Assessing Head Airbag OOP Injury Risks Using TWG Procedures

1
Assessing Head Airbag OOP Injury Risks Using TWG
Procedures TWG Annual Review
Meeting Washington, D.C. 25 October, 2001
2
TWG Goal / Expectation

• To prepare a final set of recommendations that
  are as comprehensive as possible, which guide
  automakers and airbag suppliers
• to design of future systems consistent with the
  recommendations
• to reduce the already low risk of injury from
  side airbag interaction

3
Evaluation of Injury Risk per TWG Procedures

• Assess injury risk from a deploying head airbag
  system utilizing proposed TWG procedures to
• identify injury risk of current product
• compare additional due care positions
• determine effectiveness of procedures to
  influence product design

4
TWG and Due Care Positions Tested
6 Yr-old Seated in Rear
3 Yr-old Standing
3 Yr-old Kneeling Facing Outboard
6 Yr-old Seated in Front
Additional Due Care Positions
TWG recommended positions
Over 60 tests conducted in injury risk study
with positions shown
5
Comparison of OOP Peak Neck Injury Risk
Nij for initial airbag design
Nij for alternate airbag design
6
Prediction of Dynamic Performance
MADYMO computer simulation

• Test Conditions of Analysis
• Pole crash
• 10 inch/(254mm) Ø pole
• 20 mph /(32 kph) impact velocity

7
Comparison of MADYMO HIC Predictions
Alternate Head Airbag Design
Initial Head Airbag Design
HIC Head Injury Criteria
8
Actual HIC Comparison
Actual Crash Test of Alternate Head Airbag Design
Alternate Head Airbag Design
Initial Head Airbag Design
9
Observations

• TWG recommended positions represented more
  stringent OOP conditions than due care positions
  tested.
• Use of recommended procedures met TWG goals to
  reduce low OOP injury risk from deploying head
  airbag.
• Resulting design of head airbag per TWG
  procedures likely improved crash performance.