Search Results (3)

This article represents the first paper in a two-part series dealing with safety during tram–pedestrian collisions. This research is dedicated to the safety of trams for pedestrians during collisions and is motivated by the increased number of lethal cases. The first part of this paper includes an overview of tram face development from the earliest designs to the current ones in use and, at the same time, provides a synopsis and explanation of the technical context, including a link to current and forthcoming legislation. The historical design development can be characterised by three steps, from an almost vertical front face, to leaned and pointed shapes, to the current inclined low-edged windshield without a protruding coupler. However, since most major manufacturers now export their products worldwide and customisation is only of a technically insignificant nature, our conclusions are generalisable (supported by the example of Berlin). The most advantageous shape of the tram’s front, minimising the effects on pedestrians in all collision phases, has evolved rather spontaneously and was unprompted, and it is now being built into the European Commission regulations. The goal of the second part of this paper is to conduct a series of tram–pedestrian collisions with a focus on the frontal and side impacts using a crash test dummy (anthropomorphic test device—ATD). Four tram types approaching the collision at four different impact speeds (5 km/h, 10 km/h, 15 km/h, and 20 km/h) were used. The primary outcome variable was the resultant head acceleration. The risk and severity of possible head injuries were assessed using the head injury criterion (HIC₁₅) and its linkage to the injury level on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The results showed increasing head impacts with an increasing speed for all tram types and collision scenarios. Higher values of head acceleration were reached during the frontal impact (17–124 g) compared to the side one (2–84 g). The HIC₁₅ values did not exceed the value of 300 for any experimental setting, and the probability of AIS4+ injuries did not exceed 10%. The outcomes of tram–pedestrian collisions can be influenced by the ATD’s position and orientation, the impact speed and front-end design of trams, and the site of initial contact. Full article

Specific finite detail modeling of the human body gives a capable primary enhancement to the prediction of damage risk through automobile impact. Currently, car crash protection countermeasure improvement is based on an aggregate of testing with installed anthropomorphic test devices (i.e., ATD or dummy) and a mixture of multibody (dummy) and finite element detail (vehicle) modeling. If an incredibly easy finite element detail version can be advanced to capture extra statistics beyond the abilities of the multi-body structures, it might allow advanced countermeasure improvement through a more targeted prediction of overall performance. Numerous research has been done on finite element analysis of broken femurs. However, there are two missing pieces of information: 1- choosing the right material properties, and 2- designing a precise model including the inner structure of the bone. In this research, most of the chosen material properties for femur bone will be discussed and evaluated. Full article

Presently, most passive safety tests are performed with a precisely specified seat position and carefully seated ATD (anthropomorphic test device) dummies. Facing the development of autonomous vehicles, as well as the need for safety verification during crashes with various seat positions such research is even more urgently needed. Apart from the numerical environment, the existing testing equipment is not validated to perform such an investigation. For example, ATDs are not validated for nonstandard seatback positions, and the most accurate method of such research is volunteer tests. The study presented here was performed on a sled test rig utilizing a 50cc Hybrid III dummy according to a full factorial experiment. In addition, input factors were selected in order to verify a safe test condition for surrogate testing. The measured value was head acceleration, which was used for calculation of a head injury criterion. What was found was an optimal seat angle −117°—at which the head injury criteria had the lowest represented value. Moreover, preliminary body dynamics showed a danger of whiplash occurrence for occupants in a fully-reclined seat. Full article