Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (17) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Anfahrversuch (17) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (17) (entfernen)
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.
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.
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.
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.
To improve vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility aims to improve both the self and partner protection properties of vehicles. Although compatibility has received worldwide attention for many years, no final assessment approach has been defined. Within the Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research (FIMCAR) project, different frontal impact test procedures (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test as currently used for Economic Commission for Europe [ECE] R94, progressive deformable barrier test as proposed by France for a new ECE regulation, moveable deformable barrier test as discussed worldwide, full-width rigid barrier test as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard [FMVSS] 208, and full-width deformable barrier test) were analyzed regarding their potential for future frontal impact legislation. The research activities focused on car-to-car frontal impact accidents based on accident investigations involving newer cars. Test procedures were developed with both a crash test program and numerical simulations. The proposal from FIMCAR is to use a full-width test procedure with a deformable element and compatibility metrics in combination with the current offset test as a frontal impact assessment approach that also addresses compatibility. By adding a full-width test to the current ODB test it is possible to better address the issues of structural misalignment and injuries resulting from high acceleration accidents as observed in the current fleet. The estimated benefit ranges from a 5 to 12 percent reduction of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from frontal impact accidents. By using a deformable element in the full-width test, the test conditions are more representative of real-world situations with respect to acceleration pulse, restraint system triggering time, and deformation pattern of the front structure. The test results are therefore expected to better represent real-world performance of the tested car. Furthermore, the assessment of the structural alignment is more robust than in the rigid wall test.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Das Ziel der Untersuchung war, die Grenzen der Belastbarkeit eines Rollstuhl- und Personenrückhaltesystems mit Kraftknoten nach DIN 75078-2 zu ermitteln. Dazu wurden dynamische Schlittenversuche durchgeführt, bei denen die Verzögerungspulse sowie das Gesamtgewicht von Rollstuhl und Prüfpuppe variiert wurden. Für die Untersuchungen kamen ein Prüfrollstuhl, definiert nach ISO 10542, und Rückhaltesysteme mit Kraftknoten gemäß DIN 75078-2 zum Einsatz. Das Rückhaltesystem bestand aus einem Rollstuhl- und einem Personenrückhaltesystem, wobei das Rollstuhlrückhaltesystem (RRS) mit vier bzw. sechs Gurten und entsprechenden Retraktoren an einem dynamischen Schlittenaufbau befestigt wurde. Das Personenrückhaltesystem (PRS) bestand aus einem am Rollstuhl integrierten Beckengurt sowie einem Schulterschräggurt, der am Beckengurt und am Schlittenaufbau befestigt wurde. Ferner wurden bei den Versuchen Prüfpuppen verschiedener Alters- und Gewichtsklassen (P6, HIII 5 %, HIII 50 % und HIII 95 %) eingesetzt Die Belastungsanforderungen für das Rückhaltesystem wurden sukzessiv erweitert, indem einerseits das Gesamtgewicht (Rollstuhl und Prüfpuppe) und andererseits auch die Verzögerungspulse bis zur Versagensgrenze erhöht wurden. Das Vier-Gurt-Rückhaltesystem konnte bei einem Verzögerungspuls von 10 g einem Gesamtgewicht von bis zu 221 kg standhalten. Bei einem Verzögerungspuls von 20 g und einem Gesamtgewicht von 134 kg wurde das Vier-Gurt-System bis über die Grenzen belastet. Das Sechs-Gurt-Rückhaltesystem hat Belastungen bis 221 kg standgehalten. Infolgedessen ist bei einer Erhöhung der Verzögerungspulse auf 20 g und einem Gesamtgewicht von mehr als 109 kg ein Sechs-Gurt-System zu empfehlen.