Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Kopf (19) (entfernen)
Institut
- Sonstige (19)
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (7)
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.
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.
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.
Nach wie vor ist die Anzahl von Unfällen motorisierter Einspurfahrzeuge (MESFz) mit sehr schweren Verletzungsfolgen oder tödlichem Ausgang für die Aufsassen im Vergleich zu allen anderen getöteten Verkehrsteilnehmern alarmierend hoch. Im Jahr 2013 wurden bei insgesamt 42.427 Unfällen MESFz 641 Aufsassen getötet und 12.034 schwer verletzt. Um dieser hohen Zahl schwerverletzter und getöteter Aufsassen von MESFz entgegenzuwirken, hat die Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt) das vorliegende Projekt initiiert. Zielsetzung des Projektes war es, durch eine Analyse von Unfalldaten von MESFz, durch ergänzende computergestützte FEM-Simulationen und durch eine kritische Bewertung der UN-Regelung UN-R 22/05 (vormals ECE-R 22/05) hinsichtlich verletzungs-biomechanischer Inhalte (Versuche und Prüfwerte) Erkenntnisse zu erarbeiten, Handlungsbedarf festzustellen und Änderungs- und Ergänzungsvorschläge zur Überarbeitung der UN-R 22/05 sowie hinsichtlich allgemeiner Maßnahmen zu formulieren. Auf der Grundlage der amtlichen Unfalldaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes, Wiesbaden (DESTATIS) erfolgte eine Unfalldatenauswertung im Allgemeinen. Für eine detaillierte Analyse wurden Daten der "German In-Depth Accident Study" (GIDAS, Dresden und Hannover) ausgewählt. Bei etwa der Hälfte der im Teilumfang (n=199) untersuchten Unfälle von MESFz kam es zu Kopfverletzungen, überwiegend bei benutztem Schutzhelm. In 18 % lagen die führenden Verletzungen am Kopf; in 48 % blieb der Kopf unverletzt bei sonstigen schweren bis schwersten und tödlichen Verletzungen am Körper. Etwa 10 % der Aufsassen benutzten ein MESFz ohne bzw. mit absolut ungeeignetem Helm. Eine kritische Bewertung und Alternativvorschläge der derzeitigen Fassung der UN-R 22/05 wurden bezüglich der Punkte Prüfumfang, Prüfausstattung, Prüfdurchführung, Prüfkriterien und eine fälschungssicheren Homologations-Kennzeichnung erarbeitet.
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.
Aim of the study was to evaluate the protective effect of bicycle helmets particularly considering injuries to the head and to the face. Accidents with the participation of bicyclists which occurred from 2000 to 2007 were chosen from GIDAS. We observed that injuries to the head and face were more severe in the group of non-helmeted riders. There seems to be no significant difference in injuries with AIS 3-6. Altogether 26 cyclists were killed. 2 of them wore a helmet (1% of helmeted cyclists), 24 did not (1% of non-helmeted cyclists). Only one killed rider (without helmet) did not suffer from polytrauma (only head injuries recorded). The findings seem to support the thesis of a preventive effect of the bicycle helmet, however the two groups are different in their characteristics related to riding speed. Necessarily we need a multivariate model to evaluate the effect of helmets.
Evaluation of the performance of competitive headforms as test tools for interior headform testing
(2009)
The European Research Project APROSYS has evaluated the interior headform test procedure developed by EEVC WG 13, representing the head contact in the car during a lateral impact. One important aspect within this test procedure was the selection of an appropriate impactor. The WG13 procedure currently uses the Free Motion Headform as used within the FMVSS 201. The ACEA 3.5 kg headform used in Phase 1 of the European Directive and the future European Regulation on Pedestrian Protection is still discussed as a possible alternative. This paper reports work performed by the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) as a part of the APROSYS Task 1.1.3. The study compares the two headform impactors according to FMVSS and ACEA, in a series of basic tests in order to evaluate their sensitivity towards different impact angles, impact accuracy, the effect of differences to impactors of the same type and the effects of the repeatability and reproducibility of the test results. The test surface consisted of a steel tube covered with PU foam and PVC, representing the car interior to be tested. Despite of the higher mass of the FMH the HIC values of this impactor were generally lower than those of the ACEA headform. The FMH showed a higher repeatability of test results but a high sensitivity on the angle of roll, the spherical ACEA impactor performed better with regards to the reproducibility. In case of the ACEA impactor-, the angle of roll had no influence.
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.
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.