Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF
CRASH SENSORS

TREVOR O. JONES
OLIVE R T. McCARTER
ROBERT N. OGLESBY
Electronic Control Systems
Engineering Staff
General Motors Corporotion

Automotive Engineering Congress

720035
Detroit, Michigan
January 10-14, 1972
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

720035

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF
CRASH SENSORS

TREVOR O. JONES
OLIVER T. McCARTER
ROBERT N. OGLESBY

Electronic Control Systems

Engineering Staff
General Motors Corporation

ABSTRACT
Techniques and principles for evaluating and comparing various crash sensor con-
cepts are discussed. The trade-off criteria include: crash/rough-road discrimination,
target lethality, component reliability, zone of protection, environmental suscepti-
bility, and other criteria. Within the context of hardware performance characteris-
tics, currently prominent devices are described including: inertial mass, spring mass,
piezoelectric and piezoresistive accelerometers, radar, sonar, and laser predictive
sensors, and bumper mounted detectors. An example of the assessment method is
presented, comparing an inertial mass and a spring mass detector.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

2
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

A General Motors study (1)* of accidents in which The basic function of a crash sensor is to detect
lap-shoulder belt restraints were used found that that a significant collision is imminent or occurring,
60% of the vehicles suffered heavy damage, but and initiate the protective elements of the passive
99% of the lap-shoulder belt users either escaped restraint system. There are two general types of
unharmed or received only minor injuries. The detectors: predictive, which anticipates the crash
poor utilization of seat belts (71% unrestrained, event, and active, which detects the crash event in
26% lap belted, and 3% lap-shoulder belted (2)), at its early stages. Either of these types can be used
a time when gross accident statistics continue to singly, redundantly or in combinations.
rise, has motivated the government to require (3)
passive restraint systems. One of the passive re- The basic characteristics of sensors are listed in the
straint systems under development is the inflatable three categories, performance, reliability, and
occupant restraint system, generally referred to as economic, as shown in Tables I through III, respec-
"the air cushion." The Reference 3 requirement tively. A more complete description of each can be
defines a maximum barrier impact velocity of 30 found in Reference 5. Sensor and restraint func-
mph; however, the government has released infor- tional math models are described in Appendix B.
mation (4) alerting industry to their desire to
increase this velocity to 40 mph by September
1976. These requirements have a profound impact
on sensor design. The task of satisfactorily sensing
the crash event and initiating passive restraint sys-
tems is a demanding one. Several types of crash
sensors have been proposed, each with its advan-
tages and accompanying disadvantages. The sensor
system designer is faced with a difficult optimiza-
tion challenge. Some characteristics are essential,
others desirable. A methodical approach to the
evaluation of sensor concepts is essential. The
necessary and desirable characteristics must be
separated and sufficient criteria established for a
satisfactory assessment. The following is a pro-
posed approach to this problem. It has been found
useful as a guide in evaluating sensor systems and
concepts.
Sensor characteristics are divided into three
categories with respective "importance" factors.
Criteria are established within each category, again
with "importance" factors. Sensor concepts are
reviewed and numerically evaluated by this pro-
cess. The three basic categories are:
- Performance
- Reliability
- Economic
An attempt is made to require all sensor concepts
to be responsive to the same set of criteria. How-
ever, there must be adjustments in some cases. It is
the primary purpose here to describe a method-
ology that will be flexible enough to meet the
needs of all systems.
The comparative analysis of crash sensors that
follows presents general comparative techniques. It
would be necessary to make assessments as a
production configuration is developed before final
conclusions can be drawn regarding the merits of a
specific design and also before the comparative
analytical model can be verified. The descriptions
of sensors and sensor schemes are not intended to
be inclusive.
*Numbers in parentheses refer to References.

3
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
SENSOR ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Each of the three categories must be assigned an
importance or weighting factor. The following
quantitative factors are assigned to each category
to illustrate the evaluation technique. They are
not, necessarily, indicative of operational and/ or
production indices. All quantitative factors here
and throughout this paper have been arbitrarily
selected for the purposes of examining a method-
ology. Also, the considerations presented are not
necessarily a complete list. There may be other
points that should be considered, and the weights
4
assigned might change with the inputs from various
design groups.
Performance - 31%
Reliability - 41%
Economic - 28%
In addition to the above categories, there are a
number of important considerations which, how-
ever, are not easily included in a comparative
quantitative analysis such as that presented herein.
Examples of such considerations are:
e Timing of governmental regulations and
accuracy of anticipating changes to those
regulations
e Customer acceptance of air cushion systems
It should be understood that the absence of the
minimal requirement in anyone of the category
functions will disqualify the candidate sensor. The
methodology of this will become clear when func-
tional criteria factors are explained in the following
section. Within each category, the functions receive
an allocation of the quantity that has been assigned
to that category, and in proportion to its import-
ance as shown in Table IV.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

For the purpose of describing a simple comparative But each I Wi in equation (ii) consists of three parts,
model, it is assumed that either a pre-crash or a performance (P), reliability (Rl. and economic (E). There-
post-crash sensor will be selected; not a combina- fore, equation (ii) may be further expanded to yield :
tion of both. It should be realized that several
combinations of predictive and post-crash sensors
exist. Examples of these are radar or laser with
inertial or piezoelectric sensors. If the particular
sensor under study did in fact combine both pre
and post-crash sensing ability, then the weighting
would be revised accordingly.

In section 3.0, Functional Criteria, each of the

categories of table IV will be discussed with criteria
presented for assessment for the categories. The
assessment will permit assigning numerical weight-
ing factors to each category depending on how well
a particular design meets each category's criteria.
The method of combining weighting factors with
factors-of-importance into a final figure-of-merit
(FOM) for each design is shown by the following
equations:

And if one distinguishes the importance factor by its po-

sition, i.e., Ap for the performance criterion, AR for re-
liability, etc., then equation (iii) becomes:

Expanding the row vector by the column vector of

equation (i) yields :

That is, each importance factor is multiplied by a

weighting factor, and these products are then
summed for all characteristics. A perfect figure of
merit of 100% would be achieved for a given sensor
if all characteristics were assessed with weighting
factors of 1.0. Lesser weights would yeild a cor-
respondingly lower total figure of merit.

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

3.0 FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA Detector

Excellent Target density can be correctly dis-
When establishing criteria for measuring sensor tinguished from noncritical for
characteristics, one must remember that the several critical levels
importance of the particular characteristic has Good Critical target density can be cor-
already been assigned an importance weighting rectly distinguished from non-
factor. In this section, criteria for assigning weight- critical
ings for the ability to perform the function is Acceptable Critical target density can not be
presented, regardless of the importance of the distinguished from noncritical, but
characteristic itself. The discussion will be sensor would have additional
presented in the following groups: detector that can distinguish den-
sity
• Performance characteristics
• Reliability characteristics Directional Capability criteria reflect a requirement
• Economic considerations of ± 30° frontal impacts, lateral, and rollover. Rat-
ings are :
In the example of assessment presented in Section
5, the range of numerical values for each character- Excellent Frontal ± 30° , lateral, and rollover,
istic is 1.0 for excellent, 0 .7 for good, 0.4 for extendable to rear
acceptable and 0.0 for unacceptable. Unacceptable Good Frontal ± 30°, lateral, and rollover
would have a value assigned of zero, if such condi- Acceptable Frontal ± 30°
tions were present. However, those sensors that are
not at least acceptable in all aspects would
generally be excluded from further consideration Operating time must be short enough to permit
on that basis alone, without a detailed comparative cushion inflation in time to protect the occupant
analysis. adequately. Predictive sensors permit the longest
time to inflate, and post-crash sensors the shortest.
Times of 25 ms for 30 mph barriers and less than
3.1 Performance Characteristics 45 ms for 10 mph barriers will be considered the
longest permissable operating time for the purpose
Threshold tolerance includes measurement of clos- of evalutation . Ratings for all sensors, pre and
ing velocity and of target density to indicate post-crash are as follows:
significant impact (pre or post-crash).
Excellent Pre-crash to 5 ms for 30 mph, pre-
Closing velocity is the principal advantage of the crash to 8 ms for 10 mph
predictive detector. While some detectors measure Good 5 ms to 15 ms for 30 mph, 8 ms to
true velocity, others yield average velocity by a 24 ms for 10 mph
system of presence detection gates. Both methods Acceptable 15 to 25 ms for 30 mph, 24 ms to
are effective. The ability to measure closing velo- 45 ms for 10 mph
city in multi-target situations is a desired goal.

Excellent Dynamic range considers for example, that current

Multi-target discrimination, Clos-
ing velocity ± 1 mph
Good Closing velocity ± 2 mph
Acceptable Closing velocity ± 2.5 mph
Target density determination is the most difficult
parameter for the predictive device to measure.
Any near term use of predictive devices is
restricted to detector application, i.e., to sensors
that also have post-impact detectors. A distinction
between detectors and sensors should be made. For
example, in the case of a dual level or redundant
device, each element will be called a detector and
the entire combination of detectors a sensor. This
is an important distinction. A detector used alone
may be inadequate as a sensor because it is unable
to perform a vital function under certain condi-
tions. However, used in combination with another
type detector that performs this vital function
well, it may form a superior sensor.
requirements (3) are limited to 30 mph barrier
effectiveness. Forty mph capability has been
proposed (4) and the optimum sensor should have
enough capability to correctly operate over this
extended range. This range function has the added
complication of different sensor and detector
requirements. A detector's dynamic performance
may be excellent in the lower half of the system
range, but unsatisfactory in the upper portion mak-
ing it less than an optimum sensor. However, when
used with another detector with complementary
characteristics, it may form an excellent sensor.
Ratings are as follows:
Sensor
Excellent Dynamic range 10 mph, operate
up to 50 mph
Good Dynamic range 10 mph, operate
up to 40 mph
Acceptable Dynamic range 10 mph, operate
up to 30 mph

6
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

Deactivatable during shipment and maintenance is of resetting after a non-crash where significant
essential to avoid unwanted deployment during input has been sensed. This restoration period must
non-crash shocks encountered in these operations. be short, and there must be no significant reduc-
Rating as follows: tion of threshold during the restoration period.

Excellent Automatically deactivated when Excellent ± 1 mph barrier equivalent lower

auto not in use, automatically acti- threshold definition, zero restora-
vated when auto in use. tion period
Acceptable Can be deactivated for shipment Good ± 2 mph barrier equivalent lower
without special tools. threshold definition, 10 ms restor-
ation period with threshold reduc-
Selectable location is desirable so that the sensor tion of 10% during restoration
can be put where the most distinct crash signature Acceptable ± 2.5 mph barrier equivalent lower
is available. Ratings as follows: threshold definition, 20 ms
restoration period with threshold
Excellent Complete freedom of location reduction 20% during restoration
Good Complete freedom in passenger
compartment Positive fire mechanism means that the sensor, hav-
Acceptable Restricted location, e.g., pressure ing made the decision that activation should be
vessel, or bumper accomplished, ensures a discrete signal. The·
remainder of the system reacts to this discrete
Status indication is necessary for non-auto- signal rather than to a predetermined level of
matically resetting sensors and is desirable with analog voltage, current or force from the sensor.
automatically resetting sensors.

Excellent Activated status indicated as a Excellent Discrete go/no-go signal.

single function of "ready" or "not Acceptable Very high signal to noise ratio.
ready"
Acceptable Absence of the above with auto- Withstanding the car environment can be related to
matically resetting sensors the reliability, packaging, and location. In this
function, only the inherent ability to withstand the
Compatible with Initiator refers to the relationship environment is considered. If packaging or location
between sensor output and initiator activation are used as environmental defenses, their effect
requirements. should be weighted under cost functions. Each
sensor or detector is considered to be packaged in a
Excellent Sensor output directly matched normal commercial container with the necessary
with initiator requirements parameters to make it functional in a benign
Acceptable Sensor activates an output that environment, e.g., required stiffness, etc.
indirectly matches initiator
requirements Excellent Meets automotive specifications
for vibration and temperature,
3.2 Reliability Characteristics immune to 18 db over ambient
EMI
Inadvertance and operation in a crash (5 and 8) are Good Meets automotive specifications
quite readily defined but very difficult to predict for vibration and temperature,
or measure in a timely manner. For the purpose of immune to 12 db over ambient
discussion, the following arbitrary values have been EMI
used. Acceptable Meets automotive specifications
for vibration and temperature,
immune to 6 db over ambient EMI

Life is considered to be in terms of the life of the

automobile and is related to the question of need-
ing scheduled preventive maintenance. Rating as
follows:

Excellent Life equals life of vehicle without

preventive maintenance
Good Life of vehicle with scheduled pre-
ventive maintenance
N on-crash discrimination and restoration basically Acceptable 3 year life with scheduled pre-
refers to threshold tolerance. Restoration is the act ventive maintenance

7
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

Movement below threshold should be minimized to Producibility in realistic automotive quantities in a

reduce wear. In some sensors, movement cannot be process that does not require highly sensitive
eliminated but effort must be made to minimize it. operations is necessary if the quality of this critical
Rating as follows: element is to be maintained.

Excellent No moving parts Excellent One calibration for entire process

Good Moving parts but no movement Good Two calibrations for entire process
below threshold Acceptable Five calibrations for entire process
Acceptable Movement below threshold, but
anti-wear steps taken such that Interchangeability refers to the ability of a sensor
movement does not affect thres- to be functionally adequate without special tailor-
hold level ing to each and every different car model or body
style.
Malfunction detection systems might have the
following ratings: Excellent Sensor can be installed on any
model car without sensor modifi-
Excellent Fail Safe, monitor all critical cation or adjustment
system elements, warn when mal- Good Sensor requires modification or
function exists, record malfunc- adjustment for each body style,
tion, be self-testing but not for each model within a
Good Fail Safe, monitor all critical body style
system elements, warn when mal- Acceptable Sensor must be tailored to each
function exists, be self-testing model car
Acceptable Meet the requirements of (3)
MVSS No. 208
Size should be small for flexibility in limited space
Ability to test fire and rearm is necessary for situations. Actual goals are dependent on the spe-
inspection at factory and dealer. It is rated as cific application. The following are chosen purely
follows: to illustrate the comparative technique.

Excellent Ability to test fire and rearm auto- Excellent 30 cubic inches
matically Good 60 cubic inches
Acceptable Ability to test fire and rearm Acceptable Size to match available space, but
manually without disassembly requiring complex package shape.

3.3 Economic Considerations
Government cost/benefit ratio studies (6) of
occupant crash protection systems indicate that
the economic benefits to society will be greater
than the economic costs, where the economic
benefits include fatality and injury reduction
effects. Similar considerations from a manu-
facturer's point of view would call for a compari-
son of sensor concepts in terms of adequacy of
function performed versus cost to produce. That is,
within the limits of adequate function, lower costs
should be preferred.
Maintenance frequency must be considered in view
of other system maintenance requirements. Some
systems, particularly stored gas, may require
maintenance or inspection due to possible leak
rates. It is acceptable for the sensor to be inspected
at the same interval as these other components.
Ratings are as follows:
Excellent No inspection or maintenance
required for normal life of vehicle
Good Inspection every three years
Acceptable No more often than other air
cushion elements
Power for sensor operation and squib activation is
desirable to be low to cope with the unforeseen
deviations the power source may experience during
the crash event. It is difficult to separate the power
requirement into sensor and squib considerations.
In this evaluation, providing power continuity for
the squib will be considered a sensor function. Rat-
ing as follows:
Excellent Power independently stored for
entire activation process.
Good Power partially stored in an
independent source for activation
process.
Acceptable Power for sensing and activation
derived solely from standard
battery.
A criteria for each characteristic has now been
chosen. It remains to illustrate the depth of analy-
sis required before weighting factors can be
determined, and then to assign numerical values to
these factors. Some of the more popular sensor
concepts described in Appendix A will be rated to
exercise the methodology.

8
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
4.0 DETAILED COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Substantial depth of analysis is necessary before
weighting factors can be accurately applied. Analy-
ses of this nature are illustrated in the following
paragraphs for certain of the important sensor
functions:
• Crash/Rough-Road Discrimination
• Target Lethality Recognition
• Reliability
• Zone of Protection
• Environmental Susceptibility
4.1 Crash/Rough Road Discrimination
Inertial mass, spring mass, and piezoelectric detec-
tors mounted inside the passenger compartment
experience a degree of horizontal force transmitted
through the mounting when exposed to the forces
generated on a rough road. The effect can be
counteracted in two ways:
• threshold escalation
• integration time escalation
By raising the threshold level of a sensor, the lower
rough-road g-levels are ignored. However, raising
the g's threshold makes it more likely that low
speed crashes will also be masked. By lengthening
the integration time, one is saying that a crash will
last longer than a bump. However, the longer the
integration time the longer will be the total sensing
time. Also, a long integration time imposes a
requirement on the sensor that its restoration time
be short, otherwise a series of short bumps on a
rough road might look the same as a crash to the
sensor.
Another approach to the problem of eliminating
rough road effects without sacrificing actuation
time is the predictive sensor. Examples include:
• Radar
• Sonar
• Laser
• Infrared
The special determinations (5) that predictive crash
sensors must make include:
• Distance to Object
• Relative Velocity
• Strength of Obstacle or Degree
Hazard
• Height of Obstacle
4.2 Target Lethality Recognition
Measurement of the degree of hazard (5) of a
potential obstacle is a serious anticipatory sensor
problem. For example, a thin sheet of metal makes
an excellent reflector to a radar signal and if blown
by the wind into a radar equipped vehicle might
cause false deployment.
The problems of target lethality recognition can be
solved to a degree by techniques which increase the
system complexity. For example, radar sensors
may be made more discriminating by including a
digital computer or sophisticated analogue cir-
cuitry to permit storage of dangerous and non-
dangerous target characteristics, or "signatures,"
for comparison with the incoming signal. This tech-
nology is similar in principle to that used by the
military in its radar controlled missile interception
systems where decoys and incoming warheads are
distinguished. If an adequate technique can be
found at a reasonable cost, then radar systems act-
ing alone may provide a solution to the crash sen-
sor problem. It is anticipated that the final answer
to this question may be several years away.
Sensors utilizing predictive detectors can also have
their target lethality recognition ability improved
by the addition of an auxiliary detector of the post
crash type . Unfortunately, whichever post crash
detector is selected, that detector often imposes
the same limitations as it had when operating alone
which can negate some of the advantages of the
anticipatory detector. For example, a sensor con-
sisting of a (pre-crash) radar detector and a (post
crash) deceleration detector would produce a
sensor whose reaction time was limited by the
deceleration detector, and thereby eliminate much
of the advantage of the radar. The radar would
then serve a secondary role to the decelerator
detector to help prevent problems such as rough
road inadvertence and provide more precise veloc-
ity of impact threshold data. Similarly, if a bumper
mounted detector is combined with a radar detec-
tor to form a sensor, the speed of actuation will be
that of the bumper mounted detector.
4.3 Reliability
In addition to the design constraints imposed by
the need for crash/rough road discrimination and
target lethality recognition, a detailed comparative
analysis must consider component reliability, zone
of protection, environmental susceptibility, and
other factors. Among the most important of these
is reliability. The Reference 7 paper states that
reliability is primary among the considerations for
public acceptability of passive restraint systems:
of
"The ultimate success or failure of
a dynamic passive restraint system
.. . will probably be determined by
considerations relating to reli-
ability."
Failure to operate when needed and failure by
inadvertent operation can be caused by a number
9
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
of factors, one of which is component failure. Very
low levels of permissible failure rate are required:
Let us assume that the production of vehicles is 10
million per year, and that 3,000 hours driving time
will be averaged on each vehicle during its life time,
or 30 billion hours for each year's production. If
we were to seek, for example, less than one in-
advertent operation in each year's production, then
the failure rate goal for the total restraint system
would be two orders of magnitude better than
what is currently the best failure rate assigned for a
single electronic terminal, or in terms of mechani-
cal equipment, of a simple shim.
From a component failure point-of-view, inadver-
tence can be reduced to an acceptable level for
those sensors where redundancy and self diagnos-
tics are appropriate. Non-operation in a crash due
to component failure can be reduced to an accept-
able level by a series-parallel or voting configura-
tion without greatly affecting the inadvertence
rate.I Of course, any kind of redundancy increases
the Icost for the total sensor beyond what it would
be for a single device sensor.
4.4 Zone of Protection
Current requirements (3) for frontal impacts
require protection against impacts ± 30° from
10
frontal. Until protection can be provided by
deployable passive systems for side collisions and
roll overs , there is no need to sense in other regions
than frontal. The frontal requirement (3) is
demonstrated by driving into a standard SAE
barrier with a 30° wedge (Figure 1). In addition
there are two special cases that affect sensor
performance:
• Obstacles below bumper height that can
stop the car's forward motion
• Higher obstacles where the major con-
tact does not directly restrain the major
masses of the vehicle
Sensor performance under these special conditions
must be included in the appraisal.
4.5 Environmental Susceptibility
There are a number of environmental conditions
that an automotive crash sensor might be exposed
to, depending on the mounting location and pro-
tective hardware, and depending on the geographi-
cal area of use. Some of the environmental condi-
tions are shown in Table V.
In addition, there are external conditions that can
degrade performance, but are only very broadly
characterized as "environments," such as vandalism
and aging.
All sensors are susceptible to some degree of
environmental degradation. Inertial mass and
spring mass sensors have low susceptibility to
electromagnetic radiation but must be carefully
protected against most other environments because
of corrosion and physical jamming or breaking.
Piezoresistor accelerometers are temperature
sensitive. This change in sensitivity of the piezo-
resistive device is caused by changes in the gage
factor and resistance, and is determined by the
temperature characteristics of the modulus of
elasticity and piezoresistive coefficient of the sens-
ing elements. The sensitivity deviations are mini-
mized by installing compensating resistors in the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

bridge circuit within the piezoresistive accelero-
meter. Magnetic and RF fields have negligible
effects on piezoresistive strain gage elements. How-
ever, adequate isolation must be provided against
ground loops and stray signal pickup. Piezoelectric
accelerometers must be designed to protect against
acoustics by obtaining a resonant frequency several
times higher than the highest acoustic frequency
expected. Otherwise, low level vibrations in the
presence of high level sound might cause actuation.
Piezoelectric accelerometers are less susceptible to
temperature and can usually be counted on to give
satisfactory performance from -65°F to + 230°F.
Those piezoelectric materials that exhibit pyro-
electric effects in which an electrical output occurs
as a function of temperature change would follow
the slow variation in ambient temperature, and as a
result, the signals generated would be generally
below the low frequency cutoff and cause no
problem.
Predictive sensors are sensitive to ordinary environ-
ments. For example, a radar sensor may have sub-
stantial signal attenuation in rain, or if water or
mud has condensed on the radar lens. Care must be
exercised when designing radar systems to avoid
susceptibility to electrical transients caused by the
automobile itself, to high intensity signals radiated
from radio and television transmitting facilities,
and to other cars similarly equipped with radar.
Other predicitive sensors are similar to radar in
terms of environmental susceptibility.
useful for comparative purposes. Examples of the
derivation of complete figures of merit follow for
the inertial mass sensor and the spring mass sensor.
A description of current sensors under develop-
ment of the depth needed to provide a baseline for
the establishment of numerical weighting factors is
presented in Appendix A.
5.1 Inertial Mass Sensor and Spring Mass Sensor
Let us assume that the inertial mass sensor concept
consists of a simple single level sensor with two
detectors in series (for component inadvertence
protection) and a g-level setting of about 18 g's
(for rough-road inadvertence protection). The
schematic for this sensor is shown in Figure 2. Let
us further assume that the necessary minimum of
automatic diagnostics are associated with this
sensor. The inertial mass sensor is described in
Appendix A. The spring mass sensor concept is
considered to be a restrained spring mass with a
firing pin as described in Appendix A.
Tables VI, VII, and VIII present characteristics and
assessments. The particular assessments follow the
guidelines of the above discussion utilizing engi-
neering judgement. It should again be noted that
the values assigned are arbitrary and would change
with the inputs of various design groups.

Bumper mounted detectors must be built to be

insensitive to minor shocks and deformations, and
also to freeze-up due to ice or mud.

A system which meets all other criteria, but could

be subjected to frequent malicious inadvertent
actuation by vandals, or disabled by vandals, is not
viable for that reason alone.

5.0 EXAMPLE OF ASSESSMENT METHOD

As was described previously, a figure of merit is
established for each concept by evaluating the
functions and assigning a range of numerical
weighting factors from 1.0 for excellent to 0.0 for
unacceptable. These weighting factors are multi-
plied by the percentages of "importance" which
have been arbitrarily allocated to the respective
functional criteria. For example, if the criterion
Threshold Tolerance, which has an "importance"
of 6%, is given a weighting of 0.7 (a "good" rating)
then that product would be:

The resulting percentages are then added together

for all criteria for a total figure of merit. Figures of
merit have relative value only, and are therefore
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
" I ncluded for purposes of this example as "1 .0" without
substantiating criteria.
Note that the total figure of merit of 72% for the
inertial mass sensor is greater than the figure of
merit of 51 % for the spring mass sensor. However,
the assessment potential for each sensor may
change, and this example of methodology should
not be interpreted as necessarily excluding spring
mass sensors from further consideration.
12
6.0 SUMMARY
The continuing concern of General Motors to pro-
vide automotive accident avoidance and crash
protection involve the total vehicle environment
and design. Within the inclusive crash protection
category, and specifically for passive restraints, a
sensing device is generally required that rapidly
signals that a crash has occured, or is imment.
Several developmental devices have been proposed
which may meet the minimal requirements, but to
be evaluated, tradeoffs of hardware and perfor-
mance characteristics must be made .
A procedure is described whereby all parameters
for a given design are reflected in a single figure of
merit normalized to 100%. The procedure may be
used as a design review aid and as a guide for the
designer.
The depth of analysis required for an accurate
application of the methodology is illustrated by
the discussions on criteria and the paragraphs on
sensor descriptions. It would be necessary to assess
a production configuration before final compara-
tive conclusions can be made and the comparative
model verified.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the support and
dedication of their colleagues at General Motors
Corporation for their help in evaluating and
developing crash sensor systems. Special thanks are
due to members of the Engineering Departments of
Delco Electronics Division, Fisher Body Division,
and R.A. Dork of Engineering Staff, General
Motors Corporation.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

APPENDIX A Piezoelectric Sensor

SENSOR DESCRIPTION There ar e t w o types o f "piezo " sensors , on e i s

A detaile d an d extensiv e revie w o f mechanica l
sensors (8 ) ha d indicate d tha t m a n y potentia l
problems wer e integra l t o purel y mechanica l
sensors. T h e mechanica l sensor s ar e generall y
slower tha n electrica l sensors , whic h effect s th e
inflation tim e budge t an d thereby noise and pres -
sure levels . Also , redundanc y technique s are mor e
readily implemente d electricall y tha n mechani -
cally. Wit h th e us e o f H i Rel integrated circuit s
that ar e compatibl e wit h a n electrica l sensor , a
reasonably sophisticate d malfunctio n diagnosti c
routine i s feasibl e to implemen t withou t materiall y
degrading reliability . Consideration s such a s these
led t o th e introductio n (8 ) i n 1 9 7 0 of electronic
devices fo r sensin g an d for diagnostics . O n e suc h
electrical senso r i s th e Inertia l Mas s Senso r de -
scribed belo w whic h m a y b e compare d wit h th e
mechanical Spring Mass Sensor .
called piezoelectric , th e othe r piezoresistive . T h e
piezoelectric typ e consist s o f a mas s pressing -
against a crysta l (suc h a s quartz , tourmaline , or
ferroelectric material ) whic h generate s an electrical
charge w h e n subjecte d t o a forc e producin g
deformation (Fig . 6) (9). The piezoresistive type is
a strai n gag e consistin g of , fo r example , a silicon
resistor mounte d i n a bridge configuration (Fig . 7)
(10). Th e outpu t signal o f bot h type s is a measure
of th e deceleration , o r "g-level" , o f th e vehicl e
during impact . Thes e device s m ay includ e integra-
tors t o measur e velocit y chang e o r tak e advantag e
of th e differenc e i n frequenc y spectr a betwee n
rough roa d vibratio n an d cras h vibratio n (Fig . 8
and 9) .

The followin g sensors are considered representative

of senso r technolog y today , an d are describe d t o
provide a baselin e fo r th e establishmen t o f th e
numerical weightin g factors presented in Section 5 .

Inertial Mass Senso r

Inertial mas s sensor s ca n b e buil t t o b e omni -

directional. For example, a ball setting in a cup and
restrained b y a magnet i s free to m o v e i n any direc-
tion i n th e cras h plan e with equal effect. O n e suc h
design (5 ) i s th e Safet y Sentina l 4 employin g
redundant Omnidirectional Impac t Detector s (Fig.
3). Anothe r versio n tha t combine s magneti c and
spring restrain t ha s a vertica l ro d adde d whic h
eliminates th e tendency to chang e horizontal thres-
hold unde r vertica l inputs . Par t o f the restraining
force i s provide d b y th e magne t an d part b y the
vertical rod or spring. (Figure 4)

These detector s hav e a stee l mas s whic h move s

across a n integratin g distanc e unde r th e forc e o f
the crash , and makes contac t with "fingers " whic h
surround the ball in the horizontal plane .

Spring Mass Senso r

The sprin g mas s syste m (5 ) show n i n Figur e 5

employs a n ordnance-typ e bal l sear mechanis m a s
an outpu t device which i s release d b y a restrained
spring mas s a s that mas s move s agains t th e spring .
The distanc e o f m o v e m e n t o f th e mass , tha t i s
permitted unti l th e bal l sea r i s released , i s th e
integration-time factor .

13
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

The bistati c Dopple r ha s bee n teste d i n a typical

configuration wher e th e transmittin g an d receivin g
antennas ar e separate d i n distanc e b y the width of
the automobile . T h e active zon e o f interest is de-
fined b y the intersection of the antennas' radiation
and receive r patterns . T h e measured Dopple r fre -
quency i s a functio n o f closin g velocit y betwee n
radar vehicle an d target . The syste m possesses both
amplitude an d velocity discrimination , sinc e a re-
turn signa l amplitude an d frequenc y threshol d m a y
be buil t into the device below whic h activatio n will
not occur . Thi s syste m suffer s fro m th e sam e dis -
crimination problem a s do other predictive sensors:
The return-signa l amplitud e i s onl y a functio n of
"surface impedance " an d therefor e no t repre -
sentative of the degre e o f physical hazard. A block
diagram o f a typica l bistati c syste m i s show n i n
Figure 10 .

Of th e F M type s the c w diple x phas e compariso n

system has been studied (11) . W h e n ther e i s relative
motion betwee n rada r vehicl e an d target , th e
carrier frequenc y i s multiplexe d resulting i n two
doppler shifts . Closin g rate is a function o f doppler
frequency, an d approach distanc e i s a function o f
doppler phas e shift . Multiplexin g is accomplishe d
by time-sharin g the solid state microwave source to
transmit t w o carrier frequencies . I f th e syste m i s
required t o handl e mor e tha n on e target at a time,
one additiona l sideban d (carrie r frequency ) i s
needed fo r eac h additiona l target . O n e ca n easily
see tha t i n th e limi t w e are approachin g a n F M
Doppler syste m i n whic h th e carrie r i s continu -
ously modulated .

The c w noise modulate d syste m ha s th e inheren t

advantage o f being able to reject interfering signals.
In thi s syste m th e carrie r frequenc y amplitud e i s
noise modulated whic h is analogous to voice m o d u -
lation i n A . M . radio; however , i n thi s cas e th e
carrier frequenc y i s i n th e microwav e band . T he
detected retur n signa l i s tim e correlate d wit h a
swept delay of the transmitted signal .

W h e n correlatio n occur s th e dela y tim e i s a

measure o f range. Sinc e the modulation i s random ,
correlation wil l not occu r fo r receive d signals from
another transmitter.

Sonar

Typical configuration s o f sonar sensors on a car are

similar t o othe r predictiv e sensor s a s show n i n
Radar Figure 1 1 . Typical sona r frequencie s ar e approxi -
mately 1 0 t o 5 0 k H z depending o n rang e an d
Radar ha s bee n evaluate d a s a predicitv e sensing external nois e considerations . T h e kind o f trans -
device. Mainly , thre e rada r type s hav e bee n mitter sectio n tha t woul d b e appropriate i s show n
reviewed: in Figur e 12 . Th e majo r disadvantag e with sona r is
that th e energ y i s air-borne , an d a stron g cros s
• Bistati c Doppler wind ca n remov e th e are a o f sensitivit y fro m i n
• F M Dopple r front o f the vehicl e to an adjacent lane, thus giving
• Nois e Modulation Rada r a hig h probability of inadvertent actuation .

14
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

New Text
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
An acoustic sensor may have its target signal
reduced to a non-critical level by a 10-15 mph
wind (Fig. 13), or by certain humidity conditions
(Fig. 14), and is very susceptible to noise. The
three parameters that characterize targets to an
acoustical system are:
• Size
• Reflectivity (or absorptivity)
• Roughness
16
It is obvious from these three parameters, that an
acoustical system cannot assess target mass and
hardness. For example, a medium sized dog might
"look" about the same as a tree, cardboard nearly
the same as concrete.
Laser
Essentially, a laser sensor utilizes coherent light but
is functionally much like a radar sensor. One of the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
most promising laser-generating devices for crash
sensor application is the semiconductor laser. The
sensor would have separate transmitting and receiv-
ing optics with detection accomplished using
photomultiplier tubes, photodiodes, or traveling
wave phototubes. Although there is a distinct size
and weight advantage over radar systems, the
laser's energy is attenuated by rain and fog. The
basic problem with a laser rests with its limited two
dimensional capabilities.
Bumper Mounted Detector
Several concepts for a bumper mounted detector
have been assessed including:
17
• Bowden cable switch
• Electronic velocity change (compression)
measurement
• Inertial switch
The Bowden cable concept consists of a cable con-
necting the bumper with a switch inside the pas-
senger compartment. Compression of the energy
absorbing bumper causes the Bowden cable to
activate the switch. The electronic velocity change
(compression) measurement notes electronically
the time it takes for a reference point to pass
across a given distance on bumper compression.
The inertial switch -can be either a movable mass
with spring restraint or with magnetic restraint. In
either case, the angular zone-of-protection require-
ment can be met by appropriate physical design.
The mass would move on impact across an integrat-
ing distance and close a switch.
Combination Sensor
This concept consists of post-crash detection with
predictive detection, for example, inertial mass
with radar or sonar. The schematic for a typical
configuration is shown in Figure 15. Technically
the combination sensor compares favorably with
the other sensors considered. In particular, some of
the target recognition problems of radar are
ameliorated with the addition of the inertial
detector. However, the determination of obstacle
density by the inertial detector does take some
post-crash time so that the full potential time-
profile advantage of radar is not achieved. The
excellent impact-speed prediction of radar does
add multi-speed discrimination potential to the
inertial detector (which essentially measures post-
crash deceleration amplitude as a go/no-go switch).
However, it must be realized that a combination
sensor scheme must also satisfy the system reli-
ability requirements.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

18
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

19
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

20
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

21
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

22
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

23
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
APPENDIX B
SENSOR MATHEMATICAL MODELS
Introduction
An integral and effective approach (8) to the
design and evaluation of crash sensors is the use of
mathematical models and digital simulation. Such
an approach should initially consider the entire air
cushion system. The system performance is finally
evaluated against an occupant kinematics model. A
typical approach is shown in Figure 16 which is a
functional block diagram of an overall digital simu-
lation program. There are two major data process-
ing routines: the upper one involving hardware
simulation and the lower one involving occupant
kinematic simulation. The basic input for this
model is vehicle acceleration data, both crash and
non-crash. This data is used to exercise a math
model of the particular sensor that is being con-
sidered. Each sensor is math modeled, be it electri-
calor mechanical. The particular model which is
24
shown in Figure 16 is a mechanical seismic spring
mass system. It is felt necessary to model the
complete sensor, hence the addition of the firing
pin dynamics math model. The next part of the
system is the energy source, and the digital simula-
tion includes models of both stored gas and
pyrotechnic systems; and, finally, a gas dynamic
model of the head restraint or forward restraint
cushions. Processing the crash data through these
models will result in a sensing and cushion-
activation time. Simultaneously, crash data is
processed through the occupant kinematics model,
whose output is the protection-time requirement.
The sensing and cushion-activation time is com-
pared with the protection-time requirement, pro-
viding an evaluation of occupant protection. In
general terms, the noncoincidence of inflation time
and occupant trajectory will result in an injury
index. This can be a head severity index, a chest
severity index, a knee severity index, etc. To
optimize the injury indexes, various hardware
parametric values are modified and the model
iterated to obtain the desired condition.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
Analytical Model
The analytical model is further defined m
Reference 10 by Dr. R. D. McKenzie, et. al as
follows:
The equation of motion used for the bi-directional
sensor (Figure 5) is.
This bi-directional device allows the seismic mass
to move either "forward" or "backward", depend-
ing on the direction of the vehicle acceleration.
This model allows reversal of both the frictional
and spring preload terms. The former reverses
when the velocity changes sign, while the latter
reverses when the displacement changes sign.
A model for describing the firing pin motion
given by the following equation:
symbols correspond to
parameters already defined and the F subscript re-
fers to the firing pin.
Results
The model was first evaluated by comparing its
behavior with sled test results on the actual bi-
directional device. This sensor was mounted on a
sled along with an Endevco instrumentation
accelerometer which measured the sled accelera-
tions. The output of the Endevco accelerometer
was displayed on an oscilloscope, giving the
acceleration time profile. Forcing functions were
applied to the sled in such a way as to give profiles
approximating a half sine wave, and the firing time
of the sensor was measured. Results were available
for five cases of half sine wave acceleration profiles
of varying amplitude and 80 msec duration, for
comparison with the computer model. The actual
device had a .25 inch travel for tripping the firing
pin, so the firing time from the computer model
was taken as the time for the seismic mass to
traverse .25 inch plus the time for the firing pin to
travel 1 inch after it had been released.
The parameter values used in the firing pin model
were:
New Text New Text
New Text New Text
New Text New Text
New Text New Text
This model, time scaled 1000:1, showed a constant
3.2 milliseconds to traverse the 1 inch, regardless
of the external acceleration profile (up to 8g). The
negligible effect of external acceleration is easily
seen since the spring preload is nearly 500g's. This
constant 3.2 msec was added to the time required
by the seismic mass to travel the required trip
distance for all results shown in this section. The
time required to release the balls restraining the
firing pin was considered negligible.
The parameters used for the test comparison and
all subsequent runs were as measured on the test
accelerometer:
New Text
IS New Text
New Text
New Text
New Text
The results of the test comparison runs are listed
below. All acceleration profiles were half sine
waves of 78 msec duration, and the peak values
listed under ap. The values under tc represent the
computer times and those under tm the times
measured on the test runs.
25
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

These results show very good correlation, indicat-

ing the analog computer model is a reasonably
accurate representation of the actual sensor. The
small differences are random in nature and could
very well be due in part to the fact that the test
acceleration profiles were not precise sine waves.

Design Tradeoff Studies

Numerous runs were made to determine the effects
of input and/or device parameter variations. These
tests and results are described below under the
appropriate headings.
Peak Acceleration vs. Period of Half Sine
Wave for Triggering.
Using the device parameters listed above, the
period and peak values of the half sine wave accele-
ration profiles were varied to determine the trigger
envelope for 1/8, 3/16, and 1/4 inch travel of the

26
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
seismic mass. These results are plotted in Figure
17. The hyperbolic shape of these curves occurs
from the fact that as the period gets shorter, the
peak g's required to trigger increases as the period
approaches zero. On the other end, as the period
gets longer, the peak g's to trigger asympotically
approach the combined frictional and spring pre-
load, or about 5 g's.
Trigger Time vs. Weight of Seismic Mass
In another set of runs, the weight of the seismic
mass was varied and the time to trigger (for .lS75
inch travel) noted for an Sg, SO msec half sine wave
input with spring preloads of .25 and .3 lbs. These
results are shown in Figure lS. As the mass is
doubled (from .1 to .2 lb), a fairly significant
decrease in trigger time of from 6 to S msec is
noted. However, as the mass is further increased,
the reduction in trigger time becomes fairly insigni-
ficant.
Effect of Spring Preload on Trigger Time
27
New Text
New Text
New Text
New Text
These runs were made for a device with the follow-
ing parameters.
An Sg, SO msec half sine acceleration input was
inserted and trigger times for .125, .250, and .50
inch travels were noted for preloads from .0 to 6g
(the mass traveled less than .25 inch in the 6g
case). It is desirable to keep the preload as low as
possible to reduce trigger time. However, since the
friction level is fairly high for this particular sensor,
this represents the limitation on reducing the
preload, since the spring must overcome the fric-
tion in returning the mass to zero for non-firing
cases. The results are plotted in Figure 19.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018

REFERENCES
1. W. D. Nelson, "Lap-Shoulder Restraint Effectiveness in the United States,"
Society of Automotive Engineers Report No. 710077, January 1971.

2. R. A. Rogers, GM-ADAP, "An Efficient System for the Collection, Storage, and
Retrieval of Accident Information," August 1969.

3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208, Notice 12," October 1, 1971.

4. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Program Plan for Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards," DOT/HS 820-163, October, 1971.

5. T. O. Jones, O. T. McCarter, "Crash Sensor Development," Society of Auto-

motive Engineers Report No. 710016, January, 1971.

6. Staff Report, Office of Systems Analysis Planning and Programming, "Eco-

nomic Analysis of the Occupant Crash Protection Standard," (Preliminiary
Report) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April, 1971.

7. J. B. Hopkins, et aI, "Development of Anticipatory Automotive Crash Sensors,"

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report No. DOT-TSC-
NHTSA-71-3, July, 1971.

8. T. o. Jones, "Inflatable Passive Air Restraint System Crash Sensor," NATO

International Conference on Passive Restraints, May 11, 1970.

9. "Piezoelectric Accelerometer User's Handbook," Consolidated Electrodynamics

Corporation, Bulletin No. 4200-96.

10. "Instruction Manual for Piezoresistive Accelerometers," ENDEVCO Incorpo-

rated, 1968.

11. W. W. Hansen, "CW Radar Systems," in "Radar Systems Engineering," L. N.

Ridenour, Ed., McGraw-Hill, 1947.

12. R. D. McKenzie, F. J. Irish, R. A. Potter, "Modeling Tools for Design of Air

Cushion Restraint Systems," Society of Automotive Engineers No. 710015,
January, 1971.

28
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Sunday, September 23, 2018