Sonstige
Filtern
Sprache
- Englisch (14) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Side impact (14) (entfernen)
Institut
- Sonstige (14) (entfernen)
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.
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.
During the last 5 years, the number of cars fitted with side airbags has dramatically increased. They are now standard equipment, even on many smaller cars or less luxurious vehicles. While some side airbags offer thoracic protection alone, there are those that combine thoracic and head protection (of which most deploy from the seat). Other systems employ separate airbags for head and thorax protection, which are designed to be effective noticeably in a crash against a pole. This paper proposes an evaluation of the effectiveness of side airbags in preventing thoracic injuries to passenger car occupants involved in side crashes. First, the target population (who can take benefit of side airbag deployment and in what circumstances) is defined. Side airbags can be especially effective in cases of impacts on the door with intrusion at a certain impact speed. Then, an example case of a side impact with side airbag deployment is given were side airbag deployment is thought to have had a positive effect on injury outcome. A further case is presented where the impact configuration is likely to have reduced the effect of side airbag deployment on injury outcome. Finally, the estimation of side airbag effectiveness (in terms of additional occupant protection brought exclusively by the airbag) is proposed by comparing injury risk sustained by occupants in (more or less) similar cars (fitted or non fitted with airbags) because, during these years, car structure, and side airbag conception have considerably evolved. In-depth accident data from France, the UK and Germany has been collected. Out of 2,035 side impact accident cases available in the databases, we selected 435 occupants of passenger cars (built from 1998 onwards) involved in an injury accident between year 1998 and year 2004 for EES (Energy Equivalent Speed) values between 20km/h and 50km/h. The occupants, belted or not, were sat on the struck side, whatever the obstacle and type of accidents (intersection, loss of control, etc.). For multiple impact crashes, the side impact is assumed to be the more severe one. Passenger cars were fitted with (96) or without (339) side airbags. Most of the potential risk explanatory variables were correctly and reliably reported in the databases (velocity " impact zone " impact angle " occupant characteristics, etc.). The analysis compared injury risks for different levels of EES and different types of side airbags. A logistic regression model was also computed with injury variables (such as thoracic AIS 2+ or AIS 3+) as the dependant variable and other variables (including airbag type and EES) as explanatory injury risk factors. Results revealed statistically non-significant reductions in thoracic AIS 2+ and AIS 3+ injury risk in side airbag equipped cars in the impact violence range selected (odds ratio between 0.84 and 0.98 depending on types of airbags). The results are discussed. The non-significance is assumed to be due to a low number of cases. Statistical analysis for head injuries was not possible due to the low number of accident cases with passenger cars fitted with head airbags in the databases. Moreover, the discrepancies between the data coming from different countries (especially calculation of EES) might have introduced instability in the analysis.