Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (45) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Impact test (veh) (45) (entfernen)
Institut
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions compatibility (which consists of self and partner protection) between opponents is crucial. Although compatibility has been analysed worldwide for over 10 years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and frontal impact working group (WG15) and the FP5 VC-COMPAT project activities, two test approaches have been identified as the most promising candidates for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed of an off-set and a full overlap test procedure. In addition another procedure (a test with a moving deformable barrier) is getting more attention in current research programmes. The overall objective of the FIMCAR project is to complete the development of the candidate test procedures and propose a set of test procedures suitable for regulatory application to assess and control a vehicle- frontal impact and compatibility crash safety. In addition an associated cost benefit analysis should be performed. The objectives of the work reported in this deliverable were to review existing full-width test procedures and their discussed compatibility metrics, to report recent activities and findings with respect to full-width assessment procedures and to assess test procedures and metrics. Starting with a review of previous work, candidate metrics and associated performance limits to assess a vehicle- structural interaction potential, in particular its structural alignment, have been developed for both the Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB) and Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB) tests. Initial work was performed to develop a concept to assess a vehicle- frontal force matching. However, based on the accident analyses performed within FIMCAR frontal force matching was not evaluated as a first priority and thus in line with FIMCAR strategy the focus was put on the development of metrics for the assessment of structural interaction which was evaluated as a first priority.
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions compatibility (which consists of self and partner protection) between opponents is crucial. Although compatibility has been analysed worldwide for over 10 years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and the final report to the steering committee on frontal impact [Faerber 2007] and the FP5 VC-COMPAT[Edwards 2007] project activities, two test approaches were identified as the most promising candidates for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed of an off-set and a full overlap test procedure. In addition another procedure (a test with a moving deformable barrier) is getting more attention in current research programmes. The overall objective of the FIMCAR project is to complete the development of the candidate test procedures and propose a set of test procedures suitable for regulatory application to assess and control a vehicle- frontal impact and compatibility crash safety. In addition an associated cost benefit analysis will be performed. In the FIMCAR Deliverable D 3.1 [Adolph 2013] the development and assessment of criteria and associated performance limits for the full width test procedure were reported. In this Deliverable D3.2 analyses of the test data (full width tests, car-to-car tests and component tests), further development and validation of the full width assessment protocol and development of the load cell and load cell wall specification are reported. The FIMCAR full-width assessment procedure consists of a 50 km/h test against the Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB). The Load Cell Wall behind the deformable element assesses whether or not important Energy Absorbing Structures are within the Common Interaction Zone as defined based on the US part 581 zone. The metric evaluates the row forces and requires that the forces directly above and below the centre line of the Common Interaction Zone exceed a minimum threshold. Analysis of the load spreading showed that metrics that rely on sum forces of rows and columns are within acceptable tolerances. Furthermore it was concluded that the Repeatability and Reproducibility of the FWDB test is acceptable. The FWDB test was shown to be capable to detect lower load paths that are beneficial in car-to-car impacts.
Falltests zur Untersuchung der Belastungen von Dummys beim Aufprall auf den Boden, Teil 1 und 2
(2010)
Beim Zusammenprall eines Motorrads mit einem Pkw unterscheidet man in der Unfallforschung sowohl den Erstanprall des Motorradfahrers an den Pkw als auch den Sekundäraufprall des Motorradfahrers auf dem Boden. So genannte Full-Scale-Crashtests mit Dummys haben beim Erstanprall gezeigt, dass Motorradfahrer durch Airbags potenziell geschützt werden können. Bei den entsprechenden Unfallsimulationen wurde jedoch im weiteren Bewegungsablauf beim nachfolgenden Sekundäraufprall auf dem Boden festgestellt, dass relativ hohe Belastungen auf den Dummy einwirken. Es stellt sich hierbei jedoch die Frage, ob die üblicherweise für Lasteinwirkungen im Falle eines Erstanpralls entwickelten und validierten Dummys die bei einem Sekundäraufprall auf einen Motorradfahrer einwirkenden Belastungen hinreichend genau wiedergeben können. Dazu wurden die Belastungen eines Dummys beim Aufprall auf den Boden untersucht, um das Verletzungsrisiko eines menschlichen Motorradfahrers einschätzen zu können. Im Dekra-Crash-Test-Center wurden vier verschiedene Aufprallsituationen mit einem Hybrid III Dummy durchgeführt, wobei diese Tests an eine andere Testreihe angelehnt sind, die bereits am US-amerikanischen Institut "Dynamic Research International" (DRI) durchgeführt worden waren. Nach der Erläuterung des Testaufbaus und seiner Durchführung wird detailliert auf die gemessenen Verzögerungsbelastungen des Dummys eingegangen. Hierbei geben zum einen Tabellen eine Übersicht über charakteristische Messwerte zur Quantifizierung der maximalen Belastung des Dummys, zum anderen veranschaulichen Bilder die zugehörigen zeitlichen Verzögerungsverläufe in Becken, Brust und Kopf des Dummys. Der Artikel schließt mit einer Interpretation der Versuchsergebnisse und gibt einen Ausblick auf den weiteren Untersuchungsbedarf.
Side-impact safety of passenger cars is assessed in Europe in a full-scale test using a moving barrier. The front of this barrier is deformable and represents the stiffness of an 'average' car. The EU Directive 96/27/EC on side impact protection has adopted the EEVC Side Impact Test Procedure, including the original performance specification for the barrier face when impacting a flat dynamometric rigid wall. The requirements of the deformable barrier face, as laid down in the Directive, are related to geometrical characteristics, deformation characteristics and energy dissipation figures. Due to these limited requirements, many variations are possible in designing a deformable barrier face. As a result, several barrier face designs are in the market. However, research institutes and car manufacturers report significant difference in test results when using these different devices. It appears that the present approval test is not able to distinguish between the different designs that may perform differently when they impact real vehicles. Therefore, EEVC Working Group 13 has developed a number of tests to evaluate the different designs. In these tests the barrier faces are loaded and deformed in a specific and/or more representative way. Barrier faces of different design have been evaluated. In the paper the set-up and the reasoning behind the tests is presented. Results showing specific differences in performance are demonstrated.
Teil A: Etwa 25% aller Straßenverkehrsunfälle sind Anfahrten gegen seitliche Hindernisse. Diese Unfälle sind im Allgemeinen auch folgenschwer. Seitlich der Fahrbahn stehende Gegenstände der Straßenausstattung müssen deshalb zur Verbesserung der passiven Sicherheit so verformbar (umfahrbar) ausgebildet werden, dass die Unfallfolgen eines Anpralles möglichst gering bleiben oder es müssen Schutzeinrichtungen angeordnet werden. Im Rahmen dieses Forschungsauftrages sollten in Anfahrversuchen solche Gegenstände der Straßenausstattung untersucht werden, die bei Unfällen als gefährliche seitliche Hindernisse anzusehen sind. In einem 5-Jahres-Versuchsprogramm sollten geprüft werden: - Senkrechte Hindernisse wie großflächige seitlich aufgestellte Verkehrsschilder, Notrufsäulen u.a. - abweisende Schutzeinrichtungen für spezielle Anwendungsfälle wie Sicherung von Mittelstreifenüberfahrten, Schutzplanken vor Lärmschutzwänden u.a. Die Ergebnisse anderer Forschungsstellen sollten berücksichtigt werden. Mit Frankreich wurde eine arbeitsteilige Zusammenarbeit vereinbart. Der vorliegende Teil I des Schlussberichtes enthält die Zielsetzung des Gesamtprogramms, eine Zusammenstellung der Versuchsobjekte, die Kriterien für die Versuchsbedingungen und die Bewertung der Versuche, die Planung und den Bau der Anfahrversuchsstrecke sowie Angaben zur technischen Durchführung der Versuche. Die Ergebnisse der einzelnen Versuchsreihen werden in weiteren getrennten Berichten mitgeteilt. Teil B: In Anfahrversuchen wurden Aufstellvorrichtungen für Verkehrsschilder großer Abmessungen aus Gabelständern und aus Profilständern (U-Profilträger oder Rundrohrpfosten) daraufhin geprüft, ob sie im Sinne der passiven Sicherheit als leicht verformbar (umfahrbar) gelten oder umfahrbar gestaltet werden können. Die Versuchsschilder mit bis zu 4 m hohen Tafeln wurden mit leichten PKW bei Anfahrgeschwindigkeiten von 100 bzw. 40 km/h frontal gegen einen von zwei Ständern angefahren. Die 7 mit Gabelständern durchgeführten Versuche haben gezeigt, dass diese bei geeigneter Befestigung der Tafeln (z. B. Aluminiumklemmschellen) und bei nicht überdimensionierter Befestigung auf dem Fundament als umfahrbar angesehen werden können, wenn sie aus Rohren bis zu 76 mm Durchmesser und bis ca. 3 mm Wandstärke bestehen. Dasselbe gilt für die Aufstellung mit Rohrpfosten der Stärke bis 76 x 3,2 mm (Versuch mit einer Pfeiltafel von 2,6 m2). Verkehrsschilder an Profilständern ohne Sollbruchstellen müssen, wie drei Versuche übereinstimmend gezeigt haben, schon bei kleinen Abmessungen als nicht umfahrbare Hindernisse angesehen werden. Solche Verkehrsschilder sind durch Schutzeinrichtungen abzusichern. Aufgrund der Versuchsergebnisse können Empfehlungen für die konstruktive Ausbildung von Aufstellvorrichtungen für seitlich aufgestellte Verkehrsschilder großer Abmessungen gegeben werden.
The frontal crash is still an important contributor to deaths and serious injured resulting from road accidents in Europe. As the Hybrid-III dummy used in crash tests is over two decades old, the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee is studying the potential for a new test device. Key is the availability of a well-defined set of requirements that identifies the minimum level of biofidelity required for an advanced frontal dummy. In this paper, a complete set of frontal impact biofidelity requirements, consisting of references , description of test conditions and corridors, is presented.
Cost benefit analysis
(2014)
Although the number of road accident casualties in Europe is falling the problem still remains substantial. In 2011 there were still over 30,000 road accident fatalities [EC 2012]. Approximately half of these were car occupants and about 60 percent of these occurred in frontal impacts. The next stage to improve a car- safety performance in frontal impacts is to improve its compatibility for car-to-car impacts and for collisions against objects and HGVs. Compatibility consists of improving both a car- self and partner protection in a manner such that there is good interaction with the collision partner and the impact energy is absorbed in the car- frontal structures in a controlled way which results in a reduction of injuries. Over the last ten years much research has been performed which has found that there are four main factors related to a car- compatibility [Edwards 2003, Edwards 2007]. These are structural interaction potential, frontal force matching, compartment strength and the compartment deceleration pulse and related restraint system performance. The objective of the FIMCAR FP7 EC-project was to develop an assessment approach suitable for regulatory application to control a car- frontal impact and compatibility crash performance and perform an associated cost benefit analysis for its implementation.
Thoracic injury is one of the predominant types of severe injuries in frontal accidents. The assessment of the injury risk to the thorax in the current frontal impact test procedures is based on the uni-axial chest deflection measured in the dummy Hybrid III. Several studies have shown that criteria based on the linear chest potentiometer are not sensitive enough to distinguish between different restraint systems, and cannot indicate asymmetric chest loading, which has been shown to correlate to increased injury risk. Furthermore, the measurement is sensitive to belt position on the dummy chest. The objective of this study was to evaluate the optical multipoint chest deflection measurement system "RibEye" in frontal impact sled tests. Therefore the sensitivity of the RibEyesystem to different restraint system parameters was investigated. Furthermore, the issue of signal drop out at the 6 th rib was investigated in this study.A series of sled tests were conducted with the RibEye system in the Hybrid III 50%. The sled environment consisted of a rigid seat and a standard production three-point seat belt system. Rib deflections were recorded with the RibEye system and additionally with the standard chest potentiometer. The tests were carried out at crash pulses of two different velocities (30 km/h and 64 km/h). The tests were conducted with different belt routing to investigate the sensitivity of chest deflection measurements to belt position on the dummy chest. Furthermore, different restraint system parameters were investigated (force limiter level, with or without pretensioning) to evaluate if the RibEye measurements provide additional information to distinguish between restraint system configurations . The results showed that with the RibEye system it was possible to identify the effect of belt routing in more detail. The chest deflections measured with the standard chest potentiometer as well as the maximum deflection measured by RibEye allowed the distinction to be made between different force limiter levels. The RibEye system was also able to clearly show the asymmetric deflection of the rib cage due to belt loading. In some configurations, differences of more than 15 mm were observed between the left and side areas of the chest. Furthermore, the abdomen insert was identified as source of the problem of signal drop out at the 6th rib. Possible solutions are discussed. In conclusion, the RibEye system provided valuable additional information regarding the assessment of restraint systems. It has the potential to enable the evaluation of thoracic injury risk due to asymmetric loading. Further investigations with the RibEye should be extended to tests in a vehicle environment, which include a vehicle seat and other restraint system components such as an airbag.
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.
In the EC FP6 Integrated Project Advanced Protection Systems, APROSYS, the first WorldSID small female prototype was developed and evaluated by BASt, FTSS, INRETS, TRL and UPM-INSIA during 2006 and 2007. Results were presented at the ESV 2007 conference (Been et al., 2007). With the prototype dummy scoring a biofidelity rating higher than 6.7 out of 10 according to ISO/TR9790, the results were very promising. Also opportunities for further development were identified by the evaluation group. A revised prototype, Revision1, was subsequently developed in the 2007-2008 period to address comments from the evaluation group. The Revision1 dummy includes changes in the half arms and the suit (anthropometry and arm biomechanics), the thorax and abdomen ribs and sternum (rib durability), the abdomen/lumbar area and the lower legs (mass distribution). Also a two-dimensional chest deflection measurement system was developed to measure deflection in both lateral and anterior-posterior direction to improve oblique thorax loading sensitivity. Two Revision1 prototype dummies have now been evaluated by FTSS, TRL, UPM-INSIA and BASt. The updated prototype dummies were subjected to an extensive matrix of biomechanical tests, such as full body pendulum tests and lateral sled impact tests as specified by Wayne State University, Heidelberg University and Medical College of Wisconsin. The results indicated a significant improvement of dummy biofidelity. The overall dummy biofidelity in the ISO rating system has significantly improved from 6.7 to 7.6 on a scale between 0-10. The small female WorldSID has now obtained the same biofidelity rating as the WorldSID mid size male dummy. Also repeatability improved with respect to the prototype. In conclusion the recommended updates were all executed and all successfully contributed in achieving improved performance of the dummy.
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.
Schutzeinrichtungen in Arbeitsstellen unter Berücksichtigung zukünftiger europäischer Anforderungen
(1998)
Die europäischen Normentwürfe für passive Schutzeinrichtungen, prEN 1317 Teil 1 und 2, werden voraussichtlich im Laufe des Jahres 1998 veröffentlicht. Damit ist die Grundlage geschaffen worden, passive Schutzeinrichtungen nach einheitlichen Anforderungen zu prüfen. Passive Schutzeinrichtungen, die in Deutschland im Straßenverkehr eingesetzt werden sollen, müssen ihre Eignung grundsätzlich in Anprallversuchen unter Beweis stellen. Die Durchführung der Anprallversuche erfolgt in Deutschland durch die BASt in Kooperation mit dem TÜV Süddeutschland. Für die transportablen Schutzeinrichtungen erarbeitet die BASt zur Zeit eine Liste der erfolgreich geprüften Systeme. Neben dem System und Hersteller werden die wichtigsten Ergebnisse der Prüfungen und die Mindestaufstellänge aufgeführt. Mit dieser Liste und den Daten erhalten die Anwender eine bessere Übersicht über die zugelassenen Systeme und können dies in ihren Ausschreibungen berücksichtigen.
Passive Schutzeinrichtungen wie Stahlschutzplanken und Betonschutzwände werden in Deutschland bereits seit den 1950er Jahren eingesetzt und spielen seitdem eine bedeutende Rolle für die passive Sicherheit auf unseren Straßen. Die Entwicklung von passiven Schutzeinrichtungen lässt sich in mehrere Zeitabschnitte von den Anfängen in den 1930er Jahren über die Normung auf europäischer Ebene in den 1990er Jahren bis heute untergliedern. Die Entwicklung der heute bekannten und eingesetzten Stahlschutzplankensysteme hat ihren Ursprung in umfangreichen Versuchsreihen in den 1960er Jahren. Nicht zuletzt auch auf Grund der europäischen Normung ist in den letzten Jahren eine Vielzahl von neuen Systemen hinzugekommen. Jedes System, das auf europäischen Straßen zukünftig eingesetzt werden soll, muss seine Leistungsfähigkeit nach den Vorgaben der Europäischen Normen beweisen. Darin werden einheitliche Anforderungen für die Wirkungsweise von Schutzeinrichtungen bei der Abnahmeprüfung mittels Anprallversuchen festgelegt. Die Auswahl für die nationale Verwendbarkeit der Systeme und deren Einsatzbereiche wird auch weiterhin in nationalen Richtlinien geregelt. Diese zu erarbeiten und umzusetzen, stellt die große Herausforderung für die nächsten Jahre dar.
Ausgelöst durch die auch auf dem Gebiet der passiven Schutzeinrichtungen voranschreitende europäische Harmonisierung sind die nach den "Richtlinien für passive Schutzeinrichtungen an Straßen" in Deutschland am häufigsten eingesetzten Schutzeinrichtungen durch Anprallversuche untersucht worden. Vorrangiges Ziel war die Qualifizierung der Systeme nach den Anforderungen der bereits existierenden Europäischen Normen EN 1317 "Rückhaltesysteme an Straßen". Dazu wurden insgesamt 19 Anprallversuche mit Pkw, Lkw und Bussen als Versuchsfahrzeuge an einer 81 cm hohen Ortbetonschutzwand im "New-Jersey"-Profil und an sechs Stahlschutzsystemen durchgeführt. Die Stahlschutzsysteme ESP 4,0 (B-Profil) sowie EDSP 2,0 (B-Profil) und EDSP 1,33 (B-Profil) besitzen die erwartete Leistungsfähigkeit. Sofern die neuen nationalen Richtlinien für den Einsatz von Fahrzeugrückhaltesystemen, die zur Zeit erarbeitet werden, keine höheren als die bislang geltenden Aufhaltestufen festlegen, können diese Systeme - unter Beachtung der jeweiligen Wirkungsbereiche - weiter verwendet werden. Auch die 81 cm hohe Betonschutzwand im "New-Jersey"-Profil konnte das vorher erwartete Aufhaltevermögen nachweisen. Die Anprallschwere liegt jedoch über der Stufe B, so dass sich ihre Einsatzgebiete auf die Bereiche beschränken, an denen die Gefährdung Dritter - wie zum Beispiel bei der Vermeidung von Durchbrüchen in Mittelstreifen - Priorität hat, ohne dass gleichwertige Systeme mit einer günstigeren Anprallschwere zur Verfügung stehen. Nicht zufriedenstellend waren die Ergebnisse der Versuche an der DDSP 4,0 (B-Profil) und DDSP 2,0 (B-Profil). Erst die Nachrüstung mit einem zusätzlichen Distanzstück führte auch bei der DDSP 4,0 (A- und B-Profil) zu einer bestandenen Prüfung. Die Untersuchung hat gezeigt, dass die einseitig wirkenden Stahlsysteme insgesamt besser funktioniert haben als die zweiseitig wirkenden. Sie können deshalb - doppelt angeordnet - eine Alternative bieten.
Als passive Schutzeinrichtungen werden Systeme bezeichnet, die von der Fahrbahn abkommende Fahrzeuge abweisen und aufhalten, wie Stahlschutzplanken oder Betonschutzwände. Schutzeinrichtungen müssen als wichtigsten Eignungsnachweis erfolgreiche Anprallversuche mit handelsüblichen Pkw und/oder Lkw absolvieren. Die Grundlage dafür bilden Europäische Normentwürfe. Bewertungskriterien für die Eignung einer Schutzeinrichtung sind ihr maximales Aufhaltevermögen, ihre dynamische seitliche Auslenkung, das Fahrzeugverhalten und die Insassenbelastung. Durch die Einführung der Europäischen Normen, vermutlich Anfang 1997, wird es auch in Deutschland Veränderungen für die Anforderungen an Schutzeinrichtungen geben. Zukünftig werden Leistungsklassen an Stelle der jetzt in den nationalen Richtlinien explizit genannten Systembeschreibungen treten, das heißt, Schutzeinrichtungen werden nicht nach ihrer Bauart, sondern nach ihrer Leistungsbeschreibung ausgewählt. Die sich abzeichnenden Europäischen Normen bieten ein breites Spektrum neuer Klassen, mit der Möglichkeit, auch in Deutschland höhere Leistungsklassen als bisher wählen zu können. Gleichzeitig wird in Zukunft sicher noch deutlich mehr in die Einrichtung von passiven Schutzeinrichtungen investiert werden müssen, weil nicht nur die Verkehrsbelastung und damit die Gefahr des Abkommens von der Fahrbahn steigt, sondern auch die Schwere der durch Lkw mit höheren Radlasten verursachten Unfälle. Die dazu notwendigen Finanzmittel und die zu erwartenden volkswirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen müssen sorgfältig gegeneinander abgewogen werden. Bei einem vorhandenen Straßennetz von circa 228.000 km (außerorts) in Deutschland und abgeschätzten Kosten für die Umrüstung in dreistelliger Millionenhöhe müssen alternative Überlegungen in Betracht gezogen werden, wie die Orientierung am DTV-Schwerlastverkehr oder eine gewichtete Aufteilung der Mittel auf die verschiedenen Straßenklassen. Aufgrund der angespannten Haushaltssituation wird der zur Verfügung stehende Rahmen zwangsläufig sehr eng sein. Trotzdem muss es vorrangiges Ziel bleiben Schutzeinrichtungen an Straßen aufgrund ihrer positiven Wirkung auf die Unfallfolgen in einer Qualität und in einem Umfang einzusetzen, der allen Verkehrsteilnehmern ein möglichst hohes Maß an Sicherheit bietet.
EEVC Working Group 15 (Compatibility Between Passenger Cars) has carried out research for several years thanks to collaborative project funded by the E.C. and also by exchanging results of projects funded by national programmes. The main collaborative activity of the EEVC WG15 for the last four years was a research project partly funded by the European Commission, where the group made the first attempt to investigate compatibility between passenger cars in a comprehensive research program. Accident, crash test, and mathematical modelling data were analysed. The main result was that structural incompatibilities were frequently found and identified as the main source of incompatibility problems but were not easy to quantify. Unfortunately as little vehicle information other than mass is recorded in most accident databases, most analyses have only been able to show the effect of mass or mass ratio. Common ideas to improve compatibility have been reached by this group and from discussion with other research groups. They will be investigated in the next phase, where research work will concentrate on the development of methods to assess compatibility of passenger cars. The main idea is that the prerequisite to improve crash compatibility between cars is to improve structural interaction. The most important issue is that improved compatibility must not compromise a vehicle- self protection. Test methods should lead to vehicles which show good structural interaction in car to car accidents. Test methods to prove good compatibility may be an adaptation of existing regulatory test procedures (offset deformable barrier test or full width test like in the USA) for frontal impact or may be new compatibility tests. Additional criteria, e.g. impact force distribution, and maximum vehicle deceleration or maximum vehicle impact force should result in compatible cars. Attempts will be made to estimate the benefit of a more compatible car fleet for the European Community.
EEVC Status report
(2001)
This paper provides an overview of the research work of the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) in the field of crash compatibility between passenger cars. Since July 1997 the EC Commission is partly funding the research work of EEVC. The running period of this project will be two years. The progress of five working packages of this research project is presented: Literature review, Accident analysis, Structural survey of cars, Crash testing, and Mathematical modelling. According to the planned time schedule the progress of research work is different for the five working packages.
As set out in the Terms of Reference, the objective of European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) Working Group (WG) 15 Car Crash Compatibility and Frontal Impact is to develop a test procedure(s) with associated performance criteria for car frontal impact compatibility. This work should lead to improved car to car frontal compatibility and self protection without decreasing the safety in other impact configuration such as impacts with car sides, trucks, and pedestrians. Since 2003, EEVC WG 15 served as a steering group for the car-to-car activities in the "Improvement of Vehicle Crash Compatibility through the development of Crash Test Procedures" (VC-COMPAT) project that was finalised at the end of 2006 and partly funded by the European Commission. This paper presents the research work carried out in the VC-COMPAT project and the results of its assessment by EEVC WG 15. Other additional work presented by the UK and French governments and industry " in particular the European industry - was taken into consideration. It also identifies current issues with candidate testing approaches. The candidate test approaches are: - an offset barrier test with the progressive deformable barrier (PDB) face in combination with a full width rigid barrier test - a full width wall test with a deformable aluminium honeycomb face and a high resolution load cell wall supplemented by the forces measured in the offset deformable barrier (ODB) test with the current EEVC barrier. These candidate test approaches must assess the structural interaction and give information of frontal force levels and compartment strength for passenger vehicles. Further, this paper presents the planned route map of EEVC WG 15 for the evaluation of the proposed test procedures and assessment criteria.