Repeatability of a dynamic rollover test system
ABSTRACT Objective: The goal of this study was to characterize the rollover crash and to evaluate the repeatability of the Dynamic Rollover Test System (DRoTS) in terms of initial roof-to-ground contact conditions, vehicle kinematics, road reaction forces, and vehicle deformation. Methods: Four rollover crash tests were performed on 2 pairs of replicate vehicles (2 sedan tests and 2 compact multipurpose van [MPV] tests), instrumented with a custom inertial measurement unit to measure vehicle and global kinematics and string potentiometers to measure pillar deformation time histories. The road was instrumented with load cells to measure reaction loads and an optical encoder to measure road velocity. Laser scans of pre- and posttest vehicles were taken to provide detailed deformation maps. Results: Initial conditions were found to be repeatable, with the largest difference seen in drop height of 20 mm; roll rate, roll angle, pitch angle, road velocity, drop velocity, mass, and moment of inertia were all 7% different or less. Vehicle kinematics (roll rate, road speed, roll and pitch angle, global Z′ acceleration, and global Z′ velocity) were similar throughout the impact; however, differences were seen in the sedan tests because of a vehicle fixation problem and differences were seen in the MPV tests due to an increase in reaction forces during leading side impact likely caused by disparities in roll angle (3° difference) and mass properties (2.2% in moment of inertia [MOI], 53.5 mm difference in center of gravity [CG] location). Conclusions: Despite those issues, kinetic and deformation measures showed a high degree of repeatability, which is necessary for assessing injury risk in rollover because roof strength positively correlates with injury risk (Brumbelow 2009). Improvements of the test equipment and matching mass properties will ensure highly repeatable initial conditions, vehicle kinematics, kinetics, and deformations.
Repeatability study of replicate crash tests: A signal analysis approach
ABSTRACT Objective: To provide an objective basis on which to evaluate the repeatability of vehicle crash test methods, a recently developed signal analysis method was used to evaluate correlation of sensor time history data between replicate vehicle crash tests. The goal of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of rollover crash tests performed with the Dynamic Rollover Test System (DRoTS) relative to other vehicle crash test methods. Methods: Test data from DRoTS tests, deceleration rollover sled (DRS) tests, frontal crash tests, frontal offset crash tests, small overlap crash tests, small overlap impact (SOI) crash tests, and oblique crash tests were obtained from the literature and publicly available databases (the NHTSA vehicle database and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety TechData) to examine crash test repeatability. Results: Signal analysis of the DRoTS tests showed that force and deformation time histories had good to excellent repeatability, whereas vehicle kinematics showed only fair repeatability due to the vehicle mounting method for one pair of tests and slightly dissimilar mass properties (2.2%) in a second pair of tests. Relative to the DRS, the DRoTS tests showed very similar or higher levels of repeatability in nearly all vehicle kinematic data signals with the exception of global X′ (road direction of travel) velocity and displacement due to the functionality of the DRoTS fixture. Based on the average overall scoring metric of the dominant acceleration, DRoTS was found to be as repeatable as all other crash tests analyzed. Vertical force measures showed good repeatability and were on par with frontal crash barrier forces. Dynamic deformation measures showed good to excellent repeatability as opposed to poor repeatability seen in SOI and oblique deformation measures. Conclusions: Using the signal analysis method as outlined in this article, the DRoTS was shown to have the same or better repeatability of crash test methods used in government regulatory and consumer evaluation test protocols.
Comparison of reporting of seat belt use by police and crash investigators: variation in agreement by injury severity.
PURPOSE
To evaluate agreement between police and trained investigators regarding seat belt use by crash victims, according to injury severity.


METHODS
We used data from the National Accident Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) for front seat occupants, 16 years and older, in crashes during 1993-2000. Crashworthiness Data System investigators determined belt use from vehicle inspection, interviews, and medical record information; their assessment was considered the gold standard for this analysis. Occupant severity of injury was categorized in five levels from no injuries to death. We estimated the sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristic curves for police reports of belt use.


RESULTS
Among 48,858 occupants, sensitivity of a police report that a belt was used was 95.8% overall and varied only modestly by injury severity. Specificity of a police report that a belt was not used was 69.1% overall; it was the lowest among the uninjured (53.2%) and greatest among the dead (90.4%). The area under the curve was 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.82-0.83) overall; this was lowest among those not injured (0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.76) and increased with injury severity to 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.90-0.93) among those who died.


CONCLUSION
Police usually classify belted crash victims as belted, regardless of injury severity. But they often classify unbelted survivors as belted when they were not. This misclassification may result in exaggerated estimates of seat belt effectiveness in some studies.