Die UNECE Regelung R58 regelt die Beschaffenheit und die Installation von Heckunterfahrschutzsystemen an schweren Güterkraftfahrzeugen, deren Ziel die Verbesserung der Kompabilität zwischen Pkw-Frontstrukturen und Lkw-Hecks ist. Dennoch verunglücken laut amtlicher Unfallstatistik allein in Deutschland rund 30 Pkw-Insassen in Heckauffahrunfällen auf Lkw tödlich, da diese Vorrichtungen hinsichtlich Einbauhöhe und Steifigkeit den Anforderungen des realen Unfallgeschehens nicht genügen. Das Ziel dieser Studie ist eine quantitative Abschätzung der möglichen Reduzierung der Verletzungsschwere mit Hilfe eines statistischen Modells, die durch eine Anpassung der geltenden Bestimmungen und die damit verbundenen technischen Veränderungen des bereits vorgeschriebenen Heckunterfahrschutzes zu erreichen wäre. In einer Nutzen-Kosten-Analyse wird die Wirtschaftlichkeit dieser Modifizierungen mit einem idealen Notbremsassistenten verglichen. Die Untersuchung orientiert sich dabei an den aktuell in der UN-ECE WP29/GRSG in Genf diskutierten Vorschlägen zur Anpassung der ECE-R58. Das verwendete ordinale Probit-Modell stellt einen Zusammenhang zwischen der Verletzungsschwere im auffahrenden PKW und erklärenden Größen her, in diesem Fall der kinetischen Energie des unterfahrenden Pkws und der strukturellen lnteraktion zwischen Lkw-Heck und Pkw-Front. Diese Maßnahmen könnten demnach 53 - 78% der Getöteten sowie 27 - 49% der Schwerverletzten bei diesen Unfallkonstellationen reduzieren, was pro Jahr 20 Getöteten und 95 Schwerverletzten entsprechen würde. Somit würde eine Modifikation einer bestehenden passiven Schutzmaßnahme an jährlich 100.000 neuzugelassenen Lkw und Anhängern bereits 20 Getötete adressieren. Im Vergleich dazu müssten jährlich 3 Millionen Pkw mit zusätzlicher Sensorik und Aktuatorik für einen idealen Notbremsassistenten ausgestattet werden, um im Idealfall alle Heckauffahrunfälle von Pkw auf andere Pkw oder Lkw und damit 53 Getötete zu vermeiden. Daher fällt auch das Nutzen-Kosten-Verhältnis deutlich zugunsten des verbesserten Heckunterfahrschutzes aus.
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.
Past European collaborative research involving government bodies, vehicle manufacturers and test laboratories has resulted in a prototype barrier face called the Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (AE-MDB) for use in a new side impact test procedure . This procedure offers a better representation of the current accident situation and, in particular, the barrier concept is a better reflection of front-end stiffness seen in today- passenger car fleet compared to that of the current legislative barrier face. Based on the preliminary performance corridors of the prototype AE-MDB, a refined AE-MDB specification has been developed. A programme of barrier to load cell wall testing was undertaken to complete and standardise the AE-MDB specification. Barrier faces were supplied by the four leading manufacturers to demonstrate that the specification could be met by all. This paper includes background, specification and proof of compliance.