In Deutschland werden als passive Schutzeinrichtungen an Straßen Stahlschutzplanken und in jüngerer Zeit auch vermehrt Betonschutzwände eingesetzt. Auf dem Gebiet der Schutzeinrichtungen wird es demnächst europäisch harmonisierte Normen geben. Durch ihre Einführung, vermutlich noch in 1997, kommt es auch in Deutschland zur Veränderung der Anforderungen an Schutzeinrichtungen. Die Qualifizierung der in Deutschland nach den Richtlinien für passive Schutzeinrichtungen an Straßen eingesetzten Schutzeinrichtungen nach den europäischen Vorgaben ist durch die Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt) in einem Forschungsprojekt für das Bundesverkehrsministerium erfolgt. Die BASt hat ein weiteres Projekt initiiert mit dem Ziel, die wichtigsten Ausführungsformen zu untersuchen und zu weitergehenden Kenntnissen über die hier eingesetzten Schutzeinrichtungen zu kommen. Berichtet wird über wesentliche Ergebnisse aus diesem Projekt.
Anhand von zwei verschiedenen Versuchskonfigurationen wurde das Schutzpotential von Kopfschutzsystemen (Fahrradhelm und airbagbasiertes System) untersucht. Hierbei wurden die resultierende Kopfbeschleunigung als Messwert sowie das Kopfverletzungskriterium HIC bei Versuchen ohne und mit Kopfschutzsystem vergleichend gegenübergestellt.
Upcoming test procedures and regulations consider the use of Q-dummies. Especially Q6 and Q10 will be introduced to assess the safety of child occupants in vehicle rear seats. Therefore detailed knowledge of these dummies is important to improve safety. As recent studies have shown, chest deflection measurements of both dummies are influenced by parameters like belt geometry. This could lead to a non optimized design of child restraint systems (CRS) and belt systems. The objective of this study is to obtain a more detailed understanding of the sensitivity of chest measurements to restraint parameters and to investigate the possibilities of chest acceleration as an alternative for the assessment of chest injury risks. A study of frontal impact sled tests was performed with Q6 and Q10 in a generic rear seat environment on a bench. Belt parameters like modified belt attachment locations were varied. For the Q6 dummy, different positioning settings of the CRS (booster with backrest) and of the dummy itself were investigated. The Q10 dummy was seated on a booster cushion. Here the position of the upper belt anchorage point was varied. To simulate the influence of vehicle rotation in the ODB crash configuration, the bench was pre-rotated on the sled in additional tests with the Q10. This configuration was tested with and without pretensioner and load limiter. Chest deflection in Q6 showed a high sensitivity to changes in positioning of the CRS and the dummy itself. A more slouched position of the CRS or dummy resulted in a reduction of measured chest deflection, whereas chest acceleration increased for a more slouched position of the CRS. Chest deflection in Q10 is sensitive to belt geometry as already shown in other studies. In a more outboard position of the shoulder belt anchorage the measured chest deflection is higher. Chest acceleration shows the opposite tendency, which is highest for the rearmost location of the upper belt anchorage. On a pre-rotated bench the highest chest deflection within this test series was observed without load limiter/pretensioner and an outboard belt position. By optimizing the belt location and the use of pretensioner/load limier the chest deflection was significantly reduced. For the Q6 a criterion based on chest acceleration as well as deflection measured at two locations might be the most reliable approach, which requires further research with an additional upper deflection sensor. In the Q10 the measured chest deflection does not always correctly reflect the severity of chest loading. The deflection is depending on initial belt position and restraint parameters as well as test conditions, which result in different directions of belt migration. A3ms chest acceleration might be a better indicator for severity of chest loading independent of different conditions like belt geometries. However, in some cases the benefit of an optimized restraint system could only be shown by deflection. These findings suggest that further research is needed to identify a chest injury assessment method, which could be based on deflection as well as acceleration or other parameters related to belt to occupant interaction.
The EVERSAFE project addressed many safety issues for electric vehicles including the crash and post-crash safety. The project reviewed the market shares of full electric and hybrid vehicles, latest road traffic accident data involving severely damaged electric vehicles in Europe, and identified critical scenarios that may be particular for electric vehicles. Also, recent results from international research on the safety of electric vehicles were included in this paper such as results from performed experimental abuse cell and vehicle crash tests (incl. non-standardized tests with the Mitsubishi i-MiEV and the BMW i3), from discussions in the UN IG REESS and the GTR EVS as well as guidelines (handling procedures) for fire brigades from Germany, Sweden and the United States of America. Potential hazards that might arise from damaged electric vehicles after severe traffic accidents are an emerging issue for modern vehicles and were summarized from the perspective of different national approaches and discussed from the practical view of fire fighters. Recent rescue guidelines were reviewed and used as the basis for a newly developed rescue procedure. The paper gives recommendations in particular towards fire fighters, but also to vehicle manufacturers and first-aiders.
From an automotive safety occupant protection standpoint, effective occupant restraint requires a system capable of providing non-injurious occupant ride down of anticipated crash forces. This is not only the case for frontal collisions, where occupant restraint is provided primarily by seatbelts and airbags, but is also critical for other crash modes such as side impacts, rear impacts, rollovers, as well as multiple impact events. In the rear impact crash mode, occupant restraint is provided primarily by the seatbacks and to some extent the seatbelts. Foundationally, therefore, what becomes fundamental to the seatback's role in rear occupant protection is its ability to contain the occupant within the seat, preventing occupant ramping, as well as preventing the seat's, and/or its occupant's, dangerous intrusion into the rear occupant's survival space where contact with rear compartment components and/ or rear seated occupants can present a significant injury risk. An analysis is presented of a series of rear impact sled testing conducted by the authors that evaluates the timing, position and extent of the front seatback's reward displacement toward and into the rear occupant compartment as well as consideration of the front seat occupant' ramping potential and its injury potential relative to the rear compartment. Additionally, three other series of testing are presented which assess various seat designs occupant retention capabilities. Lastly, a matched-pair comparison test series is presented which evaluates occupant motion in rear impact with and without use of a typical vehicle body mounted 3-point seatbelt. Discussion of restraint system performance observed in all the testing is included along with ATD biofidelity and thigh-gap considerations. The data collected and presented includes accelerometer instrumentation and high speed video analysis.
Seit 1997 gibt es in Europa unter dem Namen Euro NCAP (European New Car Assessment Programme) einheitliche Test- und Ratingverfahren. Sie liefern Informationen über den Insassen- und über den Fußgängerschutz. Euro NCAP hat seither fast 90 Fahrzeugmodelle in jeweils drei unterschiedlichen Crashtest-Konfigurationen untersucht und die Ergebnisse den europäischen Konsumenten zugänglich gemacht. Im Beitrag wird auf die Testbedingungen, die Euro NCAP-Ratingverfahren sowie auf die Weiterentwicklung von Euro NCAP eingegangen. Ein wichtiger Aspekt wird dabei auch die weltweite Harmonisierung der Test- und Ratingverfahren sein.
One main objective of the EU-Project SENIORS is to provide improved methods to assess thoracic injury risk to elderly occupants. In contribution to this task paired simulations with a THOR dummy model and human body model will be used to develop improved thoracic injury risk functions. The simulation results can provide data for injury criteria development in chest loading conditions that are underrepresented in PMHS test data sets that currently proposed risk functions are based on. To support this approach a new simplified generic but representative sled test fixture and CAE model for testing and simulation were developed. The parameter definition and evaluation of this sled test fixture and model is presented in this paper. The justification and definition of requirements for this test set-up was based on experience from earlier studies. Simple test fixtures like the gold standard sled fixture are easy to build and also to model in CAE, but provide too severe belt-only loading. On the other hand a vehicle buck including production components like airbag and seat is more representative, but difficult to model and to be replicated at a different laboratory. Furthermore some components might not be available for physical tests at later stage. The basis of the SENIORS generic sled test set-up is the gold standard fixture with a cable seat back and foot rest. No knee restraint was used. The seat pan design was modified including a seat ramp. The three-point belt system had a generic adjustable load limiter. A pre-inflated driver airbag assembly was developed for the test fixture. Results of THOR test and simulations in different configurations will be presented. The configurations include different deceleration pulses. Further parameter variations are related to the restraint system including belt geometry and load limiter levels. Additionally different settings of the generic airbag were evaluated. The test set-up was evaluated and optimized in tests with the THOR-M dummy in different test configurations. Belt restraint parameters like D-ring position and load limiter setting were modified to provide moderate chest loading to the occupant. This resulted in dummy readings more representative of the loading in a contemporary vehicle than most available PMHS sled tests reported in the literature. However, to achieve a loading configuration that exposes the occupant to even less severe loading comparable to modern vehicle restraints it might be necessary to further modify the test set-up. The new generic sled test set-up and a corresponding CAE model were developed and applied in tests and simulations with THOR. Within the SENIORS project with this test set-up also volunteer and PMHS as well as HBM simulations are performed, which will be reported in other publications. The test environment can contribute in future studies to the assessment of existing and new frontal impact dummies as well as dummy improvements and related instrumentation. The test set-up and model could also serve as a new standard test environment for PMHS and volunteer tests as well as HBM simulations.