三种典型正面小重叠碰撞试验对比分析Comparison Analysis of Three Typical Small Overlap Collision Tests
季奕,马伟杰
摘要(Abstract)：
随着NCAP以及碰撞安全技术法规的推动,汽车安全技术取得了飞跃式的发展,乘员在多种碰撞形态中均得到了很好的保护。然而统计数据表明:有一类小重叠率正面碰撞交通事故,仍会发生严重的乘员伤亡后果,究其原因在于这类碰撞事故中车辆不能发挥纵梁及车身结构的能量吸收作用,使得乘员舱发生严重变形,高的碰撞强度直接传递到乘员身上,从而导致乘员发生严重的伤害。鉴于国内外缺乏统一的小重叠碰撞测试评价方法的现状,首先对比分析了国外三种典型的小重叠碰撞(车对车(Car to Car, C2C)碰撞、IIHS碰撞、NHTSA碰撞)测试评价方法的差异性,随后针对某一车型,基于以上3种方法,进行了相应的实车碰撞试验,并就碰撞试验中车身运动姿态、碰撞强度(车身加速度、VPI指数)、乘员伤害、车身变形量等方面进行了深入的分析。研究结果表明:就车身运动姿态而言,NHTSA方法与C2C方法运动方向相同,且IIHS方法自身转动最为剧烈;在表征碰撞强度的车身加速度和VPI指数方面,NTHSA方法与C2C方法相似,IIHS强度最小;在假人伤害方面:NTHSA与C2C方法伤害曲线接近;在车身变形量方面,整体而言,三者处于同一水平,C2C方法变形量相对较大,IIHS与NTHSA方法变形量基本相当。综合车身加速度、运动姿态、变形量、假人伤害因素,NTHSA方法相比IIHS方法与C2C方法更为接近。
关键词(KeyWords)： 交通事故;小重叠碰撞;实车碰撞测试;运动响应;乘员损伤
基金项目(Foundation):
作者(Author): 季奕,马伟杰
参考文献(References)：
- [1] Bean, J.D., et al. Fatalities in frontal crashes despite seat belts and air bags-Review of all CDS Cases-Model and Calendar Years 2000-2007–122 Fatalities[R]. NHTSA Technical Report, Report No. DOT HS 811202, September2009.
- [2] United Nations Economic Commisson for Europe. 2015 Statistics of Road Traffic Accidents in Europe and North AMERICA. Volume LIII[R]. New York and Geneva, 2015.
- [3] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2009-2011.[R] Docket ID NHTSA-2009-0108-0023, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2009.
- [4] Rudd R., Scarboro M., Saunders J. Injury Analysis of RealWorld Small Overlap and Oblique Frontal Crashes[C]. 22nd ESV Conference Proceedings, Paper No. 11-0384, 2011.
- [5] Ryuuji O., Taisuke W., Tomosaburo O. Consideration of Representativeness of Real-World Accidents and Repeatability of New NHTSA Oblique Offset Frontal Impact Test[C]. 24thESV Conference Proceedings, Paper No. 15-0261,2015.
- [6] Saunders J., Craig M.J., Suway J. NHTSA’S Test Procedure Evaluations for Small Overlap/Oblique Crashes[C]. 22nd ESV Conference Proceedings, Paper No. 11-0343, 2011.
- [7] Sherwood, C., Nolan J., Zuby D. Characteristics of Small Overlap Crashes[C]. 21stESV Conference Proceedings, Paper No. 09-0423, 2009.
- [8] James S., Dan P.Assessment of An Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure[C].23rdESV Conference Proceedings, Paper No. 13-0402, 2013.
- [9] Saunders J., Craig M., Parent D.Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure for Evaluating Small Overlap/Oblique Crashes[J]. SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 5(1):172-195, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-0577.
- [10] Joyce L., Nate J. Dennis, Jeff D.,, et al. Comparison of the NHTSA Research Offset Oblique and Small Overlap Impact Tests and the IIHS Moderate and Small Ovrelap Tests[J]. SAE 2014-01-0537, 2014.
- [11] Takhounts E. G., Hasija V., Moorhouse K., et al. Development of Brain Injury Criteria(BrIC)”, Proceedings of the57thStapp Car Crash Conference, Orlando, FL, November2013.
- [12] Maika K., Ning Z., Jay Z., et al. Correlation Between THOR BrIC and TBI Risk from Full Body Human Model[C]. 24thESV Conference Proceedings, Paper No. 15-0249, 2015.
- [13] Becky M., Anna M., Joe N., et al. Comparison of HIC and BrIC Head Injury Risk in IIHS Frontal Crash Tests to Real-world Head Injuries[C].24thESV Conference Proceedings, Paper No. 15-0272, 2015.
- [14] Mueller B. C., Sherwood C. P., Aebelaez R. A., et al. Comparison of Hybrid III and THOR Dummies in Paaired Small Overlap Tests[J]. Stapp Car Crash J. 55:379-409,2011.
- [15] Claudia D. L. T., Ravi T., Michael G., et al. Component Test Fixture to Improve SOI Results[J]. SAE 2017-01-1466, 2017.
- [16] Dinesh M., Dhanendra N., Matthew M. Small Overlap Impact Countermeasures for Automobiles[J]. SAE 2015-01-1491, 2015.