Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Deutschland (10)
- Germany (10)
- Conference (9)
- Injury (9)
- Konferenz (9)
- Verletzung (9)
- Anfahrversuch (8)
- Safety (8)
- Sicherheit (8)
- Frontalzusammenstoß (7)
Institut
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.
Airbags sind ein wichtiger Bestandteil der passiven Sicherheitsausstattung von Fahrzeugen, haben sich in den letzten 30 Jahren stark weiterentwickelt und somit die Schutzwirkung für die Insassen weiter erhöht. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, auf Basis verschiedener Datensätze die Schutzwirkung von modernen Airbagsystemen aufzuzeigen und weiteres Opimtierungspotential offenzulegen. Dabei wurde der Fokus auf die Analyse von Realunfalldaten und Verletzungen durch Airbags und deren Schallpegel gesetzt.
Daten aus dem Unfallgeschehen im Straßenverkehr wurden auf Basis von GIDAS- und NASS-Daten ausgewertet. Mittels der ausgewerteten GIDAS-Daten konnte gezeigt werden, dass bei einem Delta-v von ca. 20 km/h bereits 50 % aller Airbags ausgelöst wurden, welches nicht den Erwartungshorizont der Auslöseschwelle von 25 bis 30 km/h nach KLANNER et al. (2004) entspricht. Außerdem wurde ein Trend erkannt, der zeigt, dass bei neueren Fahrzeugen die Anzahl der Airbagzündungen in einem Unfall steigt. Eine statistische Auswertung von airbaginduzierten Verletzungen ergab, dass keine statistisch signifikanten Ergebnisse in Bezug auf airbaginduzierte Verletzungen entnommen werden konnten, allerdings konnten in den analysierten Fällen leichte Verletzungen identifiziert werden, die durch die Airbagzündung verursacht wurden. Die festgestellten Verletzungen waren beispielsweise Schürfwunden, Prellungen und Verbrennungen bis maximal 2. Grades. Es wurden 14 Einzelfälle analysiert bei denen die Verletzungsschwere höher war, als es die Unfallschwere erwarten ließ. Davon waren elf Unfälle durch schlechte strukturelle Interaktion gekennzeichnet, beispielsweise Unterfahren, zentraler Stoß oder Stoß außerhalb der Längsträger. Im vorliegenden GIDAS-Datenmaterial und in der Analyse von MHH Patientinnen- und Patientendaten konnten Einzelfälle, bei denen es zu Hörschädigung in Folge einer Airbagzündung kam, identifiziert werden, allerdings konnte keine statistisch signifikante Verbindung zwischen Airbagzündung und einer Hörschädigung festgestellt werden.
Auf Basis der analysierten GIDAS-Fälle wurde eine Versuchsmatrix entwickelt, um die aufgezeigten Probleme mittels experimenteller Unfallrekonstruktion und akustischer Messungen zu adressieren. In der Unfallrekonstruktion mit zentralem Baumaufprall konnte gezeigt werden, dass bei dem vorliegenden Fall eine frühere Airbagzündung das Brustverletzungsrisiko hätte senken können und somit die vorliegende Brustverletzung wahrscheinlich vermieden hätte. In dem analysierten Auffahrunfall mit einer Unterfahrensituation konnte gezeigt werden, dass die Airbagauslösung unnötig war, da das Verletzungsrisiko durch die Airbagzündung nicht reduziert wurde. In diesem Fall hätte eine unterdrückte Airbagzündung die Hörschädigung des Fahrers verhindert.
Im Rahmen der durchgeführten akustischen Messungen wurden systematische Messungen von Schallpegeln in Fahrzeugen während eines Unfalls und im Stand gemessen. Es konnte gezeigt werden, dass die Crashbegleitgeräusche der Fahrzeugdeformation ausreichen, um den Stapediusreflex auszulösen, dadurch ist das Risiko einer Hörschädigung gering – trotz Pegel von über 160 dB. Das Risiko für eine Hörschädigung steigt mit der Anzahl der gezündeten Airbags durch die kurze Aneinanderreihung von Knallereignissen trotz ausgelösten Stapediusreflex. Auch bei frühen Zündzeitpunkten steigt das Risiko einer Hörschädigung, da der Stapediusreflex noch nicht ausgelöst ist oder sich in der Anschwellphase befindet und somit seine Schutzwirkung nicht komplett entfalten kann.
Mit den analysierten Daten konnte gezeigt werden, dass die Schutzwirkung von Airbags unumstritten ist, allerdings wurde Optimierungspotential in den Zündalgorithmen offengelegt. Das gilt für Unfälle mit schlechter struktureller Interaktion und daraus resultierendem nicht optimalen Zündzeitpunkt und für eine unnötige Airbagauslösung bei geringer Unfallschwere. Weiteres Optimierungspotential zur Reduzierung des Verletzungsrisikos besteht bei Airbags hinsichtlich ihres Potentials Schürfwunden, Prellungen, Verbrennungen und Hörschäden zu verursachen.
To elucidate the risk of pedestrians, bicycle and motorbike users, data of two accident research units from 1999 to 2014 were analysed in regard to demographic data, collision details, preclinical and clinical data using SPSS. 14.295 injured vulnerable road users were included. 92 out of 3610 pedestrians ("P", 2.5%), 90 out of 8307 bicyclists ("B", 1.1%) and 115 out of 4094 motorcycle users ("M", 2.8%) were diagnosed with spinal fractures. Thoracic fractures were most frequent ahead of lumbar and cervical fractures. Car collisions were most frequent mechanism (68, 62 and 36%). MAIS was 3.8, 2.8 and 3.2 for P, B and A with ISS 32, 16 and 23. AIS-head was 2.2, 1.3 and 1.5). Vulnerable road users are at significant risk for spine fractures. These are often associated with severe additional injuries, e.g. the head and a very high overall trauma severity (polytrauma).
The GRSP informal group on child restraint systems (CRS) finalised phase 1 of a new regulation for the homologation of CRS . This regulation is the subject of several discussions concerning the safety benefits and the advantages and disadvantages that certain specific points may bring. However, these discussions are sometimes not based on scientific facts and do not consider the whole package but only single items. Based on the experience of the CASPER partners in the fields of human behaviour, accident analysis, test procedures and biomechanics in the area of child safety, a consideration of the safety benefits of phase 1 of the new regulation and recommendations for phase 2 will be given.
The use of proper child restraint systems (CRS) is mandatory for children travelling in cars in most countries of the world. The analysis of the quantity of restrained children shows that more than 90% of the children in Germany are restrained. Looking at the quality of the protection, a large discrepancy between restrained and well protected children can be seen. Two out of three children in Germany are not properly restrained. In addition, considerable difference exists with respect to the technical performance of CRS. For that reason investigations and optimisations on two different topics are necessary: The technical improvement of CRS and the ease of use of CRS. Consideration of the knowledge gained by the comparison of different CRS in crash tests would lead to some improvements of the CRS. But improvement of child safety is not only a technical issue. People should use CRS in the correct way. Misuse and incorrect handling could lead to less safety than correct usage of a poor CRS. For that reason new technical issues are necessary to improve the child safety AND the ease of use. Only the combination of both parts can significantly increase child safety. For the assessment of the safety level of common CRS, frontal and lateral sled tests simulating different severity levels were conducted comparing pairs of CRS which were felt to be good and CRS which were felt to be poor. The safety of some CRS is currently at a high level. All well known products were not damaged in the performed tests. The performance of non-branded CRS was mostly worse than that of the well known products. Although the branded child restraint systems already show a high safety level it is still possible to further improve their technical performance as demonstrated with a baby shell and a harness type CRS.
To improve vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility aims to improve both the self and partner protection properties of vehicles. Although compatibility has received worldwide attention for many years, no final assessment approach has been defined. Within the Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research (FIMCAR) project, different frontal impact test procedures (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test as currently used for Economic Commission for Europe [ECE] R94, progressive deformable barrier test as proposed by France for a new ECE regulation, moveable deformable barrier test as discussed worldwide, full-width rigid barrier test as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard [FMVSS] 208, and full-width deformable barrier test) were analyzed regarding their potential for future frontal impact legislation. The research activities focused on car-to-car frontal impact accidents based on accident investigations involving newer cars. Test procedures were developed with both a crash test program and numerical simulations. The proposal from FIMCAR is to use a full-width test procedure with a deformable element and compatibility metrics in combination with the current offset test as a frontal impact assessment approach that also addresses compatibility. By adding a full-width test to the current ODB test it is possible to better address the issues of structural misalignment and injuries resulting from high acceleration accidents as observed in the current fleet. The estimated benefit ranges from a 5 to 12 percent reduction of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from frontal impact accidents. By using a deformable element in the full-width test, the test conditions are more representative of real-world situations with respect to acceleration pulse, restraint system triggering time, and deformation pattern of the front structure. The test results are therefore expected to better represent real-world performance of the tested car. Furthermore, the assessment of the structural alignment is more robust than in the rigid wall test.
The off-set assessment procedure potentially contributes to the FIMCAR objectives to maintain the compartment strength and to assess load spreading in frontal collisions. Furthermore it provides the opportunity to assess the restraint system performance with different pulses if combined with a full-width assessment procedure in the frontal assessment approach. Originally it was expected that the PDB assessment procedure would be selected for the FIMCAR assessment approach. However, it was not possible to deliver a compatibility metric in time so that the current off-set procedure (ODB as used in UNECE R94) with some minor modifications was proposed for the FIMCAR Assessment Approach. Nevertheless the potential to assess load spreading, which appears not to be possible with any other assessed frontal impact assessment procedure was considered to be still high. Therefore the development work for the PDB assessment procedure did not stop with the decision not to select the PDB procedure. As a result of the decisions to use the current ODB and to further develop the PDB procedure, both are covered within this deliverable. The deliverable describes the off-set test procedure that will be recommended by FIMCAR consortium, this corresponds to the ODB test as it is specified in UN-ECE Regulation 94 (R94), i.e. EEVC deformable element with 40% overlap at a test speed of 56 km/h. In addition to the current R94 requirements, FIMCAR will recommend to introduce some structural requirements which will guarantee sufficiently strong occupant compartments by enforcing the stability of the forward occupant cell. With respect to the PDB assessment procedure a new metric, Digital Derivative in Y direction - DDY, was developed, described, analysed, and compared with other metrics. The DDY metric analyses the deformation gradients laterally across the PDB face. The more even the deformation, the lower the DDY values and the better the metric- result. In order analyse the different metrics, analysis of the existing PDB test results and the results of the performed simulation studies was performed. In addition, an assessment of artificial deformation profiles with the metrics took place. This analysis shows that there are still issues with the DDY metric but it appears that it is possible to solve them with future optimisations. For example the current metric assesses only the area within 60% of the half vehicle width. For vehicles that have the longitudinals further outboard, the metric is not effective. In addition to the metric development, practical issues of the PDB tests such as the definition of a scan procedure for the analysis of the deformation pattern including the validation of the scanning procedure by the analysis of 3 different scans at different locations of the same barrier were addressed. Furthermore the repeatability and reproducibility of the PDB was analysed. The barrier deformation readings seem to be sensitive with respect to the impact accuracy. In total, the deliverable is meant to define the FIMCAR off-set assessment procedure and to be a starting point for further development of the PDB assessment procedure.
Within the process of integrating passenger airbags in the vehicle fleet a problem of compatibility between the passenger airbag and rear-facing child restraint systems was recognised. Especially in the US several accidents with children killed by the passenger airbag were recorded. Taking into account these accidents the deactivation of a present passenger airbag is mandatory if a child is carried in a rear-facing child restraint system at the front passenger seat in all member states of the European Union. This rule is in force since the deadline of 2003/20/EC at the latest. In the past a passenger airbag either could not be disabled or could only be disabled by a garage. Today there are a lot of different possibilities for the car driver himself to disable the airbag. Solutions like an on/off-switch or the automatic detection of a child restraint system are mentioned as an example. Taking into account the need for the deactivation of front passenger airbags two types of misuse can occur: transportation of an infant while the airbag is (still) enabled and transportation of an adult, while the airbag is disabled, respectively. Within a research project funded by BASt both options of misuse were analysed utilising two different types of surveys amongst users (field observations and interviews, Internet-questionnaires). In addition both analysis of accident data and crash tests for an updated assessment of the injury risk caused by the front passenger airbag were conducted. Both surveys indicate a low risk of misuse. Most of the misuse cases were observed in older cars, which offer no easy way to disable the airbag. For systems, which detect a child seat automatically, no misuse could be found. The majority of misuses in cars equipped with a manual switch were caused by reasons of oblivion. Also the accident analysis indicates a minor risk of misuse. From more than 300 cases of the GIDAS accident sample that were analysed, only 24 children were using the front passenger seat in cars equipped with a front passenger airbag. In most of these cases the airbag was deactivated. When misuse occurred the injury severity was low. However, when analysing German single accidents the fatality risk caused by the front passenger airbag became obvious. From the technical point of view, there were important changes in the design of passenger airbags in recent years. Not only volume and shape were modified, but also the mounting position of the entire airbag module was changed fundamentally. Even if these findings do not allow obtaining general conclusions, a clear tendency of less danger by airbags could be identified. For future vehicle development a safe combination of airbags and rear faced baby seats seems to be possible in the long term. This would mean that both types of misuse could be eliminated. For parents an easier use of child seat and car would be the result.
When assessing the consequences of accidents normally the injury severity and the damage costs are considered. The injury severity is either expressed within the police categories (slight injury, severe injury or fatal injury) or the AIS code that rates the fatality risk of a given injury. Both injury metrics are assessing the consequences of the accident directly after the accident. However, not all consequences of accidents are visible directly after the accident and the duration of the consequences are different. Besides a physiological reduction of functionality social and psychological implications such as reduced mobility options, problems to continue the original job etc. are happening. In order to assess long term consequences of accidents the MHH Accident Research Unit established a brief questionnaire that is distributed to accident involved people of the Hannover subset of the GIDAS data set approx. one year after the accident beginning with the accident year 2013. The basic idea of using a brief questionnaire (in fact only one page) is to obtain a relatively large return rate because the questionnaire appears to be simple and quickly answered. This appears to be important because it is believed that the majority of accident involved people will not report long term consequences. In order to allow a more detailed survey amongst those responders that are reporting long term consequences they are asked for a written consent for the additional questionnaire that will be distributed at a time that is not yet defined. Long term consequences are reported for all addressed areas, medical, physiological, psychological and sociological by people without injuries, with minor injuries and with severe injuries.
The share of high-tensile steel in car bodies has increased over the last years. While occupant safety has generally benefited from this measure, there is a potential risk that, as a result, rescue time may increase considerably. In more than 60% of all car occupant fatalities a technical rescue has been necessary. These are in particular those cases where occupants die immediately at the accident scene. Therefore, in these cases "rescue time" is a very sensitive parameter. In addition to the general analysis of the need of technical rescue and the actual rescue time depending on model years, the injury pattern of occupants requiring technical rescue will be analysed to provide advice for rescue teams. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of rescue measures for the most popular car models depending on the safety cell design is given.