Q10 Euro NCAP 2020 Update Dummies Compared to Current Q10 in Frontal and Side Impact Sled Tests

There is a need of improving the current Q10 (Q10original) due to unstable seatbelt interaction with the shoulder. Several design changes to shoulders and torso have resulted in a prototype Q10 (Q10update). Some design changes were removed which resulted in a second prototype Q10 (Q10light). The aim was to compare kinematics, shoulder belt interaction and dummy responses of the Q10update and Q10light with the current Q10original in frontal impacts. Q10original and Q10update were also compared and evaluated in side impacts. Q10original, Q10update and Q10light were compared in frontal sled tests in a midsize SUV, for two different crash pulses. Three different belt geometries were evaluated. Dummy kinematics and loadings were analysed. The dummies were positioned on booster cushions and restrained by seatbelt with pretensioner and load limiter. Q10original and Q10update were included in eleven side impact sled tests simulating a Euro NCAP 2020 Side AE-MDB impact, using a midsize passenger car. The dummies were positioned on booster cushions and restrained by seatbelt and combinations of thorax side airbag (SAB) and inflatable curtain (IC), in addition to a reference test without SAB and IC. All tests included a retractor with pretensioner and load limiter. Two arm positions were evaluated in one restraint configuration. In the frontal sled tests, the Q10update was less sensitive to initial shoulder belt position far out on the shoulder than the Q10original. The shoulder belt had a tendency to move inboard on the Q10update during the crash, even if the shoulder belt was initially positioned far out on the shoulder, possibly influenced by the soft tissue at upper chest and forward shift of the shoulder joint compared to Q10original. The Q10light had a similar shoulder belt interaction as the Q10original. Both update dummies showed a greater forward excursion of the head and a larger tilt of the upper torso than the Q10original, potentially due to the mass redistribution from pelvis to upper body. The increased excursion is considered an improvement, since the mass redistribution is more biofidelic compared to Q10orginal. Both update dummies had higher chest deflection, lower chest acceleration and lower neck tension compared to the Q10original. The differences in dummy responses in the side impact sled tests were mainly due to mass redistribution. Especially in tests without SAB, lower chest acceleration, but higher chest deflection was obtained for the Q10update compared to Q10original. Furthermore, the shoulder force was higher for Q10update compared to Q10original for the three restraint combinations, while in the reference test head impact to the vehicle interior occurred. Angled arm position resulted in both reduced shoulder force and reduced chest deflection, compared to aligned arm position. Due to its improved kinematics and sensitivity to changes in seatbelt geometry, the Q10light was preferred of the three tested dummies for frontal impact testing. Q10light was not evaluated for side impact loading. For side impact testing, this study provides no firm recommendation on the Q10update, acknowledging that a biofidelity evaluation needs to be made. Further dummy refinements and lateral validation and certification tests are encouraged.


  • English

Media Info

  • Media Type: Digital/other
  • Features: Figures; Photos; References; Tables;
  • Pagination: 18p
  • Monograph Title: 26th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV): Enabling a Safer Tomorrow

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 01764738
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Report/Paper Numbers: 19-0295
  • Files: TRIS, ATRI, USDOT
  • Created Date: Dec 29 2020 3:28PM