大客车正面碰撞乘客约束系统仿真分析

为探究约束系统在全承载客车正面碰撞事故中对乘客损伤的影响,利用有限元分析软件LSDYNA建立某大客车正面碰撞仿真模型,并开展整车50 km/h正面100%重叠碰撞固定刚性壁障试验;从车身变形、加速度曲线和乘员损伤等3方面验证仿真模型;基于已验证的仿真模型,开展不同座椅间距、车厢位置及安全带类型的乘员运动响应和损伤等综合分析与评价。研究结果表明:不同位置车身加速度波形整体趋势相似,但具体峰值和出现时刻存在差异;增大座椅间距和主动预紧安全带能够有效降低降低头部损伤值,而颈部损伤则随之增大;乘客胸部损伤值和大腿力受主动预紧安全带、座椅间距和车厢位置影响不大。     

大客车侧翻过程中约束系统对乘客安全影响*

为研究约束系统对客车侧翻过程中乘客安全的影响，在经过试验验证的某客车侧翻碰撞有限元模型上截取部分车身截段，建立“车身截段-约束系统-乘员”侧翻仿真模型，开展不同约束条件下乘员运动响应和损伤的综合分析及评价。结果表明:满足《客车上部结构强度要求及试验方法》（GB 17578—2013）法规要求的客车在侧翻过程中仍然可能对乘员造成较严重的头部损伤风险；主动预紧安全带能够在侧翻碰撞过程中，有效缓解乘员的头部和颈部损伤程度；胸部损伤值受不同约束系统影响较小。     

偏置碰撞中轿车左后排乘员损伤的研究

为识别轿车正面偏置碰撞中后排左侧乘员的损伤特点,开展模拟研究。利用HyperMesh有限元软件,建立包含有限元轿车、可变形壁障及假人的基础模型1,并在基础模型1上为假人添加三点式安全带,建立模型2,在模型2基础上为假人创建侧气囊,建立模型3;采用Ls-Dyna软件求解计算,并应用HyperGraph软件分析不同重叠率偏置碰撞下假人的损伤情况;对比基础模型1、模型2、模型3仿真试验的假人损伤情况,分析不同约束系统对左后排假人的保护效能。结果表明:随着碰撞重叠率增大,左后排乘员头部和胸部的加速度峰值均相应减小;碰撞重叠率在试验范围内变化时,颈部所受合力的峰值波动较小;使用安全带能显著降低乘员的损伤;侧气囊对乘员胸部有保护作用。     

小学校车正面碰撞下乘员约束系统安全性仿真研究

为研究小学校车乘员约束系统在校车正面碰撞中的保护效果,依据《专用校车安全技术条件》,开展校车30 km/h正面碰撞工况的台车试验;运用多刚体动力学分析软件MADYMO建立包括地板、前后排座椅、P型6岁假人与安全带的校车乘员正面碰撞仿真模型,对比仿真和试验结果,验证模型的准确性;分析座椅间距、靠背刚度、坐垫刚度及坐垫倾角对乘员伤害值的影响。仿真结果表明:当座间距小于590 mm时,6岁假人与女性假人的头部伤害指标均明显上升;坐垫倾角增加15°时,6岁假人头、胸伤害指标分别下降21.6%和33.4%,女性假人的颈部弯矩减小47%。     

不同约束下乘员在车辆正碰中损伤概率预测

为减小乘员在车辆碰撞事故中的损伤概率,进而为降低事故严重程度提供理论依据,以车辆碰撞前后速度变化ΔV为自变量,根据头部和胸部的损伤公式,分析全重叠正面碰撞过程中乘员在安全带和安全气囊组合的4种约束条件下的损伤,将损伤数据与事故损伤判定标准——简明创伤分级标准(AIS)关联,预测乘员损伤等级为AIS3+的概率,并结合具体实例进行说明。结果表明:随着车辆碰撞前后速度变化ΔV增加,乘员损伤等级AIS3+的概率增大; 4种约束条件下,当ΔV小于20 km/h,AIS3+概率均低于10%;当ΔV处于20～60 km/h时,安全带和安全气囊同时约束对乘员的保护效果最好,其对应的AIS3+概率最低;当ΔV超过60 km/h时,约束系统对乘员的保护作用有限,4种约束条件对应的AIS3+概率均超过85%。故在碰撞之前,驾驶员应通过降低ΔV以及确保乘员受到安全带和安全气囊的共同保护,来减小乘员损伤概率。     

校车3点式安全带肩带固定点位置优化

为研究校车3点式安全带肩带上部有效固定点布置位置对12岁儿童乘员损伤的影响,在多刚体动力学软件(MADYMO)中建立包括校车地板、前后排座椅、安全带和假人的校车正面碰撞工况下的约束系统模型。利用一款经过验证的校车模型进行仿真试验,通过正交试验方法优化肩带上部有效固定点位置,研究安全带对12岁儿童乘员的保护效果。结果表明,肩带上部有效固定点位置高度接近12岁儿童肩部高度,对其位置正交优化后,根据儿童完全伤害评价指标(WIC)选出的最佳位置为(-0.197,0.024,0.52),相较于2点式安全带,采用该位置的3点式安全带对应12岁儿童的头部伤害指标(HIC15)降低84.8%,颈部伤害指标(Nij)降低68.9%,胸部压缩量(THPC)虽升高了271.5%但仍在标准限值内。     

微型轿车乘员约束系统设计参数与人体损伤关系研究

在微型轿车正面碰撞过程中,乘员容易受到严重伤害,优化乘员约束系统对于乘员的保护极其重要.综合利用LS-dyna、VPG等软件,建立了包含Hybird Ⅲ 50th假人、坐椅、安全带和转向系统在内的某微型轿车约束系统模型.针对约束系统中的安全带织带刚度、卷收器锁止特性、安全带上挂点位置、坐垫刚度等敏感设计参数进行了碰撞过程的仿真计算,并给出了相应的乘员响应曲线和人体损伤值,同时总结出约束系统设计参数与乘员保护有效性间的规律.基于加权损伤准则,对约束系统进行了优化,使WWIC降幅达21%,提高了约束系统的保护性能.该规律可以应用于其他车型的乘员约束系统.     

美国侧面碰撞规程下轿车变形侵入仿真研究

为更好地分析汽车侧面碰撞过程中驾乘人员安全,根据美国联邦机动车安全法规FMVSS214碰撞要求,采用显式有限元分析软件LS-DYNA详细建立了某公司轿车有限元整车模型和可变形移动壁障有限元模型,研究了美国侧面碰撞规程下可变形移动壁障以54 km/h速度撞击轿车侧面的变形侵入过程仿真模拟和轿车侧面车门不同水平级的变形侵入对乘员损伤程度的影响。结果表明:有限元模拟结果与实车碰撞试验结果吻合较好,模型可信;轿车车门中部位置对驾乘人员损伤影响最大,乘员损伤AIS值接近3(严重损伤);参数加权平均变形侵入量能较好的反映车辆侧面碰撞下车身侧围的变形侵入情况。     

校车正面碰撞下儿童胸部骨骼局部应力应变分析

为深入研究儿童胸部骨骼损伤机制,考察正面碰撞下校车3点式安全带约束系统对儿童乘员的保护效果,采用带胸部生物力学模型的6岁儿童人体模型与已验证校车正碰工况模型,分析碰撞过程中安全带肩带作用下胸部骨骼的动态响应。在胸部中心区域选取局部参考点,计算不同外载加速度下各参考点内外侧产生的应力应变,对比分析其曲线形态、峰值大小、内外侧差异以及随外载荷变化率。结果表明:胸骨与肋骨前端应力应变明显大于其他损伤部位,且内侧大于外侧;肋骨前端应变峰值在外载加速度较大时超过失效阈值,是该工况下骨折危险区域;肋骨腔侧面内侧危险程度其次,肋骨腔侧后方受力较小。     

校车儿童安全气囊安全性仿真分析

为提高校车乘员约束系统在正面碰撞中对儿童乘员的保护效果,提出一种新型主动式校车儿童安全气囊。运用多刚体动力学分析软件MADYMO建立包括地板、前后排座椅、安全带与第5百分位女性假人在内的校车乘员正面碰撞仿真模型,通过台车试验结果验证模型的准确性。在此基础上,建立主动式安全气囊模型,研究其对12岁和6岁乘员的保护效果。用正交试验方法,分析气囊设计参数,针对12岁乘员进行气囊优化。结果表明:头部气囊的厚度及排气孔大小对乘员伤害影响最大。与原始约束系统相比,经优化后的气囊使12岁乘员的头部、胸部和颈部伤害分别下降84.5%,19%和84.3%,同时加装气囊对6岁儿童也有一定的保护效果。     

Case study: 128 injured in rollover coach crashes in Sweden—Injury outcome,mechanisms and possible effects of seat belts

The risk for injuries in rollover coach crashes are dependent on whether the occupants are belted or not. However, the influence of the different belt systems for reducing injuries has remained unclear. Since many injuries sustained are caused by impacts with the interior, passenger interactions or ejection through a window, the advantages by proper seat belt systems are evident. In this study, representing the most common serious crash scenario for serious injury, 128 injured in rollover cases were analysed with regard to the injury outcome, mechanisms and the possible injury reduction for occupants when using a safety belt. Furthermore, the different belt systems were compared to explain their contribution to increased safety. Based on medical reports and questioning of the passengers, the injuries sustained are recorded according to the AIS classification. The next step was the identification of the injury mechanisms, using the passenger statements as well as results from numerical occupant simulations. It is important to mention that this study was purely focused on detection of the injury mechanism to avoid the reported injuries. The possibility of additional injuries due to the wearing of a belt were not taken into account. However, the analysis of the 128 injured showed a considerable increase in safety for belted occupants through limiting interior contacts, minimising passenger interaction and reducing the possibility of ejection.     

Factors contributing to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes

Abstract

Objectives: Earlier research has shown that the rear row is safer for occupants in crashes than the front row, but there is evidence that improvements in front seat occupant protection in more recent vehicle model years have reduced the safety advantage of the rear seat versus the front seat. The study objective was to identify factors that contribute to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes in newer model year vehicles.

Methods: A case series review of belted rear seat occupants who were seriously injured or killed in frontal crashes was conducted. Occupants in frontal crashes were eligible for inclusion if they were 6 years old or older and belted in the rear of a 2000 or newer model year passenger vehicle within 10 model years of the crash year. Crashes were identified using the 2004–2015 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and included all eligible occupants with at least one Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 or greater injury. Using these same inclusion criteria but split into younger (6 to 12 years) and older (55+ years) cohorts, fatal crashes were identified in the 2014–2015 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and then local police jurisdictions were contacted for complete crash records.

Results: Detailed case series review was completed for 117 rear seat occupants: 36 with Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3+ injuries in NASS-CDS and 81 fatalities identified in FARS. More than half of the injured and killed rear occupants were more severely injured than front seat occupants in the same crash. Serious chest injury, primarily caused by seat belt loading, was present in 22 of the injured occupants and 17 of the 37 fatalities with documented injuries. Nine injured occupants and 18 fatalities sustained serious head injury, primarily from contact with the vehicle interior or severe intrusion. For fatal cases, 12 crashes were considered unsurvivable due to a complete loss of occupant space. For cases considered survivable, intrusion was not a large contributor to fatality.

Discussion: Rear seat occupants sustained serious and fatal injuries due to belt loading in crashes in which front seat occupants survived, suggesting a discrepancy in restraint performance between the front and rear rows. Restraint strategies that reduce loading to the chest should be considered, but there may be potential tradeoffs with increased head excursion, particularly in the absence of rear seat airbags. Any new restraint designs should consider the unique needs of the rear seat environment.     

Predictors of rear seat belt use among U.S. adults, 2012

IntroductionSeat belt use reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities among motor vehicle occupants in a crash, but belt use in rear seating positions is consistently lower than front seating positions. Knowledge is limited concerning factors associated with seat belt use among adult rear seat passengers.MethodsData from the 2012 ConsumerStyles survey were used to calculate weighted percentages of self-reported rear seat belt use by demographic characteristics and type of rear seat belt use enforcement. Multivariable regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios for rear seat belt use, adjusting for person-, household- and geographic-level demographic variables as well as for type of seat belt law in place in the state.ResultsRear seat belt use varied by age, race, geographic region, metropolitan status, and type of enforcement. Multivariable regression showed that respondents living in states with primary (Adjusted Prevalence Ratio (APR): 1.23) and secondary (APR: 1.11) rear seat belt use enforcement laws were significantly more likely to report always wearing a seat belt in the rear seat compared with those living in a state with no rear seat belt use enforcement law.Conclusions and practical applicationsSeveral factors were associated with self-reported seat belt use in rear seating positions. Evidence suggests that primary enforcement covering all seating positions is an effective intervention that can be employed to increase seat belt use and in turn prevent motor vehicle injuries to rear-seated occupants.     

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters

Objective: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits.

Methods: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars.

Results: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt–induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%.

Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.     

带乘员及约束系统汽车正面碰撞的有限元法仿真研究

采用计算机模拟的方法,对国产某轿车发生正面碰撞时,乘员在佩带三点式安全带的约束状态下的运动响应进行研究,从乘员的运动响应情况、乘员舱的变形情况、假人的HIC值等几个方面分析了该车型的乘员保护安全性能.模拟结果表明,该车达到了安全法规的要求.并探讨了运用有限元法对带乘员及约束系统的整车正面碰撞的计算机模拟方法.     

The safest seat: effect of seating position on occupant mortality

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the survival rates of occupants of passenger cars involved in a fatal crash between 2000 and 2003. METHODS: The information from every fatal crash in the United States between 2000 and 2003 was analyzed. Variables such as seat position, point of impact, rollover, restraint use, vehicle type, vehicle weight, occupant age, and injury severity were extracted from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Univariate and a full logistic multivariate model analyses were performed. RESULTS: The data show that the rear middle seat is safer than any other occupant position when involved in a fatal crash. Overall, the rear (2(nd) row) seating positions have a 29.1% (Univariate Analysis, p<.0001, OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22 - 1.37) increased odds of survival over the first row seating positions and the rear middle seat has a 25% (Univariate Analysis, p<.0001, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17 - 1.34) increased odds of survival over the other rear seat positions. After correcting for potential confounders, occupants of the rear middle seat have a 13% (Logistic Regression, p<.001, 95% CI 1.02 - 1.26) increased chance of survival when involved in a crash with a fatality than occupants in other rear seats. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that the safest position for any occupant involved in a motor-vehicle crash is the rear middle seat. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The results of this research may impact how automobile manufacturers look at future rear middle seat designs. If the rear seat was to be designed exactly like its outboard counterparts (headrest, armrests, lap and shoulder belt, etc.) people may choose to sit on it more often rather than waiting to use it out of necessity due to multiple rear seat occupants.     

The safety implications of vehicle seat adjustments

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to gather information on the preferred front seat position of vehicle occupants and to determine the impact of variation in seat position on safety during crashes. METHOD: The study evaluated the relationship between seat position and occupant size using the chi-square test and compared the risk of severe injury for small females and large males with regard to forward and rearward seat position using logistic regression. RESULTS: While smaller drivers sat closer to the steering wheel than larger drivers, front passengers of all sizes used similar seat positions. Additionally, the risk of injury was higher for small, unbelted females in rearward seat positions and large males (belted and unbelted) in forward seat positions. CONCLUSIONS: Occupants who adjust their seats to positions that are not consistent with required federal tests are at a greater risk for severe injury in a crash.