Proposal for a Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Approach Based on the European FIMCAR Project

Figures & data

Fig. 1 Development of road accidents causing injuries and road facilities in EU27 (European Union Road Federation 2010) (color figure available online).

Fig. 2 Distribution of road fatalities among road user categories in 2008 in EU27 (European Union Road Federation 2010) (color figure available online).

Table 1 Main compatibility topics and associated priorities (color available online)

Assessment requirements

Table 2 List of compatibility characteristics

Priority 1

Priority 2

1  A common interaction zone defined as 406–508 mm (based on U.S. Part 581 zone) 2  Initial loading of barrier is evaluated above and below 457 mm 3  Vertical load spreading evaluated in Part 581 zone 4  Vertical load spreading evaluated between 180 and 406 mm 6  Horizontal load spreading between longitudinal members 8  Current compartment strength requirements maintained 9  Appropriate severity levels for occupant protection 11  Field-relevant pulses in the tests 14  Monitor crash pulses from all test configurations 15  Acceptable repeatability/reproducibility performance 16  Appropriate pass/fail thresholds 17  No step effects in metrics 18 (a)  Good cars rated as good 18 (b)  Poor cars rated as poor 19  Detection of vehicle architecture

5  Vertical load spreading above 508 mm 7  Horizontal load spreading beyond longitudinal members 10  Address mass-dependent injury risk 12  Two different pulses for restraint system triggering 13  Two different pulses for restraint system capacity

Fig. 3 Potential of test procedures (color figure available online).

Fig. 4 Overview of the specifications of the LCW (color figure available online).

Table 3 Advantages of different full-width tests

FWDB

FWRB

More representative of real-world accidents, especially in initial stage of impact More representative for initial deceleration of vehicle and loading of main rails, which is important for sensing a crash for restraint system triggering Engine dump loading attenuated, enabling assessment of vehicle structures that are relevant to crash that are loaded later in the impact; that is, an assessment can be made of the vehicle's main rails as opposed to its crush cans Results in more realistic deformation pattern of the front structure following shear forces that are not applicable in FWRB Has potential to detect appropriate SEAS without additional tests; for example, ORB Possibly can assess horizontal structures (bumper beams)

Effectively already de facto worldwide standard test, so hence would be easier to introduce from harmonization point of view LCW measures vehicle forces directly; that is, not filtered by deformable element No problems with stability of deformable face or possibility of load spreading by deformable face

Fig. 5 Comparison of front structure deformation pattern in different frontal impact tests: (a) FWDB test, (b) FWRB test, and (c) car-to-car test (color figure available online).

Fig. 6 (a) Late air bag deployment in 40 km/h FWDB test and its consequences for head acceleration. (b) At approximately 30 ms the air bag starts to deploy and (c) at approximately 50 ms the head contacts the deploying air bag (color figure available online).

Fig. 7 Incidence of injuries in high overlap accidents (overlap > 75%; Adolph, Edwards, et al. 2013).

Table 4 FWDB results for car-to-car reference vehicles (color available online)

Fig. 8 Car-to-car intrusion results (color figure available online).