Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Safety (8) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (7)
- Sonstige (5)
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.
The goal of the project FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) was to define an integrated set of test procedures and associated metrics to assess a vehicle's frontal impact protection, which includes self- and partner-protection. For the development of the set, two different full-width tests (full-width deformable barrier [FWDB] test, full-width rigid barrier test) and three different offset tests (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test, progressive deformable barrier [PDB] test, moveable deformable barrier with the PDB barrier face [MPDB] test) have been investigated. Different compatibility assessment procedures were analysed and metrics for assessing structural interaction (structural alignment, vertical and horizontal load spreading) as well as several promising metrics for the PDB/MPDB barrier were developed. The final assessment approach consists of a combination of the most suitable full-width and offset tests. For the full-width test (FWDB), a metric was developed to address structural alignment based on load cell wall information in the first 40 ms of the test. For the offset test (ODB), the existing ECE R94 was chosen. Within the paper, an overview of the final assessment approach for the frontal impact test procedures and their development is given.
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.
The objectives of the FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) project are to answer the remaining open questions identified in earlier projects (such as understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of force based metrics and barrier deformation based metrics, confirmation of specific compatibility issues such as structural interaction, investigation of force matching) and to finalise the frontal impact test procedures required to assess compatibility. Research strategies and priorities were based on earlier research programs and the FIMCAR accident data analysis. The identified real world safety issues were used to develop a list of compatibility characteristics which were then prioritised within the consortium. This list was the basis for evaluating the different test candidates. This analysis resulted in the combination of the Full Width Deformable Barrier test (FWDB) with compatibility metrics and the existing Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) as described in UN-ECE Regulation 94 with additional cabin integrity requirement as being proposed as the FIMCAR assessment approach. The proposed frontal impact assessment approach addresses many of the issues identified by the FIMCAR consortium but not all frontal impact and compatibility issues could be addressed.
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility compromises both the self protection and the partner protection properties of vehicles. For the accident data analysis, the CCIS (GB) and GIDAS (DE) in-depth data bases were used. Selection criteria were frontal car accidents with car in compliance with ECE R94. For this study belted adult occupants in the front seats sustaining MAIS 2+ injuries were studied. Following this analysis FIMCAR concluded that the following compatibility issues are relevant: - Poor structural interaction (especially low overlap and over/underriding) - Compartment strength - Frontal force mismatch with lower priority than poor structural interaction In addition injuries arising from the acceleration loading of the occupant are present in a significant portion of frontal crashes. Based on the findings of the accident analysis the aims that shall be addressed by the proposed assessment approach were defined and priorities were allocated to them. The aims and priorities shall help to decide on suitable test procedures and appropriate metrics. In general it is anticipated that a full overlap and off-set test procedure is the most appropriate set of tests to assess a vehicle- frontal impact self and partner protection.
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.
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.