Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (106) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Anfahrversuch (37)
- Safety (35)
- Impact test (veh) (34)
- Sicherheit (34)
- Bewertung (30)
- Conference (29)
- Evaluation (assessment) (29)
- Konferenz (29)
- Fahrzeug (26)
- Test method (25)
Institut
Many big cities in Europe and elsewhere in the world have problems managing the traffic especially during rush hours. The improvement of the parking problematic and environmental protection as well are important aspects for the future traffic design of urban areas. To improve the traffic situation the development of new traffic concepts and alternative vehicles are required. The BMW company has developed a new type of two-wheel vehicle. This two-wheeler constitutes a totally new concept. BMW implemented a lot of safety features, such as a structure made up of rollover bars and a crush element instead of a front protecting plate. Furthermore the driver can secure himself with two safety belts. The paper contains a description of the novel two-wheel vehicle concept designed so far. BMW's concept and the safety features are also explained. The Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) was given the task of assessing the concept as a whole with regard to the active and passive safety and the exemption of the obligation to wear a helmet. The expertise concluded that the BMW two-wheeler concept has a very high safety standard. Some extracts of the expertise, in particular the investigations concerning the exemption of the obligation to wear a helmet are presented. Common legal requirements for the vehicle registration of vehicle concepts similar to the BMW two-wheeler in Germany have been formulated.
A means of assessing the passive safety of automobiles is a desirable instrument for legislative bodies, the automobile industry, and the consumer. As opposed to the dominating motor vehicle assessment criteria, such as engine power, spaciousness, aerodynamics and consumption, there are no clear and generally accepted criteria for assessing the passive safety of cars. The proposed method of assessment combines the results of experimental safety tests, carried out according to existing legally prescribed or currently discussed testing conditions, and a biomechanical validation of the loading values determined in the test. This evaluation is carried out with the aid of risk functions which are specified for individual parts of the body by correlating the results of accident analysis with those obtained by computer simulation. The degree of conformance to the respective protection criterion thus deduced is then weighted with factors which take into account the frequency of occurrence and the severity of the accident on the basis of resulting costs. Each of the test series includes at least two frontal and one lateral crash test against a deformable barrier. The computer-aided analysis and evaluation of the simulation results enables a vehicle-specific overall safety index as well as partial and individual safety values to be determined and plotted graphically. The passive safety provided by the respective vehicle under test can be defined for specific seating positions, special types of accident, or for individual endangered parts of the body.
Side-impact safety of passenger cars is assessed in Europe in a full-scale test using a moving barrier. The front of this barrier is deformable and represents the stiffness of an 'average' car. The EU Directive 96/27/EC on side impact protection has adopted the EEVC Side Impact Test Procedure, including the original performance specification for the barrier face when impacting a flat dynamometric rigid wall. The requirements of the deformable barrier face, as laid down in the Directive, are related to geometrical characteristics, deformation characteristics and energy dissipation figures. Due to these limited requirements, many variations are possible in designing a deformable barrier face. As a result, several barrier face designs are in the market. However, research institutes and car manufacturers report significant difference in test results when using these different devices. It appears that the present approval test is not able to distinguish between the different designs that may perform differently when they impact real vehicles. Therefore, EEVC Working Group 13 has developed a number of tests to evaluate the different designs. In these tests the barrier faces are loaded and deformed in a specific and/or more representative way. Barrier faces of different design have been evaluated. In the paper the set-up and the reasoning behind the tests is presented. Results showing specific differences in performance are demonstrated.
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.
With the present brake signal pattern the traffic behind only receives the information that the brakes are applied, however, the drivers have no information about the intensity of the braking maneuver. In this report it is examined on the basis of a study of the literature, how the rear signal pattern could be optimized for a special representation of emergency braking maneuvers. In principle there are two suitable possibilities to reduce the driver reaction time: - An increase in the area and luminance of the brake lights intuitively provide the drivers following with an impression of approaching the vehicle in front , - Flashing lights are particularly suited to attract the attention of the driver following to the deceleration of the vehicle ahead , - The following advancement is recommended as an optimization of the rear signal pattern: When the brake assistant or ABS actuates or at a vehicle deceleration rate greater than 7 m/s-², the emergency braking maneuver is signaled by flashing of the third high-mounted brake light at a rate of 3-5 Hz. As an option, the area and luminance of the two lower brake lights could be increased in addition. These measures require changes to ECE Regulations No. 7 and No. 48 as well as to the Vienna Convention. The purpose of the described solution is to reduce the number or severity of rear-end accidents.
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.
The purpose of this paper is to review injuries found in real world lateral collisions and determine the mechanisms responsible for certain kinds of biomechanical failure. During the last years the distribution of deaths among the different types of accidents has changed. Lateral collisions now are the most frequent cause of fatal and other serious injuries. Every third accident is an impact from the side, while every second fatality is the result of a lateral accident. Just a few years ago this value was no higher than 30%. This is probably the result of increasing safety standards for frontal collisions (airbags, seatbelt usage, structural improvements of cars, etc.). Although the number of registered vehicles increased, the total amount of fatalities decreased during the same period. Thus it is now necessary to pay greater attention to the lateral accident situation in order to improve road safety and decrease the number of traffic injuries. Several European organisations had decided to launch the project SID2000, which was funded by the European Commission, with the intention of gathering more knowledge on injuries occurring in lateral accidents and the mechanisms that lead to such injuries. This should enable the group to define the requirements for a new side impact dummy (SID) to be designed. Within the same project the existing TNO-EUROSID 1 was enhanced by another group and the experience gained has now enabled allowed to design a better measuring device for side impacts. The data used for this contribution came from sources from all over Europe and had to be gathered in such a manner that as many accident parameters as possible were taken into account.
Despite the steadily declining number of pedestrian fatalities and injuries in most European countries during recent decades, pedestrian protection is still of great importance in the European Union as well as in Germany. This is because they still constitute a large proportion of road user casualties and are more likely to suffer serious and fatal injuries than most other road users. In 1999 only car occupants suffered more fatal injuries than pedestrians in Germany. In December 1998, EEVC WG 17 completed their review and updating of the EEVC WG 10 pedestrian test procedure that made it possible to evaluate the protection afforded to pedestrians by the front of passenger cars in an accident. Within the scope of this procedure, four different impactors are used representing those parts of the body which are injured very often and/or very seriously in vehicle-pedestrian-collisions. In a project executed by IKA and BASt, a small family car was tested according to the EEVC WG 17 test procedure. Afterwards modifications to the car were carried out in order to improve the pedestrian protection provided by the vehicle design. There were certain restrictions placed on the level of modifications undertaken, e.g. only minor modifications to vehicle styling and to the vehicle structures, which provide passenger protection. The redesigned vehicle was tested again using the WG 17 test procedure. The test results of the modified vehicle were compared with those of the standard vehicle and evaluated. The results show that considered measures for pedestrian protection in many areas of the vehicle front structure and the use of innovative techniques can lead to a significant reduction of the loads of pedestrians at an acceptable expense.
EEVC Status report
(2001)
The Swedish National Road Administration (SNRA), the Japanese Automobile Research Institute (JARI) and the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) are co-operating in the International Harmonized Research Activities on Intelligent Transportation Systems (IHRA-ITS). Under this umbrella a joint study was conducted. The overall objective of this study was to contribute to the definition and validation of a "battery of tools" which enables a prediction and an assessment of changes in driver workload due to the use of in-vehicle information systems (IVIS) while driving. In this sense \"validation\" means to produce empirical evidence from which it can be concluded that these methods reliably discriminate between IVIS which differ in terms of relevant features of the HMI-design. Additionally these methods should also be sensitive to the task demands imposed on the driver by the traffic situation and their interactions with HMI-design. To achieve these goals experimental validation studies (on-road and in the simulator) were performed in Sweden, Germany and Japan. As a common element these studies focused on the secondary task methodology as an approach to the study of driver workload. In a joint German-Swedish on-road study the Peripheral Detection Task (PDT) was assessed with respect to its sensitivity to the complexity of traffic situations and effects of different types of navigation systems. Results show that the PDT performance of both the German and the Swedish subjects reflects the task demands of the traffic situations better than those of the IVIS. However, alternative explanations are possible which will be examined by further analyses. Results of this study are supplemented by the Japanese study where informational demands induced by various traffic situations were analysed by using a simple arithmetic task as a secondary task. Results of this study show that relatively large task demands can be expected even from simple traffic situations.
The development of tyre- and truck-manufacturers leads to the direction to introduce wide base single tyres (size 495/45R22,5) instead of twin tyres on the driving axle of trucks, tractors and busses. To study the driving behaviour and safety of various trucks and units with different tyre combinations and loading conditions was the aim of the study. A computer-aided simulation was used for this investigation. Drive tests with a 40 t unit with prototype single tyres on the drive axle were carried out to verify the simulation. Alterations in driving behaviour and driving safety are mainly dependent on the tyre cornering stiffness. The prototype wide single tyres had a higher lateral stiffness which leads to a higher degree of under-steering (safer driving behaviour). The altered spring base on the drive axle had no influence on the side- tilt stability of vehicle combinations but the solo truck profited from the higher rear axle roll stiffness (less danger for roll-over accidents). As far as the driving safety is concerned nothing speaks against wide base tyres on the drive axle. The simulation of a tyre defect in a bend (assuming 40% of the max. transferable side force for the flat tyre) showed no increased danger using wide single tyres. Later driving tests showed however the need of tyre run flat possibilities to avoid jack-knifing of road trains. Also tyre pressure monitoring systems and electronic stability programs for the trucks are advised.
The frontal crash is still an important contributor to deaths and serious injured resulting from road accidents in Europe. As the Hybrid-III dummy used in crash tests is over two decades old, the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee is studying the potential for a new test device. Key is the availability of a well-defined set of requirements that identifies the minimum level of biofidelity required for an advanced frontal dummy. In this paper, a complete set of frontal impact biofidelity requirements, consisting of references , description of test conditions and corridors, is presented.
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
When the EEVC proposed the full-scale side impact test procedure, it recommended that consideration should be given to an interior headform test in addition. This was to evaluate areas of contact not assessed by the dummy. EEVC Working Group 13 has been researching the parameters of a possible European headform test procedure in four phases. Earlier stages of the research have been presented at previous ESV conferences. The conclusions from these have suggested that the US free motion headform should be used in any European test procedure and that it should be a free flight test, not guided. This research has now culminated in proposals for a European test procedure. This paper presents the proposed EEVC side impact interior headform test procedure, giving the rationale for the test and the first results from the validation phase of the test protocol.
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.
The European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) Working Group 13 for Side Impact Protection has been developing an Interior Headform Test Procedure to complement the full-scale Side Impact Test Procedure for Europe and for the proposed IHRA test procedures. In real world accidents interior head contacts with severe head injuries still occur, which are not always observed in standard side impact tests with dummies. Thus a means is needed to encourage further progress in head protection. At the 2003 ESV-Conference EEVC Working Group 13 reported the results on Interior Headform Testing. Further research has been performed since and the test procedure has been improved. This paper gives an overview of its latest status. The paper presents new aspects which are included in the latest test procedure and the research work leading to these enhancements. One topic of improvement is the definition of the Free Motion Headform (FMH) impactor alignment procedure to provide guidelines to minimize excessive headform chin contact and to minimize potential variability. Research activities have also been carried out on the definition of reasonable approach head angles to avoid unrealistic test conditions. Further considerations have been given to the evaluation of head airbags, their potential benefits and a means of ensuring protection for occupants regardless of seating position and sitting height. The paper presents the research activities that have been made since the last ESV Conference in 2003 and the final proposal of the EEVC Headform Test Procedure.
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.
In spite of today's highly sophisticated crash test procedures like the different NCAP programs running world-wide, bad real world crash performance of cars is still an issue. There are crash situations which are not sufficiently represented by actual test configurations. This is especially true for car to car, as well as for car to object impacts. The paper describes reasons for this bad performance. The reasons are in principal bad structural interaction between the car and its impact partners (geometric incompatibility), unadjusted front end stiffness (stiffness incompatibility) and collapse of passenger compartments. To show the efficiency of improving cars' structural behaviour in accidents with different impact partners an accident data analysis has been taken out by members of European Project VC-COMPAT. Accident data analysis has shown that in Germany between 15,000 and 20,000 of the now severely injured car occupants might get less injured and between 600 and 900 car occupant fatalities might be saved. Similar results arise for the UK.
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.
At the 2005 ESV conference, the International Harmonisation of Research Activities (IHRA) side impact working group proposed a 4 part draft test procedure, to form the basis of harmonisation of regulation world-wide and to help advances in car occupant protection. This paper presents the work performed by a European Commission 6th framework project, called APROSYS, an further development and evaluation of the proposed procedure from a European perspective. The 4 parts of the proposed procedure are: - A Mobile Deformable Barrier test; - An oblique Pole side impact test; - Interior headform tests; - Side Out of Position (OOP) tests. Full scale test and modelling work to develop the Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (AE-MDB) further is described, resulting in a recommendation to revise the barrier face to include a bumper beam element. An evaluation of oblique and perpendicular pole tests was made from tests and numerical simulations using ES-2 and WorldSID 50th percentile dummies. It was concluded that an oblique pole test is feasible but that a perpendicular test would be preferable for Europe. The interior headform test protocol was evaluated to assess its repeatability and reproducibility and to solve issues such as the head impact angle and limitation zones. Recommendations for updates to the test protocol are made. Out-of-position (OOP) tests applicable for the European situation were performed, which included additional tests with Child Restraint Systems (CRS) which use is mandatory in Europe. It was concluded that the proposed IHRA OOP tests do cover the worst case situations, but the current test protocol is not ready for regulatory use.
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.
Today, Euro NCAP is a well established rating system for passive car safety. The significance of the ratings must however be evaluated by comparison with national accident data. For this purpose accidents with involvement of two passenger cars have been taken from the German National Road Accident Register (record years 1998 to 2004) to evaluate the results of the NCAP frontal impact test configuration. Injury data from both drivers involved in frontal car to car collisions have been sampled and have been compared, using a "Bradley Terry Model" which is well established in the area of paired comparisons. Confounders " like mass ratio of the cars involved, gender of the driver, etc. " have been accounted for in the statistical model. Applying the Bradley Terry Model to the national accident data the safety ranking from Euro NCAP has been validated (safety level: 1star <2 star <3 star <4 star). Significant safety differences are found between cars of the 1 and 2 star category as compared to cars of the 3 and 4 star category. The impact of the mass ratio was highly significant and most influential. Changing the mass ratio by an amount of 10% will raise the chance for the driver of the heavier car to get better off by about 18%. The impact of driver gender was again highly significant, showing a nearly 2 times lower injury risk for male drivers. With regard to the NCAP rating drivers of a high rated car are more than 2 times more probable (70% chance) to get off less injured in a frontal collision as compared to the driver of a low rated car.