| 1. |
- Hu, Jingwen, et al.
(författare)
-
Development and validation of a modified hybrid-III six-year-old dummy model for simulating submarining in motor-vehicle crashes
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Medical Engineering and Physics. - : Elsevier BV. - 1350-4533 .- 1873-4030. ; 34:5, s. 541-551
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In motor-vehicle crashes, young school-aged children restrained by vehicle seat belt systems often suffer from abdominal injuries due to submarining. However, the current anthropomorphic test device, so-called “crash dummy”, is not adequate for proper simulation of submarining. In this study, a modified Hybrid-III six-year-old dummy model capable of simulating and predicting submarining was developed using MADYMO (TNO Automotive Safety Solutions). The model incorporated improved pelvis and abdomen geometry and properties previously tested in a modified physical dummy. The model was calibrated and validated against four sled tests under two test conditions with and without submarining using a multi-objective optimization method. A sensitivity analysis using this validated child dummy model showed that dummy knee excursion, torso rotation angle, and the difference between head and knee excursions were good predictors for submarining status. It was also shown that restraint system design variables, such as lap belt angle, D-ring height, and seat coefficient of friction (COF), may have opposite effects on head and abdomen injury risks; therefore child dummies and dummy models capable of simulating submarining are crucial for future restraint system design optimization for young school-aged children
|
|
| 2. |
- Flannagan, Carol. A. C., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing motor-vehicle crash risk of EU and US vehicles
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Accident Analysis and Prevention. - : Elsevier. - 0001-4575 .- 1879-2057. ; 117, s. 392-397
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study examined the hypotheses that passenger vehicles meeting European Union (EU) safety standards have similar crashworthiness to United States (US) -regulated vehicles in the US driving environment, and vice versa. The first step involved identifying appropriate databases of US and EU crashes that include in-depth crash information, such as estimation of crash severity using Delta-V and injury outcome based on medical records. The next step was to harmonize variable definitions and sampling criteria so that the EU data could be combined and compared to the US data using the same or equivalent parameters. Logistic regression models of the risk of a Maximum injury according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale of 3 or greater, or fatality (MAIS3+F) in EU-regulated and US-regulated vehicles were constructed. The injury risk predictions of the EU model and the US model were each applied to both the US and EU standard crash populations. Frontal, near-side, and far-side crashes were analyzed together (termed "front/side crashes") and a separate model was developed for rollover crashes.For the front/side model applied to the US standard population, the mean estimated risk for the US-vehicle model is 0.035 (sd = 0.012), and the mean estimated risk for the EU-vehicle model is 0.023 (sd = 0.016). When applied to the EU front/side population, the US model predicted a 0.065 risk (sd = 0.027), and the EU model predicted a 0.052 risk (sd = 0.025). For the rollover model applied to the US standard population, the US model predicted a risk of 0.071 (sd = 0.024), and the EU model predicted 0.128 risk (sd = 0.057). When applied to the EU rollover standard population, the US model predicted a 0.067 risk (sd = 0.024), and the EU model predicted 0.103 risk (sd = 0.040).The results based on these methods indicate that EU vehicles most likely have a lower risk of MAIS3+F injury in front/side impacts, while US vehicles most likely have a lower risk of MAIS3+F injury in llroovers. These results should be interpreted with an understanding of the uncertainty of the estimates, the study limitations, and our recommendations for further study detailed in the report.
|
|
| 3. |
- Flannagan, Carol A.C., et al.
(författare)
-
Mutual Recognition Methodology Development
- 2015
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Phase 1 of the Mutual Recognition Methodology Development (MRMD) project developed an approach to statistical modeling and analysis of field data to address the state of evidence relevant to mutual recognition of automotive safety regulations. Specifically, the report describes a methodology that can be used to measure evidence for the hypothesis that vehicles meeting EU safety standards would perform similarly to US-regulated vehicles in the US driving environment, and that vehicles meeting US safety standards would perform similarly to EU-regulated vehicles in the EU driving environment. As part of the project, we assessed the availability and contents of crash datasets from the US and the EU, as well as their collective ability to support the proposed statistical methodology.The report describes a set of three statistical approaches to “triangulate” evidence regarding similarity or differences in crash and injury risk associated with EU- and US-regulated vehicles. Approach 1, Seemingly Unrelated Regression, tests whether the models are identical and will also assess the capability of the data analysis to detect differences in the models, if differences exist.Approach 2, Consequences of Best Models, uses logistic regression to develop two separate models, one for EU risk and one for US risk, as a function of a set of predictors (i.e., crash, vehicle, and occupant conditions). The two models will then be exercised on a standard population for the EU and a standard population for the US. Approach 3, Evidence for Consequences, turns the question aroundto measures the overall evidence for each of a set of possible conclusions. Each conclusion is characterized by a range of relative risk on a single population. Evidence is measured using a weighted average of likelihoods for a large group of models that produce the same outcome. That evidence is then compared using Bayes Factors.
|
|
| 4. |
- Flannagan, Carol A., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing motor-vehicle crash risk of EU and US vehicles
- 2015
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This study examined the hypotheses that vehicles meeting EU safety standards perform similarly to US-regulated vehicles in the US driving environment, and vice versa. The analyses used three statistical approaches to “triangulate” evidence regarding differences in crash and injury risk. Separate analyses assessed crash avoidance technologies, including headlamps and mirrors. The results suggest that when controlling for differences in environment and exposure, vehicles meeting EU standards offer reduced risk of serious injury in frontal/side crashes and have driver‐side mirrors that reduce risk in lane-change crashes better, while vehicles meeting US standards provide alower risk of injury in rollovers and have headlamps that make pedestrians more conspicuous.
|
|
