Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Fußgänger (11)
- Pedestrian (11)
- Bewertung (9)
- Evaluation (assessment) (9)
- Fahrzeug (9)
- Safety (9)
- Sicherheit (9)
- Vehicle (9)
- Injury (8)
- Verletzung (8)
- Collision (7)
- Cyclist (7)
- Impact test (veh) (7)
- Radfahrer (7)
- Test method (7)
- Unfall (7)
- Zusammenstoß (7)
- Accident (6)
- Alte Leute (6)
- Anfahrversuch (6)
- Prüfverfahren (6)
- Test (6)
- Versuch (6)
- Active safety system (5)
- Aktives Sicherheitssystem (5)
- Analyse (math) (5)
- Analysis (math) (5)
- Compatibility (5)
- Europa (5)
- Europe (5)
- Kompatibilität (5)
- Old people (5)
- Schweregrad (Unfall, Verletzung) (5)
- Severity (accid, injury) (5)
- Simulation (5)
- Verletzung) (5)
- injury) (5)
- Brustkorb (4)
- Fatality (4)
- Frontalzusammenstoß (4)
- Head on collision (4)
- Method (4)
- Schlag (4)
- Schweregrad (Unfall (4)
- Severity (accid (4)
- Shock (4)
- Statistics (4)
- Statistik (4)
- Thorax (4)
- Tödlicher Unfall (4)
- Verfahren (4)
- Anthropometric dummy (3)
- Automatische Notbremsung (3)
- Conference (3)
- Deutschland (3)
- Development (3)
- Dummy (3)
- Entwicklung (3)
- Germany (3)
- Konferenz (3)
- Passive safety system (3)
- Passives Sicherheitssystem (3)
- Airbag (2)
- Antikollisionssystem (2)
- Automatic (2)
- Automatisch (2)
- Autonomous emergency braking (2)
- Braking (2)
- Bremsung (2)
- Cost benefit analysis (2)
- Driver (2)
- Driver assistance system (2)
- Fahrer (2)
- Fahrerassistenzsystem (2)
- Forecast (2)
- Geschwindigkeit (2)
- Human body (2)
- Improvement (2)
- Insasse (2)
- Menschlicher Körper (2)
- Nacht (2)
- Night (2)
- Prognose (2)
- Richtlinien (2)
- Specifications (2)
- Speed (2)
- Standardisierung (2)
- Standardization (2)
- Technische Vorschriften (Kraftfahrzeug) (2)
- Vehicle occupant (2)
- Vehicle regulations (2)
- Verbesserung (2)
- Vereinigtes Königreich (2)
- Wirtschaftlichkeitsrechnung (2)
- Abbiegen (1)
- Accident rate (1)
- Active safety (1)
- Aged people (1)
- Air bag (restraint system) (1)
- Aktive Sicherheit (1)
- Auffahrunfall (1)
- Autonomous emerhency braking (1)
- Bein (menschl) (1)
- Berechnung (1)
- Breite (1)
- Bumper (1)
- Calculation (1)
- Cause (1)
- Classification (1)
- Collision avoidance system (1)
- Collisison avoidance system (1)
- Crash Test (1)
- Crashtest (1)
- Cross roads (1)
- Crossing the road (pedestrian) (1)
- Daylight (1)
- Demografie (1)
- Demography (1)
- Detection (1)
- Detektion (1)
- Digital model (1)
- Efficiency (1)
- Electric vehicle (1)
- Elektrofahrzeug (1)
- Emergency (1)
- Fahrbahnüberquerung (1)
- Fahrstabilität (1)
- Finite element method (1)
- Fracture (bone) (1)
- Gestaltung (1)
- Hearing (1)
- Hospital (1)
- Hörvermögen (1)
- Impact test (crash) (1)
- In Bewegung (1)
- Junction (1)
- Klassifizierung (1)
- Knochenbruch (1)
- Knotenpunkt (1)
- Krankenhaus (1)
- Kreuzung (1)
- Layout (1)
- Leg (human) (1)
- Leistungsfähigkeit (allg) (1)
- Mathematical model (1)
- Medical examination (1)
- Medizinische Untersuchung (1)
- Methode der finiten Elemente (1)
- Modification (1)
- Motorcyclist (1)
- Motorradfahrer (1)
- Moving (1)
- Notfall (1)
- Numerisches Modell (1)
- Prevention (1)
- Reaction (human) (1)
- Reaktionsverhalten (1)
- Rear end collision (1)
- Rechenmodell (1)
- Reconstruction (accid) (1)
- Risiko (1)
- Risikobewertung (1)
- Risk (1)
- Risk assessment (1)
- Schallpegel (1)
- Schweden (1)
- Schweregrad /Unfall (1)
- Sensor (1)
- Severity (acid (1)
- Sound level (1)
- Spinal column (1)
- Staggered junction (1)
- Stapedius reflex (1)
- Stapediusreflex (1)
- Statistical analysis (1)
- Statistische Analyse (1)
- Stoßstange (1)
- Sweden (1)
- Tageslicht (1)
- Technologie (1)
- Technology (1)
- Turning (1)
- USA (1)
- Unfallhäufigkeit (1)
- Unfallrekonstruktion (1)
- United Kingdom (1)
- United kingdom (1)
- Ursache (1)
- Vehicle handling (1)
- Verhütung (1)
- Versetzte Kreuzung (1)
- Veränderung (1)
- Width (1)
- Wirbelsäule (1)
Institut
The overall purpose of the ASSESS project is to develop a relevant and standardised set of test and assessment methods and associated tools for integrated vehicle safety systems, primarily focussing on currently available pre-crash sensing systems. The first stage of the project was to define casualty relevant accident scenarios so that the test scenarios will be developed based on accident scenarios which currently result in the greatest injury outcome, measured by a combination of casualty severity and casualty frequency. The first analysis stage was completed using data from a range of accident databases, including those which were nationally representative (STATS19, UK and STRADA, SE) and in-depth sources which provided more detailed parameters to characterise the accident scenarios (GIDAS, DE and OTS, UK). A common analysis method was developed in order to compare the data from these different sources, and while the data sets were not completely compatible, the majority of the data was aligned in such a way that allowed a useful comparison to be made. As the ASSESS project focuses on pre-crash sensing systems fitted to passenger cars, the data selected for the analysis was "injury accidents which involved at least one passenger car". The accident data analysis yielded the following ranked list of most relevant accident scenarios: Rank Accident scenario 1 Driving accident - single vehicle loss of control 2 Accidents in longitudinal traffic (same and opposite directions) 3 Accidents with turning vehicle(s) or crossing paths in junctions 4 Accidents involving pedestrians The ranked list highlights the relatively large role played by "accidents in longitudinal traffic", and "accidents with turning vehicle(s) or crossing paths in junctions" (the second and third most prevalent accident scenarios, respectively). The pre-crash systems addressed in ASSESS propose to yield beneficial safety outcomes with specific regard to these accident scenarios. This indicates that the ASSESS project is highly relevant to the current casualty crash problem. In the second stage of the analysis a selection of these accident scenarios were analysed further to define the accident parameters at a more detailed level .This paper describes the analysis approach and results from the first analysis stage.
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.
Test and assessment procedures for passive pedestrian protection based on developments by the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) have been introduced in world-wide regulations and consumer test programmes, with considerable harmonization between these programmes. Nevertheless, latest accident investigations reveal a stagnation of pedestrian fatality numbers on European roads running the risk of not meeting the European Union- goal of halving the number of road fatalities by the year 2020. The branch of external road user safety within the EC-funded research project SENIORS under the HORIZON 2020 framework programme focuses on investigating the benefit of modifications to pedestrian test and assessment procedures and their impactors for vulnerable road users with focus on the elderly. Injury patterns of pedestrians and cyclists derived from the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) show a trend of AIS 2+ and AIS 3+ injuries getting more relevant for the thorax region in crashes with newer cars (Wisch et al., 2017), while maintaining the relevance for head and lower extremities. Several crash databases from Europe such as GIDAS and the Swedish Traffic Accident Data Acquisition (STRADA) also show that head, thorax and lower extremities are the key affected body regions not only for the average population but in particular for the elderly. Therefore, the SENIORS project is focusing on an improvement of currently available impactors and procedures in terms of biofidelity and injury assessment ability towards a better protection of the affected body regions, incorporating previous results from FP 6 project APROSYS and subsequent studies carried out by BASt. The paper describes the overall methodology to develop revised FE impactor models. Matched human body model and impactor simulations against generic test rigs provide transfer functions that will be used for the derivation of impactor criteria from human injury risk functions for the affected body regions. In a later step, the refined impactors will be validated by simulations against actual vehicle front-ends. Prototyping and adaptation of test and assessment procedures as well as an impact assessment will conclude the work of the project at the final stage. The work will contribute to an improved protection of vulnerable road users focusing on the elderly. The use of advanced human body models to develop applicable assessment criteria for the revised impactors is intended to cope with the paucity of actual biomechanical data focusing on elderly pedestrians. In order to achieve optimized results in the future, the improved test methods need to be implemented within an integrated approach, combining active with passive safety measures. In order to address the developments in road accidents and injury patterns of vulnerable road users, established test and assessment procedures need to be continuously verified and, where needed, to be revised. The demographic change as well as changes in the vehicle fleet, leading to a variation of accident scenarios, injury frequencies and injury patterns of vulnerable road users are addressed by the work provided by the SENIORS project, introducing updated impactors for pedestrian test and assessment procedures.
Since the beginning of the testing activities related to passive pedestrian safety, the width of the test area being assessed regarding its protection level for the lower extremities of vulnerable road users has been determined by geometrical measurements at the outer contour of the vehicle. During the past years, the trend of a decreased width of the lower extremity test and assessment area realized by special features of the outer vehicle frontend design could be observed. This study discusses different possibilities for counteracting this development and thus finding a robust definition for this area including all structures with high injury risk for the lower extremities of vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle. While Euro NCAP is addressing the described problem by defining a test area under consideration of the stiff structures underneath the bumper fascia, a detailed study was carried out on behalf of the European Commission, aiming at a robust, worldwide harmonized definition of the bumper test area for legislation, taking into account the specific requirements of different certification procedures of the contracting parties of the UN/ECE agreements from 1958 and 1998. This paper details the work undertaken by BASt, also serving as a contribution to the TF-BTA of the UN/ECE GRSP, towards a harmonized test area in order to better protect the lower extremities of vulnerable road users. The German In-Depth Accident Database GIDAS is studied with respect to the potential benefit of a revised test area. Several practical options are discussed and applied to actual vehicles, investigating the differences and possible effects. Tests are carried out and the results studied in detail. Finally, a proposal for a feasible definition is given and a suggestion is made for solving possible open issues at angled surfaces due to rotation of the impactor. The study shows that, in principle, there is a need for the entire vehicle width being assessed with regard to the protection potential for lower extremities of vulnerable road users. It gives evidence on the necessity for a robust definition of the lower extremity test area including stiff and thus injurious structures at the vehicle frontend, especially underneath the bumper fascia. The legal definition of the lower extremity test area will shortly be almost harmonized with the robust Euro NCAP requirements, as already endorsed by GRSP, taking into account injurious structures and thus contributing to the enhanced protection of vulnerable road users. After finalization of the development of a torso mass for the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) it is recommended to consider again the additional benefit of assessing the entire vehicle width.
Test and assessment procedures for passive pedestrian protection of passenger cars are in place for many years within world-wide regulations as well as consumer test programmes. Nevertheless, recent accident investigations show a stagnation of pedestrian fatality numbers on European roads alongside increasing injury severities for older road users. The EU-funded SENIORS (Safety ENhancing Innovations for Older Road userS) project developed and evaluated a thorax injury prediction tool (TIPT) for later incorporation within test and assessment procedures. Accident data indicates an increasing portion of AIS2 and AIS3+ thoracic injuries of older pedestrians and cyclists which are currently not assessed in any test procedure for vulnerable road users. Therefore, SENIORS focused on the development of a test tool predicting the risk of rib fractures of vulnerable road users (VRU). While injury risk functions were reanalyzed, human body model (HBM) simulations against categorized generic vehicle frontends served as input for the definition of test setups and corresponding impact parameters. TIPT component tests against a generic frontend and an actual vehicle were used for the evaluation of the technical feasibility. The TIPT component tests shows the general feasibility of a test procedure for the assessment of thoracic injuries, with good repeatability and reproducibility of kinematics and results. Impact parameters such as the inclination angles of the thorax, angles of the velocity vector and impact speeds well replicate the parameters gained from the HBM simulations. The proposed markup and assessment scheme offers the possibility of a homogeneous evaluation of the protection potential of vehicle frontends while maintaining justifiable testing efforts. During evaluation testing, the proposed requirements were entirely met. The developed prototype of TIPT and launching system offer impact angles and speeds as suggested by HBM simulations. However, since thorax impacts during pedestrian accidents do not occur perpendicularly to the vehicle surface in most cases, the TIPT built-in linear potentiometers do not acquire the true resultant intrusions on the ribcage and thus, TIPT rib deflections do not reflect the actual human injury risk. However; for the impact forward to the bonnet leading edge, the TIPT seems applicable without further modifications. The test and assessment procedures using the TIPT offer for the first time the possibility of replicating the kinematics of a pedestrian thorax with a component test. The developed assessment scheme gives a first indication on how the risk for thoracic injuries could be implemented within the Euro NCAP Box 3 assessment. Future development of the TIPT may focus on implementing a rib cage that can deflect in all axes in a humanlike way.
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.