Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Anfahrversuch (15)
- Fahrzeug (13)
- Vehicle (13)
- Compatibility (11)
- Kompatibilität (11)
- Bewertung (10)
- Evaluation (assessment) (10)
- Impact test (veh) (10)
- Safety (10)
- Sicherheit (10)
Institut
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.
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.
In the European Project FIMCAR, a proposal for a frontal impact test configuration was developed which included an additional full width deformable barrier (FWDB) test. Motivation for the deformable element was partly to measure structural forces as well as to produce a severe crash pulse different from that in the offset test. The objective of this study was to analyze the safety performance of vehicles in the full width rigid barrier test (FWRB) and in the full width deformable barrier test (FWDB). In total, 12 vehicles were crashed in both configurations. Comparison of these tests to real world accident data was used to identify the crash barrier most representative of real world crashes. For all vehicles, the airbag visible times were later in the FWDB configuration. This was attributed to the attenuation of the initial acceleration peak, observed in FWRB tests, by the addition of the deformable element. These findings were in alignment with airbag triggering times seen in real world crash data. Also, the dummy loadings were slightly worse in FWDB compared to FWRB tests, which is possibly linked to the airbag firing and a more realistic loading of the vehicle crash structures in the FWDB configuration. Evaluations of the lower extremities have shown a general increasing of the tibia index with the crash pulse severity.
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.
In general the passive safety capability is much greater in newer versus older cars due to the stiff compartment preventing intrusion in severe collisions. However, the stiffer structure which increases the deceleration can lead to a change in injury patterns. In order to analyse possible injury mechanisms for thoracic and lumbar spine injuries, data from the German Inâ€Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) were used in this study. A twoâ€step approach of statistical and caseâ€byâ€case analysis was applied for this investigation. In total 4,289 collisions were selected involving 8,844 vehicles, 5,765 injured persons and 9,468 coded injuries. Thoracic and lumbar spine injuries such as burst, compression or dislocation fractures as well as soft tissue injuries were found to occur in frontal impacts even without intrusion to the passenger compartment. If a MAIS 2+ injury occurred, in 15% of the cases a thoracic and/or lumbar spine injury is included. Considering AIS 2+ thoracic and lumbar spine, most injuries were fractures and occurred in the lumbar spine area. From the case by case analyses it can be concluded that lumbar spine fractures occur in accidents without the engagement of longitudinals, lateral loading to the occupant and/or very severe accidents with MAIS being much higher than the spine AIS.
Ziel des Projektes war es zu ermitteln, ob und wenn ja unter welchen Bedingungen Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge im Straßenverkehr sicher betrieben werden können, welche technischen Anforderungen dafür notwendig sind und welches Konfliktpotential zu anderen Verkehrsteilnehmern zu erwarten ist. Stehend gefahrene (d.h. Fahrzeuge ohne Sitz z.B. Tretroller mit Elektrounterstützung) und selbstbalancierende Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge (z.B. dem Segway ähnliche) konnten bis 2016 nach der Rahmenrichtlinie 2002/24/EG (Typgenehmigungsvorschrift für Krafträder/Kategorie L-Fahrzeuge), die nun außer Kraft ist, genehmigt werden. Die dort genannten Anforderungen wurden durch die Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge größtenteils nicht erfüllt. Seit 2016 gilt die neue Typgenehmigungs-Verordnung (EU) 168/2013 für Krafträder. Nach dieser Verordnung kann die Genehmigung solcher Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge national geregelt werden, da die Verordnung diese definitiv vom Anwendungsbereich ausschließt. Um bei diesen Fahrzeugen national über eine Genehmigungsfähigkeit entscheiden zu können, wird zum einen eine Einschätzung zur Verkehrssicherheit solcher Fahrzeuge benötigt. Zum anderen müssen aus fahrdynamischen Versuchen Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden, um diese Fahrzeuge klassifizieren zu können und um jeweils Anforderungen festlegen zu können. Die BASt hat im Rahmen dieses Forschungsprojektes Vorschläge für eine derartige Klassifizierung von bestimmten Elektrokleinstfahrzeugen und für die zu stellenden technischen Anforderungen an diese Fahrzeuge erarbeitet, um diese Fahrzeuge sicher im Straßenverkehr verwenden zu können. In dem Forschungsprojekt wurden Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge in vier Teilstudien untersucht: Betrachtungen zur aktiven und passiven Sicherheit, zum Nutzerverhalten und zur Risikobewertung sowie zur Verkehrsfläche. Dabei wurde aufgezeigt, dass es möglich ist, neue Kategorien mit bestimmten Mindestanforderungen zu bilden. Es wird empfohlen, diese Anforderungen einzuhalten, sollten Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge zukünftig im öffentlichen Verkehr betrieben werden können und dürfen. Seitens der aktiven Sicherheit wurden mithilfe von fahrdynamischen Versuchen und technischen Untersuchungen Anforderungen erarbeitet, die das verkehrssicherheitstechnische Risiko bestmöglich minimieren. Weiterhin wurden Empfehlungen in Bezug auf die passive Sicherheit von Elektrokleinstfahrzeugen ausgesprochen, die ein Sicherheitsniveau gewährleisteten, das ähnlich zu heutigen bestehenden Fahrzeugen ist. Das subjektive Fahrverhalten zeigte, dass Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge grundsätzlich sicher vom Fahrer kontrollierbar sind, solange bestimmte Systemgrenzen eingehalten werden. Hinsichtlich der Aspekte des Nutzerverhaltens wurden Schutzausrüstung und das Kräfteverhältnis zu anderen Verkehrsteilnehmern bewertet. In Abhängigkeit von den vorgeschlagenen Fahrzeugkategorien werden entsprechende Verkehrsflächen für die Benutzung empfohlen, basierend auf der im öffentlichen Verkehr analysierten subjektiven Sicherheit und basierend auf einer Analyse des Konfliktpotenzials gegenüber anderen Verkehrsteilnehmern. Aus allen Ergebnissen des Projektes wurden Empfehlungen für die Nutzung der Verkehrsflächen sowie Anforderungen an die (sicherheits-) technische Ausstattung für die neu vorgeschlagenen Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge- Kategorien abgeleitet, die jeweils an Anforderungen für die bereits existierenden Fahrzeugkategorien "Leichtmofa" bzw. "Mofa" angelehnt sind.
Although the number of road accident casualties in Europe (EU27) is falling the problem still remains substantial. In 2011 there were still over 30,000 road accident fatalities. Approximately half of these were car occupants and about 60 percent of these occurred in frontal impacts. The next stage to improve a car's safety performance in frontal impacts is to improve its compatibility. The objective of the FIMCAR FP7 EU-project was to develop an assessment approach suitable for regulatory application to control a car's frontal impact and compatibility crash performance and perform an associated cost benefit analysis for its implementation. This paper reports the cost benefit analyses performed to estimate the effect of the following potential changes to the frontal impact regulation: • Option 1 " No change and allow current measures to propagate throughout the vehicle fleet. • Option 2 " Add a full width test to the current offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) test. • Option 3 " Add a full width test and replace the current ODB test with a Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test. For the analyses national data were used from Great Britain (STATS 19) and from Germany (German Federal Statistical Office). In addition in-depth real word crash data were used from CCIS (Great Britain) and GIDAS (Germany). To estimate the benefit a generalised linear model, an injury reduction model and a matched pairs modelling approach were applied. The benefits were estimated to be: for Option 1 "No change" about 2.0%; for Option 2 "FW test" ranging from 5 to 12% and for Option 3 "FW and PDB tests" 9 to 14% of car occupant killed and seriously injured casualties.
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.