Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (17) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Kopf (17) (entfernen)
Institut
- Sonstige (14)
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (8)
Recent accident statistics from the German national database state bicyclists being the second endangered group of vulnerable road users besides pedestrians. With 399 fatalities, more than 14.000 seriously injured and more than 61.000 slightly injured persons on german roads in the year 2011, the group of bicyclists is ranked second of all road user groups (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2012). While the overall bicycle helmet usage frequency in Germany is very low, evidence is given that its usage leads to a significant reduction of severe head injuries. After an estimation of the benefit of bicycle helmet usage as well as an appropriate test procedure for bicyclists, this paper describes two different approaches for the improvement of bicyclist safety. While the first one is focusing on the assessment of the vehicle based protection potential for bicyclists, the second one is concentrating on the safety assessment of bicycle helmets. Within the first part of the study the possible revision of the existing pedestrian testing protocols is being examined, using in depth accident data, full scale simulation and hardware testing. Within the second part of the study, the results of tests according to supplemental test procedures for the safety assessment of bicycle helmets developed by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) are presented. An additional full scale test performed at reduced impact speed proves that measures of active vehicle safety as e.g. braking before the collision event do not necessarily always lead to a reduction of injury severity.
At the 2005 ESV conference, the International Harmonisation of Research Activities (IHRA) side impact working group proposed a 4 part draft test procedure, to form the basis of harmonisation of regulation world-wide and to help advances in car occupant protection. This paper presents the work performed by a European Commission 6th framework project, called APROSYS, an further development and evaluation of the proposed procedure from a European perspective. The 4 parts of the proposed procedure are: - A Mobile Deformable Barrier test; - An oblique Pole side impact test; - Interior headform tests; - Side Out of Position (OOP) tests. Full scale test and modelling work to develop the Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (AE-MDB) further is described, resulting in a recommendation to revise the barrier face to include a bumper beam element. An evaluation of oblique and perpendicular pole tests was made from tests and numerical simulations using ES-2 and WorldSID 50th percentile dummies. It was concluded that an oblique pole test is feasible but that a perpendicular test would be preferable for Europe. The interior headform test protocol was evaluated to assess its repeatability and reproducibility and to solve issues such as the head impact angle and limitation zones. Recommendations for updates to the test protocol are made. Out-of-position (OOP) tests applicable for the European situation were performed, which included additional tests with Child Restraint Systems (CRS) which use is mandatory in Europe. It was concluded that the proposed IHRA OOP tests do cover the worst case situations, but the current test protocol is not ready for regulatory use.
Aim of the study was to evaluate the protective effect of bicycle helmets particularly considering injuries to the head and to the face. Accidents with the participation of bicyclists which occurred from 2000 to 2007 were chosen from GIDAS. We observed that injuries to the head and face were more severe in the group of non-helmeted riders. There seems to be no significant difference in injuries with AIS 3-6. Altogether 26 cyclists were killed. 2 of them wore a helmet (1% of helmeted cyclists), 24 did not (1% of non-helmeted cyclists). Only one killed rider (without helmet) did not suffer from polytrauma (only head injuries recorded). The findings seem to support the thesis of a preventive effect of the bicycle helmet, however the two groups are different in their characteristics related to riding speed. Necessarily we need a multivariate model to evaluate the effect of helmets.
Cycle helmets have continued to increase in popularity since their introduction half a century ago. Many studies indicate that overall, head injury can be significantly reduced by wearing them. This study was conducted using two distinct sets of real-world cycling collision data from Ireland, namely cases involving police collision reports and cases involving admission to a hospital emergency department. The analyses sought to simulate and analyse the protective performance of cycle helmets in such collision scenarios, by comparing the Head Injury Criterion score and peak head accelerations, both linear and angular. Cycle collisions were simulated using the specialised commercial software MADYMO. From the simulation results, these key metrics were compared between the same-scenario helmeted and unhelmeted cyclist models. Results showed that the inclusion of bicycle helmets reduced linear accelerations very significantly, but also increased angular accelerations significantly compared to unhelmeted situations. Given the modest protective performance of cycle helmets against angular accelerations, it is recommended that cycle helmet manufacturers and international test standards need to pay more attention to head angular accelerations.
When the EEVC proposed the full-scale side impact test procedure, it recommended that consideration should be given to an interior headform test in addition. This was to evaluate areas of contact not assessed by the dummy. EEVC Working Group 13 has been researching the parameters of a possible European headform test procedure in four phases. Earlier stages of the research have been presented at previous ESV conferences. The conclusions from these have suggested that the US free motion headform should be used in any European test procedure and that it should be a free flight test, not guided. This research has now culminated in proposals for a European test procedure. This paper presents the proposed EEVC side impact interior headform test procedure, giving the rationale for the test and the first results from the validation phase of the test protocol.
During the last 5 years, the number of cars fitted with side airbags has dramatically increased. They are now standard equipment, even on many smaller cars or less luxurious vehicles. While some side airbags offer thoracic protection alone, there are those that combine thoracic and head protection (of which most deploy from the seat). Other systems employ separate airbags for head and thorax protection, which are designed to be effective noticeably in a crash against a pole. This paper proposes an evaluation of the effectiveness of side airbags in preventing thoracic injuries to passenger car occupants involved in side crashes. First, the target population (who can take benefit of side airbag deployment and in what circumstances) is defined. Side airbags can be especially effective in cases of impacts on the door with intrusion at a certain impact speed. Then, an example case of a side impact with side airbag deployment is given were side airbag deployment is thought to have had a positive effect on injury outcome. A further case is presented where the impact configuration is likely to have reduced the effect of side airbag deployment on injury outcome. Finally, the estimation of side airbag effectiveness (in terms of additional occupant protection brought exclusively by the airbag) is proposed by comparing injury risk sustained by occupants in (more or less) similar cars (fitted or non fitted with airbags) because, during these years, car structure, and side airbag conception have considerably evolved. In-depth accident data from France, the UK and Germany has been collected. Out of 2,035 side impact accident cases available in the databases, we selected 435 occupants of passenger cars (built from 1998 onwards) involved in an injury accident between year 1998 and year 2004 for EES (Energy Equivalent Speed) values between 20km/h and 50km/h. The occupants, belted or not, were sat on the struck side, whatever the obstacle and type of accidents (intersection, loss of control, etc.). For multiple impact crashes, the side impact is assumed to be the more severe one. Passenger cars were fitted with (96) or without (339) side airbags. Most of the potential risk explanatory variables were correctly and reliably reported in the databases (velocity " impact zone " impact angle " occupant characteristics, etc.). The analysis compared injury risks for different levels of EES and different types of side airbags. A logistic regression model was also computed with injury variables (such as thoracic AIS 2+ or AIS 3+) as the dependant variable and other variables (including airbag type and EES) as explanatory injury risk factors. Results revealed statistically non-significant reductions in thoracic AIS 2+ and AIS 3+ injury risk in side airbag equipped cars in the impact violence range selected (odds ratio between 0.84 and 0.98 depending on types of airbags). The results are discussed. The non-significance is assumed to be due to a low number of cases. Statistical analysis for head injuries was not possible due to the low number of accident cases with passenger cars fitted with head airbags in the databases. Moreover, the discrepancies between the data coming from different countries (especially calculation of EES) might have introduced instability in the analysis.
Automotive interiors have long been a potentially injurious impact area to occupants during accidents, especially in the absence of adequate padding. The U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, outlines test procedures and performance criteria in order to mitigate potentially injurious head impacts to interior surfaces. FMVSS 201 specifies a finite set of impact locations and applies to passenger vehicles of a specified year range and with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 lb. In this paper, two head impact test methodologies are presented, a pendulum-test device and a Free Motion Headform (FMH) launching device, which allows for dynamic, repeatable impact evaluation of various vehicle interior surfaces and their impact attenuation abilities. The presented testing includes multiple series that evaluate the effect of differing vehicle upper interior padding on occupant head injury. One study in particular, analyzes a head impact to the side header of a heavy truck (not included in FMVSS 201) during a 90 degree rollover. Additionally, two other series of tests are presented which assess the injury reduction effect of side airbags to near side as well as far side occupants in a side impact scenario. Lastly, a forensic analysis is presented which evaluates two possible head impact locations experienced in a real world accident by analysis of the resulting interior compartment damage utilizing the FMH launching device test method. The data collected and presented includes accelerometer instrumentation and high speed video analysis. These studies demonstrate that adequate padding and airbags are very effective at mitigating head injury potential at impact speeds of 12-25 mph (19-40 kph).
Evaluation of the performance of competitive headforms as test tools for interior headform testing
(2009)
The European Research Project APROSYS has evaluated the interior headform test procedure developed by EEVC WG 13, representing the head contact in the car during a lateral impact. One important aspect within this test procedure was the selection of an appropriate impactor. The WG13 procedure currently uses the Free Motion Headform as used within the FMVSS 201. The ACEA 3.5 kg headform used in Phase 1 of the European Directive and the future European Regulation on Pedestrian Protection is still discussed as a possible alternative. This paper reports work performed by the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) as a part of the APROSYS Task 1.1.3. The study compares the two headform impactors according to FMVSS and ACEA, in a series of basic tests in order to evaluate their sensitivity towards different impact angles, impact accuracy, the effect of differences to impactors of the same type and the effects of the repeatability and reproducibility of the test results. The test surface consisted of a steel tube covered with PU foam and PVC, representing the car interior to be tested. Despite of the higher mass of the FMH the HIC values of this impactor were generally lower than those of the ACEA headform. The FMH showed a higher repeatability of test results but a high sensitivity on the angle of roll, the spherical ACEA impactor performed better with regards to the reproducibility. In case of the ACEA impactor-, the angle of roll had no influence.
The European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) Working Group 13 for Side Impact Protection has been developing an Interior Headform Test Procedure to complement the full-scale Side Impact Test Procedure for Europe and for the proposed IHRA test procedures. In real world accidents interior head contacts with severe head injuries still occur, which are not always observed in standard side impact tests with dummies. Thus a means is needed to encourage further progress in head protection. At the 2003 ESV-Conference EEVC Working Group 13 reported the results on Interior Headform Testing. Further research has been performed since and the test procedure has been improved. This paper gives an overview of its latest status. The paper presents new aspects which are included in the latest test procedure and the research work leading to these enhancements. One topic of improvement is the definition of the Free Motion Headform (FMH) impactor alignment procedure to provide guidelines to minimize excessive headform chin contact and to minimize potential variability. Research activities have also been carried out on the definition of reasonable approach head angles to avoid unrealistic test conditions. Further considerations have been given to the evaluation of head airbags, their potential benefits and a means of ensuring protection for occupants regardless of seating position and sitting height. The paper presents the research activities that have been made since the last ESV Conference in 2003 and the final proposal of the EEVC Headform Test Procedure.
This study aimed at comparing head Wrap Around Distance (WAD) of Vulnerable Road User (VRU) obtained from the German in-depth Accident Database (GIDAS), the China in-depth Accident Database (CIDAS) and the Japanese in-depth Accident Database (ITARDA micro). Cumulative distribution of WAD of pedestrian and cyclist were obtained for each database (AIS2+) showing that WAD of cyclists were larger than the ones of pedestrians. Comparing three regions, the 50%tile WAD of GIDAS was larger than that of both Asian accident databases. Using linear regression that might predict WAD of pedestrians and cyclists from Impact speed and VRU height, WADs were calculated to be 206cm/219cm (Pedestrian/Cyclist) for GIDAS, 170cm/192cm for CIDAS and 211cm/235cm for ITARDA. In addition, this study may be helpful for reconsideration of WAD measurement alignment between accident reconstruction and test procedures.