Sonstige
The aim of this study is to investigate the differences in car occupant injury severity recorded in AIS 2005 compared to AIS 1990 and to outline the likely effects on future data analysis findings. Occupant injury data in the UK Cooperative Crash Injury Study Database (CCIS) were coded for the period February 2006 to November 2007 using both AIS 1990 and AIS 2005. Data for 1,994 occupants with over 6000 coded injuries were reviewed at the AIS and MAIS level of severities and body regions to determine changes between the two coding methodologies. Overall there was an apparent general trend for fewer injuries to be coded at the AIS 4+ severity and more injuries to be coded at the AIS 2 severity. When these injury trends were reviewed in more detail it was found that the body regions which contributed the most to these changes in severity were the head, thorax and extremities. This is one of the first studies to examine the implications for large databases when changing to an updated method for coding injuries.
Die Behandlungskosten von Unfallverletzten werden herkömmlich durch Multiplikation der durchschnittlichen Krankenhaus-Verweildauer mit dem vollpauschalierten und für alle Patienten gleichen Krankenhaus-Tagessatz ermittelt. Zielsetzung der vorliegenden Untersuchung ist es, den tatsächlichen Leistungsaufwand für die Gruppe der Unfallverletzten differenzierter zu erfassen, und zwar durch Addition von Einzelleistungen, die den Input für die stationäre Behandlung darstellen. Eine solche fallbezogene Kostenkalkulation wurde in ausgewählten Krankenhäusern für alle straßenverkehrsunfallverletzen Patienten des Jahres 1989 vorgenommen. Für Unfallverletzte in ambulanter Behandlung ergeben sich durchschnittliche Fallkosten in Höhe von 244 DM. Für die 5 häufigsten Einzeldiagnosen wurden folgende Werte ermittelt. 1. Prellungen der unteren Extremitäten: DM 287 je Patient. 2. Verstauchungen und Zerrungen im Rückenbereich: DM 149 je Patient. 3. Prellungen des Kopfes und des Halses: DM 326 je Patient. 4. Prellungen der oberen Extremitäten: DM 196 je Patient. Für Unfallverletzte in stationärer Behandlung ergeben sich durchschnittliche Fallkosten in Höhe von DM 4.824. Die Kosten liegen bei der Hälfte aller stationär behandelten Patienten unterhalb von DM 2.000. Bei 37 Prozent der Verletzten belaufen sie sich auf einen Betrag zwischen DM 2.000 und DM 7.000, wohingegen 13 Prozent der Fälle eine Behandlung benötigte die mehr als DM 10.000 an Kosten verursachte. Betrachtet man die Kosten der 10 häufigsten Einzeldiagnosen, so lassen sich zwei Gruppen bilden. Gehirnerschütterungen, Prellungen und Verstauchungen verursachten Kosten von weniger als der Hälfte des Durchschnittswertes von DM 4.824, wogegen für Frakturen als zweiter Gruppe weit darüber liegende Beträge errechnet wurden. Die Behandlungskosten von Unfallverletzungen mit Todesfolge liegen aufgrund der Verletzungsschwere bei DM 17.246 im Durchschnitt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die durchschnittlichen Behandlungskosten von Unfallverletzten in Akutkrankenhäusern in etwa den durchschnittlichen Behandlungskosten aller Patienten in Akutkrankenhäusern entsprechen.
Neben der zunehmenden Bedeutung der aktiven Sicherheit bleiben Maßnahmen der passiven Sicherheit bei der Entwicklung moderner Kraftfahrzeuge unabdingbar. Die Weiterentwicklung von Maßnahmen zum passiven Fußgängerschutz war zunächst größtenteils durch Verbraucherschutztests wie zum Beispiel Euro NCAP oder JNCAP getrieben und ist nun auch durch gesetzliche Regelungen verpflichtend geworden. Im vorangegangenen Forschungsprojekt der BASt FE 82.229/2002 Schutz von Fußgängern beim Scheibenaufprall ist die Grundlage eines modularen Prüfverfahrens für den Kopfaufprall im Bereich der Windschutzscheibe, bestehend aus einem Versuchs- und einem Simulationsteil, erarbeitet worden. Im Rahmen dieses Projektes wurde ein hybrides Testverfahren bestehend aus Versuch und Simulation ausgearbeitet, das den Bereich der Windschutzscheibe und dabei auch crashaktive Systeme wie Airbags berücksichtigt. Das Testverfahren kombiniert Komponentenversuche mit einem Simulationsteil, in dem Fahrzeug-Fußgänger-Simulationen und lmpaktorsimulationen durchgeführt werden. Zusätzliche Dummyversuche dienten zur Bewertung des Testverfahrens. Alle erarbeiteten virtuellen und realen Testmethoden wurden an einem Referenzfahrzeug (Opel Signum), welches repräsentativ für eine durchschnittliche Mittelklasselimousine steht, durchgeführt. Das Fahrzeug wurde mit einem Airbagsystem ausgerüstet und der Testprozedur mit und ohne diesem System vergleichend unterzogen. Innerhalb dieser Untersuchungen konnte gezeigt werden, dass neue Testmethoden unter Ausnutzung von Simulationen und Komponententests es erlauben, realistischere Versuchsbedingungen unter Berücksichtigung von potenziellen Kopfaufprallpositionen und -zeiten zu definieren. Dabei können sehr gute Übereinstimmungen zwischen Fußgängersimulation und Dummyversuch erreicht werden. Die Randbedingungen für den Kopfaufprall und die Aufprallzeit wurden durch den Einsatz von Fußgängermodellen ermittelt. Weiterhin ermöglichen die Simulationen, zusätzliche Einflussdaten wie Vektoren mit den Kopfaufprallgeschwindigkeiten und -winkeln zu bestimmen.
The head impact of pedestrians in the windscreen area shows a high relevance in real-world accidents. Nevertheless, there are neither biomechanical limits nor elaborated testing procedures available. Furthermore, the development of deployable protection systems like pop-up bonnets or external airbags has made faster progress than the corresponding testing methods. New requirements which are currently not considered are taken into account within a research project of BASt and the EC funded APROSYS (Advanced PROtection SYStems) integrated project relating to passive pedestrian protection. Testing procedures for head impact in the windscreen area should address these new boundary conditions. The presented modular procedure combines the advantages of virtual testing, including full-scale multi-body and finite element simulations, as well as hardware testing containing impactor tests based on the existing procedures of EEVC WG 17. To meet the efforts of harmonization in legislation, it refers to the Global Technical Regulation of UNECE (GTR No. 9). The basis for this combined hardware and virtual testing procedure is a robust categorization covering all passenger cars and light commercial vehicles and defining the testing zone including the related kinematics. The virtual testing part supports also the choice of the impact points for the hardware test and determines head impact timing for testing deployable systems. The assessment of the neck rotation angle and sharp edge contact in the rear gap of pop-up bonnets is included. For the demonstration of this procedure, a hardware sedan shaped vehicle was modified by integrating an airbag system. In addition, tests with the Honda Polar-II Dummy were performed for an evaluation of the new testing procedure. Comparing these results, it was concluded that a combination of simulation and updated subsystem tests forms an important step towards enhanced future pedestrian safety systems considering the windscreen area and the deployable systems.
Pedestrian and cyclist are the most vulnerable road users in traffic crashes. One important aspect of this study was the comparable analysis of the exact impact configuration and the resulting injury patterns of pedestrians and cyclists in view of epidemiology. The secondary aim was assessment of head injury risks and kinematics of adult pedestrian and cyclists in primary and secondary impacts and to correlate the injuries related to physical parameters like HIC value, 3ms linear acceleration, and discuss the technical parameter with injuries observed in real-world accidents based documented real accidents of GIDAS and explains the head injuries by simulated load and impact conditions based on PC-Crash and MADYMO. A subsample of n=402 pedestrians and n=940 bicyclists from GIDAS database, Germany was used for preselection, from which 22 pedestrian and 18 cyclist accidents were selected for reconstruction by initially using PC-Crash to calculate impact conditions, such as vehicle impact velocity, vehicle kinematic sequence and throw out distance. The impact conditions then were employed to identify the initial conditions in simulation of MADYMO reconstruction. The results show that cyclists always suffer lower injury outcomes for the same accident severity. Differences in HIC, head relative impact velocity, 3ms linear contiguous acceleration, maximum angular velocity and acceleration, contact force, throwing distance and head contact timing are shown. The differences of landing conditions in secondary impacts of pedestrians and cyclists are also identified. Injury risk curves were generated by logistic regression model for each predicting physical parameters.
Accidents involving two wheels vehicles represent one of the more important types of accidents in Europe. These accidents are usually not easy to reconstruct specially for the analysis of the injuries and its correlation with accident dynamics and evidences. Different methodologies are applied in this work for the reconstruction of two wheeler accidents, especially accident involving motorcycles. From the typologies of road evidences like skid marks, to the use of Pc-Crash and the use of Madymo models, different reconstruction of real accidents are presented. One of the questions that sometimes arise for legal purposes when some type of head injuries arise is if the occupant was wearing or not a helmet. The correlation of head injuries with the use of the helmet is a very important issue, therefore an important legal aspect. One of the key questions for the reconstructions that is difficult to analyze, is if the vehicle occupant, was or not, wearing the helmet. Based on the previously collected information, a generic model of a helmet was developed on CAD 3D, followed by its conversion into finite elements, all in order to perform impact tests using the Madymo software that would help improve the helmet- safety, but that also can be used as a tool in accident reconstruction.
The frontal crash is still an important contributor to deaths and serious injured resulting from road accidents in Europe. As the Hybrid-III dummy used in crash tests is over two decades old, the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee is studying the potential for a new test device. Key is the availability of a well-defined set of requirements that identifies the minimum level of biofidelity required for an advanced frontal dummy. In this paper, a complete set of frontal impact biofidelity requirements, consisting of references , description of test conditions and corridors, is presented.
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.
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.
Within the COST Action TU1101 the working group WG 1 is dealing with acceptance criteria and problems in helmet use while bicycling concerning conspicuity, thermal stress, ventilation deficits and other potential confounding. To analyze the helmet usage practice of bicyclists in Europe a questionnaire was developed in the scope of working group 1 to collect relevant information by means of a field study. The questionnaire consists of some 66 questions covering the fields of personal data of the cyclist, riding und helmet usage habits, information concerning the helmet model and the sensation of the helmet, as well as information on previous bicycle accidents. A second complementary study is conducted to analyze if the use of a bicycle helmet influences the seating geometry and the posture of cyclists when riding a bicycle and if the if the helmet vertically limits the vision. For this purpose cyclists with and without helmets were photographed in real world situations and relevant geometrical values such as the decline of the torso, the head posture of the upper vertical vision limit due to the helmet were established from the photos. The interim results of the field studies which were conducted in Germany by the Hannover Medical School are presented in this study. Some 227 questionnaires were filled out, of which 67 participants had used a helmet and 42 of the 227 participants have had a bicycle accident before. For the analysis of the riding position and posture of the cyclist over 40 pictures of riders with a helmet and over 240 pictures of riders without a helmet were measured concerning the seating geometry to describe the influence of using a bicycle helmet. Some results in summary: From the riders interviewed with the questionnaire only 11% of the city bike riders and 12% of the mountain bike riders always used the helmet, while 38% of the racing bike riders and 88% of the e-bike-riders always used the helmet. The helmet use seems not to change the sensation of safety of cycling compared to the use of a car. The arguments for not wearing a helmet are mostly stated to be the short distance of a trip, high temperatures or carelessness and waste of time. The reasons for using a helmet are stated to be the feeling of safety and being used to using a helmet. Being a role model for others was also stated to be a reason for helmet use. Concerning the sensation of the helmet 9% of the riders reported problems with the field of vision when using a helmet, 57% saw the problem of sweating too much, and 10% reported headaches or other unpleasant symptoms like pressure on the forehead when using the helmet. The analysis of the seating posture from the pictures taken of cyclists revealed that older cyclists generally have a riding position where the handle bar is higher than the seat (0-° to 10-° incline from seat to handlebar), while younger riders had a higher variance (between -10-° decline and 20-° incline). Further, elderly riders and riders with helmets seem to have a more upright position of the upper body when cycling. The vertical vision limit due to the helmet is determined by the front rim of the helmet (mostly the sun shade). Typical values here range from 0-° (horizontal line from the eye to the sun shade) to 75-° upwards, in which elderly riders tend to have a slightly higher vertical vision limit possibly due to the helmet being worn more towards the face.