A Real-Life Based Evaluation Method of Deployable Vulnerable Road User Protection Systems

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a real-life-based evaluation method, incorporating vulnerable road user (VRU) full-body loading to a vehicle with a deployable protection system in relevant test setups, and use this method to evaluate a prototype pedestrian and cyclist protection system.Methods: Based on accident data from severe crashes, the most common scenarios were selected and developed into 5 test setups, 2 for pedestrians and 3 for bicyclists. The Polar II pedestrian anthropomorphic test device was used, either standing or on a standard bicycle. These test setups could then be used to evaluate real-life performance of a prototype protection system, regarding both positioning and protection, for vulnerable road users. The protection system consisted of an active hood and a windshield airbag and was mounted on a large passenger car with a conventional hood-type front end. Injury evaluation criteria were selected for head, neck, and chest loading derived from occupant frontal and side impact test methods.Results: The protection system managed to be fully deployed, obtaining the intended position in time—that is, before VRU body contact—in all test setups, and head protection potential was not negatively influenced by the preceding thoracic impact. Head loading resulted in head injury criterion (HIC) values ranging up to 4400 for the standard car, and all HIC values were below 650 with the protection system. The risk of severe (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] 3+) head injury decreased from 85% to 100% in 3 test setups (mainly to the windscreen frame), to less than a 20% risk in all setups. In general, there were larger differences between structures impacted than between the pedestrian and cyclist setup. Neck loading was maintained at an acceptable level or was slightly decreased by the protection system, and chest loading was decreased from high values in 2 test setups in which the cyclist was impacted laterally with chest impact mainly to the hood area.Conclusions: A test method was developed to evaluate a more real-life-based test condition, as a complement to current component test methods. Being real-life based, including full-body loading, it is suggested as a complementary test method to the more simplified legal and rating component tests. Together these test methods will provide a more thorough evaluation of a protection system. The evaluated protection system performed well regarding both positioning and protection, indicating a capability to obtain the intended position in time with the potential to prevent the most common severe upper-body injuries of a pedestrian or cyclist in typical real-life accidents, without introducing negative side effects.