In the European Project FIMCAR, a proposal for a frontal impact test configuration was developed which included an additional full width deformable barrier (FWDB) test. Motivation for the deformable element was partly to measure structural forces as well as to produce a severe crash pulse different from that in the offset test. The objective of this study was to analyze the safety performance of vehicles in the full width rigid barrier test (FWRB) and in the full width deformable barrier test (FWDB). In total, 12 vehicles were crashed in both configurations. Comparison of these tests to real world accident data was used to identify the crash barrier most representative of real world crashes. For all vehicles, the airbag visible times were later in the FWDB configuration. This was attributed to the attenuation of the initial acceleration peak, observed in FWRB tests, by the addition of the deformable element. These findings were in alignment with airbag triggering times seen in real world crash data. Also, the dummy loadings were slightly worse in FWDB compared to FWRB tests, which is possibly linked to the airbag firing and a more realistic loading of the vehicle crash structures in the FWDB configuration. Evaluations of the lower extremities have shown a general increasing of the tibia index with the crash pulse severity.
Frontal impact is still the most relevant impact direction in terms of injury causation amongst car occupants. Especially for car-to-car frontal impacts the mass ratio between the involved vehicles has a significant impact on the injury risk (the heavier the opponent car the higher the injury risk). In order to address this issue frontal Mobile Deformable Barrier test procedures have been developed world-wide (for example the MPDB procedure that was fully described during the FIMCAR Project). The objective of this study was to investigate how vehicles of different weight classes perform in a mobile barrier test procedure compared to a fixed barrier test procedure (the full width rigid and offset deformable barrier test). Beyond that, the influence of vehicle mass and vehicle deformation on injuries was evaluated based on real world accident data. Five vehicle types were selected and tested in a fixed offset test procedure (ODB), a full width rigid barrier test procedure (FWRB) and a mobile offset test procedure (MPDB). For the accident analyses data from the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) was evaluated with a focus on MAIS 2+ injured belted front row car (UN-R 94 compliant cars) occupants in frontal impact accidents. Test data indicates higher dummy loadings, in particular for the head acceleration and chest acceleration, in the MPDB test for the vehicles with a mass lighter than the trolley (1,500 kg) compared to the FWRB test. The trend of increased vehicle stiffness (especially illustrated by tests with the MPDB and small cars) shows the need of a further improvement of passive restraint systems to reduce the occupant loading and with it the injury risk. The analyzed GIDAS data confirm the higher injury risk for occupants in cars with an accident weight of less than 1,500 kg compared to those with a crash weight above 1,500 kg in car-to-car and car-to-object or car-to-HGV, respectively. Furthermore the injury risk increases with decreasing mass ratio (i.e., the opponent car is heavier) in car-to-car accidents. Independent from the higher injury risk, the risk for passenger compartment intrusion in frontal impact appears not to be independent on the crash weight of the car.
The goal of the project FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) was to define an integrated set of test procedures and associated metrics to assess a vehicle's frontal impact protection, which includes self- and partner-protection. For the development of the set, two different full-width tests (full-width deformable barrier [FWDB] test, full-width rigid barrier test) and three different offset tests (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test, progressive deformable barrier [PDB] test, moveable deformable barrier with the PDB barrier face [MPDB] test) have been investigated. Different compatibility assessment procedures were analysed and metrics for assessing structural interaction (structural alignment, vertical and horizontal load spreading) as well as several promising metrics for the PDB/MPDB barrier were developed. The final assessment approach consists of a combination of the most suitable full-width and offset tests. For the full-width test (FWDB), a metric was developed to address structural alignment based on load cell wall information in the first 40 ms of the test. For the offset test (ODB), the existing ECE R94 was chosen. Within the paper, an overview of the final assessment approach for the frontal impact test procedures and their development is given.
In general the passive safety capability is much greater in newer versus older cars due to the stiff compartment preventing intrusion in severe collisions. However, the stiffer structure which increases the deceleration can lead to a change in injury patterns. In order to analyse possible injury mechanisms for thoracic and lumbar spine injuries, data from the German Inâ€Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) were used in this study. A twoâ€step approach of statistical and caseâ€byâ€case analysis was applied for this investigation. In total 4,289 collisions were selected involving 8,844 vehicles, 5,765 injured persons and 9,468 coded injuries. Thoracic and lumbar spine injuries such as burst, compression or dislocation fractures as well as soft tissue injuries were found to occur in frontal impacts even without intrusion to the passenger compartment. If a MAIS 2+ injury occurred, in 15% of the cases a thoracic and/or lumbar spine injury is included. Considering AIS 2+ thoracic and lumbar spine, most injuries were fractures and occurred in the lumbar spine area. From the case by case analyses it can be concluded that lumbar spine fractures occur in accidents without the engagement of longitudinals, lateral loading to the occupant and/or very severe accidents with MAIS being much higher than the spine AIS.
Das Ziel des Forschungsprojekts "Quantifizierung der Passiven Sicherheit für Pkw-Insassen" besteht darin, Messergebnisse in Form von Dummybelastungswerten zu einem Sicherheitsindex zu verdichten. Zur Formulierung des dazu erforderlichen Bewertungsalgorithmus wurden folgende Zusammenhänge erarbeitet: 1. Beziehung zwischen Verletzungsschwere und Dummybelastungsgröße für relevante Körperteile, 2. Relevanzfaktoren zur Wichtung der Teilergebnisse und 3. Zusammenhang zwischen körperteilspezifischen Schutzkriterien und dem entsprechenden Erfüllungsgrad. Die wesentliche Aufmerksamkeit erforderte die Bereitstellung der Relevanzstruktur, da mit den einzelnen Relevanzfaktoren die gemessenen Belastungen entsprechend der Bedeutung der im realen Unfallgeschehen beobachteten Verletzungen bewertet werden sollten. Im Bereich der experimentellen Simulation lag das Hauptaugenmerk auf der Bereitstellung der Versuchsbedingungen, wobei die gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Sicherheitsversuche zu berücksichtigen waren. Daraus ergab sich die Festlegung auf folgende Versuchskonstellationen: 1. Frontaler Wandaufprall, 2. Seitenaufprall einer fahrbaren Barriere auf den stehenden Pkw und 3. Kompatibilitätsversuch, bei dem ein Fahrzeug seitlich mit einem anderen Fahrzeug gleichen Typs kollidiert. Mit Hilfe eines erarbeiteten Bewertungsalgorithmus werden die versuchstechnisch gemessenen Belastungswerte normiert und der Bewertungsfunktion zugeführt. Die so ermittelten Erfüllungsgrade erhalten durch die Relevanzfaktoren eine unfallspezifische Wichtung und lassen sich über Teilsicherheitsindizes zu einem Gesamt-Sicherheitsindex zusammenfassen. Dieser Sicherheitsindex soll Aufschluss über das Niveau der inneren Sicherheit von Pkw geben.
This study updates previous IIHS studies comparing estimated delta Vs for crash tested vehicles to the distribution of estimated delta Vs in the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). The delta V estimates for 232 frontal crash tests at 64.4km/h into a deformable barrier with 40 percent overlap are compared with estimates from frontal offset crashes in the 1997-2004 NASS database. All delta V estimates were based on SMASH, the delta V estimating program used by NASS since 1997. Results indicated that for all vehicles tested by IIHS, SMASH delta Vs were, on average, 32 percent lower than impact speeds and about 28 percent lower than the expected delta V. Almost 80 percent of all real-world frontal crashes resulting in AIS 3+ injuries and just over 60 percent of all fatal crashes occur at or below the average estimated delta V calculated for crash tested vehicles.
Um die Verletztenschwere von ungeschützten Verkehrsteilnehmern bei der Kollision mit Personenkraftwagen zu reduzieren, sollte die Fahrzeugfront bestimmten Anforderungen entsprechen. Dazu wurde von der EEVC-WG 10 ein Testverfahren zur Prüfung der Pkw-Frontfläche vorgeschlagen. In dieser Untersuchung wurde der Nutzen an vermeidbaren Personenschäden geschätzt, der erzielt werden könnte, wenn alle Pkw diese Anforderungen erfüllten. Als Nutzen wurde das Reduktionspotential bei Getöteten, der mögliche Übergang von Schwerverletzten zu Leichtverletzten und von Leichtverletzten zu Unverletzten bewertet. Verletzungsminderungen innerhalb der Gesamtheit der Schwerverletzten konnten nicht bewertet werden. Auch die hohe Dunkelziffer der Verletzten ging nicht in die Rechnung ein. Daraus ergibt sich, dass der errechnete Nutzen eine Mindestgröße darstellt. Diese Größe wird stark beeinflusst von einer gegebenen Verteilung der Pkw-Kollisionsgeschwindigkeiten, denn ein Nutzenpotential des EEVC-WG-10-Testverfahrens kann nur für Kollisionsgeschwindigkeiten bis 40 km/h angenommen werden. Um mit einer verlässlichen Datenbasis zu arbeiten, wurde diese Untersuchung zunächst für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Gebietsstand vor dem 3. Oktober 1990) und das Jahr 1990 durchgeführt. Dafür errechnete sich ein Nutzenpotential pro neuzugelassenem Pkw in Höhe von 46 bis 63 DM (22 bis 31 ECU) nach deutschen Unfallkostensätzen oder 28 bis 36 ECU nach europäischen Durchschnittskostensätzen. Wirtschaftlich ist die Maßnahme, solange die Kosten pro neu zugelassenem Pkw (zum Preisstand 1990) diesen Betrag nicht übersteigen. Von diesem Ergebnis ausgehend, wurde dessen zeitliche und regionale Übertragbarkeit erörtert. Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass das Ergebnis für ganz Deutschland gilt, da die Maßnahme nicht vor dem Jahr 2000 eingeführt wird und die Vollausrüstung aller Pkw mit dem geforderten Fußgängerschutz erst 10 Jahre später erreicht ist. Aus Prognosen bis zum Jahre 2010 für die Entwicklung der Bevölkerungszahl (gleichbleibender Fußgängeranteil vorausgesetzt) und der Zahl der Pkw-Neuzulassungen lässt sich keine Änderung des Nutzenpotentials herleiten. Weil für andere EG-Länder die Verteilung der Kollisionsgeschwindigkeiten bei Fußgängerunfällen unbekannt ist, können die Wirksamkeitsannahmen dieser Untersuchung nicht auf andere Länder übertragen werden.
This work aims at bringing evidence for mass incompatibility in frontal impact for cars built according to the UNECE R94 regulation. French national injury accidents database census for years 2005 to 2008 were used for the analysis. The heterogeneity of frontal self-protection among cars of different masses is investigated, as well as the partner protection parameter offered by these cars. The last part of the analysis deals with the estimation of the benefit, in terms of fatal and severe injuries avoided, if crashworthiness was harmonized for the whole fleet of vehicle. This calculation is done for France and is extended to all Europe.
In North America, frontal crash tests in both the regulatory environment and consumer-based safety rating schemes have historically been based on full-width and moderate-overlap (40%) vehicle to barrier impacts. The combination of improved seat-belt technologies, notably belt tensioning and load limiting systems, together with advanced airbags, has proven very effective in providing occupant protection in these crash modes. Recently, however, concern has been raised over the contribution of narrower frontal impacts, involving primarily the vehicle corners, to the incidence of fatality and serious injury as a result of the potential for increased occupant compartment intrusion and performance limitations of current restraint systems. Drawing on data documented in the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)/ Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) for calendar years 1999 to 2012, the present study examines the characteristics of existing and proposed corner crash test configurations, and the nature of real-world collisions that approximate the test environments. In this analysis, particular emphasis is placed on crash pulse information extracted from vehicle-based event data recorders (EDR's).
Over the past two decades the popularity of consumer crash test programs, commonly referred to as New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP), has grown across the world. They are popular among government regulators as they afford a means of promoting safety innovations and levels of vehicle performance beyond those dictated by national standards. They also fulfill the demand for information regarding the safety ranking of vehicles among consumers contemplating the purchase of a new vehicle. There is no question that consumer crash test programs greatly influence vehicle design changes as well as accelerate the fitment of new safety features. The extent to which these changes can be expected to reduce serious and potentially fatal injuries will be influenced by how well the testing protocols and associated rating schemes correctly reflect the nature of the residual safety problem they seek to address. Drawing on data contained primarily in the US National Automotive Sampling System (NASS), the field relevance of current and proposed testing and rating protocols addressing frontal crash test protection is examined. Emphasis is placed on examining how accurately injury rates computed from the dummy responses measured in consumer crash tests correspond to actual injury rates observed in the field. Additional data from Canadian field investigations and US databases such as the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS) are examined to see how well frontal airbag firing times, crush pulse durations and other determinants of injury are replicated in consumer testing protocols. This portion of the analysis draws on data obtained from Event Data Recorders (EDR) in both field collisions and staged tests of the same vehicle model. Vehicle rankings and overall frontal crash test ratings were found to be particularly sensitive to the choice of injury risk functions employed in the test. This was particularly true in the case of injury risk functions used to assess neck injury potential. Neck injury risk derived from Nij was found to show the least agreement with the field. Agreement between field chest injury rates and those derived from crash tests was improved considerably when chest injury risk functions for "older" occupants were employed. The paper concludes with a discussion of how different current testing protocols could be improved to enhance their field relevance.