Influence of Deceleration Profiles on Occupant Velocity Differential

and Injury Potential

By E. Brell, M. Veidt & W. Daniel – 30th August 2000

Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Queensland Brisbane, Qld 4066 Australia

Abstract- Motozawa and Kamei in [1] recently showed that by optimising change in vehicle deceleration, occupant injuries
in crashes could be reduced. The idea that vehicle deceleration is reduced or even reversed during the phase of internal
contact of occupants has intuitive appeal. In such a scheme, large deceleration is scheduled early in the crash sequence
during the short interval where the occupant has not yet made contact with the internals of the vehicle. This is to be followed
by a phase of ‘featherbedding’ to be concluded by large deceleration once again to acquit the total momentum of the vehicle.
This approach may implicitly include the velocity differential existing at the point of internal impact. However, since
occupant velocity differential is heavily represented in injury levels, more directly than vehicle deceleration, more emphasis
on this aspect may be warranted. Indeed, it is plausible that the initially large deceleration may serve to produce a larger
velocity differential at occupant impact and so exacerbate injury.
This paper compares two identical vehicle deceleration profiles mirrored in time, one linearly descending with time
and the other linearly ascending with time. The differences of such profiles on occupant velocity differential and by
implication, injury levels at the point of occupant impact are presented. An indifference point is established to assist in
comparing which occupant body part will benefit from the altered crash pulse. It is shown that for occupant proximity
distances below the indifference point, an ascending profile results in lower injury risk. Above the indifference point, the
result is reversed. The paper concludes with considerations for crash load control devices generally as conceptualised by
Motozawa and Kamei in [1].

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to provide a tool to assist in comparing the efficacy of crumple zones in
mitigating injury. This is achieved by applying an injury criterion to identical impulses, which are
mirrored in time. The procedure is suitable for fragile goods as well as occupants of vehicles,
although the presentation is focussed on the latter.

1.1 Mechanism of Injury

It is of value to engage first in a brief overview as to how a crash pulse interacts with an occupant and
his/her body parts to cause injury. This also affords opportunity to review some injury indicators
presently in use to gauge the efficacy (or otherwise) of the crash pulse in the mitigation of injury.
Lau et al [2] showed that in a crash involving occupants there are two impacts as shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 – Timing of first and second impact in a crash

Faidy [3] showed that the second impact is really a progression of impacts as shown in
Figure 2:
 Figure 2 - Progression of second impacts (57km/hr)

Since a single body part will be considered at any one time, the second impact will apply to that part.
Since the theory reviewed and presented here finds applicability in dropped containers and
transported fragile goods as well, reference to ‘fragiles’ herein shall include any object under study
that will benefit from a reduced velocity differential. Accordingly, abbreviation FVD refers Fragiles
Velocity Differential reflecting the wider scope for this study.
There is a common process by which blunt injury in a motor vehicle occurs. This process is
represented cinematically from left to right in Figure 3, which also serves to define some terms:

APPROACH CONTACT DWELL SEPARATION

Figure 3 - Cinematic presentation of blunt injury process

To reconcile Figure 3 with Figure 1: “Approach” occurs during the time between first and second
impact. “Contact” corresponds in time with “Second Impact”. The dwell phase from contact through
to separation can include impact in severity range from a very stiff A-pillar to compliant dashboard
padding. It may even include part of the injured body part in the form of fatty tissue and skin as
discussed in [4].
The dwell phase comprises the coupling phase presented by [3] and the ride-down phase by [5] and
[6]. It is generally accepted that body parts are capable of much higher deceleration during the ride-
down part of the dwell phase [7]. Injury therefore must occur in the coupling phase implicit in the
3 ms “time clip” limits [8] of US Federal legislation FMVSS 201, 203 and 208 for applicable injuries.
Even the celebrated 36 ms time for head injury must include a critical time interval of less than15 ms
to pose a concussion threat according to [19]. They add that skull fracture occurs within 2 to 5 ms.

1.2 Prediction of Injury

In the absence of a universal index that enables direct prediction of injury from the shape of the
vehicle crash pulse, researchers rely on a biomechanical index for each body part under scrutiny, for
example Head Injury Criterion (HIC) for head impact, Viscous Criterion (VC) for thorax impact and
so on. This complicates crumple zone optimisation. However, implicated in each of these indices is
velocity change.

 2000 2
1.2.1 Vehicle Velocity Change
Delta-V1 was well correlated for injury by [9] for 318 restrained occupants. After evaluating 20,000
accidents Roberts et al [10] concluded:
“……… the incidence of soft tissue injuries such as concussion as well as
fractures of the bony structures of the human body are shown to be related
to the change in velocity in a collision.”
Otte [11] found delta-V correlated with localization of injuries at lower limbs. Langwieder et al [12]
also showed a good correlation of injury with Energy Equivalent Velocity (EEV) in 208 cases
investigated. EEV is identical to delta-V in a fixed barrier, so the term EEV will be used in this
paper.
EEV cannot be expected to reflect unrelated variables such as impact surface stiffness and sensitivity
of body part to injury. EEV can also not entirely account for the velocity differential existing
between the body part and the impact surface at the point of contact (defined in Figure 3).

1.2.2 Occupant Velocity Change

It is intuitive that body part velocity differential (now FVD) should have a high correlation with
injury levels. This was confirmed analytically by Faidy [3] who also demonstrated a linear coupling
phase of thorax to seatbelt take-up after the so-called free-flight phase during seat-belt slack
(approach in Figure 3). The coupling phase is shown in Figure 4, due to Faidy, to draw attention to
the complexity of injury mechanism. The coupling phenomenon is different for each body part and
degree of compliance of impacting surface. A full treatise is beyond scope.

Figure 4 - Effect of increasing seat-belt slack on FVD

Figure 4 shows an increase in seat belt slack with a corresponding increase in fragiles velocity
differential. The general principle involved is applicable to any body part that is spaced a distance
from its internal impact point.
It has been shown in the foregoing that EEV gives good correlation to injury. Using FVD eliminates
some of the variables inherent in EEV and is expected therefore to give better correlation. If FVD is

1
Delta-V is the change in velocity of the vehicle as defined in ISO Standard 12353.

 2000 3
an adequate parameter in determining the appropriate injury index (HIC, VC etc) then FVD is a
suitable relative index of injury, all other things being equal. FVD has the added appeal of
simplicity and is mathematically ‘available’, empowering this analysis to proceed. References [14]
and [15] used FVD as a basis for quantifying injury.
Fragiles velocity differential (FVD) is used as the relative indicator of risk of injury in this paper. If
then, the crumple zone under study responds to reduce FVD, it is seen as an improvement in injury
risk.

1.3 Crumple Zone

Having established criteria for injury assessment, we focus now on the prime cause of injury, being
also potentially a source of mitigation, viz. the crumple zone. The crumple zone responding to the
crash pulse is a complex area of collapse and capacitive stressing of internal members as well as strain
energy restoration either while the crumpling progresses or as rebound when the crumpling has
stopped. This response has been represented by authors in a variety of ways but chiefly as shown in
Table1:
Table 1 - Simple crash pulse models.
PICTOGRAM ANALYTICAL MODEL CITATION & REMARKS2
Single spring in spatial domain [16]
(F=kx).

Multiple mass spring system. [17] showing influence of

engine in crash pulse.

Legislation typically stipulates a number of different tests to ensure occupant crash protection.
During such tests a number of injury criteria are measured and routinely met on anthropomorphic
dummies.
A full discussion is beyond scope, however an example of a test deceleration profile is shown in
Figure 5 in the transient domain. The shaded area represents the legislated envelope for sled tests.
The sinusoidal curve and the corresponding equation in Figure 5 represents a spring that is linear in
the spatial domain as referred in Table 1.

2
Only the most recent examples found are shown.

 2000 4
 Figure 5 –Example of deceleration profile in transient domain

A crumple zone signature registered at the load cells of a frontal barrier crash test can also be
represented in the spatial domain as appears in Figure 6 for NHTSA Test #2845 – Total force vs.
dynamic crush.

Figure 6 – Example of crumple zone signature in spatial domain

There is practical scope to modify the vehicle crumple zone signature at both the design stage or by
after-market additions. In the design stage there is scope to add for example foam under the bumper,
to give gradual ascendancy to the deceleration profile. Alternatively, an after-market bull bar
mounted to the vehicle chassis will re-arrange the failure path and alter the crumple rate accordingly3.
The analysis presented in this paper may assist assessment of increase (or otherwise) in injury risk
created by interspersal of a bull bar in the crash load path. It can potentially optimise a crumple zone
including front, side, rear, oblique or offset impact.

2.0 PROXIMITY CONCEPT

The term proximity is here restricted to the distance of fragiles from their internal impact surface.
(Proximity is referred to as AID in NHTSA (1979) “AID is the available interior occupant stroking
distance based on vehicle interior dimensions”).
Proximity is a variable of time having an initial proximity or gap abbreviated P in Figure 7. Where
interior surfaces intrude as a result of vehicle deformation, such intrusion must be subtracted from P.
Proximities above critical proximities[15] are fragiles distances so great that the collision surface is

3
For a discussion paper refer http://www.roads.detr.gov.uk/vehicle/vse6/bullbars/sect118.htm. See also Federal Office of
Road Safety Report CR 13 Investigation of the effect of bull-bars on vehicle/pedestrian collision dynamics, 1980 H K Chiam
and J A Tomas

 2000 5
stopped prior to the second impact. In such situations FVD is equal to EEV. Critical proximities are
typically exceeded in unrestrained occupant and cargo loading situations. Definitions are embodied
in the clarifying sketches below:

F F = FRAGILES
P = PROXIMITY P

P
F
F

FALL
Figure 7 - Proximity examples

Although a spring is shown in the container example above to convey the general idea, fragiles are
assumed here to be unaffected by their supports. This assumption assists in making the mathematics
tractable. It is noteworthy here that it is not uncommon to notionally decouple body parts and
consider their approach to their internal impact destination as unrestrained, applying the so-called
free-flight concept.
In a motor vehicle crash some fragiles have translation other than purely horizontal. This is seen in
the typical high-speed plots of photographic targets due to [18] in Figure 8. The validity of the
present analysis is limited to the horizontal components of such plots.

Figure 8 - High speed plots of photographic targets

3.0 CRASH PULSE ANALYSIS

3.1 Crash Pulse Defined

Two pulses are idealized from [1] each maintaining approximate magnitude. These are shown dotted
and dashed in Figure 9.
The three stages of Figure 9 apply to the Motozawa curves only, representing the initial
increased deceleration during approach, followed by reduced deceleration during dwell, adjoining a
final stage, Stage 3, where the remainder of impulse is acquitted to arrest the vehicle.

 2000 6
 Figure 9 – Hypothetical crash pulses comparison

3.2 Effect of Mirrored Crash Pulse

The two hypothetical impulse profiles in the graphs of Figure 9 produce different velocity profiles for
the vehicle. Typical velocity profiles are shown in Figure 10 resulting from the application of the
ascending and descending crash pulses of Figure 9:
VEHICLE VELOCITY

AS
CE
ND
DE

IN
SC

ND
E

PU

IN
G
LS

PUL
E

S E
TIME

Figure 10 – Typical vehicle velocity profiles

When the fragiles free-flight curve is superimposed on Figure 10, proximity can be represented by
subtraction of the two areas under the curves. This is shown in Figure 10, where the two hatched
areas representing proximity are the same size although of different shape. Although the elapsed time
in free flight is different for both pulses, it is to be shown that the velocity differential can vary.

td FRAGILE’S FREE-FLIGHT PROXIMITY

AS
CE
FVD
VELOCITY

VELOCITY

ND
FVD

IN G
DE

PU
L
SC

SE

ND
E

IN
G
PU ta
LS FVD denotes
E
Fragile’s Velocity Differential
TIME TIME

Figure 11 – Velocity differential at second impact

 2000 7
3.3 Comparative Analysis of Mirrored Pulses
Fragiles velocity differential is now determined with subscripts d & a pertaining to descending and
ascending impulse respectively.
The two impulse curves of Figure 9 are easily represented in terms of slope r and y-intercept, Fi being
initial force for the descending impulse curve, where t is time:
Fd (t ) = Fi − r ⋅ t
(1)
Fa (t ) = r ⋅ t
Vehicle velocity change at any point in time is sourced from impulse/momentum equivalence, where
M is vehicle mass, as follows:
t V
∫0
F ⋅ dt = M ∫ dv
0
(2)

After integrating, substituting Equation (1) re-arranging, the FVD for both descending and ascending
impulses (Vd & Va respectively) become:
( Fi ⋅ t − 0.5r ⋅ t 2 )
Vd (t ) =
M (3)
r ⋅t 2
Va (t ) =
2M
Proximity, P, is held constant in this comparison as shown in Figure 11. Accordingly, the areas under
Equations (3) are equated, so that:
t t
∫ 0
Va (t )dt = ∫ Vd (t )dt
0

After carrying out the integrations and rearranging, an expression for proximity follows:

1  Fi ⋅ t 2 r ⋅ t 3 
P(t ) =  −  (4)
M  2 6 
In the progression of the fragiles toward the impact surface, the descending pulse closes the gap first.
The ascending pulse closes the same gap subsequently. Depending on the details, the FVD is
different for each pulse. However, if the initial proximities for both pulses can be varied (but same as
each other) so that when each gap is closed (at different times) and the FVD is equal, an indifference
point is established. The value of the indifference point is that the FVD can be compared for the two
pulses above and below this point.
Because the indifference point occurs at different times for each pulse it is difficult to show
on a graph. To overcome this difficulty, a lead/lag ratio is developed that enables one FVD curve to
track as if it were in the time frame of the other FVD curve. This lead/lag time ratio will now be
developed from Equation (4) after integration, as follows:

Fi ⋅ td r ⋅ td
2 3
−
r ⋅ ta
3
= 2 6 (5)
6M M

3 3
t a = 3  Fi ⋅ t d − t d 
2
(6)
r 
The expression for ta can be inserted into Equation (3) to replace t to enable the ascending impulsed
FVD to track in the time frame of the descending impulsed FVD.

 2000 8
 Vd (t ) = Va (t ) .

( Fi ⋅ t d − 0.5r ⋅ t d ) r ⋅ t a
2 2

= .
M 2M
2
r  3 3

= 3  Fi ⋅ t d − t d  
2
.
2M   r  

r ⋅ t 2 r 32 3
Fi ⋅ t − = ( Fi ⋅ t 2 ) − t 3 (7)
2 2 r
To simplify Equation (7), Fi & r are replaced by T, the total time taken to stop the vehicle as follows:
Fi
T=
r
The indifference point can now be expressed as a proportion of total time and independent of impulse
rate, r:

t  3
4+2 2 1 
= 2 − − 
T  2 3
4 + 2 2  (8)

t ≈ 0.524T
This shows that the indifference point in time is a fixed proportion of the total time for all
mirrored straight-line crumple rates. This is illustrated in Figure 12 and also in Figure 13.
Using mass and initial velocity values of the numerical example to follow, Figure 12 shows a 3D
surface graph of fragiles velocity differentials represented as follows:
• Lower surface –ascending impulsed FVD
• Dark surface – time-adjusted ascending impulsed FVD
• Upper surface – ascending impulsed FVD

Figure 12 – Fragiles velocity differentials vs. time & impulse rate

Note that the dark surface penetrates the upper surface. The line of intersection that is created by this
intersection (shown dashed in Figure 12) is represented by the solid line in Figure 13.

 2000 9
 0.06

Time (s)
T ( r) 0.05

t ( r) 0.04
.
0.03

0.02
3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10
6 6 6 6

r
Rate of Impulse (N-s/s)

Figure 13 – Indifference time and total time vs. impulse rate

A numerical example is now presented based on the two straight-line impulse curves as shown in
Figure 9 and summarized as follows:
Fi = 200000 N
M = 450kg
EEV = 48km / hr
r = 3,333,333 N − s / s
Both transient and spatial solutions are of value in assessing the pulses. Since td is to be the basis for
the parametric graphs to follow, fragiles velocity differential is rewritten from Equation (3) reflecting
the lead/lag ratio:
2
 3F ⋅ t 2 
r 3 − td 
i d 3

 r 
Va (t d ) =  (9)
2M
Equation (3) and as modified in Equation (9) are plotted parametrically against Equation (4) in
Figure 14 and against time in Figure 15:

14
VELOCITY DIFFERENTIAL (m/s)

12
10
( )
Vd t d
8
V a ( t d) 6
4
. 2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
P td ( )
PROXIMITY (m)

Figure 14 – FVD vs. proximity (in descending pulse time).

 2000 10
 14

VELOCITY DIFFERENTIAL (m/s)

12
10
( )
Vd td
8
Va ( td) 6
4
. 2
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
td T
TIME (s)

Figure 15 – FVD vs. time (in descending pulse time).

It will be noted that the curve derived from the ascending pulse intersects the
time-adjusted descending pulse curve (shown dashed) at the indifference point of approximately 10.2
m/s for both Figure 14 and Figure 15. The indifference proximity is seen approximately 0.187 m, at a
time into the time-adjusted ascending pulse curve of 0.031 seconds. This time agrees with calculation
of Equation (8).
Reading Figure 14 for an exemplar proximity of 0.1 metres, the fragiles velocity differentials are
approximately 8 m/s and 7 m/s for the descending and ascending pulses respectively.
Recalling that lower velocity differential equates with lower injury risk and interpreting Figure 14 in
the context of Figure 8, it can be seen that photographic targets #1 through to #3 would not benefit
from the Motozawa crash pulse, their proximity being less than the indifferent proximity of 0.187 m.
If photographic targets #4 through to #6 of Figure 8 were accommodated with air bags and automatic
seat belt adjustment, then the Motozawa strategy may fall short.

4.0 CONCLUSION
It was shown, generally, that when assessing a crash pulse signature, there is value in considering its
influence on velocity differential between occupant body part and its destined internal impact surface,
essential in mitigating injury risk
It was shown that even though the overall momentum change is held constant, the shape of the crash
pulse could be significant in affecting injury risk.
Two impulses of identical overall magnitude, but mirrored in time, were considered in relation to the
position of an occupant body part at the start of a crash, highlighting the following:
• An indifference point was demonstrated representing proximity of an occupant body part to
an internal impact surface where no gains or losses in risk of injury were indicated by either
pulse.
• This indifference point in time exists in fixed relationship with the total time taken to stop the
vehicle.
• Below the indifferent proximity point, the ascending pulse showed improvement in injury
risk.
• For proximities above the indifference point, the descending pulse showed improvement in
injury risk over the ascending pulse.

 2000 11
Using the technique outlined, a published hypothetical example of a crash pulse held out as a potential
improvement strategy was compared and it was found that it might not be optimal for reducing risk of
injury.
The indifference point concept has potential to be used to optimise a crash pulse against reduced
injury risk especially as air bags proliferate freeing a ‘fine-tuning’ of pulses to suit the shorter
proximities. This is expected to be of value also for the typically short proximities encountered in
side impact.
The concept also has value in the legal doctrine of enhanced injury where there is potential to show
whether an injury of a certain type would have been exacerbated by alteration of the manufacturer’s
crumple zone rate. (For example, fitment of a frontal protection bar.)
Research is continuing on optimising a crash pulse from the perspective of occupant proximity to
internal impact surface with a view to reducing the level of occupant velocity differential at impact.
Early signs from aluminium foam interspersed in the crash load path are showing promise. It appears
that the inherent properties of aluminium foam create a gradual ascendancy to the overall impulse, of
benefit to the body parts having shorter proximities to their internal impact points. At the same time
the aluminium foam promises to provide a crash energy sink for the benefit of both parties to the
crash.

 2000 12
REFERENCES

1. Motozawa, Y. and T. Kamei, Controlling deceleration during a crash. Automotive Engineering International,
2000(June).
2. Lau, I.V., J. Capp, and J. Obermeyer. in 35th Stapp Car Crash Conference. 1991. San Diego: Society of
Automotive Engineers SAE Paper 912896.
3. Faidy, J.-P. The coupling phenomenon in the case of a frontal crash. in 39th Stapp Car Crash Conference. 1995.
San Diego USA: Society of Engineers SAE Paper 952709.
4. Vilenius, A. and G. Ryan, Parameter estimation for head impacts and brain injury in crash reconstruction.
International Journal of Crashworthiness, 1996. 1(3).
5. Katoh, H. and R. Nakahama. A study on the ride-down evaluation. in 9th ESV. 1982.
6. DuWalt, F. Matched driver restraint system. in 17th Stapp Car Crash Conference. 1973. Oklahoma City USA:
Society of Engineers SAE Paper 730974.
7. SAE-J885, Human Tolerance to Impact Conditions as Related to Motor Vehicle Design.. 1986, Society of
Automotive Engineers.
8. SAE-J1727, Injury Calculations Guidelines. 1996, Society of Automotive Engineers.
9. Langwieder, K., et al. Comparison of Passenger Injuries in Frontal Car Collisions with Dummy Loadings in
Equivalent Situations. in 23rd Stapp Car Crash Conference. 1979. San Diego: Society of Automotive Engineers.
10. Roberts, V. and C. Compton. The relationship between deltaV and injury. in 37th Stapp Car Crash Conference.
1993. San Antonio USA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
11. Otte, D. Biomechanics of lower limb injuries of belted car drivers and the influence of intrusion and severity. in
40th Stapp Car Crash Conference. 1996. Alburquerque USA: Society of Engineers SAE Paper 962425.
12. Zeidler, F., et al. The significance of different severity parameters for product liability and car design. in The 2nd
International Conference on Accident Investigation, Interpretation an the Law. 1997. Brisbane: QUT.
13. Aldman, B. and A. Asberg. Impact Amplification in European Compacts. in 12th Stapp Car Crash Conference.
1968. Detroit USA: Society of Engineers SAE Paper 680790.
14. Simons, J. and S. Kirkpatrick, High Speed Rail Collision Safety: Crashworthiness and Accident Survivability.
1996, Poulter Laboratory.
15. Brell, E., Some Engineering Devices in Crashworthiness Service, in Faculty of Engineering & Surveying. 2000,
University of Southern Queensland: Toowoomba.
16. Mooi, H. and J. Huibers. Simple and effective lumped mass models for determining kinetics and dynamics of car-
to-car crashes. in IJCrash '98. 1998. Dearborn USA: Woodhead.
17. Jawad, S., Compatibility study in frontal collisions - mass and stiffness ratios. 1998, University of Hertfordshire. p.
269-274.
18. Hendler, E., et al. Effect of head and body position and muscular tensing on response to impact. in 18th Stapp Car
Crash Conference. 1974. Ann Arbor USA: Society of Engineers SAE Paper 741184.
19. Hodgson, V. R. and L. M. Thomas. Effects of long duration impact on head. in 16th Stapp Car Crash Conference.
1972. Detroit USA: Society of Engineers SAE Paper 720956

 2000 13