title: Constrained Laboratory vs. Unconstrained Steering-Induced Rollover Crash Tests.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The goal of this study was to evaluate how well an in-laboratory rollover crash test methodology that constrains vehicle motion can reproduce the dynamics of unconstrained full-scale steering-induced rollover crash tests in sand.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data from previously-published unconstrained steering-induced rollover crash tests using a full-size pickup and mid-sized sedan were analyzed to determine vehicle-to-ground impact conditions and kinematic response of the vehicles throughout the tests. Then, a pair of replicate vehicles were prepared to match the inertial properties of the steering-induced test vehicles and configured to record dynamic roof structure deformations and kinematic response.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Both vehicles experienced greater increases in roll-axis angular velocities in the unconstrained tests than in the constrained tests; however, the increases that occurred during the trailing side roof interaction were nearly identical between tests for both vehicles. Both vehicles experienced linear accelerations in the constrained tests that were similar to those in the unconstrained tests, but the pickup, in particular, had accelerations that were matched in magnitude, timing, and duration very closely between the two test types. Deformations in the truck test were higher in the constrained than the unconstrained, and deformations in the sedan were greater in the unconstrained than the constrained as a result of constraints of the test fixture, and differences in impact velocity for the trailing side.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The results of the current study suggest that in-laboratory rollover tests can be used to simulate the injury-causing portions of unconstrained rollover crashes. To date, such a demonstration has not yet been published in the open literature. This study did, however, show that road surface can affect vehicle response in a way that may not be able to be mimicked in the laboratory. Lastly, this study showed that configuring the in-laboratory tests to match the leading-side touchdown conditions could result in differences in the trailing side impact conditions.
authors.affiliation: a University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics , Charlottesville , Virginia.
authors.forename: Jason R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Kerrigan
authors.affiliation: a University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics , Charlottesville , Virginia.
authors.forename: Jacek
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Toczyski
authors.affiliation: a University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics , Charlottesville , Virginia.
authors.forename: Carolyn
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Roberts
authors.affiliation: a University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics , Charlottesville , Virginia.
authors.forename: Qi
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.affiliation: b Toyota Engineering and Manufacturing North America , Saline , Michigan.
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Clauser
mesh_terms: D000054:Acceleration; D000063:Accidents, Traffic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D007753:Laboratories; D018986:Motor Vehicles / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014947:Wounds and Injuries / Q000209:etiology
keywords: cars; crash; crash testing; impact responses; rollover; trucks