Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (26) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Impact test (veh) (26) (entfernen)
Institut
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.
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.
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.
Rear-end collisions are the most frequent same and opposite-direction crashes. Common causes include momentary inattention, inadequate speed or inadequate distance. While most rear-end collisions in urban traffic only result in vehicle damage or slight injuries, rear-end collisions outside built-up areas or on motorways usually cause fatal or serious injuries. Driver assistance systems that detect dangerous situations in the longitudinal vehicle direction are therefore an essential safety plus. In view of this, for ADAC, systems that alert drivers to dangerous situations and initiate autonomous braking complement ESC as one of the most important active safety features in modern vehicles. The aim of ADAC is to provide consumers with technical advice and competent information about the systems available on the market. Reliable comparative tests that are based on standardised test criteria may provide motorists with important information and help them make a buying decision. In addition, they raise consumer awareness of the systems and speed up their market penetration. The assessment must focus on as many aspects of effectiveness as possible and include not only autonomous braking but also collision warning and autonomous brake assist. The work of the ADAC accident research is the development of the testing scenarios with direct link to accident situations and the identification of useful test criteria for testing.
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.
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.