Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Article (1)
Has Fulltext
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Passives Sicherheitssystem (3) (remove)
Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems for pedestrians have been predicted to offer substantial benefit. On this basis, consumer rating programmes, e.g. Euro NCAP, are developing rating schemes to encourage fitment of these systems. One of the questions that needs to be answered to do this fully, is to determine how the assessment of the speed reduction offered by the AEB is integrated with the current assessment of the passive safety for mitigation of pedestrian injury. Ideally, this should be done on a benefit related basis. The objective of this research was to develop a benefit based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with pre-crash braking and passive safety components. A methodology has been developed which calculates the cost of pedestrian injury expected, assuming all pedestrians in the target population (i.e. pedestrians impacted by the front of a passenger car) are impacted by the car being assessed, taking into account the impact speed reduction offered by the car’s AEB (if fitted) and the passive safety protection offered by the car’s frontal structure. For rating purposes, this cost can be normalised by comparing it to the cost calculated for selected cars. The methodology uses the speed reductions measured in AEB tests to determine the speed at which each casualty in the target population will be impacted. The injury to each casualty is then calculated using the results from standard Euro NCAP pedestrian impactor tests and injury risk curves. This injury is converted into cost using ‘Harm’ type costs for the body regions tested. These costs are weighted and summed. Weighting factors were determined using accident data from Germany and GB and the results of a benefit analysis performed by the EU FP7 AsPeCSS project. This resulted in German and GB versions of the methodology. The methodology was used to assess cars with good, average and poor Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings, with and without a current AEB system fitted. It was found that the decrease in casualty injury cost achieved by fitting an AEB system was approximately equivalent to that achieved by increasing the passive safety rating from poor to average. Also, it was found that the assessment was influenced strongly by the level of head protection offered in the scuttle and windscreen area because this is where head impact occurs for a large proportion of casualties. The major limitation within the methodology is the assumption used implicitly during weighting. This is that the cost of casualty injuries to body areas, such as the thorax, not assessed by the headform and legform impactors, and other casualty injuries such as those caused by ground impact, are related linearly to the cost of casualty injuries assessed by the impactors. A methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems was developed. This methodology is of interest to consumer rating programmes which wish to include assessment of these systems. It also raises the interesting issue if the head impact test area should be weighted to reflect better real-world benefit.
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.
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.