0
Research Papers

Low-Speed Go-Kart Crash Tests and a Comparison to Activities of Daily Living

[+] Author and Article Information
Nick Kloppenborg

Stress Engineering Services,
7030 Stress Engineering Way,
Mason, OH 45040
e-mail: nick.kloppenborg@stress.com

Tara Amenson

S-E-A, Ltd.,
7001 Buffalo Parkway,
Columbus, OH 43229
e-mail: tamenson@sealimited.com

Jacob Wernik

S-E-A, Ltd.,
1800 Howard Street, Suite A.,
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
e-mail: jwernik@sealimited.com

John Wiechel

S-E-A, Ltd.,
7001 Buffalo Parkway,
Columbus, OH 43229
e-mail: jwiechel@sealimited.com

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received January 28, 2016; final manuscript received February 8, 2018; published online May 2, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Chimba Mkandawire.

ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B 4(4), 041010 (May 02, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: RISK-16-1022; doi: 10.1115/1.4039357 History: Received January 28, 2016; Revised February 08, 2018

Go-karts are a common amusement park feature enjoyed by people of all ages. While intended for racing, contact between go-karts does occur. To investigate and quantify the accelerations and forces which result from contact, 44 low-speed impacts were conducted between a stationary (target) and a moving (bullet) go-kart. The occupant of the bullet go-kart was one of two human volunteers. The occupant of the target go-kart was a Hybrid III 50th percentile male anthropomorphic test device (ATD). Impact configurations consisted of rear-end impacts, frontal impacts, side impacts, and oblique impacts. Results demonstrated high repeatability for the vehicle performance and occupant response. Go-kart accelerations and speed changes increased with increased impact speed. Impact duration and restitution generally decreased with increased impact speed. All ATD acceleration, force, and moment values increased with increased impact speed. Common injury metrics such as the head injury criterion (HIC), Nij, and Nkm were calculated and were found to be below injury thresholds. Occupant response was also compared to published activities of daily living data.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, 2017, “ National Electronic Injury Surveillance Sampling System,” Directorate for Epidemiology and Health Sciences, Hazard Analysis Division, Bethesda, MD, Report.
Vijayakumar, V. , Scher, I. , Gloeckner, D. , Pierce, J. , Bove, R. , Young, D. , and Cargill, R. , 2006, “ Head Kinematics and Upper Neck Loading During Simulated Low-Speed Rear-End Collisions: A Comparison With Vigorous Activities of Daily Living,” SAE Paper No. 2006-01-0247.
Balasubramanian, S. , Seacrist, T. , Maltese, M. , Arbogast, K. , Hopely, T. , Constans, E. , Sterner, R. , Tanji, H. , and Higuchi, K. , 2009, “ Head and Spinal Trajectories in Children and Adults Exposed to Low Speed Frontal Acceleration,” 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, Germany, June 15–18, Paper No. 09-0263.
Mkandawire, C. , Mazzucco, D. , Vijayakumar, V. , Scher, I. , Heller, M. , and Morrison, H. , 2006, “ Head Kinematics and Upper Neck Loading During Simulated Low-Speed Lateral Impact Collisions,” FISITA 2006 World Automotive Congress, Yokohama, Japan, Oct. 22–27.
Davidsson, J. , Lövsund, P. , Ono, K. , Svensson, M. Y. , and Inami, S. , 1999, “ A Comparison Between Volunteer, BioRID P3 and Hybrid III Performance in Rear Impacts,” International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference, Bron, France, pp. 165–178.
Kim, A. , Sutterfield, A. , Rao, A. , Anderson, K. F. , Berliner, J. , Hassan, J. , Irwin, A. , Jensen, J. , Kleinert, J. , Mertz, H. J. , Pietsch, H. , Rouhana, S. , and Scherer, R. , 2005, “ A Comparison of the BioRID II, Hybrid III, and RID2 in Low Severity Rear Impacts,” 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Washington, DC, June 6–9, Paper No. 05–0225.
Stolinski, R. , Grzebieta, R. , Fildes, B. , Judd, R. , Wawrzynczak, J. , Gray, I. , McGrath, P. , and Case, M. , 1999, “ Response of Far-Side Occupants in Car-to-Car Impacts With Standard and Modified Restraint Systems Using Hybrid III and US-SID,” SAE Paper No. 1999-01-1321.
SAE, 2014, “ Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1: Electronic Instrumentation,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Standard No. SAE J211-1:2014.
U.S. DOT, 2011 “ Occupant Crash Protection, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations,” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, U.S. DOT Regulation 49CFR571.208.
Schmitt, K. , Muser, M. , Walz, F. , and Niederer, P. , 2002, “ N Km—A Proposal for a Neck Protection Criterion for Low-Speed Rear-End Impacts,” Traffic Inj. Prev., 3(2), pp. 117–126. [CrossRef]
Kleinberger, M. , Sun, E. , Eppinger, R. , Kuppa, S. , and Saul, R. , 1998, Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.
Mertz, H. J. , Irwin, A. L. , and Prasad, P. , 2003, “ Biomechanical and Scaling Bases for Frontal and Side Impact Injury Assessment Reference Values,” SAE Paper No. 2003-22-0009.
Rodowicz, K. A. , Dupont, K. , Smedley, J. , Raasch, C. , Mkandawire, C. , Fittanto, D. , Bare, C. , and Smith, J. , 2011, “ Passenger Vehicle Occupant Response to Low-Speed Impacts with a Tractor-Semitrailer,” SAE Paper No. 2011-01-1125.
Schnebel, B. , Gwin, J. T. , Anderson, S. , and Gatlin, R. , 2007, “ In Vivo Study of Head Impacts in Football: A Comparison of National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Versus High School Impacts,” Neurosurg., 60(3), pp. 490–496. [CrossRef]
Rowson, S. , Brolinson, G. , Goforth, M. , Dietter, D. , and Duma, S. , 2009, “ Linear and Angular Head Acceleration Measurements in Collegiate Football,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 131(6), p. 061016. [CrossRef]
Funk, J. R. , Cormier, J. M. , Bain, C. E. , Guzman, H. , and Bonugli, E. , 2007, “ An Evaluation of Various Neck Injury Criteria in Vigorous Activities,” International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference (IRCOBI), Maastricht, The Netherlands, Sept. 19–21, pp 233–248.
Mertz, H. J. , and Patrick, L. M. , 1971, “ Strength and Response of the Human Neck,” SAE Paper No. 710855.
Freyder, D. R. , Peterman, E. K. , Morr, D. R. , Ratliff, A. R. , and Wiechel, J. F. , 2008, “ MADYMO Model to Assess Lumbar Spine Loading during Activities of Daily Living,” SAE Paper No. 2008-01-1910.
Schultz, A. , Andersson, G. , Ortengren, R. , Haderspeck, K. , and Nachemson, A. , 1982, “ Loads on the Lumbar Spine. Validation of a Biomechanical Analysis by Measurements of Intradiscal Pressures and Myoelectric Signals,” J. Bone Jt. Surg., 64(5), pp. 713–720. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

NEISS go-kart/fun-kart related head and spine injury data (2013)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Single occupant go-kart

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Hybrid III 50th percentile male ATD seated in go-kart

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Human volunteers AVA (left) and AVB (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Example of go-kart speed change

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Peak go-kart acceleration for rear impacts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Peak go-kart acceleration for frontal impacts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Peak go-kart acceleration for side impacts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Peak go-kart acceleration for R OBL and F OBL impacts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Anthropomorphic test device peak head resultant acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Anthropomorphic test device peak head resultant angular rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Anthropomorphic test device peak head resultant angular acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Anthropomorphic test device peak chest resultant acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Anthropomorphic test device peak neck shear force. Shear force is measured in the Y-axis for side impact tests and measured in the X-axis for all other tests.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Anthropomorphic test device peak neck compressive force

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Anthropomorphic test device peak neck bending moment. Moment is measured in the X-axis for side impact tests and measured in the Y-axis for all other tests.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Anthropomorphic test device peak lumbar shear force. Shear force is measured in the Y-axis for side impact tests and measured in the X-axis for all other tests.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Anthropomorphic test device peak lumbar compressive force

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Anthropomorphic test device peak lumbar bending moment. Moment is measured in the X-axis for side impact tests and measured in the Y-axis for all other tests.

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Articles from Part A: Civil Engineering
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In