Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients’s Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Quasi Static and Dynamic Roof Crush Testing
5. Report Date
June 1998
6. Performing Organization Code
NRD-23
7. Author(s)
Glen C. Rains and Michael A. Van Voorhis8. Performing Organization Report No.
VRTC-82-0197/VRTC-86-0391
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Research and Test Center P.O. Box 37 East Liberty, OH 43319
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)n code
11. Contract of Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
A study was conducted at the Vehicle Research and Test Center to investigate roof crush resistance in passengervehicles. The objective was to determine the correlation between roof crush performance measured quasi-statically anddynamically. Currently, FMVSS No. 216 sets requirements for roof crush resistance using a quasi-static load applied tothe vehicle roof. This load application is not representative of real-world loading rates of roof structures in a rollovercollision. A series of tests comparing quasi-static roof loading versus dynamic roof loading was conducted to determinehow static and dynamic tests can be correlated and if static test can be transformed to a dynamically equivalent result.
Nine vehicles were selected for the quasi-static tests. Subsets of this group were subject to 1) FMVSS 216 testprocedure, 2) incremental crush testing, and 3) modified crush angle (roll and pitch.) Each vehicle was then ranked forperformance, based on roof strength and stiffness .
Based on the roof structure performance of the quasi-static tests, six vehicles were tested by dropping them on theirroofs (dynamic drop test.) Dynamic force vs. crush and energy vs. crush were plotted. The slope of the dynamic energyvs. crush plots were compared to the static tests. The slopes of the dynamic test were 1.1 to 1.6 times the static crushslopes for all six vehicles.
A multiple regression of static and dynamic testing was performed to develop an equation for predicting a dynamicenergy slope from static data. The equation had a correlation coefficient of 0.94. To validate the equation, another vehiclewas selected and the vehicle roof crushed quasi-statically. The equation was then used to predict the dynamicperformance. The same vehicle type was then drop tested at two drop heights to obtain actual dynamic roof crush data.An 8% and 17% error was found in the predicted dynamic energy slope.
17. Key Words
FMVSS 216Roof Crush
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the public through theNational Technical Information Service,Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified21. No of Pages 22. Price
Form DOT F1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii
Metric Conversion Factors
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTSSection Page
Technical Report Documentation Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Metric Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
LIST OF EQUATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.0 Static Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 Test Set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 Test Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Static roof Crush results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.0 Drop Tests onto Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.2 Test Matrix for Vehicles Dropped onto Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.3 Floor Drop Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.0 Drop Tests onto Load Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.2 Test Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.3 Load Plate Drop Test Results for 6 Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.0 Static and Dynamic Test Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.1 Crush Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.2 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415.3 Validating Regression Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.0 Summary and Conclusions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)
Section Page
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
v
LIST OF FIGURESPage
Figure 1-Test device location and application to the roof. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Figure 2 Grid layout for roof profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 3-Post test photograph of Nissan pickup in quasi-static test device. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 4-Photo showing head form used to measure headroom reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 5-Overlaid plots of test data before it is concatenated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 6-Force/crush plot for the Nissan pickup tested quasi-statically. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 7-Energy/crush plot and regression line for the Nissan pickup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 8-Force/crush plot for the Dodge Colt tested quasi-statically. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 9-Energy/crush and regression line plot for Dodge Colt tested quasi-statically. . . . . . . 13Figure 10-Roof profiles for the Nissan pickup tested quasi-statically. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 11-Roof profiles for Dodge Colt tested quasi-statically. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 12-Corridor for static force deflection curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 13-Corridor for static energy deflection curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 14-Corridor for normalized static energy deflection curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 15-Illustration of floor drop procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 16-Pre-test photo of floor drop test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 17-Photo showing placement of accelerometers used in the floor drop tests. . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 18-Post test photo of the Nissan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 19-Roof profile of the Nissan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 20(a)-Plot for drop angle analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 20(b)-Plot for drop angle analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 20(c)-Plot for drop angle analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 20(d)-Plot for drop angle analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 21-Load plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 22-Setup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 23-Load plate layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 24-Force/crush curve for the Nissan drop test onto the load plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 25-Energy/crush curve for the Nissan drop test onto the load plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 26-Force/crush curve for the Colt drop test onto the load plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 27-Energy/crush curve for the Colt drop test onto the load plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 28-Quasi-static vs. Dynamic drop for force/crush data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 29-Quasi-static vs. Dynamic drop for energy/crush data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Figure 30-Quasi-static vs. Dynamic drop for regression data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Figure 31-Caprice drop height comparison of force/crush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Figure 32-Cavalier drop height comparison of force/crush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Figure 33-Caprice drop height comparison of energy/crush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Figure 34-Cavalier drop height comparison of energy/crush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Figure 35-Caprice drop height comparison for regressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Figure 36-Cavalier drop height comparison for regressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Figure 37-Dodge Neon force/crush curve for quasi-static test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
vi
LIST OF FIGURES(Continued)
PageFigure 38-Dodge Neon energy/crush and regression curves for quasi-static test. . . . . . . . . . . . 49Figure 39-Dodge Neon regression lines for quasi-static test vs. predicted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Figure 40-Dodge Neon regression lines for predicted vs. actual at 2 heights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Figure A(1)-Nissan #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Figure A(2)-Nissan #2 quasi-static tests roof profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Figure A(3)-Dodge Colt #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Figure A(4)-Dodge Colt #2 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Figure A(5)-Chevy Cavalier #1 quasi-static tests roof profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Figure A(6)-Honda Accord quasi-static tests roof profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Figure A(7)-Chevy Caprice #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Figure A(8)-Ford Explorer #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Figure A(9)-Chevy CK-1500 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Figure A(10)-Ford Taurus #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Figure A(11)-Ford Taurus #2 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Figure A(12)-Dodge Neon #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Figure B(1)-Nissan #4 floor drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Figure B(2)-Nissan #5 multiple floor drop tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Figure B(3)-Nissan #7 floor drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Figure B(4)-Nissan #8 multiple floor drop tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Figure B(5)-Dodge Colt #3 floor drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Figure B(6)-Dodge Colt #4 multiple floor drop tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Figure B(7)-Dodge Colt #5 floor drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Figure B(8)-Dodge Colt #6 multiple floor drop tests roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Figure C(1)-Nissan #10 load plate drop test roof profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Figure C(2)-Dodge Colt #7 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Figure C(3)-Chevy Cavalier #2 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Figure C(4)-Chevy Cavalier #3 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Figure C(5)-Chevy Cavalier #4 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Figure C(6)-Ford Taurus #3 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Figure C(7)-Chevy Caprice #2 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Figure C(8)-Chevy Caprice #3 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Figure C(9)-Chevy Caprice #4 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Figure C(10)-Ford Explorer #2 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Figure C(11)-Plymouth Neon #2 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Figure C(12)-Plymouth Neon #3 load plate drop test roof crush profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Figure D(1)-Nissan #1 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Figure D(2)-Nissan #1 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Figure D(3)-Nissan #2 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Figure D(4)-Nissan #2 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
vii
LIST OF FIGURES(Continued)
PageFigure D(5)-Dodge Colt #1 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Figure D(6)-Dodge Colt #1 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Figure D(7)-Dodge Colt #2 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Figure D(8)-Dodge Colt #2 quasi-static test energy/crush. curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Figure D(9)-Chevy Cavalier #1 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Figure D(10)-Chevy Cavalier #1 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Figure D(11)-Honda accord quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Figure D(12)-Honda Accord quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Figure D(13)-Chevy Caprice #1 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Figure D(14)-Chevy Caprice #1 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Figure D(15)-Ford Explorer #1 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Figure D(16)-Ford Explorer #1 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Figure D(17)-Chevy CK-1500 PU quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Figure D(18)-Chevy CK-1500 PU quasi-static test energy/crush curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Figure D(19)-Ford Taurus #1 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Figure D(20)-Ford Taurus #1 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Figure D(21)-Ford Taurus #2 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Figure D(22)-Ford Taurus #2 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Figure D(23)-Dodge Neon #1 quasi-static test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Figure D(24)-Dodge Neon #1 quasi-static test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Figure E(1)-Nissan #10 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Figure E(2)-Nissan #10 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Figure E(3)-Plymouth Colt #7 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Figure E(4)-Plymouth Colt #7 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Figure E(5)-Chevy Cavalier #2 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Figure E(6)-Chevy Cavalier #2 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Figure E(7)-Chevy Cavalier #3 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Figure E(8)-Chevy Cavalier #3 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Figure E(9)-Chevy Cavalier #4 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Figure E(10)-Chevy Cavalier #4 load plate drop test energy/crush curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Figure E(11)-Ford Taurus #3 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Figure E(12)-Ford Taurus #3 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Figure E(13)-Ford Explorer #2 load plate drop test force/crush curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112Figure E(14)-Ford Explorer #2 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112Figure E(15)-Chevy Caprice #2 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Figure E(16)-Chevy Caprice #2 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Figure E(17)-Chevy Caprice #3 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Figure E(18)-Chevy Caprice #3 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Figure E(19)-Chevy Caprice #4 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Figure E(20)-Chevy Caprice #4 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
viii
LIST OF FIGURES(Continued)
Page
Figure E(21)- Plymouth Neon #2 load plate drop test force/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Figure E(22)- Plymouth Neon #2 load plate drop test energy/crush curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Figure E(23)- Plymouth Neon #3 load plate drop test force/crush curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Figure E(24)- Plymouth Neon #3 load plate drop test energy/crush curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
ix
LIST OF TABLESPage
Table 1-Quasi-static test matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Table 2-Results from test at different load plate angles for the Nissan and the Colt. . . . . . . . . . 16Table 3-Summary of crush characteristics for test at 5° Pitch, 25° Roll angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Table 4-Summary showing crush at head contact results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Table 5-Summary of vehicle ranking from quasi-static testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Table 6-Test matrix for floor drop tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Table 7-Summary of roof crush measurements for drop tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Table 8-Test matrix for drop tests onto load plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Table 9-Summary of vehicle ranking using dynamic data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Table 10-Data used in statistical analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Table 11-Results of statistical analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Table 12-Results from application of the prediction equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Table 13-Test matrix for drop height analysis testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
LIST OF EQUATIONSPage
[1] Head Room Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6[2] Drop Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23[3] C. G. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24[4] Dynamic Slope Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In the 1990 fatal automobile reporting system (FARS), there were over 15,000 single-vehicle
automobile crash fatalities [1]*. Of those, over half were from rollover crashes. Although large
portions of the fatal injuries are caused by ejection, rollover safety for non-ejected occupants is also
of great concern.
The current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216 [2] requires that a
passenger car roof withstand a load of 1.5 times the vehicle’s unloaded weight in kilograms
multiplied by 9.8 or 22,240 Newtons, whichever is less, to either side of the forward edge of the
vehicle’s roof with no more than 125 mm of crush. The same standard also applies to light trucks
and vans (LTV’s) with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms or less, without the 22,240 Newton force limit.
This standard has been criticized for being a static test which does not represent real-world rollover
events.
In an effort to reduce the fatalities and injuries to non-ejected occupants by roof intrusion,
the NHTSA is investigating the possibility of upgrading FMVSS No. 216. The NHTSA has
previously investigated various concepts that would improve roof intrusion resistance. A historical
perspective is presented below.
From the mid-80's to early 90's a series of tests were conducted with a rollover cart [3]. This
rollover cart was propelled at 30 mph and brought to a stop. As the cart was brought to a stop, the
vehicle was propelled by pneumatic cylinders with its roll axis perpendicular to the motion of the
rollover device. The tests were conducted to measure the roof integrity and failure modes in a
rollover event. This test proved to be very severe and difficult to use to discriminate between good
and bad performing roof structures. Additionally, these rollovers were inherently non-repeatable,
leading to a dead-end in the possible development of an improved roof crush standard based on
dynamic rollover testing.
2
Several studies by Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) were also initiated to simulate
the rollover dynamics of rollover tests and actual rollover crashes. An Articulated Total Body
(ATB) computer model was used to simulate the roll kinematics from a real-world rollover crash
resulting in occupant injury [4]. The ATB model proved to be useful in re-creating the vehicle
motion from the crash investigation information and predicting occupant ejection.
Countermeasures to roof intrusion were investigated in a series of tests with a modified
Nissan Pick-up [5]. The Nissan pick-up was chosen since it had the most repeatable rollover with
the rollover cart. Countermeasures involving foam reinforcements in the joints between the roof
header, side rails and A- and B-pillars were first investigated. Further enhancements to the roof
structure strength were added through additional steel reinforcements. Substantial improvement to
the roof integrity was found, however the severity of the rollover test made it difficult to prevent
severe intrusion.
In each of these studies, the primary objectives were to investigate possible countermeasures
to prevent severe roof crush and ways to test for roof crush strength. Each study involved full-scale
rollover tests or real-world crashes in their investigations. While these are good research tools, the
use of a full-scale rollover test would not be repeatable enough to incorporate into a federal
regulation to improve roof crush strength.
Since a full-scale rollover test has yet to be shown to be repeatable, NHTSA began
investigating other possible test procedures for upgrading the FMVSS No. 216. One option to
upgrade FMVSS No. 216 is to continue using a static test that is set to some dynamically equivalent
severity. A static test is advantageous by its repeatability. Roof structure failure modes are also
similar to rollover tests and real-world collisions [8]. However, it may not be representative of real-
world dynamic performance. A dynamic drop test onto the vehicle roof may be an intermediary
step that adds a dynamic load to the roof, but does not introduce rollover forces. This test would
introduce a difficult procedure for turning the vehicle upside down to drop on its roof, would not be
as repeatable as a static test, but would be more repeatable than a full-scale rollover test.
3
1.2 Objective
This report examines the current characteristics of the roof structure when loaded quasi-
statically and dynamically in a drop test. The primary objective was to determine the characteristics
of a quasi-static test and a dynamic drop test. If the static test results can be transformed to
dynamically equivalent test results, FMVSS No. 216 could be upgraded using a more repeatable and
simpler static test.
2.0 STATIC TESTS
A test plan was developed to examine the roof strength characteristics for vehicles in
production. Nine vehicle models were selected that had high sales volume and represented the
various vehicle classes (passenger cars and LTV’s) and domestic and foreign manufacturers. Each
vehicle was tested by quasi-statically crushing the roof to different crush levels and different load
angles. The objective of these tests were to:
1. Conduct a fleet study of vehicle roof stiffness, strength and energy when a quasi-static load
is applied.
2. Examine angles of the test plate and their effect on roof strength and stiffness when a quasi-
static load is applied.
3. Characterize the roof failure characteristics when a quasi-static load is applied.
4
Figure 1-Test device location and application to the roof.
2.1 Test Set-up
The test procedure and devices for quasi-static roof crush testing are described in FMVSS
No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. The quasi-static load on the roof was applied with a rigid,
unyielding flat rectangular plate, 762 mm x 1829 mm (30" x 72"). This plate was oriented at a
longitudinal angle of 5E below horizontal and a lateral angle of 25E below the horizontal, as shown
in Figure 1. The plate was positioned above each vehicle so that the first contact point on the roof
was on the longitudinal centerline of the plate at a point 254 mm (10") behind the forward most edge
of the plate. This procedure is intended to simulate the roof contact with the ground in an actual
rollover event. A quasi-static load was then applied to the roof at a rate of 13 mm (.5") per second
and in a direction normal to the load plate surface.
Each vehicle roof was marked at specific intervals and digitized into X, Y, and Z coordinates
to generate a roof profile prior to testing (Figure 2). This grid layout was constructed using the
dimensions of the pillars and rooftop to determine the number of points needed to accurately
construct the roof profile. Each pillar was defined by 5 points with spacing between each point
5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
X-Axis (mm)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Y-A
xis(m
m)
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
***
**
*
***
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
**
*
*
***
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
* *
*
***
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
**
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
**
*
*
**
*
*
**
***
*
* **
* *
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
**
**
**
**
****
****
*** * * * * **** * *** * * ** ** ***
** ** ** * ****** * * *****
** ** * ** ***
** ** **
*** * *** * ** ** **
*****
* * *** ** ****
**** * *****
** ** **** *** ** * ********* * * ** ** * ** ******
****
****
**
**
**
**
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
X-Axis (mm)
Figure 2-Grid layout for roof profiles.
being 1/4 the measured length of the pillar. The points of the rooftop grid were spaced at 100 mm
(4") intervals in the X and Y directions.
To ensure accurate measurements each vehicle was secured to the sub frame of the test
fixture, which required removing the wheels and securing the vehicles frame with chains and turn
buckles. Force data was collected with 2 load cells placed at the end of the hydraulic cylinders and
connected to the top of the test device (Figure 1). Each load cell (manufactured by Interface-) had
a 111,205 N (25,000 lbs) rating. Deflection of the roof was measured with string pots connected to
each of the cylinders, as shown in Figure 1. The string pots (manufactured by Celesco- and
Rayelco-) and each had a full scale rating of 1321 mm (52"). The data was collected using a
Metraplex- data acquisition system at a 20 Hz sample rate.
A 50th percentile male dummy head form was placed in the occupant compartment to mark
the point during roof crush where the occupants head was contacted by the roof. The head form was
positioned so that its CG was at a predetermined distance and angle from the H-point. The H-point
for the driver was determined for each vehicle using the dimensions found from the procedure
described by SAE standard J826, "Devices for use in defining and measuring vehicle seating
6
HRR'RC(cos (cos
HR(100% [1]
accommodations for a 50th percentile male HIII dummy." Head room is defined for the purposes of
this paper as the vertical space between the top of an occupants head and the roof when normally
seated. When roof crush takes place, the head room is reduced. Percent headroom reduction is then
defined as:
where,
ß = plate roll angle,
2 = plate pitch angle,
RC = load plate displacement,
HR = vertical distance from top of head to roof interior for a 50th percentile male ,
and
HRR = percent head room reduction for a 50th percentile male (%).
The reduction in vertical space between the occupant and roof is assumed to be equal to the vertical
component of the displacement of the load plate.
2.2 Test Matrix
Initially, two vehicle models (1989 Dodge Colt and 1989 Nissan pickup) were tested to
examine the effect of load plate angle on roof crush resistence. First, the roofs were crushed
following the FMVSS 216 procedures. That is, the load plate angles were set at 5° pitch and 25°
roll, and the roofs were crushed to a force equal to 1.5 times the vehicle weight. Three additional
tests were then performed on each vehicle. In the first of these, the roof was crushed until the load
plate had displaced 127 mm (5") after first contact [note: The point of first contact was defined as
the point of initial contact between the load plate and the undeformed roof, prior to the FMVSS 216
type test]. The next test crushed the roof until the plate had displaced a total of 254 mm (10") from
7
Table 1 -- Quasi-Static Test Matrix
Vehicle Crush Level Angle
89 Nissan Pickup #1 FMVSS216, 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
89 Dodge Colt #1 FMVSS216, 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
89 Dodge Colt #2 FMVSS216, 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 0° Pitch, 15° Roll
89 Nissan Pickup #2 FMVSS216, 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 0° Pitch, 15° Roll
90 Chevy Cavalier #1 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
90 Honda Accord #1 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
91 Chevrolet Caprice #1 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
91 Ford Explorer #1 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
90 Chevrolet CK1500 PU 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
89 Ford Taurus #1 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
92 Ford Taurus #1 127 mm, 254 mm, 381 mm 5° Pitch, 25° Roll
first contact, and the last test crushed the roof until the plate had displaced a total of 381 mm (15")
from first contact. After each test, the roof was unloaded and the roof profile was digitized to record
the post-test roof crush profile. A second Dodge Colt and Nissan Pickup were then used in another
series of tests, identical to the first, except that the load plate angles were set to 0° pitch and 15° roll
(see Table 1).
Further testing of seven additional vehicle models was conducted with the test plate at the
standard 5E pitch 25E roll setting, and crushed to 381 mm (15") in 127 mm (5") increments. No
FMVSS 216 tests were performed on these vehicles. The total list of tested vehicles and the test
configurations are shown in Table 1.
8
Figure 3-Pre-test photograph of Nissan pickup in quasi-static test device.
Videos of each test were taken as well as pre-test and post-test photographs. Figure 3 is a
pre-test photograph showing the 1989 Nissan pickup chassis fixed rigidly in position to the roof
crush device’s lower platform. The photograph in Figure 4 shows the Nissan pickup and its
orientation with respect to the load plate for a test with plate roll angle at 25E and pitch angle of 5E.
Figure 4 also shows the head form used to measure HR (headroom) in Equation 1.
9
Figure 4-Photo showing head form used to measure headroom reduction.
2.3 Static Roof Crush Results
The multiple roof crush tests performed on each vehicle were concatenated to create a single
load vs. crush plot. Figure 5 shows an overlay of the tests before the data was concatenated.
Although there are some discontinuities between successive tests, the results appear to be a
reasonable force/crush history of the vehicles roof crush performance up to 381 mm (15").
10
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Crush to FMVSS216 StandardCrush to 127 mmCrush to 254 mmCrush to 381 mm
Overlay Plots of Tests Performed on Nissan Pickup # 1
Figure 5-Overlaid plots of test data before it is concatenated.
11
Figures 6 through 9 are the force vs. crush and energy vs. crush plots for the concatenated
127 mm (5"), 254 mm (10") and 381 mm (15") static crush tests of the 1989 Nissan pickup and 1989
Dodge Colt with the 5E pitch and 25E roll load plate angle. Energy is calculated by integration of
the force vs. crush data. The energy vs. crush plots (Figures 7 & 9) are highly linear. A linear
regression was conducted on the data which created a best-fit line with an R2 = 0.99 in both cases.
Consequently, the energy absorbed in the roof as a function of roof crush was accurately fitted to a
straight line. Force and energy vs. crush plots for all vehicles tested statically can be found in
Appendix D.
Roof profile plots of the Nissan pickup and the Dodge Colt are shown in Figures 10 and 11.
Figures 10a and 11a are the profile plots of the roof after testing to the FMVSS No. 216
requirements. Figures 10b, 11b, 10c, 11c, 10d and 11d are profile plots of the roof after 127 mm (5"),
254 mm (10"), and 381 mm (15") of roof crush, respectively. A complete set of roof crush profiles
for vehicles listed in Table 1 appear in Appendix A.
Table 2 shows the results when testing the Nissan and Colt at different load plate angles. The
following observances can be made:
1. Under loading equal to 1 ½ times the vehicle weight, absolute roof crush was higher with the
5E pitch, 25E roll plate angle. This corresponds to the application of a load more transverse
to the length of the A-pillar.
2. Under loading equal to 1 ½ times the vehicle weight, HRR was less at 0E pitch, 15E roll
angles for the Nissan pickup while the Dodge Colt was more.
3. The energy slope was higher with the 0E pitch, 15E roll angles. This again appears to give
the roof more energy absorbing capability by directing the load more closely along the length
of the A-pillar.
12
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Force/Crush
89’ Nissan Pickup Truck # 1
Vehicle Curb Weight = 1270 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 26348 N at 390.4 mm of Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(18669 N)
Windshield Breaks(19533 N) Head Contacts
(18558 N)2 x Veh. Wt.(24892 N)
Figure 6-Force/crush plot for the Nissan pickup tested quasi-statically.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y =0+17.17* X
89’ Nissan Pickup Truck # 1
Error MS = 35438.02482Count = 1025Intercept = 0Slope = 17.17762R-square = 0.991486
Figure 7-Energy/crush plot and regression line for the Nissan pickup.
13
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Forc/Disp
89’ Dodge Colt # 1
Vehicle Curb Weight = 998 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 26490 N at 384.7 mm of Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt. (14669 N)
2 x Veh. Wt. (19561 N)
Windshield Breaks (21185 N)
Head Contacts Roof (17037 N)
Figure 8-Force/crush plot for the Dodge Colt tested quasi-statically.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 19.009 * X
89’ Dodge Colt # 1
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 331.641512592063 R Squared 0.980320461581124 No. of Observations 1047 Degrees of Freedom 1046 X Coefficient(s) 19.0090061841572 Std Err of Coef. 0.046169569618224
Figure 9-Energy/crush and regression line plot for Dodge Colt tested quasi-statically.
14
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis mm
0
400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
1989 Nissan Pickup #1FMVSS216-Total Load 18670 N
16.76 mm Max Deflection (a)
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis
mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #1127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch74.42 mm Max Deflection (b)
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #1254 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch193.29 mm Max Deflection
(c)
0
200
400
Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis
mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #1381 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch317.50 mm Max Deflection
(d)
Figure 10-Roof profiles for the Nissan pickup tested quasi-statically.
15
0
200
400
Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis mm
0
400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
1989 Dodge Colt #1FMVSS216-Total Load 14679 N
(a)
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis mm
0
400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #1127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
(b)
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #1254 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
(c)
0
200
400
Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis
mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #1381 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
(d)
Figure 11-Roof profiles for Dodge Colt tested quasi-statically.
16
Table 2 - Results from test at different load plate angles for the Nissan and the Colt
Dodge Colt
5E, 25E
Dodge Colt
0E, 15E
Nissan PU
5E, 25E
Nissan PU
0E, 15E
Roof crush at 1½ vehicle wt. (mm) 35.7 32.0 55.5 34.8
HRR at 1½ vehicle wt. (%) 21.1 30.4 26.3 15.6
Force at 127 mm roof crush (N) 18757 24250 22652 27883
Force at 254 mm roof crush (N) 21851 22075 16531 14619
Force at 381 mm roof crush (N) 26357 30267 23797 24683
Linearized energy slope (N*m/mm) 19.01 21.05 17.18 19.22
R 2 .980 .985 .991 .993
4. Roof energy absorption can be estimated with a straight line with a high level of accuracy.
Using least mean squares regression of energy vs. crush data, a linear fit gave an R2 at or
above .98 in all cases.
Table 3 summarize the roof crush and energy characteristics for the nine vehicles loaded at
the 5E pitch and 25E roll angles.
All vehicles tested were within the requirements of FMVSS No. 216 with an average roof
crush of 56 mm at 1 ½ times the vehicle weight. The average HRR at a load on the roof of 1 ½ times
the vehicle weight, was 27%. In real-world rollover collisions percent headroom reduction averaged
69% for injured occupants who were belted [7].
Table 4 summarizes the load plate force after 127 mm (5"), 254 mm (10") and 381 mm (15")
of roof crush, respectively, for all 9 vehicles tested. The table shows the energy equation and R2
values for each of the vehicles. These values are derived from the linear regressions of the energy
plots created by the integration of the force versus crush data. The data indicates the energy
equations to be highly accurate in predicting the amount of energy absorbed at specific levels of roof
crush(R2 ranged from .963 to 0.993).
17
Table 3 - Summary of crush characteristicsfor test at 5° Pitch, 25° Roll angle
Test VehicleRanked byHeadroomReduction
CrushAngle
VehicleWeight
(kg)
Force @1 ½ x
VehicleWeight
(N)
Roof Crush@ 1 ½ xVehicleWeight(mm)
% HRR @ 1½ vehicleweight
89 Nissan Pickup#1
5° Pitch,25° Roll
1270 18669 55.5 26.3 %
90 Chevrolet CK-1500 PU
5° Pitch,25° Roll
1679 24681 64.3 20.8 %
91 Ford Explorer#1
5° Pitch,25° Roll
1632 23990 51.6 21.0 %
89 Dodge Colt #1 5° Pitch,25° Roll
998 14671 35.7 21.1 %
91 Chevy Caprice#1
5° Pitch,25° Roll
1698 24961 82.2 32.5 %
90 Chevy Cavalier#1
5° Pitch,25° Roll
1089 16008 54.4 24.2 %
89 Ford Taurus #1 5° Pitch,25° Roll
1411 20742 47.8 28.3 %
90 Honda Accord#1
5° Pitch,25° Roll
1259 18507 61.1 29.0 %
92 Ford Taurus #1 5° Pitch,25° Roll
1411 20742 49.8 35.4 %
Average 1383 20330 55.8 26.5%
Std. Dev. 253 3723 12.9 5.3%
18
Table 4 - Summary showing crush at head contact results
Test Vehicle Crush Angle Roof Crush@Head
RoofContact
(mm)
Force @127 mm (5") Roof Crush
(N)
Force @254 mm (10")
Roof Crush(N)
Force @381 mm (15")
Roof Crush(N)
Energy Equations R2
89 NissanPickup #1
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
191 22652 16531 23797 Y=0+17.17762*X .991
89 Dodge Colt#1
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
152 18757 21851 26357 Y=0+19.00900*X .980
90 ChevyCavalier #1
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
203 24587 23780 40199 Y=0+21.03836*X .970
90 HondaAccord #1
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
190 18017 21500 44072 Y=0+20.84463*X .963
91 ChevyCaprice #1
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
229 28987 18855 32657 Y=0+22.50828*X.984
91 FordExplorer #1
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
222 25817 23645 30059 Y=0+22.92578*X .993
90 ChevroletCK-1500 PU
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
279 40300 15300 13500 Y=0+23.33228*X.974
89 Ford Taurus#1
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
152 31310 31210 40280 Y=0+24.40990*X .984
92 Ford Taurus#2
5° Pitch, 25°Roll
127 27264 27319 50794 Y=0+23.92925*X .971
Average 193.89 26410 22221 33235
Std. Dev. 46.58 6811 5044 34573
Figure 12 was created from the force / crush data of the nine vehicles tested with a plate angle
of 5° pitch and 25° roll. The corridor between the minimum and maximum forces (using 5 mm
increments) represents the range at which the 9 vehicles performed. An average force displacement
curve was created from the mean values of force calculated for each of the 5 mm increments
measured.
The load carrying capacity for all nine vehicles were very close up to approximately 40 mm
of roof crush. At that point the forces began to diverge for any given roof crush. The range of forces
on the roof at 127 mm of crush was higher than at 254 mm of crush. Loads began increasing after
1 Normalized energy was found by dividing data by the weight of the vehicle.
19
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Average 26431 N @ 127 mm
Corridor for Static Force Defection CurvesEach Point Derived from Min. , Max. and Average at 5 mm Increments
40300 N @ 127 mm
18082 N @ 127 mm
31210 N @ 254 mm
15300 N @ 254 mm
Average 22999 N @ 254 mm
Figure 12-Corridor for static force deflection curves.
300 mm (11.8") of crush because the roof structures began to pick up some of the vehicles’
structures below the A-pillar.
Each force vs. crush curve was integrated to produce an energy vs. crush curve. The range
of energy is shown in Figure 13. At approximately 50-100 mm, the range of energy was quite
narrow. At that point, the range widened and vehicle roof crush energy varied substantially. Figure
14 shows the range of normalized1 energy data for the static roof crush tests. Energy absorption
varied less when normalized by the vehicle weight. Consequently these vehicles may perform
similarly when rolled or dropped on the roof, up to several millimeters of crush. Again, as vehicle
structures other than the roof get loaded (headrest, etc...), the energy absorption began to diverge
significantly.
20
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000E
nerg
y (N
·m)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Average 2456 N-m @ 127 mm
Corridor for Static Energy Vs. Crush CurvesEach Point Derived from Min. , Max. and Average at 5 mm Increments
2885 N·m @ 127 mm
1984 N·m @ 127 mm
6374 N·m @ 254 mm
4504 N·m @ 254 mm
Average 5388 N·m @ 254 mm
Figure 13-Corridor for static energy deflection curves.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Nor
mal
ized
Ene
rgy
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Average .1836 @ 127 mm
Corridor for Normalized Static Energy Vs. Crush CurvesEach Point Derived from Min. , Max. and Average at 5 mm Increments
Average .4116 @ 254 mm
.1466 @ 127 mm
.2026 @ 127 mm .3498 @ 254 mm
.4860 @ 254 mm
Figure 14-Corridor for normalized static energy deflection curves.
21
A summary of the force vs. crush and energy vs. crush results for all vehicles tested is given
in the top portion of Table 5. The roof crush resistance was measured in terms of absolute roof crush
strength (peak force), roof stiffness (force vs. crush in pseudo-elastic range) and energy absorbed by
the roof after 254 mm (10") of crush. The roof crush resistance was then normalized by vehicle
weight and results shown in the lower portion of Table 5. The vehicles are listed by decreasing
levels of energy absorbed by the roof at 254 mm (10") of crush. The corresponding rankings by
strength and stiffness are also shown.
The 1990 CK-1500 pickup was the best performer on an absolute roof strength and stiffness
basis (Table 5). The worst were the Dodge Colt and the Chevy Cavalier. However, when
normalizing by vehicle weight; the Colt and the Cavalier move up to become two of the better
performers. Normalized data indicates the Dodge Colt had the best overall roof energy management
and the Chevrolet Caprice had the worst. Therefore, using the absolute roof strength may be
misleading in ranking vehicle roof strength. This is one reason why roof crush resistance is
measured by deflection after applying a load of 1 ½ times the vehicle weight. These rankings were
subsequently used to assist in vehicle selection for dynamic drop testing.
3.0 DROP TESTS ONTO FLOOR
The 1989 Nissan pickup and the Dodge Colt were chosen to conduct dynamic roof crush
tests. These two vehicles’ roof structures are average performers based on Table 5 in section 1.1.3.
The objectives of these tests were:
1. Devise a dynamic procedure for roof crush testing,
2. Examine roof profile measurements after dynamic loading of the different roof structures,
and
3. Examine roof performance at different drop angles.
22
Table 5 - Summary of vehicle ranking from quasi-static testing
Vehicles Ranked in Orderof Energy at 254 mm (10")
of Crush
Energy at 254mm (10") of
Crush
Stiffness(N/mm)
Peak Force(N)
Ranking byStiffness
Ranking byPeak Force
1990 Chevrolet CK-1500 Pickup 6374 325 40,600 1 1
1989 Ford Taurus #1 6351 324 32,270 2 2
1991 Ford Explorer #1 5880 263 29,936 5 4
1991 Chevrolet Caprice #1 5796 207 30,104 7 3
1992 Ford Taurus #1 5733 316 29,585 3 5
1990 Chevy Cavalier #1 5042 188 25,876 9 7
1990 Honda Accord #1 5038 189 28,746 8 6
1989 Dodge Colt #1 4758 299 21,906 4 9
1989 Nissan Pickup #1 4504 246 24,576 6 8
Average 5388 254 27875
Standard Deviation 641 56 3438
Vehicles Ranked in Orderof Normalized Energy at254 mm (10") of Crush
NormalizedEnergy at 254mm (10") of
Crush
NormalizedStiffness(N/mm)
NormalizedPeak Force
(N)
Ranking byNormalized
Stiffness
Ranking byNormalizedPeak Force
1989 Dodge Colt #1 0.486 0.0306 2.240 1 51990 Chevy Cavalier #1 0.472 0.0176 2.425 6 21989 Ford Taurus #1 0.460 0.0234 2.334 2 31992 Ford Taurus #1 0.414 0.0229 2.140 3 61990 Honda Accord #1 0.408 0.0153 2.330 8 41990 Chevrolet CK1500 Pickup 0.387 0.0198 2.468 5 11991 Ford Explorer #1 0.367 0.0164 1.872 7 81989 Nissan Pickup #1 0.362 0.0198 1.975 4 71991 Chevrolet Caprice #1 0.350 0.0124 1.809 9 9
Average 0.412 0.01980 2.177
Standard Deviation 0.051 0.00536 0.242
23
DH'Es×1
Vw×g[2]
3.1 Approach
Inverted vehicles were dropped onto a piece of 3/4" plywood covering an area of 12 square
meters (128 ft2.). The plywood was used to prevent damage to the laboratory floor. Drop heights
were calculated based on energy at 381 mm (15"), 254 mm (10") and 127 mm (5") of roof crush in
the quasi-static roof crush tests. The potential energy was set equal to the energy of a particular
static roof crush level and drop height was calculated as follows:
where,
DH=Drop Height, (m),
ES=Static roof crush energy at a particular crush level ,(N*m),
VW=Vehicle mass, (kg), and
g= Gravity 9.8 m/s2.
Drop height, pitch and roll measurements are shown in Figure 15. The vehicles were
supported with the roof toward the floor and positioned to the desired height and roll and pitch
angles using special wheel adapters, two fork lifts and an overhead crane. Vehicle orientation was
selected to load the roof at the same orientation as the load plate in the static test: 5E pitch, 25E roll
and 0E pitch, 15E roll.
Vehicle instrumentation for this series included a three axis accelerometer array located at
the CG of each vehicle. For the y-axis, the C.G. was through the longitudinal centerline of vehicle.
For the z-axis the C.G. was estimated to be 39.5 % of the distance from the ground to the roof top.
[6] For the x-axis, the C.G. locations were estimated using Equation 3:
24
Figure 15-Illustration of floor drop procedure.
lf'
wr
wf
×lwb
1%wr
wf
[3]
Where:
lf = Length from front axle to CG (m),
wr = Rear axle weight (kg),
wf = Front axle weight (kg), and
lwb = Distance between the front and rear axles (m).
25
A contact switch was used to record time of impact after the vehicle was released. High speed film
and video of each drop was taken as well as pre and post test photographs. Roof profile
measurements were taken prior to and after each drop.
A photograph showing the Nissan pickup inverted and ready to drop is shown in Figure 16.
A stadia rod marked with inch tape and used in the high speed film and video analysis is shown.
Figure 17 is a photograph of the location of the 3-axis accelerometer array at the CG of vehicle.
3.2 Test Matrix for Vehicles Dropped onto Floor
The test matrix of vehicles dropped onto the floor is shown in Table 6. The table also shows
the static crush data and drop heights calculated for each test. The tests were run in four sets of four
tests each. For example, the first Dodge Colt (Colt #3) was dropped at a height that set the potential
energy equivalent to 381 mm of static crush energy. The second Dodge Colt (Colt #4) was then
dropped three times in the following order. Colt #4 was first dropped at the height calculated using
Equation 2 with the input potential energy (Es) equal to the 127 mm (5") static crush test. Two
additional drops with the Colt #4 added energy to the roof that was equivalent to 254 mm (10") and
381 mm (15") of static crush; consequently for drop #2, the static roof crush energy at 254 mm of
crush was subtracted from crush energy at 127 mm and the results used to calculate the drop height.
Similarly, drop #3 was calculated by subtracting the energy at 381 mm of roof crush from the energy
of 254 mm of roof crush. This procedure was repeated for both load plate angle settings on the
Dodge Colts and the Nissan Pickups.
3.3 Floor Drop Results
Analyses of the dynamic roof strength from the floor drop tests were performed from roof
profile measurements, film, video, photographs and general observation. A photograph of the Nissan
pickup after the 228.6 mm (9") drop and a computer generated roof profile of that same Nissan are
26
Figure 16-Pre-test photo of floor drop test.
Figure 17-Photo showing placement of accelerometers used in the floor drop tests.
27
Table 6 - Test matrix for floor drop tests
StaticTest
Drop Angle Static CrushLevel (mm)
Static Energy at Specified StaticCrush Level (N*m)
Calculated Drop Height (mm)Equation 2
Colt #3 5º Pitch, 25º Roll 381 7844.9 812.8
Colt #4 5º Pitch, 25º Roll 127 1984.0 215.9
Colt #4 5º Pitch, 25º Roll 254 - 127 2772.6 279.4
Colt #4 5º Pitch, 25º Roll 381 - 254 3080.7 330.2
Colt #5 0º Pitch, 15º Roll 381 8634.3 939.8
Colt #6 0º Pitch, 15º Roll 127 2367.6 254
Colt #6 0º Pitch, 15º Roll 254 - 127 2771.1 304.8
Colt #6 0º Pitch, 15º Roll 381 - 254 3496.2 393.7
Nissan #7 5º Pitch, 25º Roll 381 6507.9 596.9
Nissan #8 5º Pitch, 25º Roll 127 2158.2 190.5
Nissan #8 5º Pitch, 25º Roll 254 - 127 2349.0 203.2
Nissan #8 5º Pitch, 25º Roll 381 - 254 1995.6 196.8
Nissan #4 0º Pitch, 15º Roll 381 7276.2 660.4
Nissan #5 0º Pitch, 15º Roll 127 2632.2 228.6
Nissan #5 0º Pitch, 15º Roll 254 - 127 2238.5 190.5
Nissan #5 0º Pitch, 15º Roll 381 - 254 2411.5 241.3
28
Figure 18-Post test photo of the Nissan.
0
200
400
ZA
XIS
0
500
1000
XAXIS0
500
1000
1500
YAXIS
1989 Nissan Pickup #5228.6 mm Drop
Test # 0197A007
Figure 19-Roof profile of the Nissan.
shown in Figures 18 and 19 respectively. A complete set of the roof profile measurements for the
dynamic drop tests on the floor is contained in Appendix B.
A summary of the peak roof deflections in the floor drop test is given in Table 7. The table
shows the difference between the static peak roof crush (this is the crush value used to calculate
dynamic drop height). Some of the peak roof crush measurements in the dynamic case are less than
the static. This can be partially attributed to the rotation of the vehicle out of its set 216 angles after
impact. The rotation changed the direction of the roof load and affected peak crush. High speed film
of the Dodge Colt shows an interaction between the front-end of the vehicle and the floor in the
dynamic test. The data indicates that some of the load shifted from the roof which reduced the force
of the drop.
The full drop test was compared to the third drop of the multiple drops with the second
vehicle. The third drop should theoretically have the same energy input to its roof as the full drop
test in the first vehicle. Consequently Colt #3 was compared to the third drop test of Colt #4. In this
case, the peak roof crush was only 6 mm different. Colt #5 and Colt #6 were 13 mm different. The
Nissan comparison was not as good. The difference between Nissan#4 and #5 was 17 mm and that
for Nissan #7 and #8 was 37 mm. Again, vehicle rotation during impact and front-end interaction
can alter the test results and reduce values of a comparison between tests.
29
Table 7 - Summary of roof crush measurements for drop tests
Vehicles Tested Static Crush Dynamic Crush Difference
Colt #3 at 5° pitch and 25° roll 381 mm 248 mm 133 mm
Colt #4 at 5° pitch and 25° roll 127 mm 135 mm -8 mm
Colt #4 at 5° pitch and 25° roll 254 mm 193 mm 61 mm
Colt #4 at 5° pitch and 25° roll 381 mm 242 mm 139 mm
Colt #5 at 0° pitch and 15° roll 381 mm 221 mm 160 mm
Colt #6 at 0° pitch and 15° roll 127 mm 76 mm 51 mm
Colt #6 at 0° pitch and 15° roll 254 mm 149 mm 105 mm
Colt #6 at 0° pitch and 15° roll 381 mm 208 mm 173 mm
Nissan #7 at 5° pitch and 25° roll 381 mm 289 mm 92 mm
Nissan #8 at 5° pitch and 25° roll 127 mm 172 mm -45 mm
Nissan #8 at 5° pitch and 25° roll 254 mm 297 mm -43 mm
Nissan #8 at 5° pitch and 25° roll 381 mm 326 mm 55 mm
Nissan #4 at 0° pitch and 15° roll 381 mm 345 mm 36 mm
Nissan #5 at 0° pitch and 15° roll 127 mm 179 mm -52 mm
Nissan #5 at 0° pitch and 15° roll 254 mm 298 mm -44 mm
Nissan #5 at 0° pitch and 15° roll 381 mm 362 mm 19 mm
30
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
5° P
itch,
25°
Ro l
l (m
m)
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 6000° Pitch, 15° Roll (mm)
PlotIT Regression Analysis for File: D:\Nissan\Nissan7\degcom2.datRows: 1 - 170; Cols: A, B Date: 10/17/97 Time: 08:29:39-------------------------------------------- Error Mean Squ. = 1226.79 Count = 170 Intercept = 44.146 Slope = 1.05035 R-square = 0.919121
Fitted Equation: Y = 44.146 + 1.05035 * X
Nissan Pickup #4Versus
Nissan Pickup #7
(a)
0
250
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0500
10001500
20002500
X -Axis (m m )0
5001000
1500
Y -Axis (m m )
D odge C olt # 30 D eg. P itch, 1 5 D eg. R oll
D odge C olt # 51 5 D eg. P itch, 2 5 D eg. R oll
V ersus
(d)
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
5° P
itch,
25°
Ro l
l (m
m)
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 6000° Pitch, 15° Roll (mm)
Dodge Colt #3Versus
Dodge Colt #5
PlotIT Regression Analysis for File: degcom.datRows: 1 - 168; Cols: A, B Date: 12/05/97 Time: 12:10:18-------------------------------------------- Error Mean Squ. = 630.968 Count = 168 Intercept = -2.69042 Slope = 1.10423 R-square = 0.955446
Fitted Equation: Y = -2.69042 + 1.10423 * X
(c)
0
200
400
ZA
XIS
0
500
1000
XAXIS
0
500
1000
1500
YAXIS
N issan Pickup #40 D eg. P itch, 15 D eg. R oll
N issan P ickup #715 D eg. P itch, 25 D eg.R oll
Versus
(b)
The difference in dynamic roof crush when dropping at the two impact angles was also
investigated. For a visual comparison, overlay plots were generated showing roof profiles of the
Nissan and the Colt at the 5E pitch, 25E roll and 0E pitch, 15E roll (Figure 20 b & 20 d), respectively.
Although the profiles of the Nissan are similar in shape, there is a difference of 56 mm (2.2")
between the maximum roof crush values. The difference in peak crush for the Colt was 27 mm. The
Nissan crushed more at the 0E pitch, 15E roll angles while the Colt crushed more at the 5E pitch,
25E roll angles. When the roof profiles at the different drop angles were compared statistically, (see
Figures 20 a and 20 c) the results indicated a strong relationship exists between the shape of the roof
crush profiles (Note: if the roof crush profiles were identical, the points would form a diagonal line
which would yield a R² = 1, a slope of 1.0, and an intercept of 0).
Figure 20-Plots for drop angle analysis.
31
4.0 DROP TESTS ONTO LOAD PLATE
To directly compare the static force and energy vs. crush plots to dynamic results, a
procedure was devised to measure the dynamic force and deflection of the roof drop test.
The objectives of this study were:
1. Devise a method to accurately measure force and crush of the inverted drop test previously
implemented.
2. To rank a fleet representation matrix of vehicles in order of roof crush performance, when tested
dynamically.
4.1 Approach
A load plate (Figure 21) was constructed using the NHTSA’s load cell crash barrier and laid
horizontal so that force could be recorded as the vehicle was dropped. Extra rows of load cells and
load plates were added to accommodate roof areas of the various vehicles. Figure 23 shows the
layout used for placement of the different size load cells. The 50,000 lb load cells are in the area
most likely to see the most impact force. A string pot (Figure 22) was attached to the A-pillar at the
roof and front header interface to measure the maximum roof crush. As with the floor drop test, a
three axis accelerometer array was placed at the cg and an additional four accelerometers were
placed at the junction of the left A-pillar and rooftop near the first contact point. The other three
were placed on the left front door in a three-axis array.
Six drops were initially conducted, one each on 1991 Caprice, 1990 Cavalier, 1992 Taurus,
1991 Explorer, 1990 Nissan Pickup, and the 1989 Dodge Colt. These vehicles represented three
relatively good performers (Colt, Cavalier, Taurus) and three relatively bad performers (Caprice,
Nissan Pickup, Explorer) in the static roof crush test performance when judged by the overall
strength and stiffness ranking of each vehicle in Table 5. The drop heights were calculated to set
potential energy of the suspended vehicle equal to the static test energy after 254 mm (10") of roof
crush. Each vehicle was dropped at the 5E pitch and 25E roll angle onto the load plate at a height
equivalent to 254 mm (10") static crush energy.
32
Figure 21-Load plate. Figure 22-Setup.
Figure 23-Load plate layout.
33
Table 8 - Test matrix for drop tests onto load plate
Test Vehicle StaticCrush(mm)
Static Energy from E Curve
(N*m)
Calculated DropHeight (mm) Equation
2
Drop HeightUsed (mm)
Drop Angle
Caprice #2 254 5781.7 343.7 342.9 5º Pitch, 25º Roll
Cavalier #2 254 5055.5 473.4 472.4 5º Pitch, 25º Roll
Nissan #10 254 4995.5 400.9 400.5 5º Pitch, 25º Roll
Colt #7 254 5109.0 521.8 520.7 5º Pitch, 25º Roll
Taurus #3 254 6183.1 467.8 434.3 5º Pitch, 25º Roll
Explorer #2 254 5906.1 353.9 353.1 5º Pitch, 25º Roll
4.2 Test Matrix
Table 8 summarizes the test matrix of vehicle drops onto the load plate. The table also shows
the static crush data and calculations made for drop height. The actual drop height used differs
slightly from the calculated value because of the limited adjustment of the overhead crane. As for
the Taurus, the difference is significant (33 mm) and can only be explained as an error in calculating
the drop height or taking the needed measurement. Each vehicle roof profile was measured before
and after each test. A complete set of vehicle profiles from drop tests onto the load plate can be
found in Appendix C. High speed video and film were taken as well as pre and post- test
photographs.
4.3 Load Plate Drop Test Results for 6 Vehicles
The load cell array data were summed to create a total force-time history from each drop test.
Plotting this versus the roof crush, as measured by the string potentiometer, produced a force vs.
crush curve for each vehicle dropped. Those for the Nissan Pickup and Dodge Colt are shown in
34
Figures 24 and 26. The force vs. crush curves were then integrated to obtain energy vs. crush curves.
Those for the Nissan pickup and the Dodge Colt are shown in Figures 25 and 27. A linear regression
was performed on the energy vs. crush data to produce an equation to predict energy at specific crush
levels (see Figures 25 and 27). As for the static crush results, strong correlations were obtained. The
force and energy vs. crush curves for the remaining vehicles, including the linear regression results,
are in Appendix E.
Table 9 ranks the vehicle strengths using the dynamic data. When normalized by weight, the
Dodge Colt performed well on a stiffness and peak force (strength) basis. The Chevy Caprice
performed poorly.
5.0 STATIC AND DYNAMIC TEST COMPARISON
The primary objective of this study was to understand the differences and similarities
between static and dynamic roof crush. In the previous three sections, the results of a static and
dynamic roof crush series were reported. The results of the static and dynamic tests are compared
here to determine whether static roof crush test results can be used to determine a dynamically
equivalent result.
5.1 Crush Energy
The force vs. crush plots for the first six drop tests onto a load plate are compared to the static
tests in Figure 28. As can be seen, the dynamic forces are consistently higher than the static results.
This is attributable to the higher dynamic loading rate. This also results in consistently higher roof
energy absorption at any given roof deflection, as seen in the comparison of energy vs. crush plot
for the static and dynamic tests in Figure 29.
35
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Crush (mm)
1990 Nissan Pickup # 10400 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure 24-Force/crush curve for the Nissan drop test onto the load plate.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 23.5651 * X
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 94.9330288646447 R Squared 0.998061486188764 No. of Observations 1656 Degrees of Freedom 1655 X Coefficient(s) 23.565110515825 Std Err of Coef. 0.01141145319508
1990 Nissan Pickup # 10400 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure 25-Energy/crush curve for the Nissan drop test onto the load plate.
36
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Crush (mm)
1989 Plymouth Colt # 7521 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure 26-Force/crush curve for the Colt drop test onto the load plate.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Ene
rgy
( N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 20.67 * X
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 222.195315309984 R Squared 0.98944470770608 No. of Observations 280 Degrees of Freedom 279 X Coefficient(s) 20.6717340067234 Std Err of Coef. 0.0665638571335076
1989 Plymouth Colt # 7521 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure 27-Energy/crush curve for the Colt drop test onto the load plate.
37
Table 9 - Summary of vehicle ranking using dynamic data
Vehicles Ranked byEnergy
Energy @254 mm(N*m)
Energy R2
Stiffness(N/mm)
Peak Force(N)
Ranking byStiffness
Ranking byPeak Force
Taurus #3 10146 0.98 689 36292 4 2
Caprice #2 8925 1 389 34590 6 3
Explorer #2 8433 0.99 602 45748 5 1
Cavalier #2 5984 1 1057 20760 1 6
Nissan #10 5880 1 865 32040 2 4
Colt #7 5357 0.99 805 28366 3 5
Average 7454 0.99 735 32966
Standard Deviation 1970 0.01 230 8344
Vehicles Ranked byNormalized Energy
Normalized Energy
@ 254mm (N*m)
Normalized
Stiffness(N/mm)
NormalizedPeak Force
(N)
Ranking byNormalized
Stiffness
Ranking byNormalizedPeak Force
Taurus #3 0.769 0.0522 2.749 4 3
Colt #7 0.588 0.0883 3.112 2 1
Cavalier #2 0.561 0.0990 1.945 1 6
Caprice #2 0.531 0.0231 2.058 6 5
Nissan #10 0.517 0.0761 2.818 5 2
Explorer #2 0.506 0.0361 2.744 3 4
Average 0.678 0.0703 2.931
Standard Deviation 0.128 0.0255 0.257
The dynamic and static energy vs. crush curves were fit to straight lines using least squares
regression (Figure 30). The resulting correlation coefficient (R2), was very high in each case (>.95).
The dynamic roof crush energy had a higher slope than the static roof crush energy in each case,
which lends support to using energy as a metric for comparing the static and dynamic roof crush.
The dynamic energy slope can be set equal to the static energy slope times an amplification factor.
When this was done, the amplification factor for the six tests here ranged from 1.1 to 1.6.
Consequently, dynamic energy cannot be predicted as a linear function of static energy alone.
38
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
Fo
rce
(New
ton
s)
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
Fo
rce
(New
ton
s)
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
Fo
rce
(New
ton
s)
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
Fo
rce
(New
ton
s)
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
Fo
rce
(New
ton
s)
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
Fo
rce
(New
ton
s)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Crush (mm)
0 50 100 150 200Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
CHEVROLET CAVALIER
FORD TAURUS CHEVROLET CAPRICE
FORD EXPLORER
NISSAN PICKUP DODGE COLT
Figure 28-Quasi-static vs. Dynamic drop for force/crush data.
39
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
3500
7000
10500
14000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
3500
7000
10500
14000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Crush (mm)
0 50 100 150 200Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
StaticDynamic
CHEVROLET CAVALIER
FORD TAURUS CHEVROLET CAPRICE
FORD EXPLORER
NISSAN PICKUP DODGE COLT
Figure 29-Quasi-static vs. Dynamic drop for energy/crush data.
40
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
En
e rg
y (N
*m)
0
3500
7000
10500
14000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
3500
7000
10500
14000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
En
erg
y (N
*m)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Crush (mm)
0 50 100 150 200Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
0 100 200 300 400Crush (mm)
Static Y=0+21.0384*XDynamic Y=0+25.8678*X
Static Y=0+23.9292*XDynamic Y=0+38.6358*X
Static Y=0+22.5083*XDynamic Y=0+33.9586*X
Static Y=0+22.9258*XDynamic Y=0+31.2130*X
Static Y=0+17.1776*XDynamic Y=0+23.5651*X
Static Y=0+19.0090*XDynamic Y=0+20.6717*X
CHEVROLET CAVALIER
FORD TAURUS CHEVROLET CAPRICE
FORD EXPLORER
NISSAN PICKUP DODGE COLT
Figure 30-Quasi-static vs. Dynamic drop for regression data.
41
ED'EN×$2%ES×$1%$0 [4]
5.2 Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was conducted to determine if the slope of the dynamic energy vs. roof
crush could be predicted from static test results and vehicle dependent parameters. A multiple linear
regression was conducted using the SAS program to predict the dynamic energy slope based on the
static energy slope, A-pillar length, roof area, and front/rear weight ratio of the vehicle (Table 10).
Using the SAS regression procedure, variables were added and dropped from the model based on their
statistical significance to the prediction of the dynamic energy slope. Using the parameters listed in
Table 10, the static energy was the only statistically significant variable (at a 0.25 level) resulting in
a R2 of 0.78. Since static energy can be a squared function of crush, a new variable was added to the
list of variables that was equivalent to the static energy slope squared. Table 11 shows the results of
the SAS run. The model chosen to predict the dynamic energy slope was:
where, ED = Dynamic slope (N),
EN = Static slope squared (N-m/mm)2
ES = Static Slope (N),
$0, $1, and $2 = regression constants.
The regression constants, taken from Table 11 of the SAS run results are,
$0 =220.6
$1 =- -21.459
$2 =0.580
The measure of the accuracy of this equation is judged by the regression correlation coefficient (R2),
which was 0.94. Therefore, this equation predicts dynamic energy absorption for the vehicles and
conditions tested in this study with a reasonable level of accuracy.
42
Table 10 - Data used in statistical analysis
Data on characteristics of test cars:
Measured from largest common roof crush
Vehicle Dyn.en.slope
Sta.en.slope
Ratio WeightFront(kg)
WeightRear(kg)
RatioFront to
Rear
"A"Pillar
Length(mm)
Roof Area(mm2/1000)
1989 Dodge Colt 20.67 19.01 1.09 632 351 1.79 778.76 1535.0
1989 Nissan Pickup 23.56 17.18 1.37 684 496 1.38 693.17 880.2
1990 Chevy Cavalier* 25.87 21.04 1.23 717 372 1.93 634.20 1245.4
1992 Ford Taurus 38.64 23.93 1.61 889 458 1.94 761.24 1666.9
1991 Ford Explorer 31.21 22.93 1.36 894 807 1.11 641.35 2652.6
1991 Chevy Caprice 33.96 22.51 1.51 1007 708 1.42 761.75 1978.6
* - string pot broke after 140 mm of roof crush
Table 11 - Results of statistical analysisThe SAS System 7
Bounds on condition number: 1, 1
Step 2 Variable ES Entered R-squares = 0.93832347 C(p) = .
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Prob>F
Regression 2 216.93414669 108.46707334 22.82 0.0153
Error 3 14.25920331 4.75306777
Total 5 231.19335000
Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Type II Sum ofSquares
F Prob>F
INTERCEP 220.57569803 87.17008853 30.43367210 6.40 0.0854
EN 0.57951949 0.20884548 36.59821772 7.70 0.0693
SE -21.45943325 8.58323289 29.71041444 6.25 0.0877
Bounds on condition number: 512.7974, 2051.19
All variables left in the model are significant at the 0.2500 level.No other variable met the 0.2500 significance level for entry into the model.
43
The results indicate that the dynamic energy slope can be predicted for the six tests used to
develop the correlation. Table 12 shows the static energy slope, actual and predicted dynamic slope,
and percent difference between the actual and predicted dynamic slope. However, each of these
vehicles were dropped from a height that resulted in the same energy input to the roof as the energy
at 254 mm (10") of static roof crush. In the real-world, roof loading may vary significantly in the
dynamics of the rollover. Therefore, unless a prescribed rollover crash severity can be established,
the prediction of dynamic roof crush energy from a static test should ideally be insensitive to drop
height, or more directly, impact severity.
Table 12 - Results from application of the prediction equation
Vehicle Static Slope Predicted Dynamic Slope Actual Dynamic Slope % Diff.
Nissan Pickup 17.18 23.13 23.59 2.0 %
Dodge Colt 19.01 22.26 20.67 7.7 %
Cavalier 21.04 25.85 25.87 -0.1 %
Ford Explorer 22.93 33.48 31.21 7.3 %
Taurus 23.93 39.22 38.64 1.5 %
Caprice 22.51 31.44 33.96 -7.4 %
To examine this issue further, another series of drop tests were conducted to examine the
sensitivity of the roof crush force and deformation to drop height. The Chevy Caprice and Chevy
Cavalier were chosen from the six vehicles as good and poor performing vehicles in the combined
static and drop tests. It was judged that by using the best and worst vehicles in our study, the results
should encompass the majority of vehicles in the fleet.
A total of four additional drop tests were conducted (Table 13). Two drop tests were
conducted with two Chevy Caprices at drop heights of 140 mm and 241 mm. (The drop heights were
set so that the potential energy of each vehicle was equal to the roof crush energy after 127 and 191
44
Table 13 - Test matrix for drop height analysis testing
Test Vehicle Static Crush(mm)
Static EnergyFrom E Curve
(N*m)
Calculated DropHeight (mm)Equation 2
Drop HeightUsed(Mm)
Caprice #2 254 5781.7 343.7 343
Caprice #3 127 2444.6 145.4 140
Caprice #4 191 4217.7 250.9 241
Cavalier #2 254 5055.5 473.4 472
Cavalier #3 127 2163.5 202.7 203
mm of static roof crush).The resulting force vs. crush and energy vs. crush plots were over-lain with
the initial drop height results (Figures 31 and 33). Two Chevy Cavaliers were tested similarly at drop
heights of 203 mm and 340 mm and overlain in Figures 32 and 34.
The three drops of the Caprice reveal that the force vs. crush characteristics were very similar
for all three drop heights. As a result, the energy vs. crush curves for the Caprice were all very
similar (Figure 34). The force vs. crush characteristics of the three Cavaliers showed variations in
the load carrying capacity of the roof after only about 20 mm of crush. As drop height increased, the
force level to the first peak occurred at lower levels and at smaller amounts of crush. Therefore it
appeared the rate of loading had a more significant effect on the load carrying capacity for the
Cavalier when compared to the Caprice. However, differences in the force vs. crush plots did not
translate to significant difference in the energy vs. crush comparison (Figure 34).
When the energy vs. crush curves were linearized for the Caprice and Cavalier, there was
close agreement between the three drop heights (Figures 35 and 36). The slope of the lines for the
Caprice varied from 30.4 to 34.8 N*m/mm, with the average slope equaling 33.04 (N*m/mm). The
linear regression of the Cavalier energy curves yielded slopes ranging from 25.9 to 28.0 (N*m/mm),
with an average slope of 26.7 (N*m/mm). The predicted dynamic energy slopes for Caprice and
Cavalier were 31.44 and 25.85 (N*m/mm) , respectively.
45
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
139.7 mm Drop241.3 mm Drop342.9 mm Drop
Caprice Drop Height Comparison
Force/Deflection Curves
Figure 31-Caprice drop height comparison of force/crush.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
203.2 mm Drop340.4 mm Drop472.4 mm Drop
Cavalier Drop Height Comparison
Force/Deflection Curves
Figure 32-Cavalier drop height comparison of force/crush.
46
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
139.7 mm Drop241.3 mm Drop342.9 mm DropAverage of All 3 Curves
Caprice Drop Height Comparison
Energy Curves
Average Slope of 35.1224
Figure 33-Caprice drop height comparison of energy/crush.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
203.2 mm Drop340.4 mm Drop472.4 mm DropAverage of all 3
Cavalier Drop Height Comparison
Energy Curves
Average Slope of 28.5699
Figure 34-Cavalier drop height comparison of energy/crush.
47
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 33.96 * X @ 342.9 mm DropY = 0+ 30.39 * X @ 139.7 mm DropY = 0+ 34.76 * X @ 241.3 mm DropY= 0 + 33.04 *X Average of 3 Curves
Caprice Drop Height Comparison
Energy Prediction Lines
Figure 35-Caprice drop height comparison for regressions.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 25.87 * X @ 472.4 mm DropY = 0 + 26.25 * X @ 203.3 mm DropY = 0+ 27.98* X @ 340.4 mm DropY = 0 + 26.7 * X Average of all 3 Curves
Cavalier Drop Height Comparison
Energy Prediction Lines
Figure 36-Cavalier drop height comparison for regressions.
48
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Fo
rce
(N
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
95’ DODGE NEON
Curb Weight = 1052 kg5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 42674 N at 383 mm of Ram Displacement
Rear Window Breaks
Static Roof Crush
Figure 37-Dodge Neon force/crush curve for quasi-static test.
5.3 Regression Model Validation
To test the accuracy of the regression technique for calculating the dynamic energy slope, a
1995 Dodge Neon was selected for validating the model. The roof was quasi-statically crushed to 381
mm. The force vs. crush (Figure 37) was integrated to get the energy vs. crush curve (Figure 38). The
energy curve was linearized, and the dynamic energy curve was then calculated using Equation 4
(Figure 39). To examine the accuracy of this prediction, additional Dodge Neons were dropped from
heights equivalent to the energy input at 254 mm (10") and 127 mm (5") of static roof crush. The
resulting drop heights were 343 mm (13.5") and 168 mm (6.6"). The resulting force vs. crush from
the load plate was then integrated and linearized. The comparison of the predicted and actual dynamic
energy vs. crush of the Neon is shown in Figure 40. The percent error between the slope of the actual
and predicted values is 17.2 % for the higher drop height. The lower drop height was closer to the
predicted, but still had a 8.2 % error from the test data. In this case the predictive power of the
equation was degraded as drop height (severity) increased.
49
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000E
nerg
y ( N
*m)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 17.2700 * X
95’ Dodge Neon
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 556.689491146771539R Squared 0.938921131195275714No. of Observations 1110Degrees of Freedom 1109 X Coefficient(s) 17.270023147758076 Std Err of Coef. 0.0759298387991933001
Static Roof Crush
Figure 38-Dodge Neon energy/crush and regression curves for quasi-static test.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Static Y = 0 + 17.27 * XPredicted Dynamic Y = 0 + 22.989 * X
95’ Dodge NeonStatic Vs. Predicted
Calulated Using Equation 4Static Slope = 17.27
Figure 39-Dodge Neon regression lines for quasi-static test vs. predicted.
50
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000E
nerg
y (N
*m)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Predicted Dynamic Energy : Y = 0 + 22.989 * XActual Dynamic Energy Regression 343 mm Drop : Y = 0 + 27.78 * XActual Dynamic Energy Regression 167.9 mm Drop Y = 0 + 25.05 * X
95’ Dodge NeonPredicted Vs. Actual
Figure 40-Dodge Neon regression lines for predicted vs. actual at 2 heights.
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
A comprehensive study of quasi-static and dynamic loading of roof structures was conducted
at the VRTC. Initially, nine vehicle roof structures were crushed quasi-statically using the test
procedures and load plate in FMVSS No. 216, roof crush resistance. Roofs were crushed to 381 mm
(15 inches) in 127 mm (5 inch) increments on each vehicle. Roof profile measurements were made
and force and integrated energy vs crush were plotted. Each vehicle was ranked by increasing
stiffness and peak plate force. Results indicated that roof strength varies from vehicle to vehicle and
when made relative to the vehicle weight, apparent performance can also change. When analyzing
the CK-1500 pickup stiffness, it performed better than any other vehicle. However, when
51
normalizing by vehicle weight it became the 5th best performer. These rankings were then used to
pick vehicles for dynamic drop testing.
The effect of load plate angle on roof crush resistance was also investigated using two of the
vehicle types (1990 Dodge Colt and 1989 Nissan Pickup). When loading the roof at 0E pitch and 15E
roll, the roof deflected less at the same load than at the standard 216 angles (5E pitch , 25E roll). This
was attributed to the load being applied at a more perpendicular angle to the A-pillar column, than
in FMVSS 216 which loads the A-pillar more in bending.
A study of dynamic roof crush resistance and failure modes was then conducted. The 1989
Nissan Pickup and 1990 Dodge Colt were dropped onto their roofs at heights and angles
corresponding to static crush energies in the FMVSS No. 216 procedure. Roof profile and peak
deflection comparisons were made between the drop tests and the quasi-static tests. Based on profile
measurements, it appeared that roof failure modes in the dynamic drop tests were identical to those
measured in the profiles of the static tests. Consequently, a static test was comparable to the dynamic
test in that regard. The primary difference between the static and dynamic tests was the peak roof
crush measurement. Dynamic roof crush was less than the quasi-static roof crush test with the same
energy input. This was attributed to the changes in load application as the vehicle rolls during roof
crush, and by interaction of the vehicle hood with the floor. Therefore, some energy is absorbed by
the vehicle hood and reduces the forces on the vehicle roof in the drop test. Subsequent testing onto
a load plate eliminated hood interaction by raising the load plate 510 mm (20 inches) above the
ground.
Based on peak strength and stiffness in the static tests, six of the nine vehicles tested quasi-
statically were selected for drop tests onto a load plate (Three vehicles were relatively good
52
performers and three were relatively poor performers in the quasi-static test). These tests were
conducted to determine the dynamic force vs. deflection characteristics of each vehicle roof when
dropped at a pre-determined level. Each vehicle was dropped at a height that input energy into the
roof that was equivalent to energy at 254 mm (10 inches) of roof crush in the quasi-static test. Force
vs. crush and the integrated energy vs. crush were measured and calculated. Energy plots from the
quasi-static testing and the dynamic testing were then compared. A statistical correlation was
developed to predict the slope of the dynamic energy from the slope of the static energy as a function
of roof crush. The following conclusions were derived from comparisons of the static and dynamic
drop tests onto a load plate:
1. The peak force in the dynamic drop test was always higher than the peak force of the static
test of the same vehicle model.
2. Both static and dynamic tests have energy vs. crush plots that can be estimated as straight
lines. A least squares statistical fit was performed for each test, and the correlation
coefficients ranged from .95 to .99.
3. When comparing the linearized static and dynamic energy vs. crush plots, the dynamic energy
slopes ranged from 1.1 to 1.6 times the static energy slope.
4. A statistical correlation provided a good estimate of the dynamic energy slope from the static
energy slope. A correlation coefficient (R2) of .94 was produced.
Another series of tests were performed with the Cavalier and Caprice to determine the
sensitivity of the dynamic force and energy plots to impact severity. To vary impact severity, the
vehicle drop height was adjusted for each test. Two additional drops were conducted on each vehicle
53
type. Results showed that force vs. crush did not change significantly for the weaker roof structure
(Caprice), but the peak force before the first drop-off in load carrying capacity of the Cavalier went
down as the drop height increased. Consequently, the rate of loading was a factor in the resulting
force vs. crush plots. The energy vs. crush results were very similar, however, for the three drops of
each vehicle. The dynamic energy slopes ranged from 30.4 to 34.8 N*m/mm and 25.9 to 28.0
N*m/mm for the Caprice and Cavalier, respectively. The least squares regression predicted 31.4 and
25.8 N*m/mm for the Caprice and Cavalier, respectively. Consequently, load rate had an effect on
the dynamic energy slope, but it appeared the least squares regression equation was still relatively
accurate.
To validate the least squares statistical equation that predicted the slope of the dynamic energy
curves, a Dodge Neon was selected and the roof quasi-statically crushed. Integrating and using
Equation [4], the dynamic energy slope was predicted. Two additional Neons were then dropped onto
the load cell barrier at a low and high drop height. The heights were based on the quasi-static crush
energy at 127 mm (5 inches) and 254 mm (10 inches) of roof crush. The error of the predicted
dynamic roof energy from the actual was 17.2 percent and 8.2 percent at the high and low drop
height, respectively. Therefore, given the significant difference in the results of the predicted from
the actual results, the least squares equation could not be validated to accurately predict the dynamic
energy slope from the static test results.
Consequently, for a wide range of drop heights and vehicle types, the slope of the dynamic
energy vs. crush slope is predictable with an error as much as 20 percent. Factors such as loading rate
(drop height) significantly influence the difference in static and dynamic loading. Development of
a static procedure for a FMVSS No. 216 upgrade would need to be correlated to one drop height
severity, or the loading rate would need to be examined to determine if a higher rate can more readily
54
be compared to full-scale dynamic drop tests. If this could be done, an improved FMVSS No.216
may be realized by a static test that is transformed into a dynamically equivalent result. Based on the
results of this study, the transformation could be based on a static to dynamic roof energy calculation.
The primary advantage of a static test procedure is the simplicity and repeatability of the test.
It is a well known procedure and modification to the requirements, such as the limit on load plate
displacement or changing the maximum plate application force would be simple to accomplish. On
the other hand, it has yet to be shown that the static test procedure represents real-world rollover
forces on the roof. This study set-out to show that quasi-static forces could be transformed to a
dynamically equivalent load, thereby eliminating one of the primary objections to the static test.
Another objection to the static test is the lack of performance based requirements that take into
account dummy response to rollover forces. The static test cannot incorporate a dummy for injury
measures, but could possibly use a dummy to measure roof head room reduction when the roof is
crushed with the load plate.
The primary advantage of the dynamic test is that it can be related to dynamic loads that occur
in real-world rollovers. The roof can be dynamically loaded and a dummy could also be added to
the procedure to measure dummy response. However, the advantages in the static procedure are the
disadvantages in the dynamic test. The test would be difficult to administer, particularly with a
dummy, and it would be inherently less repeatable than the static test. In addition, the choice of
impact severity would be difficult to determine and justify from crash data. There is currently no
universally accepted measure of rollover severity. While these problems are not insurmountable, they
could extend the development of an improved test procedure significantly.
55
7.0 REFERENCES
1. Rollover Prevention and Roof Crush - Congressional Report. 1992. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration; USDOT
2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 - Roof Crush Resistance. CFR 49 571.216,
October 1997.
3. Vehicle and Dummy Kinematics in a Controlled Rollover Crash. Rollover Crash Test
Reports. National Crash Analysis Center, Ashburn, VA.
4. H. Cheng, A.. L. Rizer and L. A. Obergefell, "Pickup Truck Rollover Accident
Reconstruction using the ATB Model, SAE 950133, 1995.
5. Design Modification for a 1989 Nissan Pick-up - Final Report. 1991. NHTSA/USDOT.
DOT HS 807 925, NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, 22161.
6. W. Riley Garrot, Michael W. Monk and Jeffery P. Christos, "Vehicle Inertial Parameters -
Measured Values and Approximations," SAE Paper 881767, Society of Automotive
Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1988.
7. Glen C. Rains and Joseph N. Kanianthra. "Determination of the Significance of Roof Crush
on Head and Neck Injury to Passenger Vehicle Occupants in Rollover Crashes," SAE Paper
950655, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1988.
56
8. Michael J. Leigh and Donald T. Willke, "Upgraded Rollover Roof Crush Protection: Rollover
Test and Nass Case Analysis," Internal Event Report VRTC-81-0197, East Liberty, OH, June
1992
57
APPENDIX A
(Roof profiles for all vehicles tested using the static test device.)
58
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis mm
0
400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
1989 Nissan Pickup #1FMVSS216-Total Load 18670 N
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #1127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axismm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #1254 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #1381 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
Figure A(1)-Nissan #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles.
59
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis mm
0
400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
15 Deg. Plate angle and 0 Deg. pitch
1989 Nissan Pickup #2FMVSS216-Total Load 18670 N
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis
mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #2127 mm Total Crush
15 Deg. Plate angle and 0 Deg. pitch
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis
mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #2254 mm Total Crush
15 Deg. Plate angle and 0 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis
mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Nissan Pickup #2381 mm Total Crush
15 Deg. Plate angle and 0 Deg. pitch
Figure A(2)-Nissan #2 quasi-static tests roof profiles.
60
0
200
400
Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis mm
0
400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
1989 Dodge Colt #1FMVSS216-Total Load 14679 N
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis
mm
0400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #1127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #1254 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis
mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #1381 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle and 5 Deg. pitch
Figure A(3)-Dodge Colt #1 quasi-static tests roof profiles.
61
0
200
400
Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis mm
0
400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
15 Deg. Plate angle and 0 Deg. pitch
1989 Dodge Colt #2FMVSS216-Total Load 14679 N
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis
mm
0400
800
1200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #2127 mm Total Crush
15 Deg. Plate angle and 0 Deg. pitch
0
200
400Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #2254 mm Total Crush
15 Deg. Plate angle and 0 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xism
m
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis
mm
0400
8001200
Y-Axis mm
1989 Dodge Colt #2381 mm Total Crush
15 Deg. Plate angle and 0 Deg. pitch
Figure A(4)-Dodge Colt #2 quasi-static tests roof profiles.
62
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
90’ Chevy Cavalier #1127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
90’ Chevy Cavalier #1254 mm Total Crush
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
90’ Chevy Cavalier #1381mm Total Crush
Figure A(5)-Chevy Cavalier #1 quasi-static tests roof profiles.
63
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
90’ Honda Accord #1127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
90’ Honda Accord #1254 mm Total Crush
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
90’ Honda Accord #1381mm Total Crush
Figure A(6)-Honda Accord quasi-static tests roof profiles.
64
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
91’ Chevy Caprice127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
91’ Chevy Caprice254 mm Total Crush
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
91’ Chevy Caprice381mm Total Crush
Figure A(7)-Chevy Caprice #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles.
65
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
91’ Ford Explorer254 mm Total Crush
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
91’ Ford Explorer381 mm Total Crush
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
91’ Ford Explorer127 mm Total Crush
Figure A(8)-Ford Explorer #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles.
66
0
200
400
600
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500750
10001250
15001750
Y-Axis (mm)
90’ Chevy CK-1500 Pickup127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
600
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500750
10001250
15001750
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
90’ Chevy CK-1500 Pickup254 mm Total Crush
0
200
400
600
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500750
10001250
15001750
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
90’ Chevy CK-1500 Pickup381mm Total Crush
Figure A(9)-Chevy CK-1500 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles.
67
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
89’ Ford Taurus # 1381mm Total Crush
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Ford Taurus # 1127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
89’ Ford Taurus # 1254 mm Total Crush
Figure A(10)-Ford Taurus #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles.
68
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
92’ Ford Taurus # 2127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
92’ Ford Taurus # 2254 mm Total Crush
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
92’ Ford Taurus # 2381mm Total Crush
Figure A(11)-Ford Taurus #2 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles.
69
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0
5001000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
95’ Dodge Neon127 mm Total Crush
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
95’ Dodge Neon254 mm Total Crush
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
25 Deg. Plate angle 5 Deg. pitch
95’ Dodge Neon381mm Total Crush
Figure A(12)-Dodge Neon #1 quasi-static tests roof crush profiles.
70
Appendix B
(Roof profiles for all vehicles drop tested onto floor.)
71
0
200Z
-Axi
s(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500750
10001250
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Nissan Pickup # 4228.6 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg.Roll
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Nissan Pickup # 4Pre-test Profile
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg.Roll
Figure B(1)-Nissan #4 floor drop test roof crush profiles.
72
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0250
500
750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500
750
1000
12501500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Nissan Pickup # 5Pre-Test Profile
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0250
500
750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500
750
1000
12501500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Nissan Pickup # 5228.6 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg. Roll
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Nissan Pickup # 5190.5 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg. Roll
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
250
500
7501000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0
250
500750
1000
1250
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Nissan Pickup # 5241.3 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg. Roll
Figure B(2)-Nissan #5 multiple floor drop tests roof crush profiles.
73
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0250
500750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500750
10001250
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Nissan Pickup # 7Pre-Test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0250
500750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500750
10001250
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Nissan Pickup # 7596.9 mm Full Height
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg Roll
Figure B(3)-Nissan #7 floor drop test roof crush profiles.
74
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0250
500
7501000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0
250
500750
1000
12501500
Y-Axis (mm)
1990 Nissan Pickup # 8196.85 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg. Roll
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1990 Nissan Pickup # 8203.2 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg. Roll
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
250
500750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0
250
500750
10001250
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1990 Nissan Pickup # 8190.5 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg. Roll
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
250
500750
1000
1250
X-Axis (mm)
0
250
500750
10001250
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1990 Nissan Pickup # 8Pre-Test Profile
Figure B(4)-Nissan #8 multiple floor drop tests roof crush profiles.
75
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 3Pre-test Profile
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg.Roll
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 3812.8 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg.Roll
Figure B(5)-Dodge Colt #3 floor drop test roof crush profiles.
76
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Dodge Colt # 4279.4 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg. Roll
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg. Roll
89’ Dodge Colt # 4330.2 mm Drop Height
0
200
400Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Dodge Colt # 4215.9 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg. Roll
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
89’ Dodge Colt # 4Pre-test Profile
Figure B(6)-Dodge Colt #4 multiple floor drop tests roof crush profiles.
77
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 5Pre-test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 5939.8 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg.Roll
Figure B(7)-Dodge Colt #5 floor drop test roof crush profiles.
78
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 6Pre-test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 6254 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg.Roll
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 6393.7 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg.Roll
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 6304.8 mm Drop Height
Loading Angle: 0 Deg. Pitch and 15 Deg.Roll
Figure B(8)-Dodge Colt #6 multiple floor drop tests roof crush profiles.
79
Appendix C
(Roof profiles for all vehicles drop tested onto loadcell platform.)
80
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0250
500750
10001250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500750
10001250
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1990 Nissan Pickup # 10Pre-Test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0250
500750
10001250
X-Axis (mm)
0250
500750
10001250
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1990 Nissan Pickup # 10400.05 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure C(1)-Nissan #10 load plate drop test roof profiles.
81
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 7Pre-test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1989 Dodge Colt # 7520.7 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg. Pitch and 25 Deg.RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure C(2)-Dodge Colt #7 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
82
0
250Z-A
xis
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis
1990 Chevy Cavalier # 2Pre-Test Profile
0
250Z-A
xis
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis
1990 Chevy Cavalier # 2472.44 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure C(3)-Chevy Cavalier #2 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
83
0
250Z-A
xis
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis
1990 Chevy Cavalier # 3Pre-Test Profile
0
250Z-A
xis
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis
1990 Chevy Cavalier # 3203.2 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure C(4)-Chevy Cavalier #3 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
84
0
250Z-A
xis
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis
1990 Chevy Cavalier # 4Pre-Test Profile
0
250Z-A
xis
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis
1990 Chevy Cavalier # 4340.36 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure C(5)-Chevy Cavalier #4 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
85
0
250
500
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1992 Ford Taurus # 3Pre-Test Profile
0
250
500
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0
500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1992 Ford Taurus # 3434.34 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure C(6)-Ford Taurus #3 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
86
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1991 Chevy Caprice #2Pre-Test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
1991 Chevy Caprice #2342.9 mm Full Drop
Figure C(7)-Chevy Caprice #2 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
87
0
200
400Z
-Axi
s(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
1991 Chevy Caprice # 3139.7 mm Full Drop
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1991 Chevy Caprice # 3Pre-Test Profile
Figure C(8)-Chevy Caprice #3 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
88
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1991 Chevy Caprice # 4Pre-Test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
1991 Chevy Caprice # 4241.3 mm Full Drop
Figure C(9)-Chevy Caprice #4 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
89
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1991 Ford Explorer #2Pre-Test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
1991 Ford Explorer #2353.06 mm Full Drop
Figure C(10)-Ford Explorer #2 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
90
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1995 Plymouth Neon # 2Pre-Test Profile
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1995 Plymouth Neon # 2342.9 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure C(11)-Plymouth Neon #2 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
91
0
200
400
Z-A
xis
(mm
)0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0500
10001500
Y-Axis (mm)
1995 Plymouth Neon # 3167.64 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5 Deg Pitch and 25 Deg RollLoad Cell Platform
0
200
400
Z-A
xis(m
m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
X-Axis (mm)
0500
1000
1500
Y-Axis (mm)
1995 Plymouth Neon # 3Pre-Test Profile
Figure C(12)-Plymouth Neon #3 load plate drop test roof crush profiles.
92
Appendix D
(Force/Crush and Energy/Crush for all vehicles tested with static roof crush device)
93
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
89’ Nissan Pickup Truck # 1
Vehicle Curb Weight = 1270 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 26348 N at 390.4 mm of Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(18669 N)
Windshield Breaks(19533 N) Head Contacts
(18558 N)2 x Veh. Wt.(24892 N)
Figure D(1)-Nissan#1 quasi-static testforce/crush curve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y =0+17.17* X
89’ Nissan Pickup Truck # 1
Error MS = 35438.02482Count = 1025Intercept = 0Slope = 17.17762R-square = 0.991486
Figure D(2)-Nissan#1 quasi-static testenergy/crush curve.
94
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 19.225 * X
1989 Nissan Pickup Truck # 2
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 186.567823127242441R Squared 0.993010672259660178No. of Observations 1088Degrees of Freedom 1087 X Coefficient(s) 19.2249669934868705 Std Err of Coef. 0.0247781228373948706
Figure D(4)-Nissan#2 quasi-static testenergy/crush curve.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Crush (mm)
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(18669 N)
2 x Veh. Wt.(24892 N)
Windshield Breaks(19273 N)
Head Contacts Roof(17565 N)
Vehicle Curb Weight = 1270 kgCrush Angle: 0° Pitch 15° Roll
Peak Force =30866 N at 396.24 mm of Ram Displacement
1989 Nissan Pickup Truck # 2
Figure D(3)-Nissan#2 quasi-static testforce/crush curve.
95
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
89’ Dodge Colt # 1
Vehicle Curb Weight = 998 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 26490 N at 384.7 mm of Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt. (14669 N)
2 x Veh. Wt. (19561 N)
Windshield Breaks (21185 N)
Head Contacts Roof (17037 N)
Figure D(5)-DodgeColt #1 quasi-statictest force/crush curve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 19.009 * X
89’ Dodge Colt # 1
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 331.641512592063 R Squared 0.980320461581124 No. of Observations 1047 Degrees of Freedom 1046 X Coefficient(s) 19.0090061841572 Std Err of Coef. 0.046169569618224 Figure D(6)-Dodge
Colt #1 quasi-statictest energy/crushcurve.
96
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
89’ Dodge Colt # 2
Vehicle Curb Weight = 998 kgCrush Angle: 0 Deg Pithch 15 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 30399 N at 386.2 mm of Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(14669 N)
2 x Veh. Wt.(19561 N)
Head Contacts Roof(24451 N)
Windshield Breaks(24318 N)
Figure D(7)-DodgeColt #2 quasi-statictest force/crush curve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 21.0504 * X
89’ Dodge Colt # 2
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 313.583815778796425R Squared 0.985340231147696827No. of Observations 1058Degrees of Freedom 1057 X Coefficient(s) 21.0504550150616644 Std Err of Coef. 0.0431529669422400919
Vehicle Curb Weight = 998 kgCrush Angle: 0 Deg Pithch 25 Deg Roll
Figure D(8)-DodgeColt #2 quasi-statictest energy/crush.curve
97
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
90’ Chevy Cavalier #1
5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg RollPeak Force = 40907 N at 382 mm Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(16003 N)
Windshield Breaks(16821 N)
Head Contacts Roof(22964 N)
Figure D(9)-ChevyCavalier #1 quasi-static test force/crushcurve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 21.0384* X
90’ Chevy Cavalier #1
Regression Output: Constant 0 Std Err of Y Est 463.737255577967 R Squared 0.970323270084922 No. of Observations 1032 Degrees of Freedom 1031 X Coefficient(s) 21.0383623509233 Std Err of Coef. 0.0644892247533774
Figure D(10)-ChevyCavalier #1 quasi-static testenergy/crush curve.
98
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 20.8446 * X
90’ Honda Accord
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 502.981825788359614R Squared 0.963319369412989814No. of Observations 966Degrees of Freedom 965 X Coefficient(s) 20.8446309527282618 Std Err of Coef. 0.0715830590009985994
Figure D(12)-HondaAccord quasi-statictest energy/crushcurve.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
90’ Honda Accord
Curb Weight = 1259 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 44201 N at 380.2 mm of Ram Displacement
Figure D(11)-Hondaaccord quasi-statictest force/crush curve.
99
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Ene
rgy
( N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 22.5083 * X
91’ Chevy Caprice
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 343.886616822751 R Squared 0.984124354383323 No. of Observations 1050 Degrees of Freedom 1049 X Coefficient(s) 22.508280227425 Std Err of Coef. 0.0484723542110277
Figure D(14)-ChevyCaprice #1 quasi-static testenergy/crush curve.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
91’ Chevy Caprice # 1
Curb Weight = 1689 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 32656 at 378.9 mm of Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(24831 N)
Windshield Breaks( 23773 N)
Roof Contacts Head(26995 N)
Figure D(13)-ChevyCaprice #1 quasi-static test force/crushcurve.
100
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
91’ Ford Explorer
Curb Weight = 1632 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 30059 N at 381.1 mm of Ram Displacement
Figure D(15)-FordExplorer #1 quasi-static test force/crushcurve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 22.9257 * X
91’ Ford Explorer
Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 223.952375205726 R Squared 0.993087344301571 No. of Observations 1037 Degrees of Freedom 1036 X Coefficient(s) 22.925782586752 Std Err of Coef. 0.0315321335155046 Figure D(16)-Ford
Explorer #1 quasi-static testenergy/crush curve.
101
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 23.3323 * X
90’ Cherolet CK-1500 Pickup
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 435.346012003115554R Squared 0.974505754096055446No. of Observations 977Degrees of Freedom 976 X Coefficient(s) 23.3322876955270665 Std Err of Coef. 0.0634736171228768106 Figure D(18)-Chevy
CK-1500 PU quasi-static testenergy/crush curve
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
90’ Chevrolet CK-1500 Pickup
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(24684 N)
Windshield Breaks(30000 N)
Roof Contacts Head(21000 N)
Curb Weight = 1679 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 40600 N at 136 mm Ram Displacement
Figure D(17)-ChevyCK-1500 PU quasi-static test force/crushcurve.
102
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
89’ Ford Taurus # 1
Curb Weight = 1411 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 40280 N at 379.1 mm of Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(20737 N)
Windshield Breaks(30560 N)
Roof Contacts Head(31370 N)
Figure D(19)-FordTaurus #1 quasi-statictest force/crush curve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 24.4099 * X
89’ Ford Taurus # 1
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 373.732018952891428R Squared 0.984072346594868298No. of Observations 1020Degrees of Freedom 1019 X Coefficient(s) 24.409898261369885 Std Err of Coef. 0.0530313341342351609
Figure D(20)-FordTaurus #1 quasi-statictest energy/crushcurve.
103
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
Ene
rgy
(N* m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 23.9292 * X
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 524.794239564846 R Squared 0.970616880652279 No. of Observations 1161 Degrees of Freedom 1160 X Coefficient(s) 23.9292541793931 Std Err of Coef. 0.0683734935637289
92’ Ford Taurus # 2
Figure D(22)-FordTaurus #2 quasi-statictest energy/crushcurve.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
92’ Ford Taurus # 2
Curb Weight = 1411 kgCrush Angle: 5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 51634 N at 387.2 mm of Ram Displacement
1 1/2 x Veh. Wt.(20737 N)
Figure D(21)-FordTaurus #2 quasi-statictest force/crush curve.
104
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Fo
rce
(N
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
95’ DODGE NEON
Curb Weight = 1052 kg5 Deg Pitch 25 Deg Roll
Peak Force = 42674 N at 383 mm of Ram Displacement
Rear Window Breaks
Static Roof Crush
Figure D(23)-DodgeNeon #1 quasi-statictest force/crush curve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 17.2700 * X
95’ Dodge Neon
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 556.689491146771539R Squared 0.938921131195275714No. of Observations 1110Degrees of Freedom 1109 X Coefficient(s) 17.270023147758076 Std Err of Coef. 0.0759298387991933001
Static Roof Crush
Figure D(24)-DodgeNeon #1 quasi-statictest energy/crushcurve.
105
Appendix E
(Force/Crush and Energy/Crush for all vehicles drop tested onto loadcell platform.)
106
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 23.5651 * X
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 94.9330288646447 R Squared 0.998061486188764 No. of Observations 1656 Degrees of Freedom 1655 X Coefficient(s) 23.565110515825 Std Err of Coef. 0.01141145319508
1990 Nissan Pickup # 10400 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(2)-Nissan#10 load plate droptest energy/crushcurve.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Crush (mm)
1990 Nissan Pickup # 10400 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(1)-Nissan#10 load plate droptest force/crush curve.
107
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000F
orc e
(N
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Crush (mm)
1989 Plymouth Colt # 7521 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(3)-Plymouth Colt #7load plate drop testforce/crush curve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 20.67 * X
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 222.195315309984 R Squared 0.98944470770608 No. of Observations 280 Degrees of Freedom 279 X Coefficient(s) 20.6717340067234 Std Err of Coef. 0.0665638571335076
1989 Plymouth Colt # 7521 mm Full Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(4)-Plymouth Colt #7load plate drop testenergy/crush curve.
108
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 100 200 300 400 500Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 25.8678 * X
Regression Output: Constant 0 Std Err of Y Est 168.943019285091 R Squared 0.99748581511657 No. of Observations 618 Degrees of Freedom 617 X Coefficient(s) 25.8677696977843 Std Err of Coef. 0.0338956347677087
90 Chevy Cavalier #2472 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(6)-ChevyCavalier #2 load platedrop test energy/crushcurve.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
For
ce (
N)
0 100 200 300 400 500Crush (mm)
90 Chevy Cavalier472 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(5)-ChevyCavalier #2 load platedrop test force/crushcurve.
109
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
For
ce (
N)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Crush (mm)
90 Chevy Cavalier203 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(7)-ChevyCavalier #3 load platedrop test force/crushcurve.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 26.2504 * X
90 Chevy Cavalier203 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 107.650549627114745R Squared 0.98394950818824091No. of Observations 1573Degrees of Freedom 1572 X Coefficient(s) 26.250402339152814 Std Err of Coef. 0.0292376705051103455 Figure E(8)-Chevy
Cavalier #3 load platedrop test energy/crushcurve.
110
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
For
ce (
N)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Crush (mm)
90 Chevy Cavalier #4340 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(9)-ChevyCavalier #4 load platedrop test force/crushcurve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 25.8678 * X
90 Chevy Cavalier #4340 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Regression Output: Constant 0 Std Err of Y Est 168.943019285091 R Squared 0.99748581511657 No. of Observations 618 Degrees of Freedom 617 X Coefficient(s) 25.8677696977843 X Coefficient(s) Std Err of Coef. 0.0338956347677087 Std Err of Coef.
Figure E(10)-ChevyCavalier #4 load platedrop test energy/crushcurve
111
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
For
ce (
N)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220Crush (mm)
92 Taurus #3434 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(11)-FordTaurus #3 load platedrop test force/crushcurve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 38.6358 * X
92 Taurus #3434 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 375.170113319697 R Squared 0.982832573884549 No. of Observations 1110 Degrees of Freedom 1109 X Coefficient(s) 38.6358361721709 Std Err of Coef. 0.0731972438349091 Figure E(12)-Ford
Taurus #3 load platedrop test energy/crushcurve.
112
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
For
ce (
N)
0 100 200 300 400 500Crush (mm)
91 Explorer #2353 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(13)-FordExplorer #2 load platedrop test force/crushcurve
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 100 200 300 400 500Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 31.2130 * X
91 Explorer #2353 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 425.528392676174 R Squared 0.987922613677742 No. of Observations 2829 Degrees of Freedom 2828 X Coefficient(s) 31.2130213004894 Std Err of Coef. 0.0250867710956244 Figure E(14)-Ford
Explorer #2 load platedrop test energy/crushcurve.
113
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
91 Caprice #2343 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(15)-ChevyCaprice #2 load platedrop test force/crushcurve.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 33.9586 * X
91 Caprice #2343 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 269.120881188805 R Squared 0.995547060029434 No. of Observations 2329 Degrees of Freedom 2328 X Coefficient(s) 33.9586374963569 Std Err of Coef. 0.0194699808873551
Figure E(16)-ChevyCaprice #2 load platedrop test energy/crushcurve.
114
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
For
ce (
N)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Crush (mm)
91 Caprice #3140 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(17)-ChevyCaprice #3 load platedrop test force/crushcurve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 30.3906 * X
91 Caprice #3140 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 175.927295775802578R Squared 0.990140729504787687No. of Observations 1511Degrees of Freedom 1510 X Coefficient(s) 30.3906094936746721 Std Err of Coef. 0.0362773815028175156 Figure E(18)-Chevy
Caprice #3 load platedrop test energy/crushcurve.
115
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
For
ce (
N)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Crush (mm)
91 Caprice #4241 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(19)-ChevyCaprice #4 load platedrop test force/crushcurve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 34.7625 * X
91 Caprice #4241 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 291.659194644820384R Squared 0.991482971564574076No. of Observations 2552Degrees of Freedom 2551 X Coefficient(s) 34.7625528946370161 Std Err of Coef. 0.0252624702028572602
Figure E(20)-ChevyCaprice #4 load platedrop test energy/crushcurve.
116
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
For
ce (
N)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240Crush (mm)
95 Neon #2343 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(21)-Plymouth Neon #2load plate drop testforce/crush curve.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240Crush (mm)
Y = 0 + 27.7840 * X
95 Neon #2343 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Regression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 64.3024023514884919R Squared 0.999217868461301506No. of Observations 1461Degrees of Freedom 1460 X Coefficient(s) 27.7839844955453897 Std Err of Coef. 0.00988379790804905576 Figure E(22)-
Plymouth Neon #2load plate drop testenergy/crush curve.
117
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
For
ce (
N)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110Crush (mm)
95 Neon #3168 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(23)-Plymouth Neon #3load plate drop testforce/crush curve
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Ene
rgy
(N*m
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Crush (mm)
Y = 0+ 25.02 * X
PRegression Output: Constant 0Std Err of Y Est 69.3291955652071329R Squared 0.993927555652483026No. of Observations 1161Degrees of Freedom 1160 X Coefficient(s) 25.0201419909232901 Std Err of Coef. 0.0266071245468535097
95 Neon #3168 mm Drop
Loading Angle: 5° Pitch and 25° RollLoad Cell Platform
Figure E(24)-Plymouth Neon #3load plate drop testenergy/crush curve