Sonstige
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2013 (5) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (5) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (5) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Injury (3)
- Schweregrad (Unfall (3)
- Verletzung (3)
- Verletzung) (3)
- injury) (3)
- Anfahrversuch (2)
- Collision (2)
- Dummy (2)
- Frontalzusammenstoß (2)
- Head on collision (2)
- Severity (acid (2)
- Spinal column (2)
- Wirbelsäule (2)
- Zusammenstoß (2)
- Accident (1)
- Analyse (math) (1)
- Analysis (math) (1)
- Anthropmetric dummy (1)
- Anthropometric dummy (1)
- Apparatus (measuring) (1)
- Attitude (psychol) (1)
- Auffahrunfall (1)
- Aufprallschlitten (1)
- Automatic (1)
- Automatisch (1)
- Behaviour (1)
- Bewertung (1)
- Biomechanics (1)
- Biomechanik (1)
- Braking (1)
- Bremsung (1)
- Brustkorb (1)
- Cadaver (1)
- Cervical vertebrae (1)
- Compatibility (1)
- Deformable barrier (impact test) (1)
- Deformation (1)
- Deformierbare Barriere (Anpralltest) (1)
- Detection (1)
- Detektion (1)
- Driver assistance system (1)
- Einstellung (psychol) (1)
- Evaluation (assessment) (1)
- Fahrerassistenzsystem (1)
- Fahrzeug (1)
- Fatality (1)
- Fußgänger (1)
- Halswirbel (1)
- Head (1)
- Impact sled (1)
- Impact test (1)
- Impact test (veh) (1)
- Insasse (1)
- Kompatibilität (1)
- Kopf (1)
- Leichnam (1)
- Messgerät (1)
- Motorcyclist (1)
- Motorradfahrer (1)
- Pedestrian (1)
- Prüfverfahren (1)
- Rear end collision (1)
- Richtlinien (1)
- Safety (1)
- Safety fence (1)
- Schutzeinrichtung (1)
- Sensor (1)
- Severity (accid (1)
- Sicherheit (1)
- Simulation (1)
- Specifications (1)
- Standardisierung (1)
- Standardization (1)
- Statistics (1)
- Statistik (1)
- Technologie (1)
- Technology (1)
- Test method (1)
- Thorax (1)
- Tödlicher Unfall (1)
- Unfall (1)
- Vehicle (1)
- Vehicle occupant (1)
- Verformung (1)
- Verhalten (1)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (5) (entfernen)
In general the passive safety capability is much greater in newer versus older cars due to the stiff compartment preventing intrusion in severe collisions. However, the stiffer structure which increases the deceleration can lead to a change in injury patterns. In order to analyse possible injury mechanisms for thoracic and lumbar spine injuries, data from the German Inâ€Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) were used in this study. A twoâ€step approach of statistical and caseâ€byâ€case analysis was applied for this investigation. In total 4,289 collisions were selected involving 8,844 vehicles, 5,765 injured persons and 9,468 coded injuries. Thoracic and lumbar spine injuries such as burst, compression or dislocation fractures as well as soft tissue injuries were found to occur in frontal impacts even without intrusion to the passenger compartment. If a MAIS 2+ injury occurred, in 15% of the cases a thoracic and/or lumbar spine injury is included. Considering AIS 2+ thoracic and lumbar spine, most injuries were fractures and occurred in the lumbar spine area. From the case by case analyses it can be concluded that lumbar spine fractures occur in accidents without the engagement of longitudinals, lateral loading to the occupant and/or very severe accidents with MAIS being much higher than the spine AIS.
It is well known that most accidents with pedestrians are caused by the driver not being alert or misinterpreting the situation. For that reason advanced forward looking safety systems have a high potential to improve safety for this group of vulnerable road users. Active pedestrian protection systems combine reduction of impact speed by driver warning and/or autonomous braking with deployment of protective devices shortly before the imminent impact. According to the Euro NCAP roadmap the Autonomous Emergency Braking system tests for Pedestrians Protection will be set in force from 2016 onwards. Various projects and organisations in Europe are developing performance tests and assessment procedures as accompanying measures to the Euro NCAP initiative. To provide synthesised input to Euro NCAP so-called Harmonisation Platforms (HP-) have been established. Their main goal is to foster exchange of information on key subjects, thereby generating a clear overview of similarities and differences on the approaches chosen and, on that basis, recommend on future test procedures. In this paper activities of the Harmonisation Platform 2 on the development of Test Equipment are presented. For the testing targets that mimic humans different sensing technologies are required. A first set of specifications for pedestrian targets and the propulsion systems as collected by Harmonisation Platform 2 are presented together with a first evaluation for a number of available tools.
The strong prevalence of human error as a crash causation factor in motorcycle accidents calls for countermeasures that help tackling this issue. Advanced rider assistance systems pursue this goal, providing the riders with support and thus contributing to the prevention of crashes. However, the systems can only enhance riding safety if the riders use them. For this reason, acceptance is a decisive aspect to be considered in the development process of such systems. In order to be able to improve behavioural acceptance, the factors that influence the intention to use the system need to be identified. This paper examines the particularities of motorcycle riding and the characteristics of this user group that should be considered when predicting the acceptance of advanced rider assistance systems. Founded on theories predicting behavioural intention, the acceptance of technologies and the acceptance of driver support systems, a model on the acceptance of advanced rider assistance systems is proposed, including the perceived safety when riding without support, the interface design and the social norm as determinants of the usage intention. Since actual usage cannot be measured in the development stage of the systems, the willingness to have the system installed on the own motorcycle and the willingness to pay for the system are analyzed, constituting relevant conditions that allow for actual usage at a later stage. Its validation with the results from user tests on four advanced rider assistance systems allows confirming the social norm and the interface design as powerful predictors of the acceptance of ARAS, while the extent of perceived safety when riding without support did not have any predictive value in the present study.
To improve vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility aims to improve both the self and partner protection properties of vehicles. Although compatibility has received worldwide attention for many years, no final assessment approach has been defined. Within the Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research (FIMCAR) project, different frontal impact test procedures (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test as currently used for Economic Commission for Europe [ECE] R94, progressive deformable barrier test as proposed by France for a new ECE regulation, moveable deformable barrier test as discussed worldwide, full-width rigid barrier test as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard [FMVSS] 208, and full-width deformable barrier test) were analyzed regarding their potential for future frontal impact legislation. The research activities focused on car-to-car frontal impact accidents based on accident investigations involving newer cars. Test procedures were developed with both a crash test program and numerical simulations. The proposal from FIMCAR is to use a full-width test procedure with a deformable element and compatibility metrics in combination with the current offset test as a frontal impact assessment approach that also addresses compatibility. By adding a full-width test to the current ODB test it is possible to better address the issues of structural misalignment and injuries resulting from high acceleration accidents as observed in the current fleet. The estimated benefit ranges from a 5 to 12 percent reduction of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from frontal impact accidents. By using a deformable element in the full-width test, the test conditions are more representative of real-world situations with respect to acceleration pulse, restraint system triggering time, and deformation pattern of the front structure. The test results are therefore expected to better represent real-world performance of the tested car. Furthermore, the assessment of the structural alignment is more robust than in the rigid wall test.
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.