Objective: The objective of this article was the construction of injury risk functions (IRFs) for front row occupants in oblique frontal crashes and a comparison to IRF of nonoblique frontal crashes from the same data set.
Method: Crashes of modern vehicles from GIDAS (German In-Depth Accident Study) were used as the basis for the construction of a logistic injury risk model. Static deformation, measured via displaced voxels on the postcrash vehicles, was used to calculate the energy dissipated in the crash. This measure of accident severity was termed objective equivalent speed (oEES) because it does not depend on the accident reconstruction and thus eliminates reconstruction biases like impact direction and vehicle model year. Imputation from property damage cases was used to describe underrepresented low-severity crashes―a known shortcoming of GIDAS. Binary logistic regression was used to relate the stimuli (oEES) to the binary outcome variable (injured or not injured).
Results: IRFs for the oblique frontal impact and nonoblique frontal impact were computed for the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 2+ and 3+ levels for adults (18–64 years). For a given stimulus, the probability of injury for a belted driver was higher in oblique crashes than in nonoblique frontal crashes. For the 25% injury risk at MAIS 2+ level, the corresponding stimulus for oblique crashes was 40 km/h but it was 64 km/h for nonoblique frontal crashes.
Conclusions: The risk of obtaining MAIS 2+ injuries is significantly higher in oblique crashes than in nonoblique crashes. In the real world, most MAIS 2+ injuries occur in an oEES range from 30 to 60 km/h. 相似文献
On the basis of the method for managing the end of life of CdTe photovoltaic panels previously proposed by the authors, a new method for the recycling of all types of thin-film panels (CdTe, a-Si and CIS/CIGS) has been developed and optimised under a research project founded by Enel Foundation and CRUI Foundation. The DGP process has been developed through a feasibility study carried out from three points of view: technical, environmental and economic. The process is composed by two sub-processes matched to each other, one suitable for CdTe panels (named DGPa) and the other one for a-Si and CIS/CIGS panels (DGPb). The Double Green Panel process is based mainly on mechanical treatments with a minimum use of chemicals and it is characterised by a greater level of automation and a high flexibility in production capacity. The potential environmental impacts of various configurations of the DGP process have been extensively analysed with LCA tool in order to develop an environmentally friendly process. The economic feasibility has been assessed through the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCFA) method. The revenues associated to the recovery of valuable and common materials and the recycling costs have been taken into account. 相似文献