Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Head (19) (entfernen)
Institut
- Sonstige (19)
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (7)
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.
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.
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.
This study aimed at comparing head Wrap Around Distance (WAD) of Vulnerable Road User (VRU) obtained from the German in-depth Accident Database (GIDAS), the China in-depth Accident Database (CIDAS) and the Japanese in-depth Accident Database (ITARDA micro). Cumulative distribution of WAD of pedestrian and cyclist were obtained for each database (AIS2+) showing that WAD of cyclists were larger than the ones of pedestrians. Comparing three regions, the 50%tile WAD of GIDAS was larger than that of both Asian accident databases. Using linear regression that might predict WAD of pedestrians and cyclists from Impact speed and VRU height, WADs were calculated to be 206cm/219cm (Pedestrian/Cyclist) for GIDAS, 170cm/192cm for CIDAS and 211cm/235cm for ITARDA. In addition, this study may be helpful for reconsideration of WAD measurement alignment between accident reconstruction and test procedures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.