91 Fahrzeugkonstruktion
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.
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.
Der Anteil von Geländefahrzeugen an der Gesamtzahl von Personenkraftwagen betrug im Juli 1991 in den alten Bundesländern ca. 1,1 Prozent. Nach eigenen Erhebungen sind etwa 62 Prozent der Geländefahrzeuge mit einem Frontschutzbügel ausgestattet. Der Bundesminister für Verkehr hat die BASt beauftragt zu prüfen, ob solche Konstruktionen einen Einfluss auf die Verletzungen bei Kollisionen mit Fußgängern und Zweiradbenutzern haben. Dazu wurde das Datenmaterial der Unfallerhebung der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover ausgewertet und die um fahrzeugtechnische Angaben ergänzten Unfalldaten aus Nordrhein-Westfalen betrachtet. Weiterhin wird von Komponententests berichtet, die den Anprall menschlicher Körperteile an das Fahrzeug simulieren. Mit den Ergebnissen dieser Untersuchung wurde ein Frontschutzbügel hergestellt, der weniger aggressiv gegenüber ungeschützten Verkehrsteilnehmern ist. Zur Quantifizierung der Gefährdung von Fußgängern wurden zwei gängige Geländefahrzeugtypen mit und ohne Frontschutzbügel gemäß dem Prüfvorschlag der EEVC-WG 10 zur Bestimmung der Fußgängerverträglichkeit von Pkw-Frontflächen getestet. Die Ergebnisse aus den Versuchsreihen wurden mit Ergebnissen aus Versuchen an normalen Pkw verglichen.Es kann festgestellt werden, dass bei einem Unfall mit Kopfanprall eines Kindes an ein mit Frontschutzbügel ausgestattetes Geländefahrzeug bei 20 km/h mit gleichen Kopfbelastungen zu rechnen ist, wie bei einem Unfall mit 30 km/h mit einem Geländefahrzeug ohne Frontschutzbügel, beziehungsweise mit 40 km/h mit einem normalen Pkw. Für den Hüftanprall eines Erwachsenen an die Haubenkante ist bei einer Fahrzeuggeschwindigkeit von 25 km/h bei einem Fahrzeug mit Frontschutzbügel mit gleichen Belastungen zu rechnen, wie bei einem Unfall mit einem Fahrzeug ohne Frontschutzbügel bei 40 km/h (Pkw oder Geländewagen). Für die Belastungen des Knies eines Erwachsenen lässt sich keine Verschlechterung durch montierte Frontschutzbügel ableiten.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At the 2001 ESV-Conference the EEVC working group on compatibility (WG 15) reported the first phase of the research work to investigate the major factors influencing compatibility between passenger cars. Following this, WG15 performed an interim study, which was partly subventioned by the European Commission, the results of which are reported in this paper. In the next phase of work, it is intended to complete the development of a suite of test procedures and associated performance criteria to assess the compatibility of passenger cars in frontal impacts The main areas of work for the interim study were: - in depth accident data analysis - the development of methods to assess the potential benefit of improved compatibility - crash testing. The accident analysis identified the major compatibility problems to be poor structural interaction, stiffness mismatching and compartment strength. Different methods to assess the potential benefit of improved compatibility were applied to in depth accident data. Full scale crash testing including a car to car test was performed to help develop the following candidate compatibility test procedures: - a full width wall test with a deformable aluminium honeycomb face and a high resolution load cell wall - an offset barrier test with the EEVC barrier face and a high resolution load cell wall - an offset barrier test with the progressively deformable barrier (PDB) face. The results of the interim study will be presented in detail and the proposed methodology of the next phase to complete the development of a suite of test procedures for the assessment of car to car compatibility in frontal impacts will be outlined
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 and limits 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 configurations such as impacts with car sides, trucks, and pedestrians. The WG consists of national government representatives who are supported by industrial advisers. The WG serves as a focal point for European research conducted by national and industry sponsored projects. The WG is responsible for collating the results from this research to achieve its objectives. EEVC WG 15 serves 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 partly funded by the European Commission. This paper presents a review of the current European research status. It also identifies current issues with candidate test procedures and lists the parameters that should be considered in assessing compatibility. The current candidate test procedures are: an offset barrier test with the progressive deformable barrier (PDB) face; a full width wall test with or without a deformable aluminium honeycomb face and a high resolution load cell wall; an offset barrier test with the EEVC barrier and load cell wall. These candidate test procedures must allow assessment of structural interaction, frontal force levels and compartment strength. The WG will report its findings to the EEVC Steering Committee and propose a test procedure in November 2006.
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.
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.
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.
The paper presents a methodology for the benefit estimation of several secondary safety systems for pedestrians, using the exceptional data depth of GIDAS. A total of 667 frontal pedestrian accidents up to 40kph and more than 500 AIS2+ injuries have been considered. In addition to the severity, affected body region, exact impact point on the vehicle, and the causing part of every injury, the related Euro NCAP test zone was determined. One results of the study is a detailed impact distribution for AIS2+ injuries across the vehicle front. It can be stated, how often a test zone or vehicle part is hit by pedestrians in frontal accidents and which role the ground impact plays. Basing on that, different secondary safety measures can be evaluated by an injury shift method concerning their real world effectiveness. As an example, measures concerning the Euro NCAP pedestrian rating tests have been evaluated. It was analysed which Euro NCAP test zones are the most effective ones. In addition, real test results have been evaluated. Using the presented methodology, other secondary safety like the active bonnet (pop-up bonnet) or a pedestrian airbag measures can be evaluated.
Over the past two decades the popularity of consumer crash test programs, commonly referred to as New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP), has grown across the world. They are popular among government regulators as they afford a means of promoting safety innovations and levels of vehicle performance beyond those dictated by national standards. They also fulfill the demand for information regarding the safety ranking of vehicles among consumers contemplating the purchase of a new vehicle. There is no question that consumer crash test programs greatly influence vehicle design changes as well as accelerate the fitment of new safety features. The extent to which these changes can be expected to reduce serious and potentially fatal injuries will be influenced by how well the testing protocols and associated rating schemes correctly reflect the nature of the residual safety problem they seek to address. Drawing on data contained primarily in the US National Automotive Sampling System (NASS), the field relevance of current and proposed testing and rating protocols addressing frontal crash test protection is examined. Emphasis is placed on examining how accurately injury rates computed from the dummy responses measured in consumer crash tests correspond to actual injury rates observed in the field. Additional data from Canadian field investigations and US databases such as the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS) are examined to see how well frontal airbag firing times, crush pulse durations and other determinants of injury are replicated in consumer testing protocols. This portion of the analysis draws on data obtained from Event Data Recorders (EDR) in both field collisions and staged tests of the same vehicle model. Vehicle rankings and overall frontal crash test ratings were found to be particularly sensitive to the choice of injury risk functions employed in the test. This was particularly true in the case of injury risk functions used to assess neck injury potential. Neck injury risk derived from Nij was found to show the least agreement with the field. Agreement between field chest injury rates and those derived from crash tests was improved considerably when chest injury risk functions for "older" occupants were employed. The paper concludes with a discussion of how different current testing protocols could be improved to enhance their field relevance.
The European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee wants to promote the use of more biofidelic child dummies and biomechanical based tolerance limits in regulatory and consumer testing. This study has investigated the feasibility and potential impact of Q-dummies and new injury criteria for child restraint system assessment in frontal impact. European accident statistics have been reviewed for all ECE-R44 CRS groups. For frontal impact, injury measures are recommended for the head, neck, chest and abdomen. Priority of body segment protection depends on the ECE-R44 group. The Q-dummy family is able to reflect these injuries, because of its biofidelity performance and measurement capabilities for these body segments. Currently, the Q0, Q1, Q1.5, Q3 and Q6 are available representing children of 0, 1, 1.5, 3 and 6 years old. These Q-dummies cover almost all dummy weight groups as defined in ECE-R44. Q10, representing a 10 year-old child, is under development. New child dummy injury criteria are under discussion in EEVC WG12. Therefore, the ECE-R44 criteria are assessed by comparing the existing P-dummies and new Q-dummies in ECE-R44 frontal impact sled tests. In total 300 tests covering 30 CRSs of almost all existing child seat categories are performed by 11 European organizations. From this benchmark study, it is concluded that the performance of the Q-dummy family is good with respect to repeatability of the measurement signals and the durability of the dummies. Applying ECE-R44 criteria, the first impression is that results for P- and Q-dummy are similar. For child seat evaluation the potential merits of the Q-dummy family lie in the extra measurement possibilities of these dummies and in the more biofidelic response.