mph [4.02 m/s]
1 39" 1 180" / 6 o'clock 1 13rnph[5.81 m / s ]

12 1 36 O 0" / 12 07clock 1 I l mph f4.92 d s ]
6.4.2. Difficulties Encountered By Simulating the M o r m a b l e Chestform
Impacting the Deformable Three Spoke Steering Wheel
In attempting to simulate the impact between the deformable chestfonn and the
deforrnable steenng wheel, two significant problems were encountered. The first
problem dealt with hourglassing occumng within elements of the chestfonn, and the
second problem involved concems regarding the contact between the chestfom and the
three spoke steering wheel.
6.1.2.1. Hourglassing Control in the Chestform Finite Element Model
Hourglassing (or hourglassing modes) is a phenornenon that occurs when nodes
of elements displace but produce zero strain energy. Hourglassing occun in fini te
eIements which are underintegrated, or in the case of LS-DYNA, elements that possess
only a single integration point. For this study, both the chestfonn and three spoke
steering wheel FE models utilize this type of element.
Two procedures can be employed to avoid this problem; a fully integrated
element or hourglass control algonthms can be used in the FE model. Hourglassing
control is çenerally less computationally expensive and for this reason was implemented
into the chestforrn FE model.
For the chestfonn FE model the Flanagan-Belytschko stiffiiess form with exact
volume integration was employed (type 5 in LS-DYNA). Stiffness forms of hourglass
control are recommended for deformations occumng at lower velocities (the impact
velocities considered in this study fa11 within the definition of "lower velocities").
Furthemore, for solid elements, the exact integration provides some advantage for highly
distorted elements, which was the case for elements in the chestform [44].
Simulations conducted without hourglass control continually teminated with a
"negative volume" error. This error arises when nodes on one face (or surface) of an
element pass through another face (or surface) of the same element, thus inverting the
element and leading to a "negative volume". This enor was due to the amount of
deformation and hourglassing occumng within the chestfonn. Simulations were also
conducted with a further refined mesh of the chestfonn, nonetheless, the error
termination continued. By incorporating the hourglass control into the chestform FE
model, simulations terminated normally and the deformation occumng within the
chestform appeared more realistic. Figure 80 illustrates a section of the chestfonn dunng
using hourglass control.

the impact where deformation of the elements is severe (the three spoke steering wheel
has been removed for illustration purposes). Hourglass control was not implemented in
the chestform as it is seen in Figure 80. To illustrate the effects of the hourglass control
Figure 8 1 shows the defonned chestform, under similar testing conditions (except
Figure 81 - Deformation of the chestforni finite elernent rnodel with hourglass control
implemented (the three spoke steering wheel has been removed to better
illustrate the deformation ofjust the chestform).
considering the entire chestform FE rnodel), with hourglass control utilized. Note that
the deformation appears more realistic in Figure 8 1. Appendix G provides sample input
data for hourglass control utilized in al1 LS-DYNA simulations.

6.4.2.2. Problems Concerning Contact Between the Chestform and the
Steering Wheel
The contact type used in al1 simulations (invofving contact between the chestform
and the steering wheel) was a SURFACE-TO-SURFACE algorithm that is based upon
the penalty method. This method consists of placing normal interface springs between
al1 penetrating nodes and the contact surface. The stiffness of the spnngs is related to the
material properties of the two entities in contact [45]. Since the material properties of
the chestform and the steering wheel significantly Vary, the penalty factors, which adjust
the stiffness for the springs used in the contact, had to be significantly modified from the
LS-DYNA default value of 1.
Figure 82 illustrates contact without the proper penalty values used in the
chestform and steering wheel FE models. Note that the elements from the bodyforni are
Figure 82 - Contact without the proper values of the penalty factors for the
chestform and steering wheel. Note that the chestform elements
are penetrating into and through the steering wheel.
Figure 83 - Contact between the chestform and the steering wheel with the proper
val ues of the scale factors for the SURFACE-TO-SURFACE contact
algorithm.
actually penetrating into the steering wheel. By implementing more appropriate values
of the penalty scale factors, which can only be determined on a trial and error basis, a
better and more realistic contact is achieved as illustrated in Figure 83. Appendix H
provides sample input data regarding the implemented contact algorithm frorn LS-DYNA
simulations.
To illustrate the geometries of the FE models before and afer the impact,
Figure 84 and Figure 85 show the three spoke steering wheel and the chestform prior to
the collision and after the impact respectively. In addition, the computational times to
complete al1 simulations for each specific test are presented in Table 9. It should be
noted that the addition of strain rate effects did not significantly affect the computational
time to complete a simulation.

' W DEPL 1 50385E+MAT NOOE 30446
-- --
Figure 84 - Geometry of al1 the finite element models before impact between the
chestform and the three spoke steering wheel. This numerical simulation
was completed with a column angle of N o , a wheel angle of 180 and an O,
impact velocity of 12 mph l5.36 d s ] .
' MAX DISPL 1 50385E42AT NOOE 30446 SCALE FACTOR = 1 000OE+00
Figure 85 - Geometry of al1 the finite element models afier impact.
-134-
Table 9 - Com~utationalTimes Reauired to Corndete
the Twelve Numerical Simulations
Test # 1 Approximate Cornputational 1 Test X 1 Approxirnate Computational

1 Time (hourd 11 Time (hourd
1 72 hours* 7 104 houn**
-7 95.5 hours** 8 95.5 heurs**
72 hours*
4 1 95.5 hours** I 10 1 7 1.5 hours*
7 1 -5 hours* 1 11 1 7 1 hours*
108.5 heurs** 1 12 1 77 hours*
Note: * - indicates simutations conduaed o n Dual Pentium II 450 MHz machine with 384 Megbytes
RAM with serial version o f LS-DYNA
** - indicates simulations conducted o n Dual Pentium i I 300 MHz machine with 384 Megbytes
R A M with serial version of LS-DYNA
6.4.3. Cornparisons of the Vertical Lond versus Crosshead Displacement Curves

from Experimental Tests and Numerieal Simulations
Vertical load versus crosshead displacement c w e s were used to compare the
experimental testing results with the predicted numencal simulation findings. These
curves illustrate differences in either the vertical loading profile ancilor the crosshead
displacement profile.
Numerical simulations were completed two times for each test situation as
presented in Table 8. The first simulation was completed without considering strain rate
effects in the aluminum alloy of the three spoke steering wheel and a second simulation
was conducted with strain rate effects included in the numerical analysis.
Table IO lists each numerical simulation, with its corresponding testing
conditions, and the figure number, il lustrating the comparison between the experimental
and numerically predicted vertical load versus crosshead displacement curves.
Table 10 - Testine Parameters for the Twelve Numencal Simulations Conducted

with the Corresmndinp:
- Fiare # Illustrating the Com~arison
Between Numerical and Exr>erimentalFindinas-
Test + Column Angle Wheel Angle (degrees Impact Velocity Figure #

(degrees) / o'clock position) (mph [mis])
1 24 O 120" / 4 o'clock 12 mph [5.36 mis] 86
-7 24 " 120" 14 o'clock 13 mph [5.81 d s ] 87
3 24 " 120" / 4 o'clock 1 1 mph 14-92d s ] 88
15" 120" / 4 o'clock 12 mph 15-36d s ]
6
33"
24"
120" / 4 o'clock
60" 12 o'clock
12 mph 15-34m/s]
12 mph [5.36 m/s]
90
91
1
7 24" 180" / 6 o'clock 12 mph [5.36 d s ] 92
*
8 18" 150" / 5 o'clock 13 mph [5.81 m/s] 93
9 21 O 30" 1 1 o'clock 10 mph [4.47 mis] 94
-
1O 27" 90" 1 3 o'clock 9 mph C4.02 m/s] 95

11 39" 180" / 6 o'clock 13 mph f5.81m/s] 96
12 36" 0" / 12 o'clock 1 1 mph [4.92 d s ] 97
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead D i s ~ l a c e m e n t
Chestform lmpactinn 3 S ~ o k eSteerina Wheel
CornParisons Between Experimental and
Finite Element Simulation Resuits
-0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 O 20
- Experirnental Test
- FE Sirnulauon (without SIR Etfacts)
1
- FE Simulation (with SIR Effect.)
i
C
0
e
1000
6
-
:Il /i
O
2
-O
8
> 50:;
Tasong CondRions
Column Angk - 24 degs
-
Whaol Angim 120 doos (4 a'clock imp8ct)
-500
-
Impact Voloc~ty t 2 mph 1 5 36 mls
-2 O 2 4 6 8
Figure 86 - Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test # 1 .
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Oisplacement

Chestform lmpactina 3 Spoke Steering Wheel
Cornparisons Between Experimental and
FE Simulatian (wtth SIR Effecls)
i
Tesbng Condibons:
- --
Column Anglo 24 dogs
Whoal Anglo 1 2 0 dogs (4 o'clock impact)
-500 . Impact Volocity 13 mph 1 5 . 8 1 ml$ - - -2000

-
Figure 87 - Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test #2.

Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Oisplacement
Chestform I m ~ a c t i n3 ~Spoke Steerina Whoel
C o m ~ a r i s o n sBetween Ex~erimentafand
F inite Element Simulation Results
Crosshead Displacement (rnetres)

-0 04 O 00 O 04 O 08 O 12 O 16 O 20
2000 - I
- Experirnental Test
1800 - - FE Sunulalion (without S I R Effects)
- FE S~mulation(with SIR Effects)
1600 +
1400 - . Tesling GOnQUiOnS:

z= 1200 -
-
Column A n g k 24 degs
- -
Wheel Angle 120 degs (4 o'clock mpact)
6000
G
O t e i o c y 1 1 mph 1 4 92 mlr
~ m p i cV
3m 1000
E.
2000
O
>
-2 O 2 4 6 8
J --- --
Figure 88 - Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test R3.

Chestforrn lmpactina 3 S ~ 0 k e
Steerina Wheel
Crosshead Oisplacement (rnetres)

0.00 O 04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Experimental Test
FE Stmulation (wtthout SIR Efïccts)
FE Simulation (with SIR Effects)
Testing Conditions
-
Column Angk 15 deus
O 2 4 6
-138-
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Dis~lacernent
Chestform Impactinri 3 Snoke S t e e r i n ~Wheel
Cornparisons Between Exnerimental and
~ Crosshesd Displacement (metres)
Expenmental Test
F E Sirnuktton (wdhout SIR Effects)
F E Simulation (wrth SIR Effccts)
Cokrmn Angle 33 dogs -

-
Wheol Angk 120 digs (4 o'clock tmpact)
Figure 90 - Experimental and numencai findings for simulation test # S .
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Disnlacernent

Chestform Impactinq 3 Spoke Steerina Wheel
Comoarisons Between Ex~erimentaland
2500 -
- Experimental Test 1
1 - FE Simulation (without SIR Enect.)
2000 - - FE simulation (with SIR ~ t k c t s ) , i
-- -- --
A- -- -----
Testing Conbnions
- ,Column Angk 2 4 digs -
-
Y
1500 -
W h i e l Angle 60 digs Q o'clock impact)
-
u -tmpacl
--- - VolocRy
- 2 mph
-1- -
15 36 mls
(L1
-2 O 2 4 6 8 10
Crosshead Displacernent (inches)
- --- --- - - - - -- -- - ----

Vertical Load Vsrsus Crosshead Displacement
Chestform lmpactina 3 Sooke S t e e r i n ~Wheel
Comoarisons Bctween Experimental and
Crosshead Oisplacement (metres)

-0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
2500 - -
- Exparimental Test
- FE Simulation (without SiR Eflacts)
- F E Simulation (wcth SIR Effects)
.- --- --
,
Tosting CondRions
- --
Column A n g k 24 degs
Whsal Angb 180 degs (6 o'cbck impact)
impact Vobcrty 12 mph 1 5 36 m l s
u
m
-
O
4 1000 1
O
E
> 500 ;
-500
-2 O 2 4 6 8

-0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
I
- Experimental Test
--FE Simulation (without SIR Effects)
- f E Simulation (with SIR Effects)
.- . .
--
Taating Condlions:
Column AngP - 18 dogs
-
Whosl Angk 150 dogs ( 5 o'cbck impact)
-
Impact Velocity 13 mph 15.81 mls
--
- 140-
1 Crosshead Displacement (metres)
- - - - - -
Expanrnmntal Test
FE Simulation (without S I R Effects)
FE Simuhtion (with SIR Effects)
Cohrmn Angb
: Whoel Angle
- 21 dous
- 30 degs (1 o'elack impact)
Impact Vakcity - 10 mph 1 4 . 4 7 mis
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead D i s ~ l a c e m e n t

Chestform lmpactinp 3 S ~ o k eSteerina Wheel
C o m ~ a r i s o n sBetween Experirnental and
- Expertmental Test - 6000

,-I
- f E Simul8tion (without SIR Effects) C
- FE Simulation (with SIR Effects) 1 .- 5000

. 8
CL)
- 4000 5
3
- 3000 t
B
O
- 2000 -8
A
O
-e
- 1000 3
-- O
-
- -- ..- - .
Figure 95 Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test # 10.

2500 1 - Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Displacernent
Chestform Impactina 3 S ~ o k eSteerina Wheel
Crosshead Oisptacernent (metres)
Exparimental Test
FE Simulation (without SIR Effects)
FE Simuiatmn ( r a h SIR Effacti)
t
1

-
Figure 96 - Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test # 1 1.
Vertical Load Versus Crosshead Dispiacement

Chestform lmpactina 3 Spoke Steerina Wheel
C o m ~ a r i s o n sBetween Experirnental and

0.04 0.08 0 12 0.16 0.20
Experimentrl Test
F E S i m u l i t ~ o n(wdhout SIR Effects) I'
F E Simulation (wdh SIR Effects)
- 1
Tosting Condittons 1
Column Angle - 38 degs
Wheel Angb - O digs (12 o'clock imp8ct)
-
Impact Vibcity 1 1 mph 1 4 92 m h
6000
Z
- 4000 g
O
- 2000
.-
5
>
O
2 4 6 8
Figure 97 - Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test # 12.
-142-
Based upon the data presented in Figures 86 through 97, for the majority of
testing situations considered, a good relationship between experimental observations and
numerical predictions is evident. The effect of strain rate is ctearly a significant factor in
simulating the impact of the chestform on the three spoke steenng wheel. The results
found from numerical simulations indicate that strain rate effects should be considered in
these impact type situations. In general, numerical simulations, which considered strain
rate effects, better predicted the vertical load versus crosshead displacement curve.
Since little numencal noise is present in the finite element simulations, which
should be expected due to the presence of the viscous foam materia1 mode1 for the
chestform, the peak vertical Ioad and peak crosshead displacement are easy to define.
Thus, the percentage difference, based upon experimental tests, has been calculated and
is presented in Table 1 1 for each different numerical testing situation considered.
With regard to peak crosshead displacement, for al1 the testing situations
considered, a very low percentage difference between experimental and nurnerical results
has been found. This observation indicates that FE simulations can effectively and
accurately predict the peak crosshead displacernent of the chestform in an impact
situation with the three spoke steering wheel.
The average of the percentage difference for the peak vertical load is acceptable
for the degree of deformation that is occumng in both the experimental and numerical
tests. However, two individual numerical simulations (tests #6 and 3 12), whether
considering strain rate effects or not, have a considerably high percentage difference
from expenmental findings. The testing conditions of these two simulations are
somewhat similar. They both involve impact at low wheef angles and at high impact
velocities. Perfonning numerical simulations at these conditions may not effectively
predict actual experimental results of the peak vertical load. In both cases the
experimental value of the peak vertical load was considerabiy less than the value
predicted from the finite element analysis.
Table 1 1 - Percentage Difference of the Peak Vertical Load and

Peak Crosshead Disdacement fiom Numerical and Experimental Results
Test #
% Difference on Peak Vertical
without strain
Load
with strain rate
Il % Difference on Peak Crosshead
Displacement
without strain with strain rate
rate effects effects rate effects effects
1 9.92 % 2.38 % 7.47 % 3.41 %
-3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
For numerical simulations completed at any impact velocity and wheel angles
greater than or equal to 90" (or the 3 o'clock position), or numerical simulations
completed at any position on the steering wheel and at lower impact velocities (10 mph
C4.47 m/s] or less), LS-DYNA accurately predicts the peak vertical load in the collision.
Overall, the explicit FE analysis software, LS-DYNA, is able to simulate a
deformable chestforrn impacting a deformable three spoke steering wheel accurately,
regardless of the impact velocity, orientation, or location of impact on the steering wheel.
6.4.4. An Energy Comparison from Experimental Tests to Numerical

-
Simulations The True E.A.F.
Another advantage in numencal simulations is the fact that the total intemal
energy within any FE mode1 can be computed at any instant in time. LS-DYNA, if
requested, will output a file that contains time history information regarding the internal
energy of any FE model in a simulation. The internal energy is the actual energy within
the structure at any given time. It differs significantly from the previous methods of
calculating energy, which required the evaluation of an integral of the vertical force
versus crosshead displacement curve. As previously mentioned, this calculated energy, is
only an approximation to the actual energy within the structure. However, with FE
simulations, one can easily get information on the actual intemal energy within the
structure. Furthermore, the internal energy is determined based upon each different FE
model. Thus, the energy that just the steering wheel absorbs can now be determined.
This information can be used to determine the "True Energy Absorption Factor", since it
will express the amount of energy the steering wheel absorbs relative to the amount o f
energy the chestform possessed just before impact.
Figure 98 incl udes five curves of energy versus crosshead dispiacernent. The
dark red curve gives the experimental findings for energy (the testing conditions are
identical to simulation test # 1), calculated by means of evaluating the integral of the
An Enerclv Com~arisonBetween Ex~erimentalTests

and Numerical Simulations
Crosstiead Displacement (metres)
0.00 0.O4 0.08 0.12 0.16 0-20
O 2 4 6 8
Crosshead Displacernent (inches)

-Experimentaf Test (Calculated Energy)
- Calculated Energy (Chestforni 8 Steering Wheel) in FE Simulation
Internai Energy (Chestfom 8 Steering Wheel) in FE Simulation
- lntemal Energy (Chestfom only) in FE Simulation
- lntemal Energy (Steenng Wheel onty) in FE Simulation
Figure 98 - An energy comparison between experimental tests and numerical

simulations.
vertical force versus crosshead displacement curve. The orange curve gives the
calculated energy determined fiom a FE simulation. The method of detemining this
curve is identical to the procedure followed for the experimental test. The remaining
three curves (green, blue, and yellow) give the internal energy calculated in LS-DYNA
for onIy the steering wheel (the blue curve), only the chestform (the green curve), and the
remaining curve is the sum of the internai energies of the steering wheel and the
chestform (the yellow curve).
For the test situation illustrated in Figure 98, the approximation of calculated
energy evaluated for the experimentai test (evaluate the integral of vertical force over
crosshead displacement) appears to be valid, as the sum of the intemal energies within
the steering wheel and chestform are approximately equal to the calculated energy.
However, using the same method to calculate energy, based upon the vertical toad and
crosshead displacement curve from the LS-DYNA simulation, introduces a greater error.
There is a significant difference (approximately 1000 Ibf-in [ I l 3 JI) between the
calculated experimental energy and the calculated LS-DYNA energy.
The energy that just the steering wheel absorbs, which is a significant piece of
information for steering wheel designers, can be determined from the blue curve in
Figure 98. The end point of the curve represents the value of the amount of internal
energy, and thus the energy absorbed, by the steering wheel in the collision. For this
testing situation, approximately 3000 Ibf-in [339 JI of energy was absorbed by the
steering wheel. This value is significantly different fiom the value calculated
experimentally, which is approximately 5000 Ibf-in CS65 J] for this situation, a difference
of approximately 2000 Ibf-in [226 4.
With knowledge of the amount of energy absorbed by just the steering wheel, a
more representative value of the E.A.F. for just the steering wheel can be determined.
Equation (5) can be modified just to consider the absorbed (internal) energy of the
steering wheel and the energy available before impact, as given in Equation ( 19).
The true E.A.F. will give engineers and designers a better value of the actual amount of
energy that just the steering wheel absorbs in an impact situation.
To calculate the true E.A.F. of the three spoke steering wheel, requires
information regarding the internal energy within the steering wheel at the end of the
collision. Table 12 gives the intemal energies of the three spoke steering wheel, the
chestform, the surn of the intemal energies within the steering wheel and the chestform,
as well as the calculated value of the energy, based upon integration of the vertical force
versus crosshead displacement curves, from the twelve FE simulations (conducted
without considering strain rate effects) and the corresponding experimental tests. Table
13 presents the identical information for the twelve FE simulations conducted Mth strain
rate effects considered.

Table 12 - Intemal Enetmes and Calculated Enereies from
Finite Element Simulations hot considering strain rate effects)
and Exwrimental Tests
I Intemal Energy (Ibfin [JI) from Finite

Element Simulations
Catculated Energy (IbFin [JI) of
Steering Wheel and Chestform
From Finite
Element
SimuIations
5723.80 [646.70] 4906 50 [554 361
Table 13 - lnternal Enerszies and Calculated Enerszies from
Finite Element Simulations (considering strain rate effects)
and ExDerimental Tests
interna1 Energy (lbpin [JI) from Finite Calculated Energy (Ibf-in [JI) of
Element Simulations Steering Wheel and Chestform
Test # three spoke
steering wheel
chestform steenng wheel
and chestform
From Finite
Eiernent
Simulations
I Experimental
From
Tests
-
7
1O
II
With the information presented, regarding the intemal energy of the three spoke
steenng wheel at the end of the impact, in Table 12 and Table 13, the true E.A.F. can be
determined and is listed in Table 14. Aiso presented in Table 14, is the average E.A.F.
calculated for each corresponding experirnental test, and the percentage difference
between the two values (using the experimental values as the accepted values).
-
Table 14 The True E.A.F. Calculated Based U-wn the Internai
Enerw Within Just the Steerina- Wheel and the Ex~erirnentally
Determined Average E.A.F.
Tme E.A.F. based on Percentage Difference

Internai Energy within between the Average
Steering Wheel Average E-AF. calculated E.A.F. and the Tme E.A.F.
Test #
1
without fiom Expenmentai Tests "thout with
with strain
strain rate strain rate
rate effects rate effects
eEis
1 1
1
3
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Based upon the data presented in Table 14, one observes that a large percentage
difference exists between the true E.A.F. and the experimentally detennined average
E.A.F.. There is only a very small effect on the inclusion of strain rate effects in the FE
mode1 sim dations. Generally, considering strain rate effects will only change the
percentage di fference between the true E.A. F. and the average E.A. F. by approximately
3 %, based upon the percentage difference calculated without strain rate effects.
The results presented in Table 14 are very important. They indicate that by
completing experimental testing with a deformable chestform impacting a steering
wheel, the experimental results, fail to determine the amount of energy absorbed by just
the steering wheel or just the chestform. Experimental observations can only provide a
caiculated amount of energy absorbed by both the steering wheel and the chestform.
Numetical simulations provide a means of deterrnining the actual amount of energy
which just the steering wheel absorbs.
The true energy absorption factor should be utilized by engineers and designers
when developing more energy absorbing steenng wheels. Thus, the need for finite
element simulations in steering wheel design and development is of utmost importance.
Another important piece of information, which can only be determined from FE
simulations, is the percentage of total internal energy absorbed in the collision by just the
three spoke steering wheel or by just the deformable chestform. Equation (20) and
equation (2 1 ) were utilized to determine the percentage of total internal energy absorbed
by the three spoke steering wheel and the deformable chestform respectively:
where, "LE.,-," and "I.E.,hd-" represent the intemal energies of the steenng
wheel and the chestfonn aAer the impact, respectively. Note that the sum of the percent
energy absorbed by the steering wheel and the chestfonn is 100Y0.
A gaphic illustration of the percentage energy absorbed by the three spoke
steenng wheel and the chestform is given in Figure 99 for the twelve dif3erent finite
element simulations considered. From the illustration provided in Figure 99, it is
observed that, regardless of the location of impact, velocity of impact, or steenng wheel
orientation, the percentage of the total energy absorbed by just the steenng wheel is
approximately 70%. Furthemore, the chestform absorbs approxirnately 30% of the total
amount of energy absorbed. Results which are presented in Figure 99 are based upon
simulations conducted with and without strain rate effects being considered. Frorn the
information provided, the percentages of energy absorbed by either the three spoke
steering wheel or the chestfonn is independent of strain rate effects.
This information can also be used by steering wheel designers and engineers to
develop a steerîng wheel that absorbs a greater percentage of the total energy absorbed.
Percentaae of Interna1 Enerav Absorbed
bv 3 Spoke Steerinq Wheel and Chestform
in Finite Efement Simulations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Test #
+Steering Wheel without Stratn Rate Effects Considered

- O - Chestform without Strain Rate Effects Considered
r Steering Wheel with Strain Rate Effects Considered
-+P- Chestform with Strain Rate Effects Considered
Figure 99 - Percentage of total interna1 energy absorbed by the three spoke steering
wheel and chestform.
By increasing the amount of energy the steering wheel absorbs, the arnount of energy
absorbed by the chestform automatically decreases. Which implies, for actual drivers of
automobiles, there is less energy transferred to the driver to cause bodily harm.
6.5. CD-ROM Containing Related Files from Finite Element Simulations
Accornpanying this dissertation is a CD-ROM with a Spica1 LS-DYNA input file
and nine different animated results files. Each animation file can be executed from any
persona1 computer with the ability of reading an Audio Video Interleave (*.AVi) file.
Table 15 provides a short description of each file on the accompanying CD-ROM.
Table 15 - Description of Each File on the Açcommnving; CD-ROM
Filename Description of File

LS-DYNA input file with impact occurring at 13 mph [5.8 1 d s ]
with a 39 degree column angle and 6 o'clock wheel angle (strain
rate eflects considered).
FE models of the chestfonn, backing plate, and crosshead impacting
chestform with cylinder-avi
the FE model of the rigid cylinder.
FE model of the rigid plate (modeled using shell elements)
shell plate with wheel.avi
impacting the FE model of the steering wheel.
solid plate with wheeI.avi

I FE model of the rigid plate (modeled using solid elements)
impacting the FE model of the steering wheel.
Close-up view of the FE model of the chestform (the backing plate
closeup of chestforrn & wheel-avi and crosshead models are not illustrated) impacting the three spoke
steering wheel.
Deformation of the chestform FE rnodel in an impact with the
chestform without wheel-avi
steering wheel, without illustrating the steering wheel.
Defornation o f the steering wheel FE modeI in an impact with the
wheel without chestform.avi
chestform, without illustrating the chestform.
Side view of the impact between the chestform and the steering
sideview of impact.avi
wheel FE models.
sideview 2 of impact.avi
I Side view of the impact between the chestform and the steering
wheel FE modeis.
FE models of the chestform, backing plate, and crosshesd impactiny

chestform with wheel.avi
g l
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
7.1. Conclusions
This dissertation focused on two primary objectives:
1. The completion of extensive experimental tests, and the analysis of the data
acquired from these tests, dealing with impacts between a deformable chestform
and an al uminum three spoke steering wheel.
2. The finite element modeling and simulation, using explicit FE code, of the
experimental testing procedure.
Conclusions dealing with the experimental tests will be presented first, followed
by conclusions dealing with the finite element simulations.
7.1.1. Conclusions Dealing with Experimental Testing
1. The vertical load profile during the impact between the chestform and the three
spoke steering wheel is a function of the wheel angle, column angle, and impact
velocity. With increases in impact velocity the peak vertical load also increases.
2. The crosshead displacement is primarily dependent upon the wheel angle
associated with the experimental test. Experiments have shown that only a minor
variation in the crosshead displacement occurs for changes in the column angle or
impact velocity.
3. The calculated energy absorbed is also a complex function of the wheel angle,
column angle, and the impact velocity of the experimentat test.

4. A method to numerically quanti& the energy absorption characteristics of the
steering wheel and chestform, in an experimental impact test, has k e n
introduced, and is termed the energy absorption factor (E.A.F.). Two methods to
calculate the E.A.F. have been presented, both methods gïve nearly identical
results. An average E.A.F. is calculated as the mean value of the E.A.F. based on
energy at impact and the E.A.F. determined fiom the potential energy before the
experimental test.
5. The E.A.F. is a complex function of the column angle, wheel angle, and impact
veiocity considered in the experimental test. Based upon testing observations the
three spoke steering wheel had an approximate maximum average E.A.F. of 0.83.
This generally occurred for impacts dealing with collisions occurrïng with a
wheel angle of 30" to 60".
6. The coefficient of restitution for impacts dealing with the chestform and the three
spoke steering wheel has been calculated. The coefficient of restitution varies
more significantty with a given column angle and wheel angle at higher impact
veiocities. At lower impact velocities, the coefficient of restitution is not as
dependent on the wheel angle and colwnn angle as it is at higher impact
velocities. The coeficient of restitution varied from an approximate minimum of
0.20 to an approximate maximum of 0.52 for al1 the experimental tests
considered.
7. A maximum average E.A.F. corresponded to tests in which the coeficient of
restitution was approximately equal to 0.3 1.

8. The absolute impact force in an experimental test is pnmady dependent upon the
vertical impact force.
7.1.2. Conclusions Deriling witb Finite Element Modeling and Simulation
1. A very good relationship between the experimental observations and finite
element predictions was observed. An approximate percentage difference on the
peak vertical load was found to be 18%. An approximate percentage difference
on the peak crosshead displacement was found to be 6%.
2. The effects of mass scaling on the finite element models considered in this
investigation were negligible. However, mass scaling signiticantly reduced the
computational time associated with each simulation.
3 Hourglass control and the contact penalty scale factors must be selected
appropriately for contact types involving two entities with significantly different
material properties.
3. Finite element simulations allow determination of the intemal energy absorbed by
each specific part in a FE simulation, which cannot be experimentally
determined. The tme E.A.F. utilizes the intemal energy of the steering wheel to
determine a more representative value of the E.A.F.. The true E.A.F. should be
used by engineers and designers to develop a more energy absorbing steering
wheel.
5. Experimental values of the calculated energy are best conservatively predicted,
From finite element simulations, as the sum of the intemal energies of the steering
wheel and the chestfonn.

6 . CaIcuIation of the true E.A.F. can only be detennined with numerical simulations.
Thus, finite element analyses should be an integral part of the design and
development of a steering wheel.
7. Based upon finite element results, the steering wheel absorbs approximately 70%
of the total amount of absorbed energy in an experimental impact test and the
chestform absorbs the remaining 30%, regardless of the wheel angle, column
angle, or impact veloçity.
7.2. Recommendations for Future W o r k
Although every attempt has been made to present the most important information
observed from the experimental impact tests, there still exists a considerable amount of
information that has not k e n presented. Acceleration data of the head, shoulder, and
lower abdomen region of the chestform was acquired in each test considered in this
investigation. An analysis of this data may provide steering wheel engineers and
designers important information in the developrnent of steering wheels.
Airbag development has become a very significant part in the design of steering
wheels. LS-DYNA also provides numerical algorithms for simulating airbags and the
deployment of such devices. Experimental testing, with the inclusion of airbags, has
already commenced. The numerical simulation of this experimental procedure should
also be conducted.
The need for finite element simulations has been proven in this investigation.
Finite element simulations provide information which may be very difficutt, costly, or
impossible to obtain from an experimental test. Furthemore, finite eIernent simutations

are not a destructive means of testing. I f a similar study is to be performed on a different
type of steering wheel, then a lirnited number (approximately 1O to 20) experimental
tests should be performed at different testing conditions in order to ver@ the FE models.
This investigation has proven that if detailed FE modefs are developed, they can
accurately predict the performance of a steering wheel in an impact situation.

REFERENCES
Altenhof, W. J., A Prototyx Testinp Machine and Methodoloev for impact

Loading of Steerina Wheels, A Master's Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
Graduate Studies and Research, The University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada, ( 1997), pp. 1-48.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Steerin~Control Svstem - Passen~erCar -

Laboratorv Test Procedure - SAE 5944. 1992 SAE Handbook. Volume 4,
Warrendale, PA., U.S.A., ( l992), pp. 34.230-34.232.
Pl- Annex Ei to Directive 74/297/EEC. The European Economic Cornmunities,

(December 199 1 ), pp. 12-15.
i4I- Morris, J. B., Stucki, L.. Morgan, R. M., Bondy, N., Occupant Protection from
Impacts with the Steering Assemblv, Society of Automotive Engineers. paper
no. 826025, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. ( 1982). pp. 175-190.
Cohen, D., L i ~ h Vehicle

t Frontal I m ~ a c Protection,
t Society of Automotive
Engineers. paper no. 820243, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
( 1982), pp.35-5 1 .
Experirnental Droptower Testing Data provided from the Chrysler Technology

Center. (July 1994).
Cul ver, C. C,, Methodolo~iesand Measurino Devices to investi~ateSteering

Svstems in Crashed Cars, Passenger Corn fort, Convenience and Safety: Test
Tools and Procedures (SAE symposium), paper no. 860204, General Motors
Research Laboratories, (February 1986), pp. 16 1- 169.
Rodrigues, J. C. B., Pina da Silva, F., Tonelo, V., Steering Wheel and Dashboard -
Eroonomic and Material Safetv Trends, IMechE (Institution of Mechanical
Engineers) Seminar Publication on Automotive Passenger Safety, paper no.
C498/32/075/95, Institut0 Superior Tecnico, Portugal, (November 19951,
pp.47-52.
McKie, T., Simulation of Bodv Block Steering Wheel Impacts Usino DYNA3D,
First European LS-DYNA Con ference, The Motor Industry Research Association,
England, (March, 1997), pp.9.1-9.14.
[10]. Shyu, S., Mani, A., Krishnaswarny, P., Conroy, R., Shermetaro, M., Exner, G.,
Desiming Enerov Absorbina Steering Wheels Throueh Finite Element I m ~ a c t
Simulation, 1993 SAE Future Transportation Technology Conference, paper
no. 93 1844, EASi Engineering and United Technologies Automotive, (August
1993). pp. 1- 1O.
[1 11. Gotoh, E., Ohsawa, S., Satoh, Y., Yasuda, S., An Investigation
- of Steering
Column C o l l a ~ s eBehavior Using Finite Element Analvsis, SAE International
Congress & Exposition, paper no. 92039 1, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.. and
Fujikikou Company, Ltd., (February, 1992), pp. 1-9.
[ 131. Omar, T. A.. Eskartdarian, A., Bedewi, N. E., Crash Analvsis of Two Vehicles in
Frontal Impact Usine Ada~tiveArtificial Neural Networks, Crashworthiness and
Occupant Protection in Transportation Systems - 1998 (annual meeting of
American Society of Mechanical Engineers), FHWANHTSA National Crash
Analysis Center, The George Washington University, VA (November 1W 8 ) ,
pp. 1 15- 129.
[ 131. Pries, H., Sinnhuber, R., Zobel, R.,The C h a n e i n ~Rote of Crash Simulation for
Crashworthiness Desim of Passenger Cars, iMechE (Institution of Mechanical
Engineers) Serninar Publication on Automotive Passenger Safety, paper no.
C498/32/ l87/95, Voikswagen AG, Gerrnany, (November 1995). pp.7 1 -78.
(141. Bennett. J. A., Lust, R-V., Wang, J.T., Ovtimal Design Strate~iesin
Crashworthiness and O c c u ~ a nProtection,
t Crashworthiness and Occupant
Protection in Transportation Systems - 199 1 (annual meeting of American Society
of Mechanical Engineers), Department of Engineering Mechanics. General
.Motors Research Laboratories, Warren Michigan (December 199 1 ), pp.5 1-66.
[15]. Saha, N. K., Mahadevan, S. K., Midoun, D. E., Yang, J. S., Finite Element
Structure-Dummv Svstem Mode1 for Side Irn~actSimulation, Crashworthiness
and Occupant Protection in Transportation Systems - 199 1 (annual meeting of
American Society of Mechanical Engineers), Vehicie Systems CAE, P&MS Car
Product Equipment, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Michigan (December 199 1 ),
pp. 1 69- 179.
[16]. Scott Lui, D. S., Vehicle Rear Barries Impact Simulation bv using Nonlinear
Finite Element Av~roach,Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection in
Transportation Systems - 1991 (annual meeting of Arnerican Society of
Mechanical Engineers), CPC Engineering General Motors Corporation, Warren
Michigan, (December 199 1 ), pp.207-2 15.
[ 1 71. BeIytschko, T., On Com~utationalMethods for Crashworthiness, Proceedings of
the Seventh International Con ference on Vehicle Structural Mechanics (SAE
conference), p a p a no. 880893, Depts. of Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Northwestern University, (April l988), pp.83-92.
[18]. Weinhold. V., Baccouche, M. R., Hasan, A., Crash Enernv Management
- of
Alurninum Comuonents, Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection in
Transponation Systems - 1998 (annual meeting of American Society of
Mechanical Engineers), Ford Motor Company, Alternative Fuel Vehicle Centre
(AFV), (November 1998), pp. 17-29.
[19]. Rowberry, P. J., Imuact Management and Passenger Safetv, TMechE (Institution
of iblechanicai Engineers) Seminar Publication on Automotive Passenger Safety,
paper no. C498/l8/CW/W, Warwick Manufacturing Group, United Kingdom.
(November 1 9 9 3 , pp.23-30.
[20]. Fan, W. R. S., A Simule. Practical Method of Assessin~rFoam Padding Materials

for Head Impact Protection, Passenger Cornfort, Convenience and Safety: Test
Tools and Procedures (SAE symposium), paper no. 860 199, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, (February 1986), pp. 107- 121 .
[ 2 11. Gillespie, T. D., Fundamentals of Vehicle Dvnamics, Society of Automotive

Engineers, Inc. (Publications Group), Wurendale PA., ( l992), pp.309-334.
[XI. Chou, C. C., Wu, F., GU, L., Wu, S. R., A Review of Mathematical Models for
Rollover Simulations, Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection in Transportation
Systems - 1998 (annual meeting of American Society of Mechanical Engineers),
Safety and Biomechanics CAE Department. Ford Motor Company, (November
1998), pp.223-239.
[23]. Bathe, K., Cmsh Simulation of Cars with FEA, Mechanical Engineering,
(November 1998), pp.82-83.
[24]. Neathery, R., Analvsis of Chest Impact Response Data and Scaled Performance
Recommendations, Hybrid III: The First Human-Like Crash Test Dummy (SAE
Publication), paper no. 74 1 188, General Motors Research Laboratories ( 1994),
pp.255-27 1.
[ 2 5 ] . Bacon, D., The Effect of Restraint Design and Seat Position on the Crash
, Hybrid m:The First Human-Like Crash Test
Dummy (SAE Publication), paper no. 896052, Motor Industry Research
Association, Crash Protection Centre (1994), pp.64 1-647.
[XI. Wismans. J., Herrnans, J., Madymo 3D Simulations of Hvbrid iIi D u m m ~Sled
Tests. Hybrid m:The First Human-Like Crash Test Dummy (SAE Publication).
paper no. 880645, TNO Road-Vehicles Research Institute (1994). pp.735-744.
Obergefell, L., Kaleps, I., Steele, S., Part 572 and Hvbrid Ui Dummv Cornparison
Sled Test Simulations, Hybrid JII: The First Human-Like Crash Test Dummy
(SAE Publication), paper no. 880639, Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratories and Systems Research Laboratories ( 1994). pp.76 1-776.
Le, J., Yang, K., Finite Element Modeling of Hvbrid Di Head-Neck Cornplex,
Hybrid DI: The First Human-Like Crash Test Dummy (SAE Publication), paper
no. 922526, Wayne State University ( l994), pp.777-79 1.
Barbat. S. D., Jeong, H., Prasad, P., Finite Element Modeline and Development of
the Deformable Featureless Headform and Its Apvlication to Vehicle Interior
Head Impact Testinq, an SAE special publication - Technologies for Occupant
Protection Assessment. paper no.960 104, Ford Motor Company and EASi
Engineering, ( 1W6), pp.6 1-69.
Kanno, Y., Masuda, M., Matsuoka, F., Evaluations of the Recommended New
Parts for the Hvbrid IiI D u m m ~- Neck Shield and Hio Joint, an S A E special
publication - Technologies for Occupant Protection Assessment, paper no.960450.
Toyota Motor Company, ( 1 W6), pp.77-87.
Wamer, C. Y., Wille, M. G., Brown, S. R., Nilsson, S., Mellander H., Kock, M..
A Load Sensing Face Form for Automotive CoIIision Crash Dummv
Instrumentation, Passenger Comfort, Convenience and Safety: Test Tools and
Procedures (SAE symposium), paper no. 860197, Collision Safety Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering Dept., Brigham Young University, and Volvo Car
Corporation, (February 1986), pp.85-94.
Ziarco, T., Column Anrrle se tu^ for the NS Steering Wheet, (personai
communication) Chrysler Technology Center (CTC), Chrysler Corporation. (May
1998).
Paonessa, S., persona1 communication, (May 1998).
DeVries, T., persona1 communication with Chrysler TechnoIogy Center (CTC)

engineering staff, (March 1998).
Altenhof, W. J., CaIibration R e ~ o r DeaIina

t with Impact Velocitv Versus
Heieht for Im~actTestinp Machine, K.S. Centoco Ltd., Windsor,
Ontario, Canada (June 1998), 5 pages.
Beer. F. P., Johnston, R. E. Jr., Vector Mechanics For En~ineers- Dvnamics, 3"'
Edition, McGraw-Hill Inc., Toronto, (1999), pp.796-799.
Shigley, J . E.,Mischke, C . R., Mechanical Eneineerin~Desian, Fifth Edition,

Table A-5. Phvsical Constants of Materials, McGraw-Hill Inc., Toronto, ( 1989),
pp.729.
LS-DYNA Kevword User's Manual v.940, Livermore Software Technology

Corporation, Livermore, California, U.S.A., (June 1997), pp. 19.155- 19.158.
Du Bois, P.A., CRASH - Advanced LS-DYNA Crashworthiness Course, heId at

Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Liverrnore, Cal ifornia, U.S .A.,
(June 1998), 1 page.
Jones, N., Structural I m ~ a c tCambridge

, University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom, ( 1997), pp.349.
Altenhof, W. J., Paonessa, S., Gaspar, R., Zamani, N., I m ~ a c tSimulation with
Exoerimental Verification of a Chestform For Use in Standardized Steering
Wheel Impact Testing Procedures, 5" International LS-DYNA User's Conference,
Southfield, Mich., (September 1W8), 10 pages.
Beiytschko. T., Non-Linear Finite Element Analvsis Short Course, Pa10 Alto,
California, U.S.A., (December 1997). 1 pape.
Kennedy. J., LS-DYNA Customized In-House Training Course, KBS2 Inc., Burr
Ridge, nlinois, U.S.A., (October 1997). 1 page.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation, LS-DYNA Kevword User's

Manual version 940, (June 1997), pp. 13.2.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation, LS-DYNA Theoretical Manual,

(May 1 W8), pp.23.S.
APPENDIX A
Resolution of the Measuring Devices Used in this Investigation

RESOLUTION OF THE MEASURING DEVICES USED IN THIS
INVESTIGATION
An electronic mass scale and the steering wheel impact testing machine are the
only two devices utilized in this investigation for experimental measurernents.
Electronic Mass Scale

M a s s:
0.00 1 kilograms
Steerino Wheel I m ~ a cTestino

t Machine
Time (High Speed Data Acquisition Card):

0.000328 seconds
Length, Position (Linear Variable Differential Transformer):

0.00 12 inches
Force, Load (Triaxial Load Cell):

X-Axis -2.t74tbf
Y-Axis -2.1041bf
2-Axis - 1.586 1bf
Acceleration (Accelerometers):
Pelvis (Accelerometer # 1 ) - 0.0526 g's
Head (Acceler~meter#2) - 0.0548 gTs
Shoulder (Accelerometer #3) - 0.054 I gTs
APPENDK B
Data Acquired and Calculated for Each Experimental Test Conducted

FORMAT OF APPENDIX B
The data from experirnental tests is presented in tabular format. The first column
indicates the test number (which varies from 1 to 420). The remaining columns present
the measured and calculated observations from each test. There are 23 columns of
observations which cannot be presented in the width of a single page. Thus, multiple
oroupings of approximateiy 4 columns of observations are presented for each test

t
repeatedly to properly present the experimental data with a corresponding test # for each
experimental ly measured or calculated observation.

Drap Hcight (in) :mpact Vclociiy (mph) Wheei Angle (deg) Fite Name
30 O augû698.005
30 O aug 1398.036
30 O aug 1 098.065
30 O aug 1 298.005
30 O aug 1098.03 1
30 O aug0698.038
30 O aug 1098.023
3O O aug 1098.0 17
30 O aug 1098.0 16
30 O aug0798.0 15
30 30 aug 1498.0 1 8
3O 3O aug 1598.0 1 2
3O 30 aug 1798.077
3O 30 aug0898.0 1 8
30 3O aug 1 798.020
30 3O aug 1 898.005
3O 30 aug1098.05 1
3O 30 aug1098.046
3O 3O aug IO98.W 1
30 30 aug 1098.037
3O 60 aug0898.0 19
30 60 aug l798.025
30 60 aug 1498.04I
30 60 aug 1798.076
30 60 aug1798.019
30 60 aug 1 798.085
30 60 aug 1398.0 17
30 60 aug 1 598.038
3O 60 augO898.0 1 3
30 60 aug 1598.033
30 90 aug l498.045
3O 90 aug 1898.006
30 90 aug0798.004
30 90 aug 1598.027
3O 90 aug 1 898.007
30 90 aug 1798.066
30 90 aug 1298.0 10
30 90 aug 1498.028
3O 90 aug 1498.057
30 90 aug0698.0 16
30 1 20 aug 1798.039
30 I 20 aug 1398.018
30 120 aug I498.035
3O 120 aug0698.050
30 1 20 aug I798.038
30 1 20 aug 1898.008
30 120 aug 1598.008
3O 1 20 aug 1298.019
3O 120 aug 1798.0I O
30 120 aug l398.OIO
Drop Height (in Impact Vclocity (mph) Wheel Angle (deg 2olumn Angle (dep)
d File N a m
3O 8 150 15 aug 1798.033
30 8 150 IS aug0698.028
3O 8 1 50 21 aug 1398.013
3O 8 150 24 aug 1598.0 1 8
30 8 150 27 aug 1898.0 1 2
30 8 150 30 aug 1398.031
30 8 1 50 33 aug 1798.065
30 8 1 50 36 aug 1498.0 1 3
30 8 150 39 aug0898.032
30 8 150 42 aug0898.005
30 8 180 15 aug 1398.030
30 8 180 18 aug 1 498.060
30 8 180 21 aug 1 798.06 1
30 8 180 24 aug0898.034
30 8 180 27 aug 1 398.050
30 8 180 30 aug 1498.0 1 7
30 8 I8O 33 aug 1 798.050
3O 8 180 36 augû798.021
3O 8 I8O 39 aug 1498.039
30 8 180 42 aug 1 598.022
37 9 O 15 aug0698.024
37 9 O 18 aug 1 598.029
37 9 O 21 aug 1O98.063
37 9 O 24 aug 1 298.006
37 9 O 27 aug 1 098.032
37 9 O 30 aug0898.0 10
37 9 O 33 aug 1098.024
37 9 O 36 aug 1098.0 18
37 9 O 39 aug0798.0 14
37 9 O 42 aug1098.007
37 9 30 15 aug0698.056
37 9 30 18 aug1598.013
37 9 30 21 aug1798.078
37 9 30 24 aug 1 398.005
37 9 30 37 aug 1798.02 1
37 9 30 30 aug0798.009
37 9 30 33 aug 1098.052
37 9 30 36 aug lO98.W7
37 9 30 39 aug 1098.W2
37 9 30 42 aug0698.029
37 9 60 15 aug1298.018
37 9 60 18 aug 1798.026
37 9 60 21 aug l498.OU
37 9 60 24 aug 1 798.075
37 9 60 27 aug0898.028
37 9 60 30 aug 1 798.086
37 9 60 33 aug 1398.016
37 9 60 36 aug 1598.037
37 9 60 39 aug0698.02 1
37 9 60 42 aug 1598.032
37
-
k o p Hcight (in) Impact Vclocity (rnph) Whecl Annle (deg) Zolumn Angle (deg)
90
File Narne
aug1498.W8
aug I798.ûû7
aug 1798.08 1
aug 1598.026
aug 1398.022
aug 1798.067
aug0698.036
aug1498.030
aug 1498.056
aug 1 398.W8
augO898.035
aug 1398.02 1
aug lJ98-034
aug 1898.0 10
aug0698.006
aug 1398.W
aug 1 598.007
aug 1 898.0 1 1
aug 1798.0 1 1
aug 1898.009
aug0698.0 12
aug 1598.040
aug 1398.01 1
augl 598.01 7
aug0698.054
aug 1498.05 1
aug 1 798.064
aug 1498.012
aug 1498.002
aug 1 298.0 14
aug 1 398.029
aug0698.030
aug 1798.060
aug 1798.047
augO898.040
aug 1 J98.OO7
aug 1798.05 1
aug0698.0 15
aug 1498.040
aug 1 598.02 1
aug i 498.008
aug 1598.028
aug 1598.030
aug 1298.007
aug0698.0 1 1
aug 1098.029
aug 1098.025
aug 1098.019
aug 1098.01 5
aug 1098.008
Jrop Height (in) Wheel Angle (dcg) File Name
42 aug 1498.019
aug 1598.01 1
aug0698.047
aug 1398.007
aug 1798.022
augOS98.022
aug1098.053
aug 1098.048
aug0698.05 1
aug1098.038
aug 1298.016
aug I798.027
aug0898-006
aug 1798.074
aug 1798.01 8
aug 1798.087
aug0698.007
aug 1598.035
augû898.029
aug1598.03 1
aug 1498.049
aug0798.020
aug 1798.082
augl 598.025
aug1398.025
aug 1798.O68
aug1798.038
aug0698.034
aug1498.052
augI 398.037
aug0898.024
aug 1398.019
aug1498.033
aug0798.005
aug 1798.037
aug 1398.042
aug 1598.005
aug 1298.020
aug1798.012
aug0698.043
aug 1798.032
aug1598.039
aug 1 298.023
aug 1 598.0 14
aug0798.0 1 3
aug 1 398.032
aug 1798.063
aug0698.026
aug1498.00 1
aug1298.0 15
42
-
Drop Heipht (in) Zolumn Angle (deg)
15
42 aug0898.025
42 aug 1798.O59
42 aug 1798.046
42 aug0698.0 19
42 aug 1498.015
32 aug 1798.052
42 aug 1298.025
42 aug 1498.038
42 aug0898.0 15
50 aug 1498.0 10
50 aug0798.0 18
50 aug 1098.064
50 aug 1298.008
50 aug 1O98.033
50 augO698.03 1
50 aug 1098.026
50 aug I098.020
50 aug1098.014
5O aug1098.009
50 aug0798.023
50 aug 1598.009
50 aug 1798.080
50 aug 1 398.006
50 aug 1 798.023
5O aug0698.0 1 3
50 aug 1098.054
50 aug0698.039
50 aug 1098.043
50 aug 1098.039
50 aug 1898.01 3
50 aug1798.028
50 aug1498.042
50 aug0798.008
50 aug 1798.017
5O aug 1798.088
50 aug 1398.0 14
50 aug 1598.036
50 aug 1798.O55
50 aug0698.023
50 aug 1498.046
50 aug 1 798.008
50 aug 1798.083
50 aug 1598.024
50 aug0698.045
50 aug 1798.069
50 aug 1 798.049
50 augO898.011
50 aug 1498.054
50 aug 1 398 -046
Drop Height (in] Impact V e l o c c Column Angle (dcg) File Name
50 I1 15 aug 1 798.040
I8 augO698.0 17
21 aug 1498.03 1
24 augO898.0 16
27 aug 1798.036
30 aug 1398.015
33 aug0798.02 1
36 aug 1898.0 16
39 aug 1798.013
42 aug0898.037
IS aug 1798.03 1
18 aug0698.043
2I aug 1298.024
24 aug0698-008
27 aug 1898.0 19
30 aug 1498.050
33 aug0798.0 17
36 aug1498.011
39 aug l498.W
42 aug 1298.0 13
I5 aug 1398.028
18 aug 1498.059
21 aug0698.008
24 aug 1798.045
27 aug0898.03 1
30 aug 1498.005
33 aug 1798.053
36 aug 1298.027
39 aug0798.0I0
42 aug 1 598.020
15 aug0798.0I 2
I8 aug 1 398.035
21 augO698.020
24 aug 1 298.009
27 aug 1098.034
30 aug 1098.005
33 aug 1098.027
36 aug 1098.021
39 aug 1098.01 3
42 aug 1098.0 10
15 aug 1498.02 1
18 aug0898.0 12
21 aug 1798.079
24 aug0898.038
27 aug 1798.024
30 aug0698.035
33 aug 1098.055
36 aug 1098.049
39 aug lO98.O4.(
32 aug0698.OW
Drop Height (in: impact Velocity (mph File Name
59 12 aug 1898.014
59 12 aug 1 798.029
59 12 aug0798.0 1 6
59 12 aug 1798.073
59 12 aug 1798.016
59 12 aup0698.042
59 12 aug 1 398.0 I 5
59 12 aug I598.034
59 12 aug 1798.056
59 12 aug0898.007
59 12 aug 1498.037
59 12 augû898.0 14
59 12 aug 1798.084
59 12 augM98.027
59 12 aug 1398.023
59 12 aug 1798.070
59 12 aug 1298.0 1 1
59 12 aug 1498.029
59 12 aug 1498.055
59 12 augO898.02 1
59 12 ciug 1798.03 1
59 12 aug 1398.020
59 12 aug0698.037
59 1s aug 1898.020
59 12 aug 1798.035
59 12 aug 1 398.033
59 12 aug0898.023
59 12 aug 1298.02 I
59 12 aug 1798.013
59 12 aug I398.OO8
59 12 aug0798.O06
59 12 aug 1598.04 1
59 12 aug 1398.012
59 12 aug 1598.0 16
59 12 aug0898.036
59 12 aug 1398.033
59 12 aug0698.025
59 12 aug1498.0 14
59 12 aug 1398.05 1
59 12 aug0798.0 19
59 12 aug 1898.0 15
59 12 aug 1498.058
59 12 aug 1798.058
59 12 aug 1798.044
59 12 aug0698.046
59 12 aug1498.016
59 12 aug 1798.054
59 12 aug 1 898.02 1
59 12 aug 1498.036
59 12 aug0898.026
Drop Heipht (in) File Narne
aug I498.OO9
aug 1398.034
aug 1098.062
aug0698.0 14
aug 1O98.035
aug 1O98.030
aug 1098.028
aug 1098.022
aug 1098.012
aug 1O98.O 1 1
aug 1498.020
aug 1598.0 10
aug0798.022
aug 1098.059
aug 1098.060
aug 1 098.058
aug 1098.056
aug 1098.050
aug 1O98.045
aug 1O98-040
aug 1 298.0 17
aug0698.038
aug 1498.M3
aug 1798.072
aug 1798.015
aug0698.0 18
aug 1098.06 1
aug0898.0 17
aug 1O98.057
aug 1098.036
aug0898.033
aug 1 798.009
aug0698.030
aug 1598.023
aug 1398.024
aug 1798.07 1
aug 1298.0 12
aug0898.009
aug 1498.053
aug0898.039
aug 1798.042
aug0698.052
aug IWl.033
aug0898.027
aug 1 798.03 4
aug0698.0 10
aug 1598.006
aug 1898.017
aug0898.030
aug 1 398.009
Drop Hcight (in: Impact Velocity (mph) Wheel Anple (dep Zolumn Angle de,^) File Name
68 13 1 50 15 aug 1798.030
68 13 150 18 aug0798.0 I 1
68 13 150 21 aug 1 298.022
68 13 150 24 aug 1598.015
68 13 150 27 aug 1898.018
68 13 150 30 augû698.03 1
68 13 150 33 aug 1798.062
65 13 150 36 aug 1 898.022
68 13 150 39 aug 1498.003
68 13 150 42 augO798-007
68 13 180 15 aug 1398.027
68 13 180 18 augû698.022
68 13 180 21 aug 1798.057
68 13 180 24 aug 1798.043
68 13 180 27 aug1398.049
68 13 180 30 aug 1498.006
68 13 180 33 aug0698.055
68 13 180 36 aug 1 298.026
68 13 180 39 aug 1398.037
68 13 1 80 42 au21598.019
Test
- ?eak Zload (Ibf Min X Load (lbf Max X Load (lbf vIin Y Load (Ibf Max Y Load (Ibf
1 1844.2263 -42.979 1 126.0866 - 157.4456 742.1858
2 1523.972 -272.502 377.6356
3 1456.6652 -262.4093 492.3645
4 1524.972 -250.298 1 553.233
5 803.OW -43 1.966 2 16.7245
6 1 000.2507 40.0402 197-7874
7 6 16.8004 468.2996 244.078 1
8 590.409 1 -5 10.6888 239.8699
9 615.248 -56 1 -262 248.2864
10 599.7237 -540.9668 250.3905
I1 1566.8877 -163.5012 406.0955
12 1393.0 155 -246.26 1 422.9285
13 1293.6599 -254.335 1 3 17.7224
14 1 1 88.0947 -264.4278 277.744 1
15 1098.0537 -258.3722 189.371
16 1077.8722 -3 12.8726 153.6009
17 840.3503 -322.9653 20 1.9957
18 705.2889 -357.2803 227.245 1
19 708.3938 -363.3359 235.66 I6
20 683 -5549 4 0 3 .YO66 248.2864
21 1323.1561 -232.13 I3 248.2864
22 1382.1484 -205.8904 328.243
23 1056.1382 -379.3842 140.9762
24 872.95 14 -387.5583 151 -4968
25 796.8823 -405.725 1 147.2885
26 848.1 125 -359.2989 210.4122
27 849.6649 -387.5583 210.4122
28 900.895 1 -349.2062 223.0369
29 10 18.8798 -264.4278 296.68 12
30 986.2788 -276.539 252.4946
31 1327.8 134 -532.8927 2 18.8287
32 1285.8978 -58 I .5847 172.538
33 1 130.6548 -650.68 17 1 85.1627
34 1 163.8082 -597.8428 1 62.0 174
35 1 173-1228 -628.3268 183.0586
36 1276.5833 -697.4238 204.0998
37 1330.9 I83 -630.359 1 237.7657
38 1388.3582 -608. W 2 237.7657
39 1591 -8065 -799.037 473.4274
40 1551 -3634 -500.5962 313.5141
31 1647.8998 -583.6 I69 191.4751
42 1 579.34 13 -618.1655 140.9762
43 1503.238 -616.1332 197.7874
44 1371.2815 -642.5526 204.0998
45 1447.3506 -644.5849 227.245 1
46 1497.0283 -673.0366 286.1606
47 1529.6293 -650.68 17 326.1389
48 I 602.7 136 -58 1 S847 364.0 1 3 1
49 1542.0488 -5 10.6888 326.1389
50 1721.1327 -709-6174 61 3.537
Test I Min-X Load (Ibf Max X Load (Ibf: Min Y Load (lbf Max Y Load (Ibf
d
51 -55.8729 1 10.8693 -585.6492 189.371

52 15.2 173 1 17.391
53 O 123.9 127
54 -17.1917 128.2605
55 -58.02 18 160.869 1
56 -27.9364 I4 1.304
57 -30.0854 149-9996
58 -36.5323 136.956 1
59 4.3478 128.2605
60 10.8695 108.6954
61 -25.7875 121.7388
62 8.6956 171.7386
63 2.1739 158.6952
64 O 154.3474
65 - 10.7448 145.6518
66 6.52 17 154.3474
67 26.0869 154.3474
68 15.2 173 165.2169
69 19.5652 132.6083
70 8.6956 147.8257
71 - 19.3406 117.391
72 -38.68 12 97.8258
73 -25 -7875 126.0866
74 -27.9364 1 19.5649
75 19.5652 1 13.0432
76 19.5652 121.7388
77 34.7825 123.9127
78 26.0869 121.7388
79 26.0869 121.7388
80 45.652 132.6083
81 - 128-9374 167-3908
82 -141.831 1 91.3041
83 - 180.5 124 130.4344
84 - 148.278 1 63 .O43
85 -206.2998 171.7386
86 - 197.704 95-6519
87 -208.4488 1 19.5649
88 -22 1.3425 78.2607
89 -25 1 -4279 84.7824
90 - 180.5 124 84.7824
91 -234.2363 91.3041
92 -2 14.8957 115.2171
93 -227.7894 123.9 127
94 -277.2 154 91.3041
95 -3 18.0456 1 1 3.0432
96 -339.5352 84.7824
97 -363.1737 67.39 1 1
98 -350.2799 78.2607
99 -326.64 14 80.4346
1 O0 -300.8539 82.6085
Min X Load (Ibn Max X Load (Ibfl Min Y toad (IbC Max Y Load (Ibn
- 152-5759 89.1302 -563.2943
- 197.704 IOS.1736 -573.4556
-75.2 135 130.4344 -835.6 178
-1OI.001 104-3475 -82 1.392
-79.5 1 14 115.2171 -786.8434
-73.0645 102.1736 -868.134
-68.7666 1 10.8693 -734.0046
-45.128 1 89.1302 -884.3932
-96.703 1 10.8693 -977.8764
-8 1.6604 1 19.5649 - 1030.7153
-85.9583 195.6516 -744.1659
-38.68 12 130.4344 -73 1.9723
- 10.7448 1 10.8693 -764.4885
6-5217 126.0866 -829.52 1
-I9.3406 171.7386 -760.424
8.6956 1 17-391 -890.489
4.3478 149.9996 -845.7792
4.3478 l67.3908 -770.5853
6.52 17 178.2604 -807.1661
- 12.8937 226.0863 -750.2627
- 135.3843 128.2605 -825.4565
6.53 17 102.1 736 -57 1.4233
2.1739 I 17.391 -597.8428
-8.5958 134.7822 -589.7 1 37
-25.7875 145.65 1 8 -538.9483
-6.4469 176.0865 -559.2297
-25.7875 167-3908 -605.971 9
-27.9364 158-6952 -563.2943
-8.5958 14 1.304 -583.6 169
32.6086 173-9126 -466.28 1 1
30.8302 123.9 127 -589.7 137
- 12.8937 180.4343 -498.5776
- 19.XO6 182.6082 -498.5776
10.8695 215.2168 -532.8927
4.3478 160.8691 -583.6 169
-2.149 163.O43 -597.8428
34.7825 180.4343 -620,1977
15.2173 143.4779 -540.9668
23.913 171.7386 -658.8 107
6.52 17 180-4343 -551.1007
-47.277 130.4344 -205.8904
-2 1.4896 99.9997 -224.0571
- 19.3406 115.2171 -302.7799
45.128 1 1 28.2605 -290.6687
- 12.8937 132.6083 -262.4093
21.7391 128-2605 -549.0684
30.4347 1 10.8693 -538.9483
17.3913 108-6954 -583.6 169
30.4347 134.7822 -569.39 1 1
39.1303 152.1735 -689.2947
Min X Load (lbf
-161.1718 1 10.8693
.
Max X Load (Ibf klin Y Load (Ibf Max Y Load (Ibf
- 195.7977 597.4559
Test 4 >cak ZIoad (Ibf Min X Load (lbf, Max X Load (Ibf Min Y Load (Ibf: Max Y L o d (Ibf
20 1 200 1-599 -2 1.4896 143.4779 -675.0688 250.3905
202 203 1.2039
203 1928.3662
204 191 1.2266
205 1 820.854 1
206 1769.4352
207 1456.6652
20 8 I400.7776
209 1329.3658
2 10 1441.1409
21 1 1836.4355
212 1699.3186
213 1 743.5049
214 1752.2957
2 15 1478.3992
216 1560.678
217 1285.8978
2 18 1245.5347
219 1250.1919
220 1222.2482
22 1 1623.5276
---
773 1 64 t .6672
223 164 1.6672
224 1661.9231
225 1551.3634
226 1638.5509
227 1433.931 2
228 1 122.8926
229 1 146.1791
230 936.60 1
23 1 1540.4963
232 1524.972
233 1434.93 1 2
234 1406.9873
235 1349.5475
236 885.3708
237 89 1.5806
238 939.7059
239 1029.7468
240 1068.5576
24 I 1479.9515
232 1635.4347
24 3 1397.6727
244 1278.1356
24 5 1303.527
246 1 3 18.4988
237 1394.5679
248 1465.9797
249 1 590.2484
250 1 696.2024
Test r Peak Zload (Ibf Min X Load (ibf Max X Load (Ibf Min Y Load (Ibf Max Y Load (Ibf
25 1 1842.668 1 - 13 1 .O864 104.3475 -876.263 1 389.2625
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
26 I
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
369
270
27 1
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
28 1
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
29 1
292
29 3
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
Max X Load (Ibf Min Y Load (Ibf Max Y Load (Ibf
108.6954 - 175.6 124 427.1 367
123.9127 454.4903
86.9563 39 1 -3666
147.8257 389.2625
1 2 1.7388 35 1.3883
158.6952 305.0977
69.565 31 1.41
84.7824 338.7636
84.7824 332.45 12
84.7824 43 1.3449
7 1.7389 469.2 19 1
126.0866 286. i 606
121.7388 3 17.7224
141.304 330-3471
178.2604 288.2647
191.3038 385.0543
160.8691 416.6161
202.1734 368.22 1 3
182.6082 4 12.4079
206.52 1 2 549.2 127
12 1.7388 498.6768
134.7822 225.14 1
186.956 28 1 -9523
1 80.4343 239.8699
208.695 1 256.7029
243.4776 279.8482
32 1.7382 380.846
39 I .3033 385 -05.13
369.5642 35 1 -3883
408.6945 454.4903
156.52 13 523.0809
156.52 1 3 197.7874
184.7821 244.078 1
228.2602 256.7029
289.1296 309.3059
243.4776 3 17.7224
239.1298 368.2213
186.956 35 1.3883
199.9994 364.0 13 1
249.9993 5 17.0505
204.3473 332.45 ! 2
2 19.5646 191.4751
193.4777 260.9 1 1 1
234.782 235.66 16
226.0863 296.68 1 2
2 17.3907 286.1606
247,8254 330.347 1
249.9993 35 1.3883
247.8254 43 1.3449
336.9556 509.O 1
-
Tcst Peak Zload (Ibf Min X b a d (Ibf Min Y Load (Ibf Max Y Load (Ibf
35 1 2003.1572 -96.703 -300.76 14 1 156.2738
352 2 191.6929 -36.5323 774.348
353 2325.6936 -23.6385 7 14.0439
354 2236.8792 - 10.7448 776.358 1
355 241 1.3916 -98.852 498.6768
356 2465.9268 -105.2989 51 1.0201
357 2303 3794 -94.554 1 399.783 1
358 2O98.20J 1 -83.8093 332.45 12
359 2205.7 163 -32.2344 347.180 1
360 1900.3196 2.1739 374.5337
36 1 1947.064 -229.9384 8 12.5405
362 1984.4595 - 148.278 555.243 1
363 2095.O879 - 174.0655 573.3344
364 2 1 35.5996 -146.1291 437.6573
365 22 16.6233 -189.1082 502.885 1
366 2 144.9485 -206.2998 565.2938
367 2098.204 1 -202.00 19 450.282
368 2042. I 1 08 -208.4488 309.3059
369 1 965-7617 -2 17.0446 309.3059
370 2040.5527 -253.5769 338.7636
37 1 1800.5981 -328.7904 465.0109
372 1735.156 -352.4289 427.1367
373 1724.249 -296.556 458.6985
374 1722.6908 -3 18.0456 494.4686
375 1627.6439 -328.7904 496.5727
376 1608.9462 -384.6632 345.076
377 14 10.0922 -376.0674 302.9935
378 1037.509 -406.1528 4 10.3037
379 1 1 18.2354 -4 10.4507 376.6378
380 1 175.6753 3 2 1 .1955 387.1584
38 1 1 633.8765 -378.2 164 460.8026
382 1647.8998 -4 14.7486 427.1367
383 i 574.6669 -236.3852 333.5554
384 1453.5603 -240.6832 290.3688
385 I353.5603 -232.0873 378.74 19
386 1436.4835 -257.8748 108.1996
387 1430.2738 -257.8748 47 1.3233
388 1693.0861 -270.7686 450.282
389 1633.8765 -296.556 425.0326
390 1890.9707 -294.307 1 677.86 14
39 1 1954.8546 -225-6405 645.6992
392 1903.4358 - 109.5968 374.5337
393 1 947.064 - 139.6822 298.7853
394 1903.4358 -55.8729 357.7007
395 1926.808 -45.1281 338.7636
396 1900.3196 -36.5323 366.1 172
397 1845.7844 - 10.7448 382.9502
398 1962.6454 8.6956 364.0 13 1
399 2028.0875 -73.0645 5 19.0607
JO0 305 1.4597 -34.3833 553.233
Min X Load (Ibf Max X Load (lbf Min Y Load (Ibf: Max Y Load (Ibf:
- 1 3 1 .O864 156.521 3 - 1238.0063 467.1 15
-55.8729 232.608 265.1 193
-77.3624 223.9 124 300.8893
-36.5323 282.6079 290.3688
2.1739 234.782 284.0564
26.0869 315.2165 433.449 1
-2.149 249.9993 359.8048
O 22 1.7385 374.5337
-17.1917 27 1.7384 395.5749
-6.4469 273.9 1 23 579.3647
-75.21 35 234.782 498.6768
-75.2 135 19 1.3038 706,0033
-75.2 135 215.2168 3 19.8265
-55.8729 245.65 15 347.1 801
-85.9583 197.8255 294.577
-96.703 254.347 1 309.3059
- IO5.2989 269.5645 467.1 15
-62.3 197 308.6948 435.5532
-101.001 258.6949 420.8243
-45.128 1 293.4774 500.78 1
Test I ?cak Displacement (withou Peak Displacement Min Head Max Head Min Shouldei
I 5.766 1
-
including page) (in) ( i n c l u d i n g m Accel. (pS) Acccl. (p's) Accel. ( g S )
5.266 1 -1.809 1 20.7768 -0.333
2 7.607 1 7.1071 -5.482 15.4034 -0.7577
3 8-2158 7.7 158 -5.2627 17.9809 -0.6495
4 7.8 129 7.3 129 -5.3 !75 18.6388 -0.7036
5 9-3617 8.86 17 - 1.8639 14.6917 -0.2 165
6 8.7259 8.2259 -0.4934 8.8808 -0.3247
7 8.99 16 8.49 16 -0.2 193 14.1984 0.2 165
8 9.1 145 8.6 145 -0.0548 14.6917 -0.1O82
9 8.7759 8.2759 -0.1096 9.5935 -0.054 1
1O 8.4387 7.9387 -0.274 1 10.963 0.054 1
II 6.22 12 5.7212 -6.2495 14.5273 - 1.2989
12 7.0942 6.5942 -5.756 1 15.5689 -1.5154
13 7.82 7.32 -3.3988 13.047 1 - 1.353
14 8.340 1 7.840 1 -4.1663 14.2532 -0.7036
15 8.2558 7.7558 -2.9603 1 1.9507 -0.7036
16 8.4 101 7.9101 -3.6181 1 3.8694 -0.6495
17 8.7287 8.2287 -3.1247 14.2532 -0.7036
1S 8.520 1 8.020 1 -1.0416 1 3.7598 -0.2165
19 8.5101 8.0101 -0.7675 1 3.5953 -0.2165
20 8.35 15 7.85 15 -0.2 193 1 1.1284 0
21 6.59 13 6.09 13 -7.3459 16.0622 - 1 .84O 1
--
33 6.374 1 5.874 1 -7.4007 16.3363 - 1.353
23 7.1528 6.6528 4.8242 12.2248 -0.3247
24 7.33 14 6.83 14 - 1 -206 9.0453 -0.487 1
25 6.9299 6.4299 -1.1512 8.66 16 -0.2165
26 7.1242 6.6232 -0.3837 1 1.3477 -0.5953
27 6.7942 6.2942 -0.6578 8.66 16 -0.433
25 6.7456 6.2356 -0.4934 9.8 128 -0.433
29 6.5298 6.0298 -0.6578 1 1.7315 -0.5953
3O 6-464 1 5.964 1 -0.5482 1 1.238 1 -0.54 1 2
31 5.8623 5.3623 -7.7844 14.6369 -0.6495
32 5.7263 5.2263 -9.6483 17.8165 -0.8659
33 5.8087 5.3087 -6.8525 17.7617 -0.333
34 5.7 125 5.2125 -0.603 1 3.376 1 -0.7577
35 5.7592 5.2592 -3.6181 14.6369 -0.920 1
36 5.8857 5.3857 -0.7675 15.9526 -0.7036
37 5.6355 5.1355 -0.93 I9 1 7.652 -0.54 1 2
38 5.6136 5.1 136 - 1-0416 13.6502 -0.7577
39 5.6603 5.1603 - 1 -2609 16.1719 -0.920 1
40 5.3909 4.8909 - 1 -3705 2 1 S442 -0.920 1
41 5.406 4.906 -4.879 16.0622 -0.9732
42 5.4307 4.9307 -6.4 139 16.5008 -0.5953
43 5.55 17 5.05 1 7 - 1 -0964 14.8014 -0.7036
44 5.4527 4.9527 -4.276 17.8713 -0.9742
45 5.7029 5.2029 -1.1512 14.9658 -0.9742
46 5.5599 5.0599 - 1.4253 16.1 171 -1.1907
47 5.3868 4.8868 - 1.4253 14.7466 -1.1907
48 5.4582 4.9582 -0.7 127 15.6785 -0.4871
49 5.3249 4.8249 -0.7 1 27 18.8032 -0.3788
50 5.4775 4.9775 -3.7826 18.9677 -2.0566
Tcst ?cak Displacernent (withou Peak Displacement Min Head Max Head Min Shouldei
including sape) (in) = ( i n c l u d $ a g e ) (in)
_. Accel. (g's) Accel. (g's)
51 4.9304 3.4304 - 1.5898 17.9809 -0.5953
52 -5.0983 15.6237 -0.5953
53 - 1 .O964 15.1851 -0.3788
54 -0.877 1 13.8694 -0.3247
55 - 1.6994 15.8978 -0.3788
56 -1.1512 1 3-7598 -0.3247
57 -0.6578 13.8146 -0.3247
58 -1.1512 1 3.5953 -0.3247
59 -2.52 17 1 5.5689 -0.9742
60 -2.63 14 13.8694 -0.7577
61 - 1.535 1 7.652 -0.8659
62 -0.6578 16.1 171 -0.487 1
63 -0.603 14.3628 -0.1624
64 -2.9603 14.91 1 -0.433
65 -0.5482 14.4725 -0.6495
66 -0.877 I 1 2.9923 -0.3788
67 -0.4386 15.2948 -0.54 1 2
68 -2.63 14 13.705 -0.8 1 1 8
69 -0.9868 12.6634 -0.7036
70 -2.9055 13.2664 -1.5154
71 -6.359 1 2 1 -0509 -0.5953
72 -5.8657 18.2002 -0.433
73 -5.5368 15.2399 -0.9742
71 -5.9754 1 5-4592 -0.8659
75 -0.4386 10.7995 -0.3247
76 -3.5085 16.2815 -0.6495
77 -0.2 193 7.894 1 O
78 -0.274 1 8.1682 -0.2165
79 -0.6578 9.758 -0.3788
80 -0.1645 13.21 16 O. 1 O82
81 -6.4 139 20.3382 - I .SUS
82 -6.5784 15.3496 - 1.6236
83 -4.4404 1 7.926 1 - 1 -786
84 -6.4688 1 8.0906 -0.920 1
85 -2.9055 12.8827 - 1.2448
86 -3.6729 13-4857 -0.5953
87 -0.8223 9.6483 -0.1624
88 -0.6578 8.66 16 O
89 -0.603 8.0037 -0.7036
90 -0.3837 8.4123 -0.054 1
91 -6.0302 13.102 -1.7319
92 -5.8657 15.4044 -1.7319
93 -6.5236 15.4592 - 1.6778
94 - 1.6994 10.25 1 3 -0.54 12
95 -1.535 9.9772 -0.54 1 2
96 -0.3289 9.8 128 -0.6495
97 -0.8223 1 1.5 122 -0.8659
98 -0.3837 1O. 1965 -0.8 1 18
99 -0.6578 15.843 -1.1907
1O0 -0.4386 14.4176 -0.487 1
Pcak Displacement (withot Peak Displacement Min Head Max Head blin Shoulde
including gage) (in) (including g a p ) (in) &cel.(& Acccl. (p's Accel. (g's)
6-3512 5-8512 -1 -3157 16.446 -0.9742
6.1841 5.684 1 -8.66 I6 20.94 12 -0.7577
6.7599 6.2599 -4.8242 17.5972 -0.920 1
6.3498 5.8498 -0.7675 15.6785 -0.7577
6.3055 5.8055 - 1.7542 15.3496 -0.54 12
6.2898 5.7898 -0.877 1 1 5.3496 -0.6495
6.0055 5.5055 -0.7 1 27 19.5159 -0.7577
6.0469 5.5469 - 1.809 1 14.5273 - 1.2448
6.044 1 5.544 1 - 1 -2609 20.1737 - 1.0824
6.1412 5.64 12 - 1.5898 19.5707 - 1.2989
5.9805 5.4805 -6. I398 19-I87 -1.1365
5.9572 5.4572 -1.0416 16.6653 -0.8659
6.0898 5,5898 -1.3 157 15.4592 - 1 -0283
6.1698 5.6698 -4.0567 16-2815 -0.9742
5.9297 5.4297 -9.4839 21.2701 -0.920 1
6.1241 5-6241 - 1 -6994 16.9942 - 1.0824
5.898 1 5.398 1 -I .9735 16.1719 - 1.2448
5.8802 5.3802 -1.9187 20.1 189 - 1.5695
5.821 1 5,321 1 - 1.809 1 17.9261 -1.1907
5.8238 5.3238 -3.3988 18.4733 -2.1 107
5.41 15 4.91 15 -16.1 171 32.4534 -2.1648
5.975 5.475 -0.877 1 17.1586 -0.54 12
5.9022 5.4022 -7.62 18.584 -0.8 1 I8
6.1369 5.6369 -0.9868 14.91 1 -0.3788
6.1041 5.604 1 -1.3157 1 8.6388 -0.5953
6.1612 5.66 12 -0.9868 14.2532 -0.487 1
6. I969 5.6969 -0.93 19 14.582 1 -0.3247
5.9902 5.4902 - 1 -3705 14.4725 -0.3758
6.1541 5.654 1 - 1.0964 1 5 -0207 -0.5953
6.0598 5.5598 -2.63 14 15.1303 -1.8401
5.7854 5.2854 -1.8091 19.7352 -0.9742
5.8 I83 5.3 I83 - 1 -4253 17.3779 -0.54 1 2
6.277 5.777 -0.6578 16.1 171 -0.487 I
6.1955 5.6955 -0.877 1 15.8978 -0.5953
6.5084 6.0084 -0.93 19 15.7333 -0.3788
6.4 127 5.9 127 -0.93 19 14.0887 -0.487 1
6.327 5.827 -0.9868 13.705 -0.433
6.2084 5.7084 -1.1512 16.6653 -0.3247
6.2255 5.7255 -1.0416 14.308 -0.487 1
6.1727 5.6727 - 1.6994 13.5953 -0.9742
6.7999 6.2999 -7.18 14 27.9034 -0.8 1 18
8.1672 7.6672 -4.6049 23.79 19 -0.6495
8.733 8.233 -5.59 16 15.0207 -0.7036
8.6959 8.1959 -6.085 16.9394 -0.920 1
8.91 16 8.41 16 - I .206 20.5575 -0.6495
10.4975 9.9975 -2.0832 16.1719 -0.6495
10.6018 10.1018 -0.6578 13.8694 -0.2706
10.2818 9.78 18 -0.3289 8.8808 -0.2706
10.2332 9.7332 - 1.3705 15.0755 -0.433
10.5333 10.0333 -0.1096 8.66 16 0.3247
Test 4 Pcak Disptaccment (withou Peak Displacement Min Head Mm Head din Shouldc
including gage) (in) (including gage) (in) Accel. (p's) Acccl. (g's) Acccl. (pSs)
151 7.1014 6.60 14 -7.894 1 26.0395 - 1.6236
152 8.2072 -6.9073 16.1719 -1.4613
153 8.2329 -2.0283 18.3647 - 1 -5695
1 54 8.3029 -6.6332 16.2267 -2.0566
155 8.963 1 -4.221 1 16.1719 -2.4896
I56 9.766 -2.2476 1 3.6502 - 1.4072
157 9.9 146 - 1.5898 1 2.8279 - 1.4072
158 9.816 -0.7675 9.4839 -0.433
159 9.143 1 -0.3289 8.8808 -0.7577
160 9.856 -0.6578 8.497 1 -0.433
161 7.5528 - 10.7995 18.7484 -2.3272
162 7.3657 -7.0 17 18.6388 -2.38 1 3
I63 8.1058 -7.8393 19.0773 -1.4613
164 8.5644 -4.7 145 15.514 - 1 -6778
165 8.36 15 -3.344 12.9375 - 1 -2989
1 66 5.3401 -0.4934 9.9772 -0.7577
167 7.99 -0.7675 9.9772 -0.54 I2
168 8. I286 -0.6578 12.2248 -0.920 1
1 69 7.9072 -0.603 15.6237 -1.7319
170 7.6786 -0.2 I93 15.9526 -0.5953
171 6.707 - 1.809 I t 8.0358 -2.4896
172 6.8327 -9.9773, 22.2569 -0.433
173 7.1 1 14 -0.877 1 16.1 171 -0.8659
173 6.7756 -0.6578 16.1 I71 -0,6495
175 6.6084 -0.7675 16.6653 -0.5953
I76 6.7656 -0.9868 16.0622 -0.3788
177 6.5498 - I -0964 14.3176 -0.54 1 2
178 6.267 - 1.8639 22.8599 - 1.2989
179 6.347 - 1.6994 20.72 19 - 1.5695
I 80 6.45 13 - 1 -7542 1 9.2966 - 1.5695
I81 6.224 1 -6.7429 19.6255 -0.9742
182 6.2855 - 1 -2609 17.652 -0.9742
183 6.2984 - 1.535 15.9526 - t .0283
184 6.2 155 - 1.6446 18.255 - I .0824
I85 6.393 1 - 1 -6994 16.9942 -1.1365
186 6.3984 -1.9187 17.4327 -0.920 I
I87 6.1883 - 1.206 17.5972 -0.9742
I88 6.134 1 -0.9868 15.584 -0.7036
1 89 6.06 12 - I ,8091 19.461 1 - 1 -0824
190 6.0 I 69 -2.3573 17.8713 -1.1365
191 5.6493 - I S898 19.8448 -0.541 2
192 6.2984 -7.4007 20.064 1 -0.7036
193 6.4398 -0.877 1 16.9394 -0.3788
194 6.44 13 -4.550 1 19.187 -0.54 12
195 6.454 1 -2.74 1 19.7352 -0.3247
196 6.487 - 1 -0964 15.5689 -0.5953
197 6.5227 -1.3157 15.9526 -0.3788
198 6.2998 - 1.0964 15.2399 -0.6495
199 6.457 -0.9868 t 5.6237 -0.487 1
200 6.424 1 -2.6862 16.1 171 - 1 -786
Test 'cak Displacement (withou Peak Displaccrnenr Min Head Max Head Min Shouldc
includinegaee) (in) (includingage) (in) A C C(e3:~ s Acccl. (g's)
20 1 6.0655 5.5655 -6.6332 2 1.2701 -0.9742
202 6.0483 5.5483 - 1-3705 20.2286 -0.54 1 2
203 6.494 1 5.994 1 -0.9319 17.7068 -0.433
203 6.4698 5.9698 -0.93 1 9 16.8845 -0.7036
205 6-5013 6.00 13 -6.6332 19.79 -0.5953
206 6.499 8 5.9998 -2.6862 16.9394 -0.7036
207 6.7584 6.2584 -0.9868 14.5273 -0.3788
208 6.6 156 6.1 156 -0.8771 14.1435 -0.1624
209 6.5784 6.0784 -0.7675 15.2399 -0.6495
210 6.434 1 5-9341 - 1 -6994 16.5556 -0.387 1
21 I 7.2957 6.7957 -7.9489 36.4553 - 1.2989
212 9.003 8.503 -6.3043 24.7238 -0.3237
2 13 9.60 17 9.1017 -6.2495 20.5027 -0.920 1
2 14 9.2559 8.7559 -6.7977 19-79 - 1 .O283
215 1 1.2076 lO.7076 -3.2892 19.1322 -1.1907
2 16 10.4204 9.9204 -3.5633 18.9677 -0.8 1 18
217 1 1.2391 10.739 1 - 1.9735 15.7881 -0.487 i
218 1 1 -0247 10.5247 - 1.5898 14.308 -0.6495
219 1 1.0076 10.5076 -2.1928 16.0074 -0.54 12
220 11.1891 10.6891 -1.0416 12.773 -0.1O82
22 1 8.8402 8.3402 -8.0585 19.0225 -0.920 1
222 8.5258 8.0258 -6.5784 20.5027 -0.54 12
223 9.5903 9.0903 -5.4272 15.6237 -0.7577
224 8.873 8.373 -6.9073 17.3231 - 1.353
235 9.6746 9.1746 -4.8242 19-2418 -2.1648
226 9.493 1 8.993 1 - 1.6446 19.187 -1 -2989
227 10.6547 10.1547 -4.0019 15.7333 -3.3555
228 1 O. 1975 9.6975 - 1 -4801 16.1719 - 1 .2W8
229 10.979 10.479 -0.6578 12.8827 -0.433
230 10.7547 10.2547 -0.7675 10.4706 -0.487 1
23 1 7.6 157 7.1 157 -9.429 27.1907 -2.706 1
232 7.9458 7.4458 -6.7977 2 1 -0509 -2.4355
233 8.493 7.993 - I -0964 1 3.5405 -2.38 13
234 8.7873 8.2873 -7.7296 20.393 -2.7602
235 8.8745 8.3745 -5.0983 16.6104 -2.7602
236 9.323 1 8.823 1 -0.8223 9.8676 -0.6495
237 8.9745 8.4745 -0.9868 9.8 128 -0.7036
238 8.8945 8.3945 -0.7675 10.3062 - 1.9484
239 8.5573 8.0573 -0.3837 15.843 -1.1365
240 8.2 144 7.7 144 -0.274 1 12.3345 -1.1907
241 7.37 14 6.87 14 - 1 -7542 20.0093 - 1.8942
232 6.9556 6.4556 - 1.5898 2 1.599 1 -2.0025
24 3 7.55 7.05 -0.93 19 18.3099 - 1 -2989
244 7.37 14 6.87 14 -1.3157 17.049 -0.6495
245 6.9756 6.4756 - 1.7542 17.926 1 -0.7577
246 7.49 14 6.99 14 -0.7 127 17.1038 -0.1082
247 7.2799 6.7799 -0.9868 16.8845 -0.54 12
248 7.2985 6.7985 -1.1512 24.01 1 l -0.5953
249 7.0842 6.5842 - 1.5898 20.0093 -0.920 1
250 6.897 6.397 - 1 -8639 20.7768 - 1.2989
Test 4 'cak Displacernent (withou Peak Displacernent Min Hcad Max Hcad Min Shouldei
sage)(in) ( i n c t w n ) Acccl.(gS) Accel. (p's) Acccl. (g's)
25 I 6.6484 6.1383 - 1.4801 19.6255 -0.8 1 18
252 6.5027 6.0027 4.8242 23.5726 -0.9742
253 6.8099 6.3099 -7.6748 18.8581 -1.1907
254 6.8885 6.3885 4.3308 19.5707 -0.920 1
255 6.6842 6.1842 -2.138 19.4063 -1.1365
256 6.7799 6.2799 - 1.8639 19.6804 - 1 -2989
257 6.427 5.927 - 1 -4801 20.4478 - 1 .O283
258 6.6556 6.1556 - 1.6446 17.4327 - 1 -4072
259 6.521 3 6.02 1 3 - 1 -6994 20.1 189 -1.5154
260 6.594 1 6.091 1 -2.4669 22.53 1 -0.920 1
26 1 6.0 126 5.5 126 - 1.535 20.72 19 -0.3247
262 6.5084 6.0084 -9.1549 25.2 172 -0.8 1 18
263 6.7784 6.2784 - 1.2609 18.9 129 -0.3247
264 6.3427 5.8427 - 10.4706 26.5329 -0.920 1
265 6.8599 6.3599 - 1.206 16.6104 -0.5953
266 6.977 6.477 - 1.7542 16.1719 -0.5953
267 6.7956 6.2956 -0.7675 20.94 1 2 -0.54 12
268 6.7099 6.2099 - 1 -3157 2 1.4346 -0.6495
269 6.957 6.457 - 1.2609 16.5556 - 1 -0824
270 6.6599 6.1599 -2.7958 19.1322 - 1 -6236
27 1 6.537 6.037 - 1 -8639 21.8183 -0.920 1
272 6.6 184 6.1 184 - 1 -5898 21.1057 -0.920 1
273 6.3427 5.8427 - 10.4706 26.5329 -0.920 1
273 6.8242 6.3242 -1.0416 19.2966 -0.7036
275 7.07 13 6.57 1 3 -2.0283 l8.2oO2 -0.3788
276 7.0785 6.5785 -2.4 121 17.8165 -0.6495
277 7.2528 6.7528 -1.0416 15.8978 -0.5953
278 7.3257 6.8257 -0.8223 1 6.7749 -0.5953
279 7.0 156 6.5 156 - 1 -4253 15.8978 -0.433
280 7.2057 6.7057 - 1.2609 14.2532 -0.54 12
28 1 9.1273 8.6273 -3.O699 30.8088 -0.9732
282 9.4 16 8.9 16 -6.6332 25.6009 -0.8 1 18
283 9.2402 8.7402 -4.1663 32.3986 - 1 .O283
284 1O. 2389 9.7389 -6.3043 19.0773 -1.1907
285 1 1.7434 1 1.2434 -3.8922 24.8334 -1.1907
286 11.1648 10.6648 -4.9338 23 .2985 - I .O283
287 1 1.802 1 1.302 -3.8922 2 1 -8732 - 1 -0283
288 1 1.5234 1 1 .O234 - 1 -9735 17.4327 -0.7577
289 1 1.3948 10.8948 -4.3308 19.79 -1.1907
290 1 1.7206 1 1.2206 -4.7 145 28.1226 -1.1907
29 1 8.2244 7.7244 -9.8676 33.7 143 -0.8659
292 9.37 17 8.87 17 -7.4007 22.53 1 -0.7577
293 10.0303 9.5303 -5.8 1O9 17.323 1 - 1.0283
294 10.1 189 9.6 1 89 -5.6465 20.5027 -0.5953
295 IO. 1946 9.6946 -4.9886 2 1.325 - 1 -6236
296 10.6004 10.1004 -2.138 2 1 -928 -1.8401
297 11.1448 10.6448 -4.6597 18.7484 -4.1 132
298 10.8933 10.3933 -3.4537 17.9261 -3.7885
299 1 1.6048 11.1048 -2,138 16.1 171 -1.1907
300 10.7076 10.2076 -6.3043 32.837 1 -2.0566
Test Peak Displacement (witi Peak Displacement Min Head Max Head Min Shoulde
- Accel. Cg's) Accel. (pS)
30 1 8.1901 7.6901 -5.756 1 26.9 166 -2.65 19
303 7.943 -5.9754 24.3949 -2.3272
303 9.0 173 8.5 173 -5.70 13 15.514 -2.273 1
304 9.6788 9.1788 -6.0302 17.7068 -2.273 1
305 9.2645 8.7645 -5.59 16 17.8165 -2.5437
306 9.2802 8.7802 - 1.8639 14.308 - 1 .5695
307 9.76 17 9.26 17 -1.0416 1 1.567 - 1.2989
308 9.71 17 9.21 17 -0.5482 16.3363 -0.7577
309 9.4 145 8.9 145 -0.4386 12.7 182 -1.5154
310 9.1816 8.68 16 -0.93 19 17-8713 -1.4613
31 1 7.8343 7.3343 - 1 -7542 22.6406 -2.1 107
312 7.9529 7.4529 -9.758 23 -4629 - 1.5695
313 8.3 144 7.8 144 -1.535 19.2966 -1.1907
313 8.0986 7.5986 -9.9224 23.9563 -0.7577
315 7.9486 7.4486 -0.93 19 19.8448 -0.7036
3 16 8.0643 7.5643 -1.0416 19.1322 -0.3788
317 7.8572 7.3572 -0.8223 18.4743 -0.54 12
318 7.7386 7.2386 -0.8223 17.87 13 -0.5953
3 I9 7.69 7.19 - 1.0964 20.393 -0.595 3
320 7.5643 7.0643 -0.4934 20.064 1 -1.1907
32 1 7 .O428 6.5428 - 1.7542 2 1.7635 -3.5 179
322 7.107 1 6.607 1 -2.3024 2 1 -6539 -1.5154
323 7.1 171 6.6171 -3.1247 20.996 - 1.2989
324 7.2842 6.7842 -6.688 19.5707 - 1.0283
325 7.3328 6.8328 -1.3157 18.9677 - 1 -0824
326 7.3 142 6.8 142 -1 -8091 20.83 16 - 1.6236
327 7.2685 6.7685 -0.5482 26.149 1 -0.9742
328 7.0542 6.5542 - 1.5898 2 1.6539 - 1.4072
329 7-0513 6.55 13 - 1.535 20.6 123 - 1.353
330 7.05 13 6.55 13 - I .8639 17.4876 -2.0025
33 1 6.7056 6.2056 -3 S633 24.8883 -0.9742
332 7.0328 6.5328 - 1.O964 2 1.4894 -0.81 18
333 6.9399 6.4399 - 1 -4253 22.0924 -0.7577
3 34 7.2 157 6.7 157 - 1.535 18.584 -0.433
3 35 7.46 14 6.96 14 - 1.535 18.3099 -1.1907
3 36 7.427 1 6.927 1 -2.2476 1 7.8 165 - 1 .O824
337 7.3328 6.8328 - 1 -6446 24.3949 -0.7577
338 7.2214 6.72 14 -2.138 17.049 -0.920 1
339 7.33 6.83 - 1.6446 18.2002 - 1 S695
340 7.2628 6.7628 -3.3988 17.2 135 - 1.5695
34 1 6.7256 6.2256 - 10.8543 25.7654 - 1 .O283
342 7.0242 6.5242 -8.3875 25.2 172 -0.8 1 18
343 7.297 1 6.797 1 - 1.2609 21.2153 -0.7036
344 7.2342 6.7342 -4.7693 2 1.4894 -0.7036
345 7.1871 6.687 1 -2.0283 2 1.7087 -0.5953
346 7.3028 6.8028 - 1.809 1 19.3514 -0.8659
347 7.68 14 7.1814 -1.3157 22.0924 -0.8659
348 7.587 1 7.087 1 - 1.3705 20.393 -0.920 1
349 7 -6028 7.1028 -1.480 1 16.1 171 -0.7036
350 7.7272 7.2272 -1 -535 18.584 -0.5953
Peak Displacement (withou Peak Displacement Min Head Max Head Min Shouldci
includinp gage)
- (in) (includingge) (in) Accei. (e's: Acccl. (g's: Acccl. (g's)
8.1486 7.6486 -10.361 42.3758 -2.706 1
9.6989 9.1989 -6.962 1 29.3287 - 1 -0283
10.3947 9.8947 -6.5784 24.7238 - 1 .O283
10.0289 9.5289 -7.62 26.4232 -0.920 1
1 1.9763 1 1.4763 -3.8374 27.1907 - 1.5695
1 1 .go63 1 1.4063 -4.221 1 28.1775 - 1.8932
12.1306 1 1.6306 -4.6597 30.6444 - 1.5695
1 1.932 1 1.432 -3.6181 25.6009 -2.0025
1 1.9863 1 1.4863 4.8242 22.42 14 - 1.353
12.1792 1 1.6792 -2.8506 22.7503 -0.7577
8.463 7.963 -9.9772 36.7294 - 1.353
9.4588 8.9588 -8.2778 28.3967 -1.1907
10.3289 9.8289 - 1.8639 21.8183 -2.1 1 O7
10.5218 10.0218 -6.688 19.2418 -1.3613
10.9576 10.4576 -5.70 13 19.79 -1.1907
I 1.3476 10.8476 -4.4952 21.Y01 -3.6261
1 1 S062 1 1 .O062 -4.879 22.7503 -3.139
1 1 .5748 1 1.0748 -3.4537 23.737 -2.4355
1 1.759 1 1 1.î59 1 4 - 1 1 I5 23.6274 -2.0566
12.0035 1 1S035 -3.4537 29.548 - I .2448
9.243 1 8.743 1 -6,7977 24.5593 -2.4355
9.3002 8.8002 -1 1.7315 26.86 18 -4.22 I5
9.596 9.096 -4.1663 1 5.6237 - 1.9484
10.0603 9.5603 -5.756 1 17.2683 -2.3272
9.9403 9.4403 -7.7296 20.064 1 -2.1 1O7
9.8274 9.3274 4.550 I 16.5556 - 1.786
10.6 175 10.1 175 -2.138 17-7617 -1.1907
10.2832 9.7832 -0.8223 14.8014 - 1.0283
10.6547 1O. 1547 -0.7675 1 7.652 -0.5312
11.149 10.649 -0.877 1 18.1354 - 1.0824
8.4873 7.9873 - 12.2248 33.5498 -2.4896
8.2 186 7.7 186 - 1.9735 26.149 1 -2.1648
8.2872 7.7872 -8.2778 23.408 1 - 1.6778
8.580 1 8.080 1 -8.223 2 1.4346 - 1 .%84
8.6 144 8.1 144 -1.3157 21.2153 -0.9742
8.5758 8.0758 - I .6U6 21 .I6O5 -0.2 165
8.5 158 8.0 158 -0.9868 19.35 14 -0.7036
8.2045 7.704 -0.8223 20.6 123 -0.7577
8.3644 7.8644 -1.1512 20.0093 -0.7577
8.1929 7.6929 -0.4934 2 1.6539 - 1.353
7.5928 7.0928 -2.3024 23.6274 -2.3272
7.66 7.16 -8.7 164 25.272 -1.4613
7.66 14 7.1614 - 1.8639 20.83 16 -1.4613
7-9057 7,4057 -6.7977 24.669 - 1 .O283
7.7414 7.24 14 -2.63 14 20.393 - 1 .O823
7.6486 7.1486 -8.223 26.423 2 -2.2 19
7.4843 6.9843 -2.63 14 21.2153 - 1.2989
7.477 I 6.977 1 -2.4669 2 1.8732 - 1.840 1
7.6486 7.1486 - 1 -5898 20.72 19 - 1 -353
7.4928 6.9928 -1.3157 18.2002 - 1.6236
Test # I ~ e î kDisplacernent (wiihoutl Peak Displacement Min Head Max Head Min Shouldcr
including gage) (in) - Accel. (g's) Accel. (g's)
(includinggage) (in)
40 1 6.85 13 6.35 13 -13.0471 29.822 1 - 1 -6236
402 7.2928 6.7928 -9.8 128 28.9449 - 1.5695
403 7.6229 7.1229 -7.07 18 22.8599 -0.487 1
404 7.6171 7.1 171 -1.4801 20.5575 -0.54 12
405 7.6886 7.1886 -6.4 1 39 22.202 1 -0.5953
406 7.5757 7.0757 -0.8223 18.7484 -0.8659
407 7.9029 7.4029 - I .6994 1 7.9809 -2.0566
408 7.79 14 7.29 14 - 1.6994 20.3382 - 1 -9484
409 7.8257 7.3257 - 1 -535 19.5159 - 1 -6236
410 7.6 1 7.1 1 -3.344 2 1 .O509 -1.7319
41 l 7.1814 6.68 14 -2.4669 25 .%6 1 -0.920 1
412 7.3285 6.8285 - 1 2.0056 33.495 -1.1907
413 7.5543 7.0543 -7.0 17 26.2588 -0.8 1 18
-114 7.62 14 7.1214 -7.29 1 1 26.0395 - 1.4072
415 7.7672 7.2672 -4.1 115 23 S726 - 1.2989
4 16 7.7886 7.2886 - 1.9735 2 1 5442 - 1.5695
317 7.9886 7.4886 - 1 -3705 27.0262 -0.920 1
3 18 8.1033 7.6043 -1.8091 25.4365 -0.7036
419 7.7886 7.2886 -2.2476 26.5329 - 1.2989
320 8 7.5 -3.8374 16.7749 -1.4613
Test # Max Shoulder Min Pelvis Max Pelvis Total Energy Peak Absolute
Acccl. (g's) Accel. (p's) Accel. (p's) Absorption (Ibf*in) Impact Load (IbO
1 16.561 1 - 1.83% 23.01 87 265 1.37034 1965.4235
2 13.0715 -4-6248 19.8655 1562.6294
3 1 3.3762 -4.7299 20.39 1 1525.I948
4 13.6385 -4.6773 20.969 1 1586.4 1 39
5 8.8759 -2.3649 10.616 83 1.798
6 8.93 -0.8934 9.4598 1027.342
7 8.8759 - 1.2087 9.7225 752.2827
8 8.7676 - 1.6292 9.9327 768.7049
9 7.0358 -0.2628 8.0408 828.55 19
10 8.1 182 -0.0526 8.25 1 803.4526
11 12.989 1 -3.73 13 18.394 1612.1286
12 1 1 -5278 4.6773 19.0246 lJ58.2808
13 12.3937 -3.8365 1 5.556 1 3 10.3677
I4 1 IS819 -3.7839 1 1.2992 1 199.004
I5 1 1 -0407 -3.3635 12.14 I 1 I7.6719
I6 10.9325 -3.73 1 3 12.1926 1093.4322
17 9.9042 -3.7839 11.0364 883-7005
IS 9.8501 -2.6803 I 1 -7721 798.6226
19 10.1207 -2.47 1 1 so94 8 1 1.7392
20 7.3605 -0.7883 9.5 123 802.2404
21 12.7726 -3.6262 17.1852 1346.48 1
22 16.8858 -6.41 16 23.1764 1423.2071
23 10.9866 -2.1022 13.61 15 1079.9937
24 9.9042 -1.2613 11.194 936.0938
25 9.5794 -1.7343 9.67 884. I99
26 1 1 -6361 -1.419 1 2.1926 912.4417
27 9.9583 -1.5241 11.194 936.5309
28 10.0 1 24 - 1 -7868 12.1926 950.6202
29 10.8242 - 1 -83% 13.2437 1051 395
30 9.6336 - 1.7868 13.191 1 1005.4855
31 1 5.9657 - 1.9445 17.0801 1408.9879
32 15.7493 -3.1007 1 7.2903 1397.81 1 1
33 12.989 1 - 1.9971 13.61 15 1274.629
34 12.069 - 1.5241 1 3.4539 1 307.8846
35 1 2.0 149 - 1.892 14.3999 1 330.5278
36 13.5303 -1.4715 14.7152 1403.1995
37 14.5586 -0.8409 16.2918 14 17.8733
38 1 3-4221 - 1 -3664 14,4524 1467.3229
39 12.935 -2.3649 16.975 1666.7131
40 1 3-6927 - 1 -3664 16.5546 1565.7387
41 15.2622 - 1.6292 17.5006 1748.3209
42 13.9091 - 1 -5766 15.3458 1689.7278
43 13.8009 - 1.9445 14.505 1625.3098
44 14.5586 -2.5226 16.975 1512.4019
45 1 3.5303 - 1.7343 13.8218 1575.5854
46 1 5.4245 -2.0496 16.2918 1614.8643
47 14.3962 -1.419 13.8743 1600.9336
48 15.3704 -1.1562 15.5035 1639-4236
49 14.4503 -0.8934 15.556 1568.2346
50 17.3 188 -5.7284 16.2393 1738.2302
- 197-
Max Shoulder Min Pelvis Max Pelvis Total Energy Peak Absolute
Acccl. ( g S ) Accel. (g's) Accel. (g's) Absorption (ibf*in) Impact Load (Ibn
15.3704 -2.1022 19.1823 2260.75225 1880.0298
15-9116 - 1.6292 17.0801 1698.5222
15.0457 -1.1562 16.0816 1650.4 133
13-6927 -0.9985 14.5575 1381 -7487
I4.342 1 -1.1036 1 7.3429 1408.8237
14.4504 - 1.3664 15.6086 1481 2024
1 3.6927 -1.2613 13.6641 1504.0769
13.9633 -1.3715 1 3.4539 1393-550.1
13.288 -4.2569 15.6086 1 503-4225
13.3679 -4.5722 14.3999 1375.6966
16.3987 - 1.9445 18.867 1850.6476
14.S292 -1.1562 16.7648 l8W.3827
14.0715 -1.051 1 14.3999 1602.526
14.288 - 1.2087 15.2407 1528.458 1
13.6927 -1.051 1 14.5575 1512.1832
12.9891 -1.051 1 12.4553 1389.1258
12.6 102 - 1.3664 12.7707 1360.8235
1 2.0 149 -4.1518 1 3.0334 1351.9517
11.4196 -2.2073 15.7 137 1334.9265
12-2314 -5.3605 12.6656 1341.2155
17.481 1 -3.1007 27.0 129 19 17.5595
14.9374 -5.308 22.0202 1677.8805
14.7751 -4.835 20.4436 161 1 .O574
1 5.3704 -4.5722 2 1.4947 1675.4 153
9.5794 -1.051 1 10.3532 1084.9 104
1 1.7443 -5.9386 18.394 1254.2382
7.4 146 -0.6307 7.4101 828.3779
7.4 146 -0.6307 7.4101 860.047 1
8.93 -0.3679 8.7766 855.1 176
8.6594 -0.7883 9.197 930.634
13.2339 -6.254 22.2304 1564.8372
15.0457 4.2569 19-34 1571.8258
1 2.8267 -3.994 1 19.6553 1461 -5058
13.9633 4.4146 20.864 1539.1996
12.3937 -3.7839 16.029 1 239.2342
1 1.3654 -3.6262 12.4028 1072.7068
10.1748 -1.4715 I I .O364 1068.6873
9.47 12 - 1.5766 11.194 943.900 1
8.7676 - 1.6292 10.93 1 3 9 15.836
8.497 -0.7358 9.6 174 8 12.2427
14.6668 -4.362 19.9706 1449.01 17
17.6976 -4.8875 23.5968 1531 -5588
12.502 -4.3094 16.29 18 1213.1 151
1 1.9067 -2.6277 13.2962 1 O83-8906
1 1.7443 -1.3139 1 1.4043 950.3488
1 1.8525 -2.2073 14.1371 1019.1419
13.0432 -2.2073 1 3.7692 979.6797
1 1.4737 - 1.9445 13.1386 1005.2IOI
12.7 185 - 1.7343 16.4495 1040.0666
10.9325 -2.1547 14.9254 1 060.7084
- 198-
Test Max Shouide Min Pelvis Max Pelvis Total Energy Peak Absolute
- Accel. (p's) Accel. (g's) m s ) Absorption (Ibf*in) Impact Load (Ibf)
101 17.1564 -2.1547 19.3925 3243.36589 1502.354 1
102 23-0556 -5.7284 25.0684 3393.97942
103 15.1539 - 1-9445 14.2947 3474.28 143
104 14.3421 - 1.892 15.3984 3 163.52266
105 I 3.4762 -1 .524 1 14.8728 3223.3993 I
106 1 3.6927 - I .7868 13.7692 3 176.65976
107 1 6.2905 -1.7343 17.3954 3102.20612
I08 14.1256 -1.6817 14.2947 2879.98663
I09 14.0174 -2.2598 17.0801 28 15.49558
110 14.3421 - 1.6292 17.448 2994.093 12
111 17.5894 -2.8379 20.0232 3059.04652
112 16.6693 -1.6817 18.0261 2962.67698
113 I5.0998 - I .892 16.3969 2987.72 13
114 14.6668 -2.4 175 15.7663 2990.54 I 1 3
115 16.994 - 1.8394 16.4495 2878.89763
1 I6 15.641 -2.3 124 16.0816 2959.787 14
117 15.!I657 -2.2598 15.8714 2750.8362 1
118 17.1023 -2.5752 17.3429 2865.34892
119 16.8858 -2.1022 16.8174 27 19.45451
1 20 18.5636 -5.308 17.448 275 1-68046
121 24. I38 -7.7255 30.534 2902.0 1 109
122 16.074 - 1.2087 18.6567 2985.1037 I
123 15.641 - 1.8394 18.0787 3022.44953
1 24 14.5045 -1.1036 16.5546 304 1.3665
1 25 15.8575 - 1.5241 I6.2918 3043.367 15
I26 14.6127 -1.051 1 15.2933 2990.08 149
I27 14.721 -1.1036 14.7677 3014.23383
I28 15.0998 -1.419 14.7 152 3007.750 I 1
1 29 15.3I63 -1.3715 16.3444 3043-08531
130 14.6127 -5.4656 15.6086 2957.388 14
131 18.347 1 -2.3649 20.7589 2936.20994
132 16.561 I - I .4 19 19.6027 2874.289 1
133 15.9657 - 1 -2087 16.9225 3083.6387
1 34 15.3I63 -1.1562 16.7648 3065.55422
125 14.5045 -1.3139 1 3-7692 3330.49369
I36 14.6127 -1.1562 14.8203 3258.85797
137 12.7726 -1.3139 12.8232 326 1 -00076
I38 1 3.4762 - 1.5766 14.I896 33 15.74776
139 1 2.4479 -1.1036 16.3969 3204.67079
140 12.6 102 -4.0467 12.7707 304 1.I8332
141 1 7.6976 -10.1955 32.058 1 402 1.I9734
133, 16.507 -2.4 I75 23.1764 4077.94897
143 16.0199 -4.835 19.8 129 4003.O8754
1 44 16.1281 -4.6773 2 1 -2845 3082.60263
145 15.8575 -2.0496 22.0202 3973.47079
I46 11.4196 - 1.9971 12.2977 4 150.20236
147 9.4171 -1.1036 10.3006 4 149.40209
148 8.3888 -0.9985 8-251 3096.05529
149 9.363 -0.7883 1 1 -7721 4027.7 161 1
150 8.0099 -0.3 153 8.3036 4274.2379 1
-199-
Max Shoulder Min Pelvis Max Pelvis Total Energy Peak Absolute
AcceI. (g's) Accel. (m Absorption (Ibfcin) Impact Load (Ibf)
1 8.9965 -2.2073 22.756 3460.34 17 21 15.0129
18.7259 - 1.8394 20.969 1
17.2647 -1.3139 18.2363
16.6152 - 1.2087 1 8.76 19
17.1023 -2.1022 18.0787
14.99 16 -2.0496 15.6086
1 3.2597 -1.3139 13-6641
13.3138 -1.051 1 15.5035
12.7726 -1.1562 13.2437
14.288 -3.4686 16.975
18.8883 - 10.4583 34.7909
17.481 1 -2.6277 26.5924
16.3987 4.7299 23.5443
1 6.1528 -5.0978 23.9 122
1 3.909 1 -6.7269 22.2304
14.5586 -6.359 1 21.2319
12.502 -4.1518 14.7 152
12.1231 -2.1022 12.3502
12.069 - 1.3664 12.9809
1 1.7443 -0.946 12.9283
15-7493 -6.62 18 25.226
15.5328 -3.3 109 22.0202
15.5328 -5.99 12 15.9765
15.3163 -5.2554 2 1.7574
14-6127 -5.99 12 22.0202
15.5328 -6. I488 23.0 187
14.6668 -4.5 197 18.1838
15.a1 -2.2073 14.8203
12.5561 - 1 -9971 15.1356
10-3371 - 1.5766 12.4028
23.3262 - 12.5079 27.696 1
2 1.432 -7.5 153 26.5399
13.3138 -3.94 16 16.1341
16.1281 -5.5 182 22.5458
15.7493 -4.6248 19.0772
13.288 - I .8394 16.6597
14.6127 - I .7343 14.8203
14.1256 -2.7854 15.1356
13.0174 -2.4 175 15.6086
14.1256 -1.6817 1 5.2407
23.5427 -3.73 1 3 23.0713
23.8674 -5.9386 25.0 158
17.3188 - 1.9445 18.0261
16.6IS2 -2.1022 16.9225
17.481 1 -2.1022 19.0772
1 5.3704 -1 -5241 15.0305
15.2622 - 1-5766 15.1356
16.9399 - 1.9971 19.1297
1 5.2622 - 1.892 17.2378
1 5.4787 - 1.892 18.6042
-20 1-
Max Shouldei Min Pelvis Mair Pelvis Total E n e r a Peak Absolutc
Accel. (g's) Accel. (g's) Absorption (Ibf*in) Impact Load ( I b n
l9.7oOl -2.943 21.8626 4377.04986 2ûû3-2595
25.924 -4.0467 25.0 158 4262.52738 1967.3855
17.5353 -2.47 16.975 4259.1 1426 1983.5147
17.2647 -2.5752 17.1852 4322.65 183 1 942.9 192
18.1306 -3.1533 19.1297 3977.28878 2 162.1363
18.4553 -2.943 18.9721 4063.73573 2 1oO.4825
20.6202 -2.9956 19.7604 3905.0408 1 21 33.5969
17.3729 -2.6277 16.4495 3955.44524 2009.9322
19.5919 -3.1533 19.6553 3750.37293 2147.0619
22.785 -5.1503 26.4348 3866.88604 220 1 -0782
19.7542 -2.5226 23.49 I7 4 1 17.08635 22 17.392
22.785 -3.416 26.3 822 4056.85608 2227.979
18.6177 - 1.5766 19.3925 4169.41461 2090.2 197
2 1.3779 -3.6788 26.277 1 3879.46494 2301.4954
17.481 1 -1.4715 18.2889 4 108.20098 204 1 S969
16.507 -1.5241 17.2378 4 170.19777 1839.2986
17.7517 -1.4715 17.6057 4233.49597 1 848.06 14
16-8317 - 1.2087 16.7648 4026.55079 I 777.9697
17.2105 -2.3 1 24 19.1823 4 1 13.53476 1927.0875
17.481 1 4.940 1 18.867 3954.63292 1869.6346
19.4836 - 1.892 22.4932 4252.33066 2 180.3375
19.213 -2.1022 2 1 -4947 4228.50688 2 197-7887
2 1.3779 -3.6788 26.277 1 3879.46494 230 1.4954
18.7259 - 1.7343 21.1268 41 lO.9938I 2167.1407
17-481 1 -1 -6817 18.5516 4 185.83059 2096.934 1
17.1O23 -2.1022 18.9 195 4 182.70308 21 13.8106
14.8833 - 1.7343 15.2933 4343.40844 1761.3135
14.3421 -1.419 15.6086 4484.13436 1722.5266
14.0174 - 1 .?O87 15.7663 4433.55677 1692.7162
13.5303 -1 -4715 14.6626 4352.10605 1 634.2052
18,7259 -3.O48 1 31.2172 5650.349 15 1957.2858
17.5353 -5.0978 28.4844 5636.6 1056 1909.5272
18.347 1 -3.2584 3 1.6902 5725.13142 1 9 12.4079
17.6435 -4.835 22.5983 5397.840 17 2000.3483
17.7517 -8.67 14 24.7005 5096.805 18 2 149.5362
16.7234 -7.2525 25.5939 53 10.6 1942 1901 -9238
19.4836 -7.305 27.2756 5074.5 1303 1913.984
14.9374 -6,3065 2 1.7574 5236.1428 1 1648.9367
16.6693 -5.8861 24.1224 4998.07 18 1867.7797
2 1 S402 -7.7255 34.2654 5039.99709 1 763.5 106
17.9682 - 12.0349 35.3 164 5862.98658 1856.0794
16.8858 -4.9927 25.1209 5496.47444 181 1.7126
17-481 1 -7.1999 19.1823 559 1.66405 1884.3782
18.7259 -5.308 24.753 5370.90834 181 1.1392
17.9682 -6.5693 2 1S472 51 14.99178 1768.0084
17.5894 -4.467 I 24.0698 4845.21012 161 1.5854
15.8034 -5.7284 20.5487 5342.27 1 12 1 799.9278
16.561 1 -5.1503 20.4436 5349.73427 1629.90 1 2
15.7493 4.0467 18.1312 5457.23297 15392887
25.5993 -5.6233 28.8523 4666.3 1 264 1427.7675
-202-
Test r Max Shoulder Min Pelvis Max Pelvis Peak Absolute
= Acce!g's) Absorption (Ibf*in) Impact Laad (Ibn
30 1 23-651 - 1 1 .O889 25.96 18 5796.62892 1626.2837
302 23.1639 -9.302 1 25.699 1682.5928
303 16.1822 4.9927 18.1838 1662.9183
303 18.8342 -6.62 18 1 8.6567 1560.9905
305 17.9141 -6.0437 19.9 18 1532.4584
306 16.2364 -2.9956 18.34 14 1416.5009
307 16.4528 -2.7854 18.6567 1182.5915
308 14.775 1 -2.6277 15.1356 1 143.O462
309 16.2364 -2.4 175 16.1 867 1226.1737
3 10 15.3 163 - 1 -9971 19.6553 1265.3052
31 1 25 .O58 1 -6.4 1 16 24.4377 1776.1669
312 25.5452 -3.73 13 25 .226 1679.9141
313 19.5377 -3.3 109 17.8159 1772.5554
3 13 23.1639 -3.2584 22.4932 1592.5686
315 17.38 1 1 -2.4 175 1 8.76 19 1762.8564
3 16 16-8317 - 1.892 16.1867 1882.2705
3 17 16.7776 -1.6817 15.8714 1845.1633
318 17.427 - 1.8394 15.6086 1897.4192
319 17.6976 - 1.5766 17.7108 2057 -0009
320 19. IO48 -2.5226 15.8714 1924.9659
321 2 1.7026 -3.2584 23.3866 2 IO8.9706
322 2 1.7567 -4.ISI8 23.1764 2202.0 1O8
323 19.7001 -2.9956 21.2319 2086.889
324 17.9682 -3.521 l 19.1823 22 14.655
325 17.5894 -3.1533 20.7589 2 160.954
326 19.8625 -3.2584 22.3355 2 175.3268
327 22.1356 -2.3649 21.0217 2 1 58.59€4
328 22.4603 -3.1533 22.9662 2342.7668
329 20.9449 -3.7854 2 1 .O742 2288.9877
330 20.2954 -3.3 IO9 19.7604 2 180.7502
33 1 23.0556 -2.3649 26.5924 2370.084
332 19.7001 -2.1022 22.283 2357.6449
333 19.8083 - 1.9445 2 1.9677 2320.6533
334 19.3213 -2.1547 20.1808 2224.739
335 20.5 1 19 -3.1533 2 1 -5998 2 195.6756
336 19.213 -2.47 19.4976 2101.76
337 19.3836 -2.3649 19.2874 2009.13 19
338 18.347 1 -2.1547 19.5502 2043.2623
339 18.5636 -2.943 20.3385 2024.76 14
340 17.5353 -6.7795 19.8139 I88l.1439
34 1 20.133 1 -2.47 24.6379 2300.3832
342 20.9449 - 1.892 25.1209 23 13.0528
343 20.4578 - 1.6292 2 1.7049 2299.O246
343 20.6202 - 1.5766 23 -4917 2358.1424
345 20.7825 - 1.6292 24.5954 2353.745
346 19.32 13 -3.73 13 2 1 S998 23 10.7723
337 17.86 -2.2073 19.918 2036.3434
348 16.7776 -2.943 18.394 1899.9097
349 14-731 -1.4715 18.7619 1813.1177
350 15.208 -3.7839 21.2319 1776.7367
-203-
Max Shouidei Min Pelvis Max Pelvis Total Energy Pcak Absolute
Accel. (g's) Accel. (g's) -b(Ibr in) Impact Load (Ibo
20.999 -1 1 -667 37.9967 6633.1378 2264.407
18.78 -3.4686 3 1.O595 6408.0955 2234.8829
19.213 4.7824 28.1691 6415.83719 2358.66 15
19.8083 -5.413 1 33.1617 608 1.62305 2262.8792
20.2954 -9.302 1 27.7486 5555.27 181 2468.0563
22.352 -8.829 1 29.3778 5379.59 159 2502.7 1
2 1.7567 -8.0408 33.1092 5396.866 1 1 2328.6074
20.133 1 -7.6729 30.7968 5579.05 156 2 1 17.2976
19.9707 -6.254 29.3778 5442,13044 22 15.8764
17.481 1 4.0467 25.1735 5703.19063 1917.3 192
19.213 - 12.4028 37.2084 6592.44925 2039.9338
18.5636 -10.143 3 1 -48 6176.15831 203 1.34
22.1356 -5.6759 24.0698 5949.69855 2 loO.2477
19.8625 -6.1488 2 1 -4947 6376.9 1779 21 55.0521
2 1 6485 -6.8846 2 I .4947 6 120.4 1573 2217.8109
19.8083 -5.2029 23.702 5903-69509 2154.57I l
18.0765 -6.0437 23.9647 585 1.99748 2 109.2547
18.1847 -5.9386 24.0 173 58 19.25799 2062.90 15
18.5094 -5.6759 25.226 5816.68 14 1996.4038
20.7284 -4.0992 27.7486 5770.14628 2049.8728
24.0839 -8.3561 28.1691 6565.15035 1862.7242
24.625 1 -8.4087 30.06 1 6154.01 125 1790.0928
17.5894 -6.20 14 20.3385 6 164.03535 1775.4964
20.6202 -6.359 1 1 8.499 1 6244.24508 1779.8342
19.646 -6.4642 20.2859 6005.02649 1685.6188
17.1564 -5.5 182 19.O246 5739.86087 1627.3893
18.5093 -6.1488 18.8144 6225.86205 1468.7 149
17.6976 -2.8905 18.026 1 6007.9983 1 12%. 1291
16.83I7 -2.7854 17.9735 6527.67796 121 1.6364
14.5045 -3.1007 16.3444 6434.11094 1305.0228
32.0939 - 1 3.2962 34.1602 6656.0905 1746.3423
26.8982 -10.5108 29.5355 6424.16053 1778.628
27.6559 4.5722 26.9603 5962.0799 1761.305
25.0581 4-5722 22.1253 61 15.29318 1751 -9477
19.1038 -3.4686 1 9.4976 6 194.77497 1884.0168
17.86 -2.7854 16.8 174 6065.4 1697 2044.6096
17.86 -2.3649 16.1341 6032.72805 1967-3297
18.9965 -2.3 1 24 18.2889 621 1.74085 1973.8452
18.3471 - 1 -9445 18.1838 6039.65539 2047.7345
19.5919 -2.6803 18.2889 6344.00009 2 107.9009
24.1922 -3.5737 25.226 6263.75624 2139.1798
24.0839 -4.362 23.8596 5779.74 158 2 199-6347
20.2954 -2.8905 20.7589 58 12.2928 2253.484
2 1 2696 -2.9956 22.7034 596 I .78 1 2244.3379
19.213 -2.47 22.1779 5702.54242 2247.73 13
24.0839 -4.6773 22.0728 56 13.56725 2239.359 1
20.566 -2.3649 20.60 1 3 5524.20498 2288.6978
22.2979 -2.8379 22.5458 5475.6635 1 2449.5936
2 1.2696 - 1.997 1 24.753 5988.59 23 1 5.2725
22.8933 -2.4 175 30.2 187 5590.85486 2448.8971
-204-
Tcst i Max Shoulder Min Pelvis Max Pelvis Peak Absolutc
Accel. (gTs) Acccl. (p's) Absorption (lbf'in) Impact Load (1 b t)
40 1 26.6276 -6.7269 28.4844 599 1.O2202 2338.187
402 23.8 133 -5.2029 27.7486
403 2 1 -3237 - 1.8394 22.5458
403 20.8367 -2.3 124 2 1-4947
405 19.7001 -3.1533 2 1.6523
306 19.8625 -1.997 1 2 1 S998
407 19.646 -2.9956 17.5006
408 19.2671 -2.6803 19.9706
409 20.24 1 3 -2.8905 22.8085
410 19.5919 -6.5693 26.750 1
cll l 22.4603 -2.0496 24.1749
412 24.4628 -2.47 28.43 18
cl1 3 23.00 15 -2.4 175 26.5924
4 14 22.785 - 1.997 1 27.223 1
415 22.0273 - 1.8394 25.54 1 3
416 2 1.865 -4.940 l 24.2275
417 19.3754 -4.5722 26.5399
4 18 20.24 13 -5.6233 25.0 158
4 19 1 9 .O507 -5.5707 27.59 1
420 16.3446 -5.1 503 17.3954
Potential Energy Energy ai Impact E.A.F. based on E.A.F. based on Average E.A.F.
Potential Enerpy Impact Energy
0.7 197 0.6990
Potential Energy Energy at Impact E.A.F. based on E.A.F. based on Avcnge E.A.F.
(IbPin) Potential Energy Impact Energy
b
3271.391301 0.6284 0.69 1 I

3405.23030 1 0.6392
3364.527202 0.6972
3374.883534 0.7202
3 106.446 O.7043
3548.045537 0.6956
3532.789762 0.6866
3530.44244 0.6877
3644.002264 0.6880
3548.34 1279 0.6664
3455.634308 0.6697
3384.63 1248 0.7036
337 1.2060 12 0.7355
3579.64947 0.7336
3524.000904 0.7294
3347.066554 0.7579
3540.509938 0.7456
3607.59 1092 0.7141
3398.639005 0.72 18
3423.598532 0.7045
4828.0 16597 0.7093
4784.654635 0.7385
5 106.35 190 1 0.7473
497 1.1 13942 0.7336
4704.6298 1 0.7926
507 1.769593 0.7046
476 1.673686 0.7820
4754.187 179 0.774 I
4931.190991 0.6890
39 14.907474 0.7722
48 18.384523 0.7 150
4327.294538 0.75 17
4909.82579 1 0.7489
4795.525472 0.7455
35 15.005686 0.7496
4933.go0279 0.7305
4355.700224 0.85 17
U72.2 1 1979 0.8435
3503.O30238 0.8322
476 1.232353 0.7097
4407.584869 0.8037
4356.488983 0.8083
4293.O 17746 0.8032
4594.937858 0.809 1
4604.449755 0.7747
462 1 .O90276 0.7673
46 1 1.226806 0.7698
44 16.81385 0.7526
4683.270568 0.7274
43 16.223802 0.7448
Energy at Impact E.A.F. based on E.A.F. bascd on Average E.A.F.
Impact Energy
0.799 1
0.8 103
0.79 18
0.765 1
0.7642
0.7459
0.7 1 1 1
0.6989
0.6678
0.673 1
0.700 1
0.6999
0.7 159
0.7 129
0.6765
0.6938
0.6652
0.675 1
0.6523
0.6476
0.6658
0.7 129
0.7 196
0.7387
0.7073
0.7 199
0.70 10
0.7056
0.6907
0.6852
0.686 1
0.69 12
0.7239
0.7320
0.7447
0.7483
0.7532
0.7472
0.7433
0.74 12
0.78 17
0.7572
0.7378
0.7352
0.7 142
0.7647
0.7556
0.75 84
0.7364
0.766 1
Test Potential Energy Energy at Impact E.A.F. based on E.A.F. based on Average E.A.F.
- (IbPin) (Ibf*in) >
Potential Enerpy Impact Energy
151 5057.439936 5151.846û81 0.8 136 0.7987
152 5 171 -33724 5203.%go76 0.7821 0.7773
153 5 173.984338 5257.482193 0.7372 0.7255
1 54 5181.194332 5333.406246 0.7820 0.7596
155 5249.194874 5268-449648 0.7305 0.7278
156 533 1.893505 5632.32 1768 0.7448 0.705 1
157 5347.199292 5048.735756 0.7728 0.8 184
158 5337.0335 5 104.426798 0.7937 0.8299
159 5267.734859 5337.54 172 0.7236 0.7 142
160 534 1.163497 5262.628977 0.8027 0.8 147
161 5 103.934097 5 108.836583 0.8223 0.82 16
162 5084.6628 13 4991.102146 0.8040 0.8 19 1
163 5 l6O.893O49 5 158.953757 0.7668 0.767 1
164 5208.128809 5225.9 1763 0.7997 0.7969
165 5 187.230 127 4978.699 IO2 0.7625 0.7944
166 5 185.025928 5233.48 1635 0.788 1 0.7808
167 5 148.965659 506 1.805637 0.72 19 0.7343
168 5 163.24 1447 5 131.857363 0.76 1 O 0.7656
169 5 140.437266 5232.8 1791 0.773 1 0.7594
170 51 16.891486 4943.6438 13 0.7428 0.7688
171 50 16.8 1677 4724.980848 0.762 1 0.8092
173 5029.763859 49 1 1.42448 0.7470 0.7650
173 5058.469935 4955.76433 0.7675 0.7834
1 74 5023.882564 472 1-756592 0.7396 0.7869
175 5006.660979 4799.969757 0.7379 0.7697
176 5022.852565 4868.274434 0.7388 0.7623
177 5000.625 1 84 4750.2 121 82 0.72 13 0.7593
178 497 1.496808 4926.559338 0.7049 0.71 14
179 4979.736802 4767.956 187 0.6942 0.7250
180 4990.479692 4978.148555 0.6886 0.6904
181 3967.078 1 12 4868.082789 0.6804 0.6942
182 4973.402307 4788.4 15398 0.69 19 0.7 186
183 4974.73 IO06 4544.79522 0.6693 0.7327
1 83 4966.1923 1 3 4700.700 143 0.675 1 0.7 1 33
185 4983.588097 1609.587483 0.6602 0.7 139
186 4985.030997 4802.69 1829 0.6922 0.7 185
187 4963.40 1015 473 1.86 1879 0.6633 0.6958
188 4957.808 12 4909.36373 1 0.6439 0.6502
189 4950.299426 47 17.543897 0.6268 0.6577
190 4935.73653 4922.66342 0.a22 0.6452
191 4907.873762 4529.4 15306 0.687 1 0.7445
192 4974.73 1006 4747.363634 O.7W 1 0.7378
193 4989.295 193 48 14.920894 0.7042 0.7297
194 4989.449693 4656.126234 0.6980 0.7480
195 4990.768092 4935A90604 0.7 165 0.7246
196 4994.156789 4937.45 1 177 0.7050 0.7 130
197 4997.833886 4872.975797 0.6928 0.7 105
198 4974.875206 4962.636948 0.69 13 0.6930
199 499 1 .O66792 496 1.367855 0.6900 0.694 1
200 4987.678095 4920.36 1444 0.6844 0.6938
Potential Energy Energy at Impact E.A.F. based on E.A.F. based on Average E.A.F.
(Ibf*in) (Ibf*in) Potential Energy Impact Energy
4950.742326 38 13.58583 1 0.6990 0.7 189
4948.970727 4793.138909 0.6877 0.710f
4994.888089 4724.555855 0.6903 0.7298
4992.38519 1 4717.281239 0.6927 0.733 1
4995.629688 4888.530678 0.6926 0.7078
4995.475 188 4669.677489 0.6997 0.7485
5023.1 1O966 4908.709828 0.7383 0.7553
5007.402578 4929.840023 0.7443 0.7560
5003.57098 1 47 14.470946 0.7181 0.7622
4988-708094 4889.846505 0.730 1 0.7448
590 I .452 124 5982.24233 1 0.8 195 0.8084
6077.303876 6559.108215 0.8006 0.74 18
6 138.969924 6804.494899 0.8 190 0.7389
6 103.352554 6584.47 1923 0.7820 0.7249
6304.377485 6543.2 18648 0.742 1 0.7 1 50
6223.295953 6669. I 42769 0.7084 0.66 1 1
6307.62 1982 6523 .go320 1 0.7476 0.7229
6285.538801 6483.640667 0.748 I 0.7252
6283.777502 65 13.543748 0.7374 0.71 14
6302.47 1986 6550.56573 1 0.7552 0.7266
6060.53549 6522.82005 1 0.7864 0.7306
6028.152318 61 19.203173 0.7808 0.7692
6 1 37.795725 6539.73 1637 0.7975 0.7485
6063.9 13887 6339.1880 1 1 0.7859 0.75 17
6 146.478618 6 198.076958 0.7227 0.7 166
6 127.784 134 6343-368474 0.6999 0.6762
6237.428833 6243.18453 0.7584 0.7589
6200.337272 6432.093308 0.6943 0.6693
6280.83 1705 6464.004829 0.7769 0.7548
6257.728824 6357.233888 0.7944 0.7820
5934.4 12097 5922.746722 0.8468 0.8485
5968.4 12368 5890.38 1436 0.8 185 0.8294
6024.77392 5723.646373 0.7553 0.7950
6055.086795 6 1 15.302347 0.7620 0.7545
6064.068387 5830.4 129 0.7548 0.7850
6 1 10.274148 6214.4841 15 0.7896 0.7763
6074.368379 6 106.874773 0.78 15 0.7773
6066.128386 6004.132568 0.7639 0.77 18
603 1.3968 15 5938.26 IO99 0.7673 0.7794
5996.078 145 6046.07256 1 0.7489 0.7427
5909.24921 8 5685.go2284 0.8 155 0.8476
5866.42 1854 5542.7524 1 1 0.8055 0.8526
5927.645002 5860.42354 0.7855 0.7945
5909.2492 18 5588.07 191 0.7546 0.7979
5868.48 1852 5655.2 194 12 0.738 1 0.7659
592 1.609207 5773.7O63O2 0.7695 0.7892
5899.824726 5708.7084 1 8 0.759 1 0.7846
590 I -740524 5978.709977 0.7844 0.7743
5879.667643 5733.637949 0.7321 0.7507
5860.386059 58 17.959789 0.7547 0.7602
Potentid Energy Energy at Impact E.A.F. based on E.A.F. bascd on Average E.A.F.
(Ibf*in) (Ibf*in) Potential Energy m-
Impact Encrpy
5834.78028 1 5606.480647 0.7502 0.7807
58 19.773193 5762.66624 1 0.7324 0.7397
585 1.4 14767 5594.9 1 70 16 0.7279 0.76 12
5859.5 1 O56 5868.905472 0.7377 0.7365
5838.367678 5484.59555 1 0.68 12 0.7252
5848.324769 5705.7 15045 0.6949 0.7 122
58 1 1.9761 5744.736306 0.67 19 0.6798
5835.52 188 5645.845 1 1 1 0.6778 0.7006
582 1.688992 5546.98804 1 0.6442 0.676 1
5829.187385 5856.188564 0.6634 0.6603
5769.292936 5368.553455 0.7 136 0.7669
5820.360293 577 1.623974 0.6970 0.7029
5848.170269 57 10.583468 0.7 129 0.730 1
5803.293207 5704.755984 0.6685 0.6800
5856.564762 5607.678 19 0.70 15 0.7326
5868.626052 5693.383367 0.7106 0.7325
5849.93 1 868 5829.709748 0.7237 0.7262
5841.1 14775 5525. f 56063 0.6893 0.7288
5866.566054 5866.232643 0.70 12 0.70 1 2
5835.96478 5663.660406 0.6776 0.6982
5823.30609 5727.0 16859 0.7302 0.7425
583 i .69O283 5596.59264 1 0.725 1 0-7556
5803.293207 5704.755984 0.6685 0.6800
5852.887665 5558. 136083 0.7024 0.7396
5878.338944 5873.983978 0.7121 0.7 126
5879.080543 58 12.537346 0.71 15 0.7 196
5897.033428 5783.038829 0.7365 0.75 1 1
5903.542 122 5892.59 1074 0.7593 0.76 1O
5872.60 1849 58 15.228838 0.7550 0.7624
5892.182 132 5650.633435 0.7386 0.7702
70 17.IO5984 7575.796253 0.8052 0.7458
7046.842059 7628.38 178 0.7999 0.7389
7028.734674 7745.779593 0.8 145 0.739 1
7 13 1.600687 7737.32 1733 0.7569 0.6976
7286.564057 7762.7 17849 0.6995 0.6566
7226.968307 7460.0 1O8 0.7348 0.71 19
7292.599852 7659.1 19776 0.6958 0.6625
7263.904076 7556.234203 0.7208 0.6930
7250.658287 7527.0 13276 0.6893 0.6640
7284.2 15659 7637.182713 0.69 19 0.6599
6924.1 O7362 6993.280467 0.8467 0.8384
7042.279 163 7565.18 1287 0.7805 0.7265
71 10.1 14905 7577.550483 0.7864 0.7379
7 1 19.240698 7605.472395 0.7544 0.7062
7 127.037791 7 1 80.286772 0.7 177 0.7 124
7 168.835156 7459.728956 0.6759 0.6495
7224.908309 7366.22368 1 0.7394 0.7252
7 199.ûO383 7 1 89.493872 0.743 1 0.744 1
7272.288269 76 17-381828 0.7504 0.7 164
7 1 79.876747 75 18.O48914 0.6499 0.6207
Potential E n e r ~ Energy at Impact E.A.F. based on E.A.F. bascd on Average E.A.F.
Impact Energy
0.8479
0.8372
0.7534
0.7660
0.7748
0.7294
0.7586
0.777 1
0.7777
0.7559
0.8480
0.7857
0-7997
0.7624
0.79 1 1
0.7884
0,7878
0-7987
0.7737
0.7989
0,809 1
0.7483
0.7233
0.7423
0.7529
0.7379
0.7362
0.6822
0.7008
0.7208
0.7360
0.74 15
0.7293
0.7303
0.7 184
0.7 159
0.705 1
0.72 15
0.7 185
0.7278
0,786 1
0.77 15
0.7453
0.7367
0.698 1
0.7 188
0.7368
0.756 1
0.7756
0.7957
Potcntial Encrgy Energy at Impact E.A.F. based on E.A.F. based on Average E.A.F.
Potcntial
- Energy Impact Energy
0.8457 0.8325
0.8007
0.7946
0.7567
0.6744
0.6536
0.6539
0.6776
0.6606
0.6906
0.8371
0.7741
0.7375
0.7885
0.7526
0.7224
0.7146
0.7100
0.7080
0.7002
0.8252
0.7729
0.7712
0.7766
0.7480
0.7 160
0.7689
0.7451
0.8057
0.7905
0.8449
0.8183
0.7588
0.7753
0.7850
0.7690
0.7655
0.7914
0.7679
0.8084
0.8045
0.7417
0.7458
0.7625
0.7310
0.7204
0.7105
0.7043
0.7686
0.7I9O
Test I Potcntial Energy Eneru at Impact E.A.F. bascd on Avcragc E.A.F.
(Ibf'in) (Ibf*in) Potcntial E n e r ~ Impact Encrgy
40 1 7709.6774 7222.229562 0.777 1 0.8295
402 7755.15 1862 7694.7 1 3504
403 7789.152133 7a6.96 1762
404 7788.554733 7426.5726 16
405 7795.9 19227 7556.8449 15
406 7784.290537 7693.50454
307 78 1 7.992 1 0 9 7632.580497
408 7806.5076 18 7572.477987
409 7810.040515 7813.176189
410 7787.823434 7582.002442
-11 1 7743.677671 770 1.7737 14
4 12 7758.828958 7862.566596
4 13 7782.086339 7603-374902
3 13 7788.997633 7474.773 154
415 7803.01502 7736.668769
416 7806.2 19219 7792.576996
417 7826.8 19201 7660369484
418 7838.73629 1 7781.190631
419 7806.2 19219 7452.432943
420 7827.9934 7468.106925
Pcrcentage Difference from Max Rebound Impact Vclocity Cocfficicnt of Restitution
Test 4 Percentage Di fferencc from Max Rebound Impact Velocity Coefficient of Restitution
E.A.F.1 to E.A.F.P. vetoc- (mpy
51 9.9785 -3.67609 8.17827
52 6.8825 -3.521 58 8.3 1339
53 8-4449 -3.5373 8.24063
54 8.8547 -3.5437 1 8.21901
55 17.85IO -3.55906 7.8335
56 3.6457 -3-69421 8.46487
57 4-2414 -3.93247 8.43553
58 3.9299 -3.8459 1 8.45 143
59 0.7533 -4.1558 1 8.6093 1
60 2.9868 -4.04516 8.4982 1
61 5.4 177 -3.57444 8.38 174
62 8.0558 -3.78434 8.25746
63 9,2252 -3 -60849 8.20108
64 3.1064 -3.3 1536 8.49078
65 4.7907 -3.45 186 8.40825
66 9.886 1 -3.39657 8.17167
67 4.334 1 -3.y08 17 8.43035
68 1.6837 -3.47029 8.56239
69 7A062 -3.85236 8.26823
70 7.2083 -3.56782 8.295 19
71 6.3836 -3.23062 9.96222
72 3.6037 -3.35804 9.81 133
73 8.4343 -3 -47762 10.09193
74 6.1997 -3.36306 9.96282
75 3.O025 -2.98002 9.4242
76 5.828 1 -3.19388 9.94958
77 1.4965 -2.60732 9.5 1366
78 1.2044 -2.5398 9.53 145
79 2.677 1 - I -96765 9.7m53
80 2.3256 -2.6397 1 9.7436
81 3.8509 -2.88482 9-82642
83 3.8936 -3.3 1 187 9.384 15
83 4.6141 -3.26245 9.87296
84 3.4437 -3.2 1031 9.80296
85 4-2711 -3.08472 9.35773
86 3.6804 -2.5006 9.82207
87 9.5003 -3.22478 9.06749
88 6.8944 -2.9864 1 9.207 17
89 6.0974 -3.06536 9.25 144
90 0.8062 -2.30007 9.65 173
91 3.193 1 -3 -39849 9.42487
92 3.9 170 -3.2 159 9.38639
93 7.20 15 -2.849 12 9 -20608
94 0.8366 -2.72372 9.5553 1
95 0.3151 -2.31 181 9.58557
96 0.31 14 -3-07297 9.62 193
97 0.0750 -2.67984 9.60822
98 3.6738 -3.24322 9.397 19
99 2.5786 -2.74758 9.75 1 O8
100 5.3399 -3.38652 9.30893
Tçst i Pçrccntage Difference frorr Max Rebound Impact Veloci ty Coefficient of Restitution
E.A.F.1 to E.A.F.P. (rnph)
101 10.0047 9.07777
102 9.271 14
1 O3 9.45198
104 9.17839
IO5 9.29369
1 O6 9.34818
1 O7 9.5192
1 O8 9.20 104
1 O9 9-32601
110 9.60977
111 9.53 14 1
112 9.35914
Il3 9.2U19
114 9.28148
115 9.39232
116 9.38011
Il7 9.23988
l l8 9.38445
Il9 9.29453
120 9.39754
121 9.59192
122 9.29767
123 9.32382
1 24 9.18438
125 9.42941
126 9.2281 1
127 9-41375
128 9.39299
1 29 9.55462
130 9.4531
13 l 9.44241
132 9.28103
133 9.35 124
134 9.26899
135 9.59208
136 9.45574
137 9-42694
138 9.58734
139 9.4247
1 40 9.16089
14 1 10.3708
142 10.48761
143 10.46655
1 44 10.61 665
145 10.60358
146 10.25606
147 10.31924
1.18 10.2506
149 10.33764
150 10.42973
Pcrccntage Di fference from Max Rebound Impact Velocity Cocfficicnt of Restitution
E.A.F.1 to E.A.F.P.
1 -8667
Percen tagc Difference froir Mâx Rebound Impact Velocity Coefficient o f Restitution
E.A.F.1 to E.A.F.P. Veiocity (mph) (rnph)
4-01221 10.0687 1
10.04624
9.90736
9.90 153
10.10477
9.83938
IO.09722
IO. 14008
9.8844 1
IO. 1 1463
11.2515
1 1.67483
1 1.86373
11.67412
1 1.42022
1 1.6375
11.39629
11.37697
11.4106
1 1.43002
1 1.65458
1 1.26253
11.59175
1 1.45876
1 1 -22006
1 1.39555
11.15967
11.41271
11.36108
11.27161
11.15162
1 1.07937
f 0.83296
1 1.22935
10.90807
1 1.27666
11.19945
1 1.09687
1 1.06286
11.21833
10.9 195
10.80775
11.091 17
10.81054
10.93067
1 1 .O0279
10.955 16
1 1.24739
1 1.00485
11.1 1819
Pcrccntagc Difference frorn Max Rebound Impact Velacity Coefficient of Restitution
E.A.F.1 to E.A.F.P.
4.072 1
Perccntage Difference from Max Rebound impact Velocity Coefficient of Restitution
E.A.F.1 to E.A.F.P. (mph)
1.2273 12.04349
2.2373 1 1.97486
1.3083 12.21862
13207 12.25534
4.2903 1 1.83536
0.0838 12.13338
1.5247 12.23478
1.7950 12.00233
2.3294 1 1.96637
1.7623 12.25037
3.4397 1 1 3969
0.0 154 12.12644
0.4523 1 2.0963 1
0.3524 12.15178
2.1757 l 1.98009
3.1052 11.91811
1.8537 12.0018
2.98 13 ll.92728
2.7788 1 1-94075
0.0366 12.125
1.5104 1 1.83094
1 .5547 1 2.02304
1.7988 12.ûO683
3.2875 1 1.9087
5.8340 1 1.74569
1.7779 12.00786
1.3949 12.22214
0.9694 12.06215
5.0059 1 1 -79944
0.9509 12.06339
2.6963 1 1.94889
3.1803 11.91649
2.61 12 1 1.9538
5.04 18 1 1.79634
0.28 1 1 12.14669
0.241 1 12.1 1107
1.4646 12.22694
3-0600 1 1.92371
0.6494 12.08344
1.7996 12.00651
4.4394 1 1.83689
3.2705 11.91067
3.7957 1 1.87572
4.3467 1 1.84054
1.6909 12.0 1386
4.4863 11.8313
2.9438 1 1.92992
2.9267 11.93132
3.286 1 1 1.90773
1.4883 12.02651
Pcrcentage Difference from M ~ JRebound
C Impact Velocity Cocfficicnt of Restitution
E.A.F.1 to E.A.F.P. Velocily (mph) _(mp hl-
1.5859 -3.76582 13.13477
-4.0805 13.66456
-4.21515 1 3.86467
-4.21081 13.86633
-5.0 1006 1 3.3972 1
-4.9468 13.35874
-4.76375 13.37588
-4.426 15 13.31716
-4.60122 13.36679
4.07895 13.24252
-3.77674 13.06363
-3.88556 13.18797
-3.96388 13.43041
4.76232 13.1233
-4.5989 13.12588
-4.75732 13.1309
-4.64965 13.15023
-4.4549 13.16195
-4.3 8449 13.2585 1
-4.1 8203 1 3,32399
-3.588 18 13.151 12
-3.38948 13.34208
-3.7 1522 12.92357
-3.69564 13-2186 1
-3.43076 12.841 15
-3.O93 14 13.12048
-3.47 1 1 13.25302
-2.98 I 17 13.23273
-3.17848 12.72409
-3.3037 12-87133
-3.42583 13.15594
-3.4427 12.7 138
-3.52549 13.01617
-3.7723 I 12.72775
-3.7707 12.93745
-3.9565 1 12.84888
-3.77453 12.87 153
-3.74228 13.0357
-3.98553 12.87304
-3.43869 13.O8349
-4.34799 12.77644
-4.35802 13.03513
-4.6 1386 12.701 18
-4.43 1 13.1 1036
-4.8421 12.65765
3 . 3 1884 13-08188
-4.44479 12.66755
-4.99587 12-79167
-4.02922 1 3.09744
-4.34 172 12.98048
Test #I Pcrcen~ageDifference frorn 1 Max Rebound Impact Veloci ty Coefficient of Restitution
E.A.F.I to E.A.F.P. Veiocity (rnph)
6.7493 -4.63539
APPENDK C
Material Properties and Sample input Data for the Aluminum Crosshead
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND SAMPLE INPUT DATA FOR THE
ALUMINUM CROSSHEAD
Material Promrties of the AIuminurn Crosshead
Materiai Property Value (with corresponding units)

Density 14300 kg/m3
I Young's Modulus 1 72 GPa I

Poisson's Ratio 1
Sample Input Data from the LS-DYNA input file:

*Y!T-F.IGI3
SM
"! ZR IAL SAYE :C F O S S
S THIS :S T H E Y A T E R I A L MODSL OF THE ALüMINUM C R O S S H E A D .
S THE Z13iS17''f F A S BEEN A W S T E D TO G I V E T H E CORRECT MASS O F T H Z CROSSHEAD.
S S I N C E TT WSS NOT FAVE T H E EXACT GEOMETRY O F THE ACTUAL C R O S S H E A D .
S MID RO E PR N COUPLE H AL 1AS
3 1 . 4 3 0 E - 0 5 7.200Z+C7 3.300E-01 0 . 0 0 0 E + 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 E + 0 0 0 . 3 0 0 E * 0 0
S CXO CON1 CON2
.O .O .O
SiCo o r A l A2 A3 V1 V2 V3
APPENDDC D
Material Properties and Sample Input Data for the Wooden Backing Plate
MATERIAL PROPERTlElS AND SAMPLE INPUT DATA FOR THE WOODEN
BACKING PLATE
Material Protxrties of the Wooden Backing: Plate
Material Property
i
Value (with corresponding units)
I
I Density
--
1 - -
1244 kg/m3
-
1
Young's Modulus 1 1 GPa
i
Poisson's Ratio 1 0.33 1

'HAT-RIGID
SYATES 1AL XAVE :WOOD
S THIS IS THE MATERIAL MODEL FOR THE WOOD BACKING (MODELED A S A R I G I D 90DY).
s YID no 2 PR N COUPLE x AL IAS
2 1.244E-06 1.100E+07 3.300E-01 0.00fiE+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
S CXO CON1 CON2
. r, .O .O
SLCO o r RI A2 A3 V I V2 V3
APPENDIX E
Material Propenies and Sample input Data for the Low Density Polyurethane Foam
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND SAMPLE INPUT DATA FOR THE LOW
DENSITY POLYURETHANE FOAM
Materiai Pro~ertiesof the Low Densitv Polvurethane Foam
Density 153.8 kg/m3
I Young's Modulus 1 643.6 P a II

1 Hysteretic Unloading Factor 1 0.39 I
II Viscous Coefficient 1 0.4047 II
1 Shape Factor 1 5 .O0

S MOXS LINES ADDED BY B I L L A L T W O F
S T H I S I S THE D'üMMY H A T E R I A L MODEL FOR DCR3T.n I I !
'!JAT-Lûirl-D~S ITY-FOAM
S NOTE T : I T THE ü N I T S ARE DERIVED FROM T H E B A S E S E T MM, S E C , KG !
1----+----2----+----3------+----4----+----5----+----6----+----7--------- 8
S XI3 RO E LCID TC HU BETA DMP
1 1.5365-07 6.436F-02 I l.OE+ZO 0.39 0.0 4 -0472-01
j---*----;----+----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----+----6----+----7----+---- 8
S SFAPE FAIL 3VFLAG ED BETA1 KCON
5-09 0.0 O .O 0.0 0.0 0.0
~---.----~----+----2----~----3------4----+----~----+----6----+----7----+---- 8
S T H I S I S THE S T R E S S VERSUS STRAIN CüRVE FOR THE LOW DENSITY FOX4 ( D W d l )
~--------1----,----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----+----6----+----7--------- 8
'DE" I.ÿS-CURVE
S LCID SIDR SCLA SCLO OFFA OFF0
O 1 1
S NOTE TF?? FOR COMPRESSIVE VALUES THE D I S P L & FORCE MUST BE P O S I T I V E
S ALSO NOTE '!'HAT MATERIAL P R O P E R I T E S ARE BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING U N I T S :
S LEYGTE IN M I L L I M E R E S , VASS I N KILOGRAMS. TIME I N SECONDS
S 7&%iS1( S T W i N ) YkrlISl (STRSSS1
S--------'---------Z--------- j---------e----*----5--- --------*---------+---- 2
O O
0.016226 45.38768
O. O33060 48.12784
O. 052734 53.75970
O. 086784 60 -71955
O. 099384 63 -44347
0.122043 70.23119
O . 162088 82.16984
O. 202029 96.03072
0.242804 111.9014
O -285170 125.4027
0.325386 143.6825
O . 370234 165.3050
û.410409 196.4105
0.423747 211.0045
0.445498 239.9165
0.467962 291.7439
0.495563 403.5450
0.513825 495.7219
O. 522790 634.3988
APPENDIX F
Material Properties and Sample Input Data for the Steering Wheel Aluminum Alloy
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND SAMPLE INPUT DATA FOR THE STEERING
WHEEL ALUMINUM ALLOY
Material Prowrties of the S t e e r i n ~Wheel Aluminum Alloy
Matenal Property Value (with corresponding units)
1 Density 1 2696 kg/m3

Young's Modulus 74.33 GPa
I Poisson's Ratio 1 0.35
1 Yieid Stress 1 70.33 MPa
I Cowper-Symond' s Strain Rate Parameters 1 D = 6500 I/s, q =cl
Sample Input Data frorn the LS-DYNA input file:

.A
-W .- ; -??EC9:?SZ-LINNLkririPLASTICITY
s EID no E PX s IGY ETMJ EPPF TDEL
1 C 2.696E-06 7 . 4 3 3 E + 0 7 3.500E-01 7.033E-04 0.000E-00 0 . 0 0 0 2 - 0 0 0.000E-00
S C P LCSS LCSR
6500 4 2 .OOOF+OO
S EPS l EPS2 EPS3 EPS4 EPS5 EPS6 ZPS7 EPS~
'3EF :SE-CEVE
S TKTS IS T E 2 30AD C U R E FOR THE S T R E S S V S . EFFECTim PLASTIC S T E W I N
5 FO?. IXZ ALLXIN[R.I M A T S R I A L ( U N I T S M E BASSD UPON S A S E SET-RG,MM.SZC)
S iC 13 SIDR SCLA SCLO OFFA OFF0
L O
S STRAIN STRESS
0.3~COOC000000 70333,06712
0.003924830310 78986.52068
0 . OOe752652348 89018.03038
O . 013564565110 98380.72751
0.ù?Z361082510 107143.5089
0.023140387900 115369.8456
0.327902336490 123117.6128
0.032046457660 130438.9184
0.Û37372357360 137379.9328
C.242079720430 143980.7i81
O. 0 4 6 7 6 8 3 1 3 0 3 0 150275.0576
0.051137984900 156290.2847
0.056086671800 162047.1125
0.060720397820 167559-4633
0.065233277740 172834.2974
O . O69927519390 177871.4429
O . O74503426020 182663-4247
0.079061398580 187195.2943
0.083601938140 191444-4583
C.066125648230 195380 - 5084
0.092033237130 198965.0507
0.997125520270 202151. 5346
O.iOLOG3422600 204885.0822
0.106067980700 207102-3183
Q.i1052û345600 208731.1986
O. 7 1 2 7 4 2 3 4 7 0 0 0 209300.0793
APPENDIX G
Sample Data From the LS-DYNA Input File Regardinp Hourglass Control
SAMPLE DATA FROM THE LS-DYNA INPUT FILE REGARDING
HOURGLASS CONTROL
c--------:----+----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----+---- 6---------7--------- a
s ADDITIONAL LINESS ADDED a~ RILL ALTENHOF (HOURGLASS C O E ~ R O L )
C--------1---------2----~----~-7----+----4----+----5----+----~----+----7----+---- 8
5 TEE SGUZGLAÇS CONTROL USED I N ALL S I M U L A T I O N S IS THE
5 FLAtVAGAii-SELYTSCHKO S T I F L N E S S FORM WITH EXACT VOLUME ZNTEGPATION (TYPE 5 )
S ?'XE HOURGLASS C O E F F I C I E N T IS SET A S T H E DEFACnT QM=O.lO
S U O U R G G S S CONTROL IS ONLY IMPLEMENTED FOR THE BODYFORM PART d l
'3 G U G G Z S . S
S 1UQ QM 1EQ Q 1. Q2 QB QW
5 0-1 L
$--------:----c----2---------j-----4----+----s----v----6----+----7----+-- --8
APPENDIX H
Sample Data From the LS-DYNA input File Regarding Contact and Mass Scaling
SAMPLE DATA FROM THE LS-DYNA INPUT FILE REGARDING CONTACT
AND MASS SCALING
Sample Input Data from the LS-DYNA input file (contact algorithm):
Sample Input Data from the LS-DYNA input file (timestep and mass scaling):
S VASS SCASING I S INVOKED 9Y INCORPORATING THZ A P P R O P R I A T E VALUE UNDER 9TMS
S 20.. T?S!SIENT ANALYSES DT'MS MWST 51 N E G A T I V F !
S INITIAL S I . % L A T I O N HAVE PROVEN TFAT MASS S C A L I N G TO THE EXTEXT C O X P L E T E D
S IPi T E S E S I . W L A T I O N S D I D NOT AFFECT T H E RESULTS.
S FOR THE ?UR?OSES O F T H I S STUDY, !4ASS S C X I N G WAS ONLY PERFOF.YE9 O N THE
.
S S-==TiI:;G
--+ I.'EEZL, NO A D D I T I O N A L MASS WAS ADDED TC T H E DROPPIPIG ASSEXBL'L'
S C O ? i S I S T I ? : G O F T'SE CROSSHEAD, WOODEN BACKING P L A T E , AND DECORMASLE D m Y .
C---+----'----+----2----+----3----+----4----*----5----+----6---------7----*---- 6
'COIK'FZOL-T IMEST EP
S X'I?lIL SCFT ISW TSLIMT DTMS LEM ERODE MS1ST
.O 0 0 -900 O -3. G E - 0 7
~--------:----+----2----~----3---+----4----+----~----+----5----*----7----+---- 8
VITA AUCTORIS
Name: William Jack Altenhof
Place of Birth: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Date o f Birth: April 3 6 . 1972
Education: University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Degree: Mechanical Engineering. Graduated,

M.A.Sc. in September 1997, 1995-1997.
Degree: Mechanical Engineering, with the

Materials Option (Honours). Graduated,
B.A.Sc. In October 1995 with
Distinction, 199 1 - 1995.

FEA of Impact On Steering Wheel PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEA of Impact On Steering Wheel PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Element Analysis with Experimental Verifkation

A Dissertation submitted to the

Windsor, Ontario, Canada

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du

characteristics of a steering wheel has been developed.

situations. Overall, a good relationship between numerical simulations and experimental

tool in steering wheel design and development.

during this work.

Furthemore, an enormous amount of thanks is extended to the entire engineering

encouragement and support for this investigation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiv

3. FOCUS OF RESEARCH WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5 . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ACQUIRED FROM EXPERiMENTAL TESTS . . . - 3 8

6. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND SlMULATION OF THE EXPERiMENTAL

6.4. Numerical Simulation and Comparison with Experimental Tests of the

7. CONCLUSIONS AND REC0MMEM)ATIONS FOR FüTURE WORK . . . . . . . 156

APPENDIX A . Resolution of the Measunng Devices Used in this Investigation .. 166

Figure 3 . The column angle and impact velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4 . The wheel angle ............................................ 23

Figure 5 . Lower portion of impact testing machine ....................... -27

Figure 8 . Typical crosshead displacement versus "z-axis" or vertical load curves

Figure 12 . Calculated energy versus crosshead displacement curve for experimental

Figure 13 . Annotated graph of experimental test #345 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 58 . I h ~ r a t i o nof the finite element aluminum crosshead mode1 . . . . . . . . . 89

Finite element models of the chestfonn. wooden backing plate. and

Figure 63 . CAD mode1 of the three spoke steering wheel .

Figure 68 - Graphical cornparison between the experimental tests and LS-DYNA

Figure 72 - VerticaI load versus crosshead displacement comparing two experimental

Figure 73 - Expenmental versus numerical results for testing conducted at

Figure 74 - Expenmental versus numerical results for testing conducted at

Figure 75 - Experimental versus numerical results for testing conducted at

Figure 76 - Experimental and numerical vertical load versus crosshead displacement

Figure 77 - Experimental and numerical vertical load versus crosshead displacement

Figure 80 . Chestfom finite element model with massively distorted elements.

Figure 86 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test # 1 . . . . . . . . . 137

Figure 88 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test #3 . . . . . . . . . 138

Figure 89 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test #4 . . . . . . . . . 138

Figure 90 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test #5 . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure 91 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test #6 . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure 92 . Experimental and numencal findings for simulation test #7 . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure 93 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test #8 . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure 94 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test #9 . . . . . . . . . 141

Figure 95 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test # 10 . . . . . . . . 141

Figure 96 . Experimental and numericaI findings for simulation test #I 1 . . . . . . . . 142

Figure 97 . Experimental and numerical findings for simulation test fC 12 . . . . . . . . 142

Figure 98 . An energy cornparison behveen experimental tests and numerical

Table 2 Maximum E.A.F. with corresponding coefficient of restitution and wheel

Table 3 Percentage difference between experimental and numerical simulation

Table 4 Summary of the three FE models investigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1

Table 8 Testing parameters for the twelve numerical simulations to be conducted

Table 9 Computational time required to complete the twelve numerical

Table 1 5 . Description of each fi le on the accompanying CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . 1 55

area (length') density of 'material'

acceleration due t o gravity tnie stress at quasi-static strain

acceleration (length/time2) engineering strain

height, distance, o r true strain

LENGTH ACCEt ERATION

ASCII - Amencan Standard Code FEA - finite element analysis

AVI - Audio Video Interleave I-E-muv - interna1 energy wi-thin the

E.A.F. - Energy Absorption Factor iGES - Initial Graphics Exchange

E.A.F.P. - Energy Absorption Factor SAE - Society of Automotive

In the present automotive industry, al1 corporations are focusing on developing