Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (17) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Impact test (veh) (17) (entfernen)
Institut
A legform impactor with biofidelic characteristics (FlexPLI) which is being developed by the Japanese Automobile Research Institute (JARI) is being considered as a test tool for legislation within a proposed Global Technical Regulation on pedestrian protection (UNECE, 2006) and therefore being evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) of GRSP. In previous built levels it already showed good test results on real cars as well as under idealised test conditions but also revealed further need for improvement. A research study at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) deals with the question on how leg injury risks of modern car fronts can be revealed, reflected and assessed by the FlexPLI and how the impactor can be used and implemented as a legislative instrument for the type approval of cars according to current and future legislations on pedestrian protection. The latest impactor built level (GTα ) is being evaluated by a general review and assessment of the certification procedure, the knee joint biofidelity and the currently proposed injury criteria. Furthermore, the usability, robustness and durability as a test tool for legislation is examined and an assessment of leg injuries is made by a series of tests with the FlexPLI on real cars with modern car front shapes as well as under idealised test conditions. Finally, a comparison is made between the FlexPLI and the current european legislation tool, the legform impactor according to EEVC WG 17.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An approach to the standardization of accident and injury registration systems (STAIRS) in Europe
(1998)
STAIRS is a European Commission funded study whose aim is to produce a set of guidelines for a harmonised, crash injury database. The need to evaluate the effectiveness of the forthcoming European Union front and side impact directives has emphasised the need for real world crash injury data-sets that can be representative of the crash population throughout Europe. STAIRS will provide a methodology to achieve this. The ultimate aim of STAIRS is to produce a set of data collection tools which will aid decision making on vehicle crashworthiness as well as providing a means to evaluate the effectiveness of safety regulations. This paper will disseminate the up-to-date findings of the group as they try to harmonise their methods. The stage has been reached where studies into the diverse methods of the UK, French and German systems of crash injury investigation have been undertaken. An assessment has already been made of the relationships between the three current systems in order to define the areas of agreement and divergence. The conclusions reached stated that there were many areas that are already closely related and that the differences were only at the detailed level. With the emphasis on secondary safety and injury causation, core data sets were decided upon, taking into account: vehicle description, collision configuration, structural response of vehicles, restraint and airbag performance, child restraint performance, Euro NCAP, pedestrian and vehicle occupant kinematics, injury description and causation. Each variable was studied objectively, the important elements isolated and developed into a form that all partners were agreeable on. A glossary of terms is being developed as the project progresses which includes ISO standards and other definitions from the associated CAREPLUS project, which addresses the comparability of national data sets. A major consideration of the group was the data collection method to be employed. The strengths and weaknesses of each study were investigated to obtain a clear idea of which aspects offered the best way forward. The quality of this information and transference into a common format, as well as the necessary error checking systems to be employed have just been completed and are described. In tandem with this area of study the problem of the statistical relationship of each sample to the national population is also being investigated. The study proposes a mechanism to use a sample of crash injury data to represent the national and international crash injury problem
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.
Sicherheitstechnische Anforderungen an die Bestuhlung moderner Reisebusse als Rückhaltesysteme
(1991)
Die Schutzfähigkeit von KOM-Fahrgastsitzen, die den ECE-R 80-Anforderungen entsprechen, ist bisher nur für die aufgerichtete Rückenlehne nachgewiesen. Hier wurde untersucht, ob auch geneigte Rückenlehnen ausreichende Schutzwirkung bieten. Ausgehend von der Normalsitzposition verfügen Reisebussitze heutiger Bauart über einen Lehnenverstellwinkel von circa 15 Grad (Normal-, Ruhesitzposition). Sondersitze für Ältere und Sportler erlauben auch die Liegesitz- beziehungsweise Liegeposition bei jedoch erheblich größeren Sitzteilern. In Schlittenaufprallversuchen mit je zwei instrumentierten anthropometrischen Messpuppen auf Reisebus-Doppelsitzen wurden die Belastungsverhältnisse eines frontalen Aufpralls simuliert. Die Lehnenverstelleinrichtung der Prüfsitze wurde behelfsweise so verändert, dass 3 (4) Winkeleinstellungen der Lehnenneigung möglich waren. Für jeweils zwei hintereinander zugeordnete Sitzplätze wurden wechselweise diese Lehneneinstellungen variiert. Mit 17 Doppelsitzen wurden insgesamt 32 Körperaufprallereignisse in den verschiedenen Lehnenneigungskonfigurationen durchgeführt. Die Versuchsergebnisse gliederten sich nach der Bewegungsform des Dummy, seinen Belastungen und den am Vordersitz hervorgerufenen Beschädigungen. Die Aufprallverhältnisse in aufrechter Normalsitzposition entsprechend der ECE-R 80 bildeten die Bewertungsbasis. Die gewonnenen Versuchsergebnisse lassen sich wie folgt zusammenfassen: - Für beliebige Lehneneinstellungen im Winkelbereich bis zu 30 Grad zur Senkrechten bietet die vorgebaute Sitzlehne generell ausreichende Rückhaltewirkung beim Körperaufprall. - Wenn die Vordersitzlehne jedoch steiler eingestellt ist als es der Körperhaltung des dahintersitzenden Dummy entspricht, ist mit 1,5-2fach höheren Kopfbelastungen zu rechnen. Das ECE-R 80-Schutzkriterium HAC < 500 wird überschritten. - Vorsorglich sollte aus sicherheitstechnischer Sicht der zulässige Grenzwinkel der Lehnenneigung auf 30 Grad zur Senkrechten beschränkt werden.
Wegen der wachsenden Verbreitung von Fahrradanhängern zum Kindertransport und der möglichen Unfallgefährdung ist im vorliegenden Forschungsprojekt deren passive Sicherheit untersucht worden. Zudem wurde der Frage nachgegangen, ob der Transport von Kindern im Fahrradanhänger sicherer ist als mit dem Fahrrad mit Kindersitzen. In Absprache mit Herstellern und Vertreibern wurden verschiedene Untersuchungen durchgeführt. Es handelte sich um Anprallversuche (Anfahrversuche), Rollwagenversuche (Schlittenversuche) sowie Kopffreiheitsprüfungen und Fallversuche. Bei den Versuchen waren die Prüfobjekte mit einem oder zwei Dummies besetzt, die mit Messdatenaufnehmern ausgestattet waren. Verschiedene Messdaten, zum Beispiel Kopf- und Brustbeschleunigung, wurden erfasst und ausgewertet. Zusätzlich wurde das Kopfschutzkriterium (HPC) berechnet und bewertet. Entstandene Schäden an den Prüfobjekten wurden aufgenommen und durch Fotos dokumentiert. Die Versuchsabläufe selbst wurden mit Hochgeschwindigkeitskameras aus verschiedenen Positionen aufgezeichnet. Beim Anfahrversuch mit einem Pkw gegen ein Gespann aus Fahrrad und Anhänger waren direkte Anstöße der Anhängerinsassen an die Pkw-Front zu erkennen. Die Beschleunigungswerte waren dabei relativ hoch. Anstöße gegen Anhängerinnenteile waren bei fast allen Versuchen zu beobachten. Teilweise wurden Radaufhängungen und Radnaben beschädigt. Durch die Rollwagenversuche wurden konstruktive Schwächen bei den Sitzen und Rückhaltesystemen festgestellt. Nähte, Befestigungen und Verstellösen wurden zerstört. Es stellte sich heraus, dass die Qualität des Gurtsystems, die Steifigkeit des Anhängeraufbaus, die Sitzposition der Kinder und die vorhandene Kopffreiheit ausschlaggebend für das Verletzungsrisiko der Insassen sind. Bei den Versuchen mit Fahrradsitzen ergaben sich hohe Beschleunigungswerte durch den direkten Kontakt des Radfahrers mit der Fahrzeugfront und/oder der Fahrbahn. Das Gewicht des Radfahrers, des Fahrrades und auch Fahrradteile bergen ein erhöhtes Verletzungsrisiko für das Kind. Zusätzlich besteht die Gefahr überfahren zu werden, wenn das Kind nach dem Sturz des Fahrrades ungeschützt auf der Fahrbahn liegt. Ein direkter Vergleich der beiden Transportmöglichkeiten war aufgrund der geringen Daten der Versuche mit Fahrradkindersitzen nur bedingt möglich. Tendenziell ist der Transport der Kinder im Fahrradanhänger als weniger gefährlich zu bewerten. Es werden die Vor- und Nachteile dargestellt. Zur Bewertung der Sicherheit von Fahrradanhängern wurden die folgenden Prüfmethoden erarbeitet: - Pendelschlagprüfung für die gesamte Chassisstruktur; - Kopffreiheitsprüfung; - Belastungsprüfung der Aufbaustruktur; - Festigkeitsprüfung der Gurtsysteme. Die Prüfungen sind so aufgebaut, dass sie mit einfachen Mitteln durchzuführen sind. Es sollte somit jedem Anhängerhersteller möglich sein, die passive Sicherheit seiner Produkte umfassend zu untersuchen. Die Prüfverfahren für die Sicherheitsbewertung sollen in eine DIN-Norm und in das Merkblatt für Fahrradanhänger einfließen. Der Original-Forschungsbericht enthält einen umfangreichen Fotoband zu den Einzelheiten der Versuche und Versuchsaufbauten sowie zu den Beschädigungen der Prüfobjekte und kann bei der BASt eingesehen werden.
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.