Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (15) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (15) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Seitlicher Zusammenstoß (15) (entfernen)
Institut
- Sonstige (15)
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (5)
In this study, we compared the injury severity of occupants according to the seating position and the crashing direction in motor vehicle accidents. In the driver's point of view, it was separated the seating position as "Near-side" and "Far-side". The study subjects were targeted by people who visited 4 regional emergency centers following motor vehicle accidents. Real-world investigation was performed by direct and indirect methods after patient- consent. The information of the damaged vehicle was informed by Collision Deformation Classification (CDC) code and the information of the injury of patients was informed by using the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). When the column 3 in CDC code was P, damaged at the middle part of lateral side, the average point of AIS 3 was 1.91-±1.72 in near-side and 1.02-±1.31 in far-side (p<0.01). The average point of maximum AIS (MAIS) was 2.78-±1.39 in near-side and 2.02-±1.11 in far-side (p<0.01). The average point of ISS was 15.74-±14.71 in near-side and 8.11-±8.39 in far-side (p<0.01). Also, when the column 3 in CDC code was D, damaged at the whole part of lateral side, it was significant that the average point of AIS 3 and MAIS in near-side was bigger than in far-side (p=0.02).
The incidence of side impacts was investigated from GIDAS data. Both vehicle-fixed object and vehicle-vehicle collisions were analysed as these are enclosed within the consumer testing program. Vehicle-fixed object collisions were stratified according to ESC availability. Results indicated that vehicles equipped with ESC rarely have pure-lateral impacts. An increase in oblique collisions was seen for the vehicles with ESC whereby most vehicle were driving in left curves. The analysis of vehicle-vehicle collisions developed injury risk curves were developed at the AIS3+ injury severity for the vehicle-vehicle side impacts. Results suggested that greatest injury risk occurred when a Pre Euro NCAP vehicle was struck by a Post Euro-NCAP vehicle. The remaining curves did not show different behaviour, indicating that stiffness increased have been equally combated. This was attributable to the few Post Euro-NCAP vehicles that had a deployed curtain airbag available in the sample. The integration of Euro NCAP testing has shown to improve vehicle crashworthiness for pole collisions, as those vehicles with ESC rarely incur lateral impacts.
The Traffic Accident Research Institute at University of Technology Dresden investigates about 1,000 accidents annually in the area around and in Dresden. These datasets have been summarized and evaluated in the GIDAS (German Accident In-Depth Study) project for 13 years. During the project it became apparent that the specific traffic situation of a covert exit of a passenger car and an intersecting two-wheeler involves a high risk potential. This critical situation develops in a large part due to the lack of visibility between the driver and the intersecting bike. In this paper the accident avoidance potential of front camera systems with lateral field of view, which allows the driver to have an indirect sight into the crossing street area will be presented.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Estimation of the benefits for the UK for potential options to modify UNECE Regulation No. 95
(2010)
The side impact problem in Europe remains substantial. UK data shows that between 22% and 26% of car occupant casualties are involved in a side impact, but this rises to between 29% and 38% for those who are fatally injured. This indicates the more injurious nature of side impacts compared with frontal impacts. The European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) has performed work to address the side impact issue since 1979. As part of its continuing work, it has recently investigated potential options for regulatory changes to improve side impact protection in cars further. To support this work the UK undertook an analysis to estimate the benefit for potential options to modify UNECE Regulation 95. The analysis used the UK national STATS19 and detailed Co-operative Crash Injury Study (CCIS) accident databases. Of the potential options reviewed, it was found that the addition of a pole test offered the greatest benefit.
Side impacts, both nearside and farside, have been indicated by research to be responsible for a large proportion of serious injuries from road crashes. This study aimed to compare and contrast the characteristics of nearside and farside crashes in Australia, Germany and the U.S., using the ANCIS, GIDAS and NASS/CDS in-depth-databases, in order to establish the impact and injury severity associated with these crashes, and the types of injuries sustained. The analyses revealed some interesting similarities, as well as differences, between both nearside and farside crashes, and the emergent trends between the three investigated countries. More specifically, it was indicated that whilst the severity of injury sustained in nearside crashes was slightly greater overall than that found for farside crashes, careful consideration of struck and nonstruck side occupants must be made when considering aspects such as vehicle design and occupant protection.