Airbag-Systeme können, wie frühere Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, die passive Sicherheit von Motorrädern wirksam verbessern. Der vorliegende Forschungsbericht betrachtet die Übertragbarkeit von Pkw-Airbag-Konzepten auf das Motorrad und befasst sich vor allem mit dem Problem der motorradgerechten und sicheren Auslösung des Airbags. Die Funktion des Motorradairbags unterscheidet sich von der des Pkw-Airbags in entscheidender Weise durch die Möglichkeit, die Flugbahn des Fahrers bei einem Zusammenstoß mit einem rechtwinklig vor dem Motorrad befindlichen Pkw so zu beeinflussen, dass dieser das Hindernis ohne einen harten Anprall überfliegen kann. Der Abbau der kinetischen Energie des Fahrers geschieht so nicht in der kurzen Knautschzone vor dem Kollisionsobjekt, sondern in der meist ausreichend langen Auslaufzone dahinter. Der Motorradairbag kann am vorderen Tankbereich angebracht sein. Fülltechnik und Gewebematerial können vom Pkw direkt übernommen werden; jedoch ist die Nahtführung zu verstärken, da der Motorradairbag vorwiegend auf Scherung beansprucht wird. Gravierende Unterschiede ergeben sich in der Sensierung eines Crashs, da durch das an der Telegabel geführte Vorderrad signifikante Verzögerungsanstiege des Motorrades erst sehr spät erfolgen. Es ist daher nicht möglich, wie beim Pkw den Airbag allein über Beschleunigungsaufnehmer zu zünden. Schwerpunkt des Berichtes sind daher verschiedene Vorschläge, bei heute üblichen Motorradkonstruktionen einen Crash für eine Airbagauslösung rechtzeitig und sicher sensieren zu können. Zu charakteristischen Unfall-Ereignissen werden Sensoren nach verschiedenen Wirkprinzipien geordnet vorgestellt. Nach einer technischen Bewertung erweisen sich zwei Sensorvarianten als geeignet für eine zuverlässige Zündung des Airbag; gleichzeitig kann mit einer logischen Verknüpfung ihrer Signale eine Fehlauslösung sicher vermieden werden. Die ausgewählten und näher beschriebenen Sensoren registrieren den Druckanstieg im Vorderradreifen und die plastische Verformung der Telegabel. Damit ist eine Sensierung des Aufpralls rechtzeitig möglich. Je nach Größe und Dauer der Verzögerung kann der Druck des Luftkissens verändert werden, so dass der Motorradairbag in Abhängigkeit der Fahrgeschwindigkeit nur aufpralldämpfend oder flugbahnbeeinflussend wirkt. Testprogramme zur weiteren Entwicklung von Airbagsensoren für Motorräder werden als Forschungsbedarf näher erläutert.
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.
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.
The need of passive safety devices, able to reduce the accidents and the severity of injuries suffered by motorcyclist, distinctly arises from data on accident statistics. In this paper, the effectiveness of an airbag device fitted in the biker- garments has been verified through various numerical simulations. Two simple test conditions were defined, in order to investigate the performance of the device both for back and front impacts, and simulated at various impact speeds. With the aim of providing more information about the actual capability of the airbag to reduce the severity of the injuries, one of accident scenario described by ISO 13232:2005 has been also investigated, checking the real effectiveness of the airbag strap-based firing system too. Confrontation of injury indexes resulting from simulation with and without airbag made possible a realistic evaluation of the harm reduction induced by the airbag presence.
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.
Mit der flächendeckenden Einführung des Beifahrerairbags ergab sich das Problem der nachträglich festgestellten Inkompatibilität mit rückwärts gerichten Kindersitzen. Zahlreiche tödliche Unfälle mit Babyschalen, insbesondere in den USA, führten unter anderem dazu, dass in den Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union die Beförderung von Kindern in einem rückwärtsgerichteten Kinderschutzsystem auf einem mit Frontairbag geschützten Autositz untersagt wurde, sofern der Airbag nicht deaktiviert wurde. Heute gibt es eine Vielzahl an Möglichkeiten, die dem Nutzer zur Abschaltung des Airbags zur Verfügung stehen. Mit der Notwendigkeit der Abschaltung ergibt sich die Gefahr zweier Arten der Fehlbenutzung: die Beförderung eines Kindes in einer Babyschale trotz aktivierten Airbags beziehungsweise die Mitfahrt eines erwachsenen Insassen trotz deaktivierten Airbags. Im Rahmen dieser Studie wurden zu den beiden Fehlbenutzungsarten Beobachtungs- und Befragungsstudien durchgeführt, Unfalldaten in Hinblick auf die Problematik der Fehlbenutzung der Airbagabschaltung analysiert und Versuche zur erneuten Bewertung des Risikos, das durch heutige und zukünftige Airbagsysteme ausgeht, durchgeführt. In den Umfragen ließen sich nur schwer Daten zum Missbrauch bei der Beförderung von Kindern mit Airbag auf dem Beifahrersitz erfassen. Es kommt insgesamt zu nur wenigen Fällen des Transports eines Kindes auf dem Beifahrersitz mit aktivem Airbag, was zum einen an der hohen Abschaltquote des Beifahrerairbags liegt, zum anderen an der Präferenz der Eltern, die Kinder auf dem Rücksitz zu transportieren. Der Großteil dieser Fehlbenutzungsfälle entsteht in älteren Pkw, die einen Werkstattaufenthalt für die Deaktivierung/Aktivierung erfordern. Keine Missbräuche beziehungsweise technische Fehler fanden sich bei den Systemen mit automatischer Sitzerkennung. Der überwiegende Anteil der Missbrauchsfälle bei den Modellen mit manueller Umschaltmöglichkeit geht offenbar auf Vergessen zurück. Der Missbrauch zweiter Art wird ebenfalls wirkungsvoll durch automatische Systeme verhindert. Bei dieser Beförderungskonstellation ergibt sich jedoch praktisch immer ein Problem, wenn der Beifahrerairbag in einer Werkstatt deaktiviert wurde. Die dadurch für einen erwachsenen Mitfahrer entstehende Gefährdung wird als weniger gravierend eingeschätzt. Bei der manuellen Umschaltung im Fahrzeug verbleibt ebenfalls ein Vergessensproblem wie beim Missbrauch erster Art. Auch die Unfallanalyse deutet auf eine geringe Fehlbenutzungsquote hin. Von den untersuchten GIDAS-Frontalaufprallunfällen mit über 300 betroffenen Kindern nutzten lediglich 24 Kinder den Beifahrerplatz in einem Auto, das mit einem Beifahrerairbag ausgestattet war. In den meisten Fällen war der Airbag vorschriftsmäßig deaktiviert. In den nachgewiesenen Fehlbenutzungsfällen waren die Unfallfolgen für die betroffenen Babys gering. Die untersuchten Einzelfälle zeigen jedoch die tödliche Gefahr, die vom Beifahrerairbag ausgehen kann. Auf der technischen Seite gab es im Lauf der letzten Jahre grundsätzliche Veränderungen im Bereich der Gestaltung des Beifahrerairbags. Während bei der früheren Einbauposition des Airbags die Schale direkt angeschossen wurde, entfaltet sich dieser heutzutage eher nach oben, stützt sich an der Windschutzscheibe ab und kommt danach erst mit der Schale in Kontakt. Da er in diesem Zustand aber schon weitestgehend voll entfaltet ist, besitzt er zu diesem Zeitpunkt kaum noch die Aggressivität, die bei den Beifahrerairbags der ersten Generation beobachtet werden konnte, und stellt somit wahrscheinlich eine geringere Gefahr für das Kleinkind in der Babyschale dar. Damit lässt sich ein deutlicher Trend in Richtung weniger gefährlicher Airbags erkennen. Der Originalbericht enthält als Anhänge den Abdruck des Expertenfragebogen, die Zusammenfassung der Expertenbefragung, den Umdruck der Online-Befragung sowie den Fragebogen der Feldbefragung "Kindersitze und Airbag auf dem Beifahrersitz". Auf die Widergabe dieser Anhänge wurde in der vorliegenden Veröffentlichung verzichtet. Sie liegen bei der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen vor und sind dort einsehbar. Verweise auf die Anhänge im Berichtstext wurden zur Information des Lesers beibehalten.
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).
Airbags are, together with the three-point belt, the most effective passive safety equipment of vehicles. However, literature shows that sound pressure levels of up to 170 dB can occur during airbag deployment. A literature review revealed no systematic experimental data on possible hearing loss by airbag deployment, that also takes any other crash accompanied noise into account, such as deformation and impact noise. Also the rising number of airbags per vehicle resulting in a higher number of deployed airbags in an accident was not addressed with respect to hearing loss. Thus, an extensive test matrix of noise measurements during airbag deployments was conducted including onboard measuring during crashes and static measurements. Dynamic and static experiments with single and multiple airbag deployments were conducted. The results of this study show, that in the analyzed crash constellations the acoustic emission of the collision as well as the car deformation can trigger the stapedius reflex before the airbag deployment. The stapedius reflex protects the inner ear at least partially in case of dangerous sound levels. However, it seems that multiple airbag deployments in a short sequence pose a considerable risk for hearing impairments despite the fully contracted stapedius muscle. Further and in line with Price et al. (2013) it was found that the risk of hearing loss is lower with closed windows. The analysis of patient and accident data showed no link between airbag deployment and hearing loss. This might be caused by low case numbers of reported hearing loss problems up to now. In conclusion the results show that a singular analysis of the sound pressure of airbag deployments without crash accompanied noises is not sufficient as the protective effect of the stapedius reflex is neglected. Still, successive airbag deployments in a short timeframe raise the risk of hearing loss. Further investigation on hearing impairment due to airbag deployment and triggering of the stapedius reflex is needed and the data acquisition of accidents and patients should consider hearing loss aspects.
This paper gives an overview of the in-depth crash investigation activity conducted by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR) at the University of Adelaide, in South Australia. Recent changes in method include: an expansion in on-call hours for the crash investigation team, providing the option of a phone interview for crash participants to discuss the crash, and downloading objective crash data from vehicle airbag control modules. These changes have resulted in: increased representativeness of crashes by hour of day; a decrease in the over-representation of fatal crashes in our sample; an increase in the proportion of crashes that involved a pedestrian, bicycle or scooter (moped); an increase in the proportion of crash participants consenting to an interview; and an increase in the objective data available, through airbag control module downloads. Our in-depth crash investigations enabled research into road departures that found barriers were a more feasible solution than clear zones for eliminating serious and fatal injury resulting from run off road crashes.
Nowadays airbags are part of the standard equipment in almost all new cars. While airbags are saving an increasing number of people from severe injuries and death in moderate and high speed crashes, they do not completely prevent dashboard injuries. The most common mechanism in dashboard injuries is a posteriorly directed force to the proximal tibia with the knee flexed. This may occur during a motor vehicle frontal impact accident when a knee of the driver or the front-seat passenger strikes the dashboard. The posterior force can be combined with a abducting or rotational force leading to concomitant lateral or posterolateral injury. Car and airbag manufacturers therefore develop special inflatable systems to reduce the impact force in dashboard injuries. Every new inflatable system, however, has to be evaluated in out of position situations in which the system might cause injuries to certain body areas. Therefore, we investigated a new kneebag system in different critical seating positions of post mortem test subjects (PMTS). The tested knee airbag module is a folded airbag (18 litre volume) which is installed below the lower section of the instrument panel of a passenger car. Using four PMTS (2 male, 2 female, age 36"67) the following positions were tested: normal seating position, knee flexed >90 degrees and knee flexed <60 degrees in static deployment tests with direct contact. In addition a dynamic test (48.8kph, AAMA-pulse) was carried out with the PMTS belted in a normal seating position. The inflation phase and the impact of the system on the knee/lower leg were analysed by high speed videos. After the test the lower legs of the PMTS were examined by Xray and autopsy. All soft tissue injuries and bone fractures were recorded. All the tests could be evaluated. Except some superficial skin lesions in the impact area no fracture of the bones around the knee and no knee ligament and tendon injuries were observed. Neither video analysis nor autopsy of the PMTS showed any critical contact injuries caused by the inflation process of the bag. Therefore, it can be concluded that in the tested seating positions which are the most critical for the knee area the knee bag system is safe.