Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Impact test (veh) (42) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (42)
- Sonstige (19)
- Präsident (1)
One main objective of the EU-Project SENIORS is to provide improved methods to assess thoracic injury risk to elderly occupants. In contribution to this task paired simulations with a THOR dummy model and human body model will be used to develop improved thoracic injury risk functions. The simulation results can provide data for injury criteria development in chest loading conditions that are underrepresented in PMHS test data sets that currently proposed risk functions are based on. To support this approach a new simplified generic but representative sled test fixture and CAE model for testing and simulation were developed. The parameter definition and evaluation of this sled test fixture and model is presented in this paper. The justification and definition of requirements for this test set-up was based on experience from earlier studies. Simple test fixtures like the gold standard sled fixture are easy to build and also to model in CAE, but provide too severe belt-only loading. On the other hand a vehicle buck including production components like airbag and seat is more representative, but difficult to model and to be replicated at a different laboratory. Furthermore some components might not be available for physical tests at later stage. The basis of the SENIORS generic sled test set-up is the gold standard fixture with a cable seat back and foot rest. No knee restraint was used. The seat pan design was modified including a seat ramp. The three-point belt system had a generic adjustable load limiter. A pre-inflated driver airbag assembly was developed for the test fixture. Results of THOR test and simulations in different configurations will be presented. The configurations include different deceleration pulses. Further parameter variations are related to the restraint system including belt geometry and load limiter levels. Additionally different settings of the generic airbag were evaluated. The test set-up was evaluated and optimized in tests with the THOR-M dummy in different test configurations. Belt restraint parameters like D-ring position and load limiter setting were modified to provide moderate chest loading to the occupant. This resulted in dummy readings more representative of the loading in a contemporary vehicle than most available PMHS sled tests reported in the literature. However, to achieve a loading configuration that exposes the occupant to even less severe loading comparable to modern vehicle restraints it might be necessary to further modify the test set-up. The new generic sled test set-up and a corresponding CAE model were developed and applied in tests and simulations with THOR. Within the SENIORS project with this test set-up also volunteer and PMHS as well as HBM simulations are performed, which will be reported in other publications. The test environment can contribute in future studies to the assessment of existing and new frontal impact dummies as well as dummy improvements and related instrumentation. The test set-up and model could also serve as a new standard test environment for PMHS and volunteer tests as well as HBM simulations.
Supported by field accident data and monitoring results of European Regulation (EC) No. 78/2009, recent plans of the European Commission regarding a way forward to improve passive safety of vulnerable road users include, amongst other things, an extension of the head test area. The inclusion of passive cyclist safety is also being considered by Euro NCAP. Although passenger car to cyclist collisions are often severe and have a significant share within the accident statistics, cyclists are neither considered sufficiently in the legislative nor in the consumer ratings tests. Therefore, a test procedure to assess the protection potential of vehicle fronts in a collision with cyclists has been developed within a current research project. For this purpose, the existing pedestrian head impact test procedures were modified in order to include boundary conditions relevant for cyclists as the second big group of vulnerable road users. Based on an in-depth analysis of passenger car to cyclist accidents in Germany the three most representative accident constellations have been initially defined. The development of the test procedure itself was based on corresponding simulations with representative vehicle and bicycle models. In addition to different cyclist heights, reaching from a 6-year-old child to a 95%-male, also four pedal positions were considered. By reconstruction of a real accident the defined simulation parameters could be validated in advance. The conducted accident kinematics analysis shows for a large portion of the constellations an increased head impact area, which can reach beyond the roof leading edge, as well as high average values for head impact velocity and angle. Based on the simulation data obtained for the different vehicle models, cyclist-specific test parameters for impactor tests have been derived, which have been further examined in the course of head and leg impact tests. In order to study the cyclist accident kinematics under real test conditions, different full scale tests with a Polar-II dummy positioned on a bicycle have been conducted. Overall, the tests showed a good correlation with the simulations and support the defined boundary test conditions. Typical accident scenarios and simulations reveal higher head impact locations, angles and velocities. An extended head impact area with modified test parameters will contribute to an improved protection of vulnerable road users including cyclists. However, due to significantly differing impact kinematics and postures between the lower extremities of pedestrians and cyclists, these injuries cannot be addressed by the means of current test tools such as the flexible pedestrian legform impactor FlexPLI. Based on the findings obtained within the project as well as the existing pedestrian protection requirements a cyclist protection test procedure for use in legislation and consumer test programmes has been developed, whose requirements have been transferred into a corresponding test specification. This specification provides common head test boundary conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, whereby the existing requirements are modified and two parallel test procedures are avoided.
The off-set assessment procedure potentially contributes to the FIMCAR objectives to maintain the compartment strength and to assess load spreading in frontal collisions. Furthermore it provides the opportunity to assess the restraint system performance with different pulses if combined with a full-width assessment procedure in the frontal assessment approach. Originally it was expected that the PDB assessment procedure would be selected for the FIMCAR assessment approach. However, it was not possible to deliver a compatibility metric in time so that the current off-set procedure (ODB as used in UNECE R94) with some minor modifications was proposed for the FIMCAR Assessment Approach. Nevertheless the potential to assess load spreading, which appears not to be possible with any other assessed frontal impact assessment procedure was considered to be still high. Therefore the development work for the PDB assessment procedure did not stop with the decision not to select the PDB procedure. As a result of the decisions to use the current ODB and to further develop the PDB procedure, both are covered within this deliverable. The deliverable describes the off-set test procedure that will be recommended by FIMCAR consortium, this corresponds to the ODB test as it is specified in UN-ECE Regulation 94 (R94), i.e. EEVC deformable element with 40% overlap at a test speed of 56 km/h. In addition to the current R94 requirements, FIMCAR will recommend to introduce some structural requirements which will guarantee sufficiently strong occupant compartments by enforcing the stability of the forward occupant cell. With respect to the PDB assessment procedure a new metric, Digital Derivative in Y direction - DDY, was developed, described, analysed, and compared with other metrics. The DDY metric analyses the deformation gradients laterally across the PDB face. The more even the deformation, the lower the DDY values and the better the metric- result. In order analyse the different metrics, analysis of the existing PDB test results and the results of the performed simulation studies was performed. In addition, an assessment of artificial deformation profiles with the metrics took place. This analysis shows that there are still issues with the DDY metric but it appears that it is possible to solve them with future optimisations. For example the current metric assesses only the area within 60% of the half vehicle width. For vehicles that have the longitudinals further outboard, the metric is not effective. In addition to the metric development, practical issues of the PDB tests such as the definition of a scan procedure for the analysis of the deformation pattern including the validation of the scanning procedure by the analysis of 3 different scans at different locations of the same barrier were addressed. Furthermore the repeatability and reproducibility of the PDB was analysed. The barrier deformation readings seem to be sensitive with respect to the impact accuracy. In total, the deliverable is meant to define the FIMCAR off-set assessment procedure and to be a starting point for further development of the PDB assessment procedure.
The objective of this deliverable is to describe the expected influence of the candidate test procedures developed in FIMCAR for frontal impact on other impact types. The other impact types of primary interest are front-to-side impacts, collisions with road restraint systems (e.g. guardrails), and heavy goods vehicle impacts. These collision types were chosen as they involve structures that can be adapted to improve safety. Collisions with vulnerable road users (VRU) were not explicitly investigated in FIMCAR. It is expected that the vehicle structures of interest in FIMCAR can be designed into a VRU friendly shell. Information used for this deliverable comes from simulations and car-to-car crash tests conducted in FIMCAR or review of previous research. Three test configurations (full width, offset, and moving deformable barriers) were the input to the FIMCAR selection process. There are three different types of offset tests and two different full width tests. During the project test procedures could be divided into three groups that provide different influences or outcomes on vehicle designs: 1. The ODB barrier provides a method to assess part of the vehicles energy absorption capabilities and compartment test in one test. 2. The FWRB and FWDB have similar capabilities to control structural alignment, further assess energy absorption capabilities, and promote the improvements in the occupant restraint system for high deceleration impacts. 3. The PDB and MPDB can be used to promote better load spreading in the vehicle structures, in addition to assessing energy absorption and occupant compartment strength in an offset configuration. The consortium selected the ODB and FWDB as the two best candidates for short term application in international rulemaking. The review of how all candidates would affect vehicle performance in other impacts (beside front-to-front vehicle or frontal impacts with fixed obstacles) however is reported in this deliverable to support the benefit analysis reported in FIMCAR. The grouping presented above is used to discuss all five test candidates using similarities between certain tests and thereby simplify the discussion.
The objectives of the FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) project are to answer the remaining open questions identified in earlier projects (such as understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of force based metrics and barrier deformation based metrics, confirmation of specific compatibility issues such as structural interaction, investigation of force matching) and to finalise the frontal impact test procedures required to assess compatibility. Research strategies and priorities were based on earlier research programs and the FIMCAR accident data analysis. The identified real world safety issues were used to develop a list of compatibility characteristics which were then prioritised within the consortium. This list was the basis for evaluating the different test candidates. This analysis resulted in the combination of the Full Width Deformable Barrier test (FWDB) with compatibility metrics and the existing Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) as described in UN-ECE Regulation 94 with additional cabin integrity requirement as being proposed as the FIMCAR assessment approach. The proposed frontal impact assessment approach addresses many of the issues identified by the FIMCAR consortium but not all frontal impact and compatibility issues could be addressed.
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions 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 frontal impact working group (WG15) and the FP5 VC-COMPAT project activities, two test approaches have been 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 should be performed. The objectives of the work reported in this deliverable were to review existing full-width test procedures and their discussed compatibility metrics, to report recent activities and findings with respect to full-width assessment procedures and to assess test procedures and metrics. Starting with a review of previous work, candidate metrics and associated performance limits to assess a vehicle- structural interaction potential, in particular its structural alignment, have been developed for both the Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB) and Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB) tests. Initial work was performed to develop a concept to assess a vehicle- frontal force matching. However, based on the accident analyses performed within FIMCAR frontal force matching was not evaluated as a first priority and thus in line with FIMCAR strategy the focus was put on the development of metrics for the assessment of structural interaction which was evaluated as a first priority.
Accident analysis
(2014)
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 years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and frontal impact working group (WG15) and the EC funded FP5 VC-COMPAT project activities, two test approaches have been 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 today- 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 should be performed. The specific objectives of the work reported in this deliverable were: - Determine if previously identified compatibility issues are still relevant in current vehicle fleet: Structural interaction, Frontal force matching, Compartment strength in particular for light cars. - Determine nature of injuries and injury mechanisms: Body regions injured o Injury mechanism: Contact with intrusion, Contact, Deceleration / restraint induced. The main data sources for this report were the CCIS and Stats 19 databases from Great Britain and the GIDAS database from Germany. The different sampling and reporting schemes for the detailed databases (CCIS & GIDAS) sometimes do not allow for direct comparisons of the results. However the databases are complementary " CCIS captures more severe collisions highlighting structure and injury issues while GIDAS provides detailed data for a broader range of crash severities. The following results represent the critical points for further development of test procedures in FIMCAR.
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.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Informal Group on GTR No. 7 Phase 2 are working to define a build level for the BioRID II rear impact (whiplash) crash test dummy that ensures repeatable and reproducible performance in a test procedure that has been proposed for future legislation. This includes the specification of dummy hardware, as well as the development of comprehensive certification procedures for the dummy. This study evaluated whether the dummy build level and certification procedures deliver the desired level of repeatability and reproducibility. A custom-designed laboratory seat was made using the seat base, back, and head restraint from a production car seat to ensure a representative interface with the dummy. The seat back was reinforced for use in multiple tests and the recliner mechanism was replaced by an external spring-damper mechanism. A total of 65 tests were performed with 6 BioRID IIg dummies using the draft GTR No.7 sled pulse and seating procedure. All dummies were subject to the build, maintenance, and certification procedures defined by the Informal Group. The test condition was highly repeatable, with a very repeatable pulse, a well-controlled seat back response, and minimal observed degradation of seat foams. The results showed qualitatively reasonable repeatability and reproducibility for the upper torso and head accelerations, as well as for T1 Fx and upper neck Fx. However, reproducibility was not acceptable for T1 and upper neck Fz or for T1 and upper neck My. The Informal Group has not selected injury or seat assessment criteria for use with BioRID II, so it is not known whether these channels would be used in the regulation. However, the ramping-up behavior of the dummy showed poor reproducibility, which would be expected to affect the reproducibility of dummy measurements in general. Pelvis and spine characteristics were found to significantly influence the dummy measurements for which poor reproducibility was observed. It was also observed that the primary neck response in these tests was flexion, not extension. This correlates well with recent findings from Japan and the United States showing a correlation between neck flexion and injury in accident replication simulations and postmortem human subjects (PMHS) studies, respectively. The present certification tests may not adequately control front cervical spine bumper characteristics, which are important for neck flexion response. The certification sled test also does not include the pelvis and so cannot be used to control pelvis response and does not substantially load the lumbar bumpers and so does not control these parts of the dummy. The stiffness of all spine bumpers and of the pelvis flesh should be much more tightly controlled. It is recommended that a method for certifying the front cervical bumpers should be developed. Recommendations are also made for tighter tolerance on the input parameters for the existing certification tests.
Past European collaborative research involving government bodies, vehicle manufacturers and test laboratories has resulted in a prototype barrier face called the Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (AE-MDB) for use in a new side impact test procedure . This procedure offers a better representation of the current accident situation and, in particular, the barrier concept is a better reflection of front-end stiffness seen in today- passenger car fleet compared to that of the current legislative barrier face. Based on the preliminary performance corridors of the prototype AE-MDB, a refined AE-MDB specification has been developed. A programme of barrier to load cell wall testing was undertaken to complete and standardise the AE-MDB specification. Barrier faces were supplied by the four leading manufacturers to demonstrate that the specification could be met by all. This paper includes background, specification and proof of compliance.
Since integrated safety systems combine active and passive safety elements in one safety system, it is necessary to define new procedures to evaluate vehicle safety from the overall system point of view. The main goal of the ASSESS project is to develop harmonized and standardized assessment procedures for collision mitigation and avoidance systems. Methods and Data Sources: In ASSESS, procedures are developed for: driver behaviour evaluation, pre-crash system performance evaluation, crash performance evaluation, socio-economic assessment. This paper will concentrate on the activities related to the crash evaluation. The objective is to perform simulations, sled tests and crash tests in order tounderstand the influence of the activation of the pre-crash systems on the occupants" injuries during the crash phase. When a traffic accident is unavoidable, pre-crash systems work on various safety devices in order to improve the vehicle occupants" protection. Braking assistance and adaptive restraint systems are the main pre-crash systems whose effect on the occupants" protection will be described in this paper. Results: The results will be a description of the effect of the activation of the pre-crash systems on the crash phase. Additionally, a set of recommendations for future methodology developments will be delivered. Furthermore, a first approach to the study of the effect of the pre-crash systems activation on the occupants" protection when the impact is unavoidable will be presented. This effect will be quantified using the biomechanical values obtained from the simulation and testing activities and their related injury risks. Simulation and testing activities will consider the following scenarios: - No activation of any pre-crash system, - Activation of one or a combination of several pre-crash systems. In this way, differences in the results obtained from different scenarios will show the effect of each pre-crash system separately during the crash phase. Discussion and Limitations: The set of activities developed in this research project is limited by the fact that with the given resources only a limited number of vehicle models could be investigated. In addition, there are also limitations related to the injury risk curves and the passive safety tools currently on the market. Conclusion and Relevance to session submitted: The paper will present a complete analysis of the effect of pre-crash systems during the crash phase when the impact is unavoidable. Details, limitations and first application experience based on a few examples will be discussed. Currently, there is not any regulation, assessment program, or other similar official procedure able to assess pre-crash systems during the crash phase. This project comprises phases of traffic accidents which have been historically analysed separately, and aims to evaluate them taking into account their interrelationship. ASSESS is one of the first European projects which deals in depth with the concept of integrated safety, defining methodologies to analyse vehicle safety from a global point of view.
The main objective of EC CASPER research project is to reduce fatalities and injuries of children travelling in cars. Accidents involving children were investigated, modelling of human being and tools for dummies were advanced, a survey for the diagnosis of child safety was carried out and demands and applications were analysed. From the many research tasks of the CASPER project, the intention of this paper is to address the following: • In-depth investigation of accidents and accident reconstruction. These will provide important points for the injury risk curve, in order to improve it. Different accident investigation teams collected data from real road accidents, involving child car passengers, in five different European countries. Then, a selection of the most appropriate cases for the injury risk curve and the purposes of the project was made for an in-depth analysis. The final stage of this analysis was to conduct an accident reconstruction to validate the results obtained. The in-depth analysis included on-scene accident investigation, creating virtual simulations of the accident/possible reconstruction, and conducting the reconstruction. In the cases of successful reconstructions, new points were introduced to the injury risk curves. Accident reconstructions of selected cases were carried out in test laboratories as the next step following in-depth road accident investigation. These cases were reconstructed using similar child restraint systems (CRS) and the same type make and model as in the real accidents. Reconstructing real cases has several limitations, such as crash angle, cars" approximation paths and crash speed. However, a few changes and applications on the testing conditions were applied to reduce the limitations and improved the representations of the real accidents. After conducting the reconstructions, a comparison between the deformations of the cars on the real accident and the vehicles from the reconstructions was made. Additionally, a correlation between the data captured from the dummies and the injury data from the real accident was sought. This finalises an in-depth analysis of the accident, which will provide new relevant points to the injury risk curve. The CASPER project conducted a large research programme on child safety. On technical points, a promising research area is the developing injury risk curves as a result of in-depth accident investigations and reconstructions. This abstract was written whilst the project was not yet finished and final results are not yet known, but they will be available by the time of the conference. All the works and findings will not necessarily be integrated in the industrial versions of evaluation tools as the CASPER project is a research program.
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.
A series of drop tests and vehicle tests with the adult head impactor according to Regulation (EC) 631/2009 and drop tests with the phantom head impactor according to UN Regulation No. 43 have been carried out by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS). Aim of the test series was to study the injury risk for vulnerable road users, especially pedestrians, in case of being impacted by a motor vehicle in a way described within the European Regulations (EC) 78/2009 and (EC) 631/2009. Furthermore, the applicability of the phantom head drop test described in UN Regulation No. 43 for plastic glazing should be investigated. In total, 30 drop tests, thereof 18 with the adult head impactor and 12 with the phantom head impactor, and 49 vehicle tests with the adult head impactor were carried out on panes of laminated safety glass (VSG), polycarbonate (PC) and laminated polycarbonate (L-PC). The influence of parameters such as the particular material properties, test point locations, fixations, ambient conditions (temperature and impact angle) was investigated in detail. In general, higher values of the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) were observed in tests on polycarbonate glazing. As the HIC is the current criterion for the assessment of head injury risk, polycarbonate glazing has to be seen as more injurious in terms of vulnerable road user protection. In addition, the significantly higher rebound of the head observed in tests with polycarbonate glazing is suspected to lead to higher neck loads and may also cause higher injury risks in secondary impacts of vulnerable road users. However, as in all tests with PC glazing no damage of the panes was observed, the risk of skin cut injuries may be expected to be reduced significantly. The performed test series give no indication for the test procedure prescribed in UN Regulation No. 43 as a methodology to approve glass windscreen not being feasible for polycarbonate glazing, as all PC panes tested fulfilled the UN R 43 requirements. The performance of the windscreen area will not be relevant for vehicle type approval according to the upcoming UN Regulation for pedestrian protection. However, it is recommended that pedestrian protection being considered for plastic windscreens to ensure at least the same level of protection as glass windscreens.
Recent accident statistics from the German national database state bicyclists being the second endangered group of vulnerable road users besides pedestrians. With 399 fatalities, more than 14.000 seriously injured and more than 61.000 slightly injured persons on german roads in the year 2011, the group of bicyclists is ranked second of all road user groups (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2012). While the overall bicycle helmet usage frequency in Germany is very low, evidence is given that its usage leads to a significant reduction of severe head injuries. After an estimation of the benefit of bicycle helmet usage as well as an appropriate test procedure for bicyclists, this paper describes two different approaches for the improvement of bicyclist safety. While the first one is focusing on the assessment of the vehicle based protection potential for bicyclists, the second one is concentrating on the safety assessment of bicycle helmets. Within the first part of the study the possible revision of the existing pedestrian testing protocols is being examined, using in depth accident data, full scale simulation and hardware testing. Within the second part of the study, the results of tests according to supplemental test procedures for the safety assessment of bicycle helmets developed by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) are presented. An additional full scale test performed at reduced impact speed proves that measures of active vehicle safety as e.g. braking before the collision event do not necessarily always lead to a reduction of injury severity.
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility compromises both the self protection and the partner protection properties of vehicles. For the accident data analysis, the CCIS (GB) and GIDAS (DE) in-depth data bases were used. Selection criteria were frontal car accidents with car in compliance with ECE R94. For this study belted adult occupants in the front seats sustaining MAIS 2+ injuries were studied. Following this analysis FIMCAR concluded that the following compatibility issues are relevant: - Poor structural interaction (especially low overlap and over/underriding) - Compartment strength - Frontal force mismatch with lower priority than poor structural interaction In addition injuries arising from the acceleration loading of the occupant are present in a significant portion of frontal crashes. Based on the findings of the accident analysis the aims that shall be addressed by the proposed assessment approach were defined and priorities were allocated to them. The aims and priorities shall help to decide on suitable test procedures and appropriate metrics. In general it is anticipated that a full overlap and off-set test procedure is the most appropriate set of tests to assess a vehicle- frontal impact self and partner protection.
The ASSESS project is a collaborative project that develops test procedures for pre-crash safety systems like Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB). One key criterion for the effectiveness of e.g. AEB is reduction in collision speed compared to baseline scenarios without AEB. The speed reduction for a given system can only be determined in real world tests that will end with a collision. Soft targets that are crashable up to velocities of 80 km/h are state of the art for these assessments, but ordinary balloon cars are usually stationary targets. The ASSESS project goes one step further and defines scenarios with moving targets. These scenarios define vehicle speeds of up to 100 km/h, different collision scenarios and relative collision speeds of up to 80km/h. This paper describes the development of a propulsion system for a soft target that aims to be used with these demanding scenario specifications. The Federal Highway Research Institute- (BASt-) approach to move the target is a self-driving small cart. The cart is controlled either by a driver (open-loop control via remote-control) or by a computer (closed-loop control). Its weight is limited to achieve a good crashability without damages to the test vehicle. To the extent of our knowledge BASt- approach is unique in this field (other carts cannot move at such high velocities or are not crashable). This paper describes in detail the challenges and solutions that were found both for the mechanical construction and the implementation of the control and safety system. One example for the mechanical challenges is e.g. the position of the vehicle- center of gravity (CG). An optimum compromise had to be found between a low CG oriented to the front of the vehicle (good for driveability) and a high CG oriented to the rear of the vehicle (good for crashability). The soft target itself which is also developed within the ASSESS project will not be covered in detail as this is work of a project partner. Publications on this will follow. The paper also shows first test results, describes current limitations and gives an outlook. It is expected that the presented test tools for AEB and other pre-crash safety systems is introduced in the future into consumer testing (NCAP) as well as regulatory testing.
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.
A flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) has been evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Group (Flex-TEG) of the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE). It will be implemented within phase 2 of the global technical regulation (GTR 9) as well as within a new ECE regulation on pedestrian safety as a test tool for the assessment of lower extremity injuries in lateral vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents (UN-ECE 2010-1, 2010-2 and 2010-3). Due to its biofidelic properties in the knee and tibia section, the FlexPLI is found to having an improved knee and tibia injury assessment ability when being compared to the current legislative test tool, the lower legform impactor developed by the Pedestrian Safety Working Group of the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC WG 17). However, due to a lack of biofidelity in terms of kinematics and loadings in the femur part of the FlexPLI, an appropriate assessment of femur injuries is still outstanding. The study described in this paper is aimed to close this gap. Impactor tests with the FlexPLI at different impact heights on three vehicle frontends with Sedan, SUV and FFV shape are performed and compared to tests with a modified FlexPLI with upper body mass. Full scale validation tests using a modified crash test dummy with attached FlexPLI that are carried out for the first time prove the more humanlike responses of the femur section with applied upper body mass. Apart from that they also show that the impact conditions described in the current technical provisions for tests with the FlexPLI don"t necessarily compensate the missing torso mass in terms of knee and tibia loadings either. Therefore it can be concluded that an applied upper body mass will contribute to a more biofidelic overall behavior of the legform and subsequently an improved injury assessment ability of all lower extremity injuries addressed by the FlexPLI. Nevertheless, the validity of the original as well as the modified legform for tests against vehicles with extraordinary high bumpers as well as flat front vehicles still needs to be evaluated in detail. A first clue is given by the application of an additional accelerometer to the legform.
Falltests zur Untersuchung der Belastungen von Dummys beim Aufprall auf den Boden, Teil 1 und 2
(2010)
Beim Zusammenprall eines Motorrads mit einem Pkw unterscheidet man in der Unfallforschung sowohl den Erstanprall des Motorradfahrers an den Pkw als auch den Sekundäraufprall des Motorradfahrers auf dem Boden. So genannte Full-Scale-Crashtests mit Dummys haben beim Erstanprall gezeigt, dass Motorradfahrer durch Airbags potenziell geschützt werden können. Bei den entsprechenden Unfallsimulationen wurde jedoch im weiteren Bewegungsablauf beim nachfolgenden Sekundäraufprall auf dem Boden festgestellt, dass relativ hohe Belastungen auf den Dummy einwirken. Es stellt sich hierbei jedoch die Frage, ob die üblicherweise für Lasteinwirkungen im Falle eines Erstanpralls entwickelten und validierten Dummys die bei einem Sekundäraufprall auf einen Motorradfahrer einwirkenden Belastungen hinreichend genau wiedergeben können. Dazu wurden die Belastungen eines Dummys beim Aufprall auf den Boden untersucht, um das Verletzungsrisiko eines menschlichen Motorradfahrers einschätzen zu können. Im Dekra-Crash-Test-Center wurden vier verschiedene Aufprallsituationen mit einem Hybrid III Dummy durchgeführt, wobei diese Tests an eine andere Testreihe angelehnt sind, die bereits am US-amerikanischen Institut "Dynamic Research International" (DRI) durchgeführt worden waren. Nach der Erläuterung des Testaufbaus und seiner Durchführung wird detailliert auf die gemessenen Verzögerungsbelastungen des Dummys eingegangen. Hierbei geben zum einen Tabellen eine Übersicht über charakteristische Messwerte zur Quantifizierung der maximalen Belastung des Dummys, zum anderen veranschaulichen Bilder die zugehörigen zeitlichen Verzögerungsverläufe in Becken, Brust und Kopf des Dummys. Der Artikel schließt mit einer Interpretation der Versuchsergebnisse und gibt einen Ausblick auf den weiteren Untersuchungsbedarf.
In the EC FP6 Integrated Project Advanced Protection Systems, APROSYS, the first WorldSID small female prototype was developed and evaluated by BASt, FTSS, INRETS, TRL and UPM-INSIA during 2006 and 2007. Results were presented at the ESV 2007 conference (Been et al., 2007). With the prototype dummy scoring a biofidelity rating higher than 6.7 out of 10 according to ISO/TR9790, the results were very promising. Also opportunities for further development were identified by the evaluation group. A revised prototype, Revision1, was subsequently developed in the 2007-2008 period to address comments from the evaluation group. The Revision1 dummy includes changes in the half arms and the suit (anthropometry and arm biomechanics), the thorax and abdomen ribs and sternum (rib durability), the abdomen/lumbar area and the lower legs (mass distribution). Also a two-dimensional chest deflection measurement system was developed to measure deflection in both lateral and anterior-posterior direction to improve oblique thorax loading sensitivity. Two Revision1 prototype dummies have now been evaluated by FTSS, TRL, UPM-INSIA and BASt. The updated prototype dummies were subjected to an extensive matrix of biomechanical tests, such as full body pendulum tests and lateral sled impact tests as specified by Wayne State University, Heidelberg University and Medical College of Wisconsin. The results indicated a significant improvement of dummy biofidelity. The overall dummy biofidelity in the ISO rating system has significantly improved from 6.7 to 7.6 on a scale between 0-10. The small female WorldSID has now obtained the same biofidelity rating as the WorldSID mid size male dummy. Also repeatability improved with respect to the prototype. In conclusion the recommended updates were all executed and all successfully contributed in achieving improved performance of the dummy.
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.