Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Schoemakerstraat 97
P.O. Box 6033
2600 JA Delft
TNO report The Netherlands
www.tno.nl
In case this report was drafted on instructions, the rights and obligations of contracting parties
are subject to either the Standard Conditions for Research Instructions given to TNO, or the
relevant agreement concluded between the contracting parties. Submitting the report for
inspection to parties who have a direct interest is permitted.
© 2003 TNO
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 2 / 68
Summary
This report presents a literature survey on in-vehicle safety devices. The study was split
into two parts, from which the first part was focussed on restraint systems and the
second on intelligent vehicle systems. This study aimed to give an overview of
potentials for safety of current technologies available and trends in in-vehicle safety
devices.
The literature survey showed that the effectiveness of wearing seat belts in reducing
injury risk (up to 60%) is much higher than effectiveness of airbags only. Effectiveness
of the seat belts in combination with airbags is 10-20% higher than effectiveness of
only belts. Only very limited information on effectiveness of side- and curtain airbags
was available. New seat concepts were shown to claim a reduction of Whiplash injury
risk and also a reduction of fatality risk. Side effects of restraints systems were
described, including the risks for out-of-position occupants. Current trends indicated the
increasing importance of the use of adaptive systems, in which occupant characteristics
can be taken into account to reach optimal restraint performance. These adaptive
systems include various sensors. Another important trend is to cover safety aspects for
all occupants (front and rear occupants) and in all accident configurations, including
multiple impacts.
Intelligent Vehicle Systems (IVS) can be used for comfort or/and for Safety. IVS for
Safety were mentioned in this report as IVSS. Intelligence is already introduced in
nowadays cars like ABS (Anti locking Brake System) and more recently ESP
(Electronic Stability Program). Estimations from in depth accidents analysis showed
that ESP could have reduced the likelihood or avoided the accident in 18% of all injury
accidents and in 34% of fatal accidents. The new challenge is to introduce remote
sensing for avoiding or mitigating a crash. ACC (Adaptive Cruise Control) is an
example of this technology, other systems will follow. An overview on IVS and more
details on IVSS was provided in this literature survey including the estimated potential
of the systems to increase vehicle safety. This potential is obtained mainly from
simulation and experts opinions and the obtained numbers have to be taken cautiously.
It is agreed that IVSS tackle the first cause of accidents, which is driver errors.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 3 / 68
Sammanfattning
IVS kan användas för komfort och/eller för säkerhet. IVS för säkerhet kallas i den här
rapporten IVSS (Intelligent Vehicle Safety System). Intelligens finns redan i dagens
bilar i och med ABS (Låsningsfria bromsar) och nyare ESP (antisladd-system).
Beräkningar från olycksanalyser visar att ESP kunde ha minskat sannolikheten eller
undvikit olyckan i 18% av samtliga skadeolyckor och i 34% av dödsolyckorna. Den nya
utmaningen är att presentera nya sensorer för att undvika eller minska våldet i en
kollision. ACC (Adaptiva konstantfarthållare) är ett exempel på sådan teknologi. Andra
system kommer inom kort. En översikt av IVS och mer information om IVSS ges i den
här litteraturöversikten, inklusive uppskattade systemmöjligheter för
att öka fordonssäkerheten. Potentialen beräknas i huvudsak från simuleringar och
expertomdömen och de erhållna potentialerna måste tas med en nypa salt. Man är
överens om att IVSS kan adressera den största olycksorsaken, som är förarfel.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 4 / 68
Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 6
2 Restraint systems........................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Safety belt systems.......................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Description of belt systems ............................................................................................. 9
2.1.2 Pretensioners ................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.3 Load limiter................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.4 Potential of belts to increase safety ............................................................................... 11
2.2 Seats .............................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.1 Seat design aspects........................................................................................................ 14
2.2.2 Potential of seats to increase safety............................................................................... 16
2.3 Airbags .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Description of airbag systems ....................................................................................... 18
2.3.2 Frontal airbags............................................................................................................... 19
2.3.3 Potential of frontal airbags to increase safety................................................................ 20
2.3.4 Side airbags for chest and head & curtain airbags ....................................................... 21
2.3.5 Potential of side airbags to improve safety.................................................................... 22
2.3.6 Special head protection airbags and curtain airbags...................................................... 22
2.3.7 Potential of head airbags and curtain airbags to increase safety ................................... 24
2.3.8 Other airbags ................................................................................................................. 24
2.4 Interior panels and retractable steering columns ........................................................... 25
2.5 Integration of safety concepts ....................................................................................... 27
7 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 59
7.1 Restraint systems........................................................................................................... 59
7.2 Intelligent Vehicle Systems........................................................................................... 59
8 References .................................................................................................................... 61
Appendices
A Glossary
B List of relevant IVS related EC projects
C Overview actual regulations and consumer tests
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 6 / 68
1 Introduction
‘The effect and potential in using different modern safety systems in vehicles. What
needs to be improved and developed? Examples of systems to describe are: airbags,
side-impact airbags for chest and head, modern safety belt system (safety belt
pretensioner, force limiter etc). What potential lies in other in-vehicle systems, such as
intelligent cruise control, ESP, ABS brakes and traction control?’
The study on in-vehicle safety devices will be split into two parts. In the first part, a
description will be given of current restraint systems in cars, developed for frontal, side
and rollover impact situations. Different types of airbags (driver & passenger frontal,
side airbags, knee airbags, curtain airbags) and belts (including pre-tensioner,
retractor etc.) will be considered. Attention will also be paid to the possible negative
effects of these restraint systems. For example, out-of-position situations in which an
occupant is interacting with a deploying airbag will be taken into account.
The second part of the in-vehicle safety study will focus more on active safety including
use of anticipatory sensors to make restraint systems more efficient. An inventory of
current and future active systems will be made as well as an overview of the most
relevant components for such systems. Apart from technical aspects legal factors and
other deployment related aspects will be considered as well. The basis for this work will
be studies into sensor technologies and sensor algorithms performed by TNO in 2001.
These studies will be extended with the latest developments for sensors as well as
actuators.
This report presents the results of the literature survey. Sources used in the literature
survey included:
− Proceedings of conferences like STAPP, IRCOBI, AIRBAG 2002, SAE
− Scientific journals
− SAE global mobility database
− NHTSA website, Transport Canada website
− Studies into sensor technologies and sensor algorithms by TNO in 2001
− Websites of restraint system manufacturers like Breed, TRW, Autoliv, sensor
manufacturers like Bosch, Siemens
This report can be divided in two main subjects: ‘Restraint Systems’ and ‘Intelligent
Vehicle Systems’. The second part of the in-vehicle safety study will focus more on the
new trends including the link between active and passive safety via the use of
anticipatory sensors to make restraint systems more efficient. An inventory of current
and future active systems will be made as well as an overview of the most relevant
components for such systems. Apart from technical aspects legal factors and other
deployment related aspects will be considered as well. The basis for this work will be
studies into sensor technologies and sensor algorithms performed by TNO in 2001.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 7 / 68
These studies will be extended with the latest developments for sensors as well as
actuators.
In this study, the term Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is used for injury assessment.
The AIS, first developed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine in 1971, is a consensus-derived, anatomically based system that ranks
individual injuries by body region on a scale of 1 to 6 (1=minor, 2=moderate,
3=serious, 4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum/currently untreatable). The AIS is
intended as a measure of the severity of the injury itself and not as a measure of
impairments or disabilities that may result from the injury. It does not assess the
combined effects of multiple injuries to a patient. The AIS was revised and updated
several times, with the most recent revision in 1990. In this report, the AIS level (i.e.,
AIS of 2 or more) refers to the maximum AIS level for that injury suffered by a vehicle
occupant. The MAIS refers to the maximum AIS level (the most severe injury) for all
injuries.
This report aims to give an overview of restraint systems and technologies available in
the current fleet and potentials for safety. In more detail, the content of this report
includes:
− Chapter 7: Conclusions
This chapter shortly summarises the most important findings from this literature
survey.
The glossary describing all abbreviations used in this report is given in Appendix A. A
list of European projects in the field of IVS for safety is given in Appendix B. Some
information on regulations involving restraint systems or intelligent vehicle systems is
provided in Appendix C.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 8 / 68
2 Restraint systems
Restraint systems are systems that restraint the occupant and protect the occupant in
case of crash. The introduction of restraints systems like airbags, seatbelts and energy
absorbing interiors, considerably reduced the number of fatalities and casualties world-
wide. The number of fatalities in road accidents in Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Korea,
Australia and New Zealand for the last decades is shown in Figure 1 [95]. Despite of the
increasing number of vehicles on the roads, the number of fatalities is still decreasing.
220000
fatalities world wide
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Figure 1- Fatalities in road accidents ‘world wide’ from 1965 until 2000, data from [95]
However, in the European Union, still approximately 40.000 people are killed in road
traffic accidents and 1.5 millions casualties are reported each year. Social costs related
to these deaths and casualties are estimated to be over 160 billion Euro [60], [144].
Decreasing the fatalities and injuries would reduce these costs enormously. The
European Union set an ambitious goal to halve the number of people killed annually by
2010 [144]. The EU intends to contribute to this goal with actions on two levels: 1.
Harmonisation of penalties and 2. Promotion of new technologies to improve road
safety.
The European guideline for cost effectiveness of safety measures is that a measure is
cost effective if one fatality (and a particular number of (severe) injured people and
material damage) is prevented at maximum cost of 1 million Euro [94]. This guideline
is based on accident statistics for the complete European Union.
Nowadays, cars are equipped with several restraint systems to prevent the occupant
from being injured during a crash. Children require special restraint systems and for
protection of these child occupants, child restraint systems are used in conjunction with
adults’ restraint systems. This chapter describes the current (adults’) restraint systems
and its benefits. Limitations or drawbacks of current restraint systems are given in the
next chapter.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 9 / 68
Current conventional seat belt systems are the three-point belts, in which the shoulder
belt upper anchor is mounted to the vehicle body (B-pillar), see Figure 2.
Properly fastened safety belts distribute the forces of rapid deceleration over larger and
stronger parts of the person’s body like chest, hips and shoulders. The safety belt
stretches slightly to slow the body down and to increase its stopping distance. The
location of the belt at the occupant’s body during a crash is essential for proper
functioning of the belt. For example, if the lap belt is located too high, the occupant can
slip under a loosely tightened seat belt, which is called ‘sub-marining’. More and more,
belt systems are integrated in the seats; see section 2.2.
Seat belts are multi-functional, e.g. work in all different types of accidents like frontal,
side, rear end and rollover. Current belt systems include [24]
• Retractor; a spool, which is attached to one end of the webbing. Inside the retractor, a
spring applies a rotation force to the spool to rotate the spool so it winds up any loose
webbing, see Figure 3.
• Buckle, which must be able to withstand high forces as well as open easily even upon
heavy loading,
• Height adjuster to achieve correct belt geometry (manual or automatic),
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 10 / 68
• Load limiter integrated in the retractor to keep the maximum belt force at a pre-
defined, controlled level,
• Pretensioner to tighten the belt during the very first fractions of a crash.
Figure 3 – Left panel: drawing of retractor, right panel, drawing of pretensioner [97]
Some details on pretensioners and load limiters are given in the next sub-sections.
2.1.2 Pretensioners
Pretensioners were introduced in 1984 [25] and remove slack from the belt (tighten the
belt) early in the crash event using a small pyrotechnic charge to push the occupants to
their seat during the crash. Modern pretensioners typically use the same sensor as the
airbag. Pretensioners can tighten the belt up to 15 cm by pulling the seatbelt buckle
towards the floor (Buckle pretensioner) or by operating the retractor (Roto pretensioner)
[24].
The potential for dual belt pretension was investigated by Renault [20]. Accident
analysis of LAB data in this study showed improvements for the protection of the upper
body of belted occupants as a result of improved restraint systems (load limited belts &
airbags), and reduction of passenger compartment deformation. However, leg protection
of front seat occupants still could be improved and therefore, a dual belt system is
proposed, consisting of a buckle lap-belt pretensioner and an outer lap-belt pretensioner.
The buckle pretensioner is fired first, a few ms later the outer belt pretensioner is fired
with a typical time interval of 10 ms in an offset frontal crash situation. Benefit of the
dual belt pretension system over single pretension in terms of reduced pelvis
acceleration and velocity (peak velocity from 3.5 m/s to 2 m/s) was presented.
There are several technical solutions to achieve the load limiting. A typical solution is
provided by a bar holding the spindle with the webbing within the retractor, see Figure
4. If the force from the webbing exceeds the limit, the end of the bar turns and reduces
the load on the occupant’s chest.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 11 / 68
In 2000, Autoliv introduced 2-stage load limiters to keep the load on the occupant’s
chest constant during the whole crash [24]. During a crash, initially the occupant is only
restraint by the belt, which demands a relatively high belt force. As soon as the
occupant moves forward into the airbag, the belt’s load limit is reduced since the airbag
takes over part of the occupant’s load.
Comfort and usability was, amongst others, studied by Delphi Automotive Systems [48]
by means of a questionnaire study (194 respondents). The most significant problems
were found as belt trapping in the door, awkward negotiating with clothes, belt twisting,
belts locking up and difficulty to locate the buckle.
A more extensive study about non-user’s reasons for not wearing the seat belt was
performed by VTI [136]. Drivers not using the seat belt (435 drivers) were interviewed
and, amongst others, asked for the reason not to wear the seatbelt. Results for this
particular question are summarised in Table 1. From this study it was concluded that the
basic attitude of these drivers to seat belts was in most cases positive, since the main
reasons not to wear the seat belt were not very principle.
The institute for road safety research in the Netherlands (SWOV) published the reasons
not to wear the seat belt amongst Dutch drivers [137], see Table 2. Main reason for the
Dutch drivers in 2000 not to wear a belt is simply ‘forgot’, indicating that seat wear
reminder systems could reduce the amount of non-wearing seat belt drivers.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 12 / 68
Table 1: Results Swedish interview: ‘why did you not use the seat belt on this occasion?
[136]
Reason %
Only a short trip 34,5
Carelessness 32,9
Forgot, forgetfulness 23,0
Stressed, in a hurry 10,6
Professional driving, job 10,6
Had no time to put it on yet 4,5
Habit, “bad habit” 4,5
Uncomfortable to wear 3,4
Do not use as a matter of principle 3,4
Feel locked in 2,8
Only urban trip 2,3
Frequent stops 1,8
Cumbersome to put on 1,6
Belt is / can be dangerous 1,4
Belt is not necessary 0,9
Restricts reach 0,9
Don’t know, no answer 0.9
Drives (drove) slowly 0,7
Avoids accidents 0,7
Interference with clothes 0,7
Tired 0,7
Usually “always” wears belt 0,7
Bold lines represent the ‘hard resistance’ group.
Table 2: Results Dutch study: reasons not to wear the belt [137]
Seat belt wear percentage for several countries around the world is presented in Figure
5 [98]. Dependent on the road type, different improvement of sear wear rates is
possible.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 13 / 68
Figure 5 – Seat belt wearing rates for car drivers in 2000 [98]
To increase the seat belt wear percentage, seat belt reminder systems are currently on
the market as an addition to the ‘conventional belt systems’ described in section 2.1.
EEVC working group 16, Advanced Frontal Crash Protection, studied the potential of
technical means to increase the use of seat belts in cars and proposed specifications for
such systems with special interest for reminder systems [47]. One of the
recommendations of the EEVC working group for seat belt reminder systems was that a
seat belt reminder system should not affect drive-ability of the vehicle and should
consist of a progressive reminder system with audible and visual signals. Seat use
detection was recommended also for other seats than the driver seat with a lower limit
of a 5th % female to avoid false signals by small luggage or ISOFIX child restraint
systems. It was also recommended that the seat belt reminder systems should have
disconnection possibilities. Currently seat belt reminder systems are taken into account
with EuroNCAP tests on voluntary base [appendix C.4].
Effectiveness of Ford’s belt reminder system in increasing seat belt use in the US was
investigated by IIHS [138]. An observational survey was conducted to compare driver
belt use in 2000-2002 models with belt reminders with belt use in 1998-2001 models
without reminders. The overall use rates were estimated as 71% for drivers of vehicles
without belt reminders and 76% for drivers of vehicles with reminders. This increase in
belt wearing was statistically significant.
Evans summarised technical evidence for the effectiveness of safety belts in [117].
From impact biomechanics it is known that belts prevent the occupant from hitting the
interior of the vehicle, or reduce the severity of such impact. Forces on the occupant are
spread over a larger body area and the deceleration is spread over a longer time.
Besides, belts prevent ejection from the vehicle. The belt effectiveness at reducing
driver fatality risk, averaged for all types of crashes, is in the range 38% to 46%. In case
of rollover, the belt is 80% effective in preventing driver fatalities if rollover is the first
event. Also the effect of the belt wearing law in the UK was described: a 23% decrease
of fatalities was reported in the 11 months after the law [146].
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 14 / 68
Reduced fatalities related to rear seat shoulder belts were reported in [143]. It was
shown that death rates in cars equipped with shoulder belts in rear seats were
substantially lower that in cars equipped with lap belts at prevalent use rates. Therefore,
it was concluded that shoulder belts reduce the risk of death compared to lap belts
without shoulder belts.
Rollover restraint performance with and without seat belt pretensioner was investigated
in [120]. Research tests according to a modified FMVSS 208 dolly rollover test were
conducted in which driver’s and front seated passenger’s restraint performance were
analysed. The rollover test method resulted in unrepeatable vehicle dynamics, but
nevertheless, proper restraint performance was shown. It was concluded that the
maximum occupant injury values did not indicate any improved protection for the tests
with pretensioners activated, compared to the tests without pretensioners. It was noted
that the pretensioners used in this study were not designed for rollover application.
2.2 Seats
For side impact protection, seats have an important function in energy absorption.
Geometry and material of the side bolsters influence seat–occupant interaction in a
crash event. Also the strength of the seat adjustment is important for side impact
protection.
During rear impact, the occupant moves rearward relative to the vehicle and the seat
back provides the primary ‘restraint system’ for the occupant. Therefore seat design
influences the injury potential. The influence of seat foam and geometrical properties on
a dummy’s kinematic response to rear impacts was studied in [99]. It was concluded
that for the three seats being subject of investigation in this study, the geometrical
properties of the head restraint considerably more influence the occupant kinematics
and thus whiplash associated disorder potential than seat foam properties. This
conclusion confirms other (previous) studies in which reduced distance between head
restraint and the back of the head and increased height of the head restraint were shown
to be important for injury reduction [100], [101], [102]. For the influence of seat foam
properties, contradictory conclusions were reported and the influence of the material
properties compared to the geometrical characteristics was limited.
A new generation of yielding seats was described by Viano, [130], see also Figure 6.
The compliance of the high retention (HR) seat is an important factor in the reduction of
whiplash risks, see section 2.2.2.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 15 / 68
Figure 6 – New generation of yielding seats, example of high retention seat [130].
Also Autoliv introduced an Anti-Whiplash Seat (AWS) for front seat occupants, which
has a yieldable backrest that will be tilted in a controlled way in a rear-end collision.
The aim is to absorb energy and reduce the forward rebound of the occupant [24].
Volvo developed and published the WHIPS seat concept [141], [142]. The WHIPS
project followed the whole chain, from accident research and biomechanical
knowledge, towards interpretation of the knowledge, condensed into guidelines and
requirements, resulting in seat development and validation. This holistic approach was
needed because the injury mechanisms for whiplash are still not fully clarified. The
following guidelines for dealing with the Whiplash problem were identified:
1. Reduce occupant acceleration
2. Minimise the relative movement between adjacent vertebrae in the occipital joint
3. Minimise the forward rebound into the seat belt.
The recliner of WHIPS was designed to give a controlled rearward motion of the
backrest in a rear-end impact, thereby, improving the closeness to the occupant’s head
and back, absorbing energy and reducing the occupant’s forward rebound.
A Self-Aligning Head Restraint (SAHR), also called Saab-Active Head Restraint) was
designed to move upward and forward by occupant motion in a rear crash, providing
earlier neck support, even when the head restraint is positioned low [147].
SAHR uses the momentum of the occupant pressing into the seatback in a rear crash to
raise and move the restraint forward, providing earlier head neck support and lowering
loads causing neck extension. Potentials are described in section 2.2.2.
A Seat Integrated Restraint (SIR) system has the shoulder belt upper anchor mounted on
the top of the seat back frame, see Figure 8. SIR systems provide better belt fit, better
belt access and greater comfort to the occupants and therefore add to customer
satisfaction.
Figure 8 – Examples of seat integrated belt system, left panel [24], right panel [10].
Design targets for seat integrated restraint systems for optimal occupant protection were
amongst others studied by Ford Motor Company [10]. Also in case of a seat-integrated-
restraint (SIR), the stiffness of the seat and the floor underneath the seat play a
significant role in protection for frontal impact situations. Working of a prototype SIR
system, equipped with belt pretensioner and load limiting retractor and additional dual
stage driver airbags, was investigated by computer simulation with the simulation
package MADYMO [10]. Seat excursion, referred to as the total forward displacement
of the shoulder belt upper anchor relative to the vehicle, was shown to be an important
parameter to optimise the SIR system and should be limited. Proper structural design of
the seat, seat attachment and structural design of the floor were indicated as the key
parameters to influence seat excursion. When choosing seat excursion as a design
parameter, it is important to make a distinction between the contribution to excursion of
the seat and its underlying structure. Since seat excursion is also dependent on vehicle
pulse and pitch, the design targets of seat/floor stiffness can not be generic for all types
of vehicles. Proper selection of belt retractor, airbag vent size and dual stage inflator’s
lag time contribute to lower injury values.
Only limited scientific information is available on claims of injury risk reduction in rear
impact due to new seat concepts. Volvo developed and published the WHIPS seat
concept [141], [142], see section 2.2.1. Results of sled tests suggested considerable
potential for improved neck injury protection in rear-end impacts. No concrete numbers
were given. Effectiveness of a Self-Aligning Head Restraint (SAHR) in preventing
Whiplash was investigated in [147]. The study evaluated the field performance of
SAHR by means of questionnaire mailing to the occupants involved in rear crashes,
phone interviews and reviewing of insurance and medical records. 177 cases, 85 with
standard head restraint and 92 with SAHR were included. It was concluded that SAHR
reduced whiplash injury risks by 75±11%, from an 18±5% occurrence out of 85
occupants with standard head restraints to 4±3% occurrence out of 92 occupants with
SAHR.
Some indication on positive effects of the correct use of head restraints were found in
[125], in which soft tissue neck injuries after rear-end collisions were reported. 245
accident cases from the GDV 1990 database (Germany) were analysed with the
following characteristics: rear-end collision, single impact, claimed cervical spine injury
and good documentation. The cases were divided into 4 groups; lowest fixation, highest
fixation, medium fixation (in between low & high) and no head restraint. It was
concluded that it is better to have no head restraint than having one that is too low
adjusted. A high head restraint position was found to reduce the cervical spine injury
risk.
The risk of whiplash injury in the rear seat compared to the front seat in rear impacts
was investigated by Folksam Research et al, [135]. In total 195 cases with both front-
and rear seat passengers in the struck car were analysed with at least one occupant who
sustained permanent disability. It was concluded that there was a significantly higher
disability risk for the female rear seat occupant compared to the mail driver. Also higher
risks for the female rear-seat occupant were found compared to the female front-seat
passengers. The risk of permanent disability was four times higher for females in the
rear seat, compared to males in the rear seat. For drivers, the risk of permanent
disability was three times higher for female drivers than for male drivers.
Relationships between passenger car seat back strength and occupant injury severity in
rear end collisions were, amongst others, studied in [126]. Several seats with different
seat back stiffness and geometry were evaluated in dynamic Hyge rear impact sled tests.
Results of these tests indicated no consistent advantage of stiffer seats over yielding
seats for the complete range of speeds tested. Moreover, indications were found that
stiffer seats could increase the incidence of neck injuries in real world. The most
sensitive response to seat design and crash severity was the lower neck extension
moment.
The effect of stiff and yielding seats and energy transfer to an occupant in rear crashes
was also described in [130]. This (more recent) study showed more clearly benefits of a
yielding seat back over a stiff seat on occupant dynamics in rear crashes. The yielding
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 18 / 68
seat back developed about 15% lower forces on the occupant and a more gradual
forward acceleration of the occupant was observed.
2.3 Airbags
Airbags systems consist of an electronic control unit and the airbag module itself. The
electronic control unit is usually located in the middle of the car or mounted in the
steering wheel (in case of a driver airbag). The sensor that sends this information into a
microprocessor continuously monitors the acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle.
In the microprocessor, the crash algorithm (different for each specific car model) is
stored and continuously compared to the sensor signal. If the microprocessor recognises
the specific crash pulse, an electrical signal is given and the airbags are fired.
Different types of inflators are used. Single stage inflators fill air bags with the same
level of power in all crashes, regardless of whether the crash is a relatively low or high-
speed crash. Multi-stage inflators (mostly dual stage) consist of multi (two) independent
inflators and enable a more controlled airbag deployment. In case of a low severity
crash, only the first stage is fired, whereas in case of a high severity crash, both stages
are fired. High severity crashes require higher airbag pressure to prevent the occupant
from hitting the vehicle interior.
The main challenge for airbag systems is that they have to satisfy all protection
requirements in different vehicle crash scenarios and for different occupant sizes. For
both high-severity crashes (fast airbag deployment demanded) and low severity crashes
(gentle airbag deployment demanded), the occupant should be optimally protected and
hard contact of the occupant with the car interior should be avoided. Different types of
airbags (frontal, side etc) with different deployment times are developed for the
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 19 / 68
different types of crashes. The following subsections will describe the different types of
airbags an their effects in more detail.
Figure 9 - 5th percentile dummy in frontal crash test: scenario without an airbag (left), scenario with an
airbag(right) [148].
The main function of frontal airbags is to prevent hard contact between the occupant
and the steering column / interior panel / windshield during a crash. The airbag should
therefore be properly positioned between the occupant and the car interior. Typical sizes
of frontal airbags vary for cars in different countries, depending on seat belt wear
obligation. In the US, wearing belts is not compulsory and a larger volume within the
car has to be filled by the airbag. Typical airbag sizes for the US are 65-80 litre for
driver airbags (fitted in the steering wheel) and 150-160 litre for passenger airbags
(fitted in the interior panel at passenger side). For Europe and Japan, where wearing
belts is compulsory, smaller airbags are appropriate (35-60 litre for driver airbags and
80-120 litre for passenger airbags) [4]. Airbag deployment takes about 30-50 ms.
A smart driver airbag concept called ‘ring-airbag’ was presented by Audi in 2002 [15],
see Figure 10.
This ‘ring-airbag’ was developed to meet all requirements of consumer protection and
legislation taking into account sophisticated styling freedom. The new Audi A8
contains a fixed airbag module centre together with a ring-airbag.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 20 / 68
On the one hand, airbags have to be positioned in time and should have enough energy
absorbing capabilities to protect the occupant. On the other hand, occupants in out-of-
position require limited inflation pulse through the airbag. This can be reached for
example by avoiding contact between module flap and occupant, improved folding,
radial deployment, or controlled unfolding. The smart ring-airbag concept includes all
these measures. Tests showed that the ring-airbag fulfils all safety requirements and
improves results for ‘low risk deployment’ FMVSS 208 tests (for information on
fmvss208, see section C.2.2).
Airbag benefits were confirmed also by a recent study of the Institute for Vehicle Safety
in Germany, GDV [46]. About 700 cases involving airbag-equipped cars, from which
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 21 / 68
92% since 1997, were studied. Not only for the driver, but also for the front seat
passenger the study confirmed major safety benefits of airbags. The proportion of
severe and fatal injuries both to driver and front passenger is about 20% lower than
without airbags.
With the first generation airbags unexpected fatalities were reported, particularly in low
speed crashes [2]. As a result, depowered airbags (less power when inflating) were
developed from 1997 on. The performance of these depowered airbags was investigated
by William Lehman Injury Research Center [5]. In this study, it is concluded that the
performance of the depowered airbags has been very good. High-speed protection at
crash severities > 40 mph has been observed for both restrained and unrestrained
occupants, despite of the depowered airbags.
2.3.4 Side airbags for chest and head & curtain airbags
Side impacts represent the second greatest cause of fatalities in passenger car incidents
[62]. After the standardisation of frontal airbags, vehicle manufacturers started
developing dynamically deploying upper-interior head and thorax protection systems
(introduction started in 1994). These systems provide additional occupant protection of
head, neck and thorax area and also prevent the occupant being ejected from the vehicle
during lateral crashes. Development of side-airbags is more complex than development
of frontal airbags since in frontal impacts, much energy is absorbed by bumper, hood
and engine, whereas in side-impact, the occupant is much closer to the incoming vehicle
and only the door and some additional space is in between [16]. Therefore for side-
airbags, typical inflating times are 7-15 ms, which is much lower than for frontal
airbags [62].
The mounting location of side airbags is different for different types of cars. Installation
in the seat back has the advantage that passengers of all sizes are protected regardless of
seat position. Installation in the door has the advantage that within the door, there is
enough space to enable acceptable coverage.
Autoliv introduced thorax airbags for side-impact protection in 1994 [24]. The goal of
this bag is to keep the occupant away from the impact zone and to damp the slap from
the intruding side of the vehicle. The thorax bag, mounted in the seat, is inflated within
12 ms and typical volumes are about 12 litre. The electronic control unit is located in
the backrests of the front seats and the sensor is located in the sill or the B-pillar. An
extension from the regular thorax bag is the head thorax bag, which covers the chest
area as well as the head area.
Side protection systems for today and near future are described by Volkswagen [17]. To
improve side impact occupant protection several steps were taken in the past. The first
step was to raise the stiffness of the car’s side structure to reduce the collision speed
between door and occupant. The second step was to optimise the contact area between
door and passenger to distribute the force and avoid localised loads. The next step was
the introduction of a side airbag system, like a combined thorax pelvis airbag, that has
two functions: equal pressure distribution and early contact between door and occupant
to accelerate the occupant at the lowest possible risk. Disposal of airbag modules is
mentioned as an important aspect, which influences for example gas generator types
(preferably without azide). Volkswagen introduced a fault-tolerant side-bag module; in
case of no-intrusion, vent holes at the backside are not closed and the airbag is not
deployed. In case of intrusion, the intruding door closes vent holes.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 22 / 68
Interaction of the hand and wrist with a door handgrip during static side airbag
deployment using CVS/ATB multi-body simulation program was studied by University
of Virginia Automobile Safety Laboratory [12]. The objective was to quantify the
relative severity of various hand- and handgrip positions to select a general test matrix
for laboratory testing. Amongst others, handgrip length, angle, and spacing and initial
position and orientation of the distal forearm and hand were varied. Sensitivity of the
results to initial hand position and wrist orientation with respect to the handgrip was
shown. Furthermore, concerns about bio-fidelity of the current ATDs (in particular
shoulder region) were expressed.
‘Comparison of real world side impact/rollover collisions with and without thorax
airbag/head protection system: a first field experience study’ was published by BMW
[149]. 24 side collisions were evaluated, 14 without and 10 with head protection system
/ thorax airbag (HPS/TA) of BMW. An increase in AIS 1 injuries was reported (head by
29%, thorax by 3%, neck by 6%), except for the upper extremities (reduction by 4%) in
case of HPS/TA, with respect to the cases with HPS/TA. No serious injuries were
reported in side impacts in case of HPS/TA. Note that no statistically valid statement
was permitted with these available data.
Via the NHTSA Website, a recent ‘Powerpoint’ presentation was obtained (October
2001) on real world experience of side impact airbags in the special crash investigations
[118]. 55 side airbag cases were analysed. The study concluded that no fatalities have
been attributed to the deployment of a side airbag. Only one case was reported in which
the occupant was seriously injured by a door mounted side airbag. Furthermore it was
concluded that head injuries were reduced by the head protection side airbag, but no
estimation in percentages was given. It was found that passenger compartment intrusion
is the primary contributor to fatalities in side impact.
Some additional safety benefit was observed for side head and thorax airbags in a
German study [46]. However, due to the small number of cases the results can not be
called statistically significant.
Autoliv [24] also introduced the first airbag for specific head protection on BMW cars
(1997), called the Inflatable Tubular Structure (ITS). The ITS, installed in the head-liner
above the front doors, consists of a nylon tube that inflates to a diameter of about 15
cm., see Figure 11.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 23 / 68
Figure 11 – ITS (left panel) and curtain airbag (right panel) [24]
For development of curtain airbags; particularly important are system parameters like
inflation time, fill capacity, and the time the airbag stays inflated during side impact and
rollover crashes [13].
Due to changing fleet composition and possibly related to the introduction of ABS
systems, the number of rollover accidents increases, see also section 5.1.1. Injuries in
rollover accidents are mainly caused by ejection of the occupant through the side panel
and head contact to exterior objects and interior surfaces. To reduce injuries in rollover
impacts, curtain airbag systems were developed. For correct functioning of these
systems, knowledge of occupant kinematics prior to the rollover is required to be sure
on correct timing of bag deployment. Although curtain airbag systems should protect
the occupant, incorrect deployment could result in occupant’s injuries as well. Several
rollover initiation types are distinguished from which tripping is the most occurring
type (according to NASS data US). Ford and TRW [44] presented a study on dummy
head kinematics in tripped rollover tests and a new test method to evaluate the effect of
curtain airbag deployment. The Deceleration Rollover Sled (DRS) was used to perform
9 dynamic rollover tests in which side-window position (up/down), deployment-time
and “g”-level (height of curbs) were varied. Results of the dynamic test were used to
define a new static test, referred to as Head On Glass test (HOG), to study interaction of
the curtain airbag with the dummy without performing full scale tests. It was concluded
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 24 / 68
that this new static test successfully could be used to measure the risk of injury during
airbag deployment.
The field experience study cited in the section ‘potential of side airbags to improve
safety’ also investigated rollover collisions with and without Head Protection Systems /
Thorax Airbag (HPS/TA) [149]. 49 rollover crashes with BMW’s were analysed from
which 9 included a HPS/TA, and 40 did not. It was concluded that AIS 1 injuries
increased using HPS/TA (head by 45%, thorax by 8%, upper extremities by 7%),
compared to no HPS/TA, but only 1 AIS2+ injury was reported. It was stated that the
HPS was responsible to a greater extent than the TA for the reduction of serious
injuries. It is noted that no statistically valid statements were permitted because of the
currently available data.
The EU rollover project (started July 2002, will run 3 years in total) has the objective to
assist European restraint and vehicle manufacturers to develop effective rollover
systems in a cost efficient manner. After implementation of such systems, increased
protection to members of European society who travel by car is expected [152].
Faurecia developed a pyrotechnic knee bolster and investigated its contribution to car
drivers safety by means of virtual testing [49]. To keep the clearance space between the
legs and the dashboard as small as possible to limit impact velocity, the knee padding is
moved as close as possible to the knees in case of a frontal crash by means of a
pyrotechnic activator. This pyrotechnic knee bolster improves car driver safety because
of reduction of sub-marining risk, reduction of pelvis and chest acceleration, avoiding
contact between the knees and rigid parts of steering column and dashboards.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 25 / 68
Footwell airbags
Footwell deformation during accidents can cause lower leg injuries and therefore,
Siemens developed a foot airbag to be placed underneath the driver’s side carpet to
reduce lower leg injuries [63]. Siemens states that in sled tests, the foot airbag
demonstrated a reduction of lower extremity injuries by as much as 70%. However, no
further scientific publications or references could be found to confirm this statement.
Autoliv [63] is currently developing an inflatable carpet to protect car occupants’ feet,
ankles and lower legs from the intruding footwell of a vehicle during crash. Lower limb
injury mitigation from this inflatable carpet was evaluated in sled tests with intrusion by
the University of Virginia [64]. Sled tests were performed at a velocity of 56 km/h with
a belted hybrid III occupant and a simulated knee bolster and steering wheel airbag. A
new toepan intrusion system was successfully built to produce repeatable intrusion. It
was concluded that the inflatable carpet has the potential to reduce lower limb injury
risk from footwell intrusion for low severity injuries. However, design optimisation is
needed to enable optimal handling of both translational and combined translational and
rotational toepan motion.
In crash terminology, the ‘first impact’ is often defined as the real crash event, whereas
the ‘second impact’ is defined as the occupant hitting the car interior. The restraint
systems as described in the previous sections, amongst others, try to reduce the negative
effects of the ‘second impact’; e.g. they try to prevent the occupant from hitting the car
interior. For this second impact, materials for car interiors also can contribute to
reduction of injuries by softening the contact between the occupant and vehicle interior.
For example, ‘soft’ knee bolsters are applied in the dashboard or steering column to
absorb kinetic energy of impact and to avoid contact between the knees and rigid parts
of the interior.
There are two types of automotive instrument panels; hard and soft. The hard type is a
mono-layer type and consists mostly of polypropylene. The soft type consists of three
layers; skin, foam and core, from PVC, PU, PC, or ABS [69]. For the soft type, PVC
dominated the market for the skin layer but PVC is being eliminated due to
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 26 / 68
environmental reasons and poor low temperature resistance in long term performance.
Several articles on ‘new’ interior panel (materials) design were found of which a few
with focus on safety issues are discussed below.
Materials used for upper interior-trim components must meet ECE/R.21, equivalent to
FMVSS 201U targets for energy absorption (see appendix C.2.1 and C.2.2 for some
details on ECE/R.21 and FMVSS 201u), but must also be ductile at low temperatures
for proper performance during low temperature airbag deployment. Other critical
factors for the material to be used include the ease of processing, aesthetics and costs.
Typically, molded-in ribs are used for energy absorbing in the B-pillar. Traditional
interior resins include engineering alloys, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS),
polypropylene (PP) and PVC. Solvay Engineered Polymers investigated the
performance of thermoplastic polyolefins in automotive roof-pillar covers involved with
interior head impact and roof-rail or side airbag deployment [14]. From this study, it
was concluded that compounded thermoplastic polyolefins offer a good balance of
stiffness and low-temperature ductility in roof-rail airbag head impact and seat airbag
applications, with improved moldability and cost savings.
In traditional instrument panel (IP) constructions, a metal cross-car beam and steel
reinforcement parts were providing the stiffness of the structure. More recently (from
1994 on), IP’s without a cross-car beam, called fully integrated structural IP, were
introduced. In the integrated IP’s the stiffness and strength are provided by the plastic
IP, which results in weight and cost savings. Dow Chemical described engineering
development of a fully integrated polypropylene (PP) instrument panel concept [68]. A
PP rubber modified compound filled with 15% talc was used. The integrated IP concept
was tested successfully using computer-aided-engineering in an EuroNCAP ODB test
scenario, a side impact situation and head impact interior tests. To meet the ECE/R.21
requirements, the rib patterns used for reinforcement in the passenger-airbag region
were optimised.
Another trend in automobile industry was to integrate the airbag door as part of the
instrument panel by using the seamless airbag door technology. Visteon developed
seamless airbag technology for a hard molded-in-color polypropylene (PP) instrument
panel [67]. Requirements for seamless airbags are on the one hand correct deployment
performance over a wide range (-30 to 85 ºC) of temperatures and on the other hand
comply government regulations on interior head impact. Whereas correct deployment
required a weak seam to enable correct airbag deployment even at low temperatures,
head impact tests required a strong enough tear seam to prevent any panel
cracking/sharp edges exposed after impact. The molded-in-color seamless passenger
airbag subject of this specific study is currently on the market.
More generally, invisible passenger airbag door systems have been widely introduced
the last years and these increase the risk of small particles to be released from the
dashboard with high velocity, see also section 3.2 on airbag induced injuries.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 27 / 68
Thusfar, this study focussed on functioning of the different restraint systems separately
but this section will focus on integration of the different safety concepts. In particular
modern cars have a stiffer front structure and a very rigid passenger cell, which is
demanding for the safety systems and their interaction. The stiffer front structure is,
amongst others, a result of more stringent regulations (i.e. crash tests with higher
velocities that have to be passed).
Relations between some systems as described in this chapter are summarised by [103]
and given in Figure 12.
A summary of restraint system performance in the field, divided in belt, airbag and
airbag + belt was presented in the book titled ‘Airbag development and performance –
new perspectives from industry, government and academia’ [104], see Figure 13. The
authors’ most important conclusion is that there is room for airbag performance
improvement. In particular important is improvement of discrimination between crashes
that require airbag deployment and crashed that do not. Increasing the deployment
threshold is suggested to improve the performance.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 28 / 68
An attempt to answer the question whether the new restraint systems result in limiting
the risk for occupants involved in real crash conditions was done by [20] analysing the
LAB database in frontal impact. Three groups of samples, related to model year and
safety equipment were identified:
1. Accidents involving cars model year 1980-1990, no structural enhancement, 3-
point belt
2. Accidents involving cars model year after 1990, with structural enhancement, 3-
point belt + driver airbag (‘Eurobag’)
3. Accidents involving cars model year after 1997, with structural enhancement, 3-
point belt with pre-tensioner +4kN belt load limitation + airbag (approved in
combination with the load limiting belt)
Some results of the study are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15. Figure 14 shows that
improvement of the vehicle crashworthiness in group 2, resulting in less intrusion to the
passenger compartment and higher occupant deceleration, increased the injury risk for
the thorax region of the passenger occupant. This is not the case for the driver, because
of the driver airbag involved in group 2 vehicles. From group 2 to 3, a significant
reduction of risk to both front seat occupants is observed as a result of the combination
of belt load limitation and head and thorax airbag. Only the risk of moderate to severe
lower limb injury is still very high, see Figure 15.
Figure 14 – Variation of risk of fatality and severe injury to front seat occupants as a function of car
generations, in frontal collisions [20]
Figure 15 – Risk of minor to severe injury for abdomen and lower limbs, belted front seat occupants (LAB
data 2002) [20]
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 30 / 68
Influences of airbags in combination with seat belt pretensioners on AIS1 neck injuries
for belted occupants in frontal impacts were studied in [123]. 158 frontal impacts were
analysed from which the crash pulse was available from a crash recorder. Only neck
injuries were considered in this study. It was concluded that airbags in combination
with seat belt pretensioners resulted in a reduction of AIS1 neck injuries in frontal
impacts of 41% (± 15.2%). In lower severity crashes, i.e. for impacts with ∆V between
1 km/h and 30 km/h, reduction of the AIS1 neck injury risk with 59% ± 18.6% was
found for airbag and seat belt pretensioner equipped cars.
Better optimisation of belt and airbag performance as an integrated system could reduce
injury risk. The German Insurance Association, Institute for Vehicle Safety [46]
concluded that optimisation of the interaction between belt/airbag regarding the
restraint of pelvis and chest could reduce severe injuries in thorax region and lower
extremities. In particular aggressive impact of the knee against the dashboard was
shown to be important.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 31 / 68
In the previous chapter it was shown that improved restraint systems are responsible for
a reduction of the number of fatalities due to road accidents in the last decade.
However, each restraint system may also introduce a certain risk of injury caused by the
system itself [40]. The additional risk induced by (in particular) airbag systems should
be weighed against their benefits. It is important to be informed on possible injury risks
due to restraint systems as reported in literature. This section first describes injuries
caused by belts and airbags. Next the risks of an occupant being out-of-position are
described, which is currently an important research topic in crash safety. Therefore a
separate subsection is dealing with OOP. Finally injuries to specific groups of
occupants, like children, elderly and extreme tall, fat or short people are described.
Seat belts reduce the risk of fatal and serious injuries by about 45% [61]. However, in
high-speed collisions, rib and abdominal injuries may occur in particular if the seat belt
is not correctly positioned.
Abdominal responses to dynamically lap belt loading were studied in [18]. Although
seat belts have been shown to be effective in reducing the number of serious injuries in
car crashes, also ‘new’ types of injuries have been reported as a result of ‘sub-
marining’. Mostly, antropometric test devices (ATD) are used in seatbelt tests.
However, ATD responses and human tolerance levels related to amount of allowable
tensioning are not yet well correlated and therefore, in this study, post mortem human
subjects (14) were used to study abdominal injury response and injury thresholds.
Injuries were reported for peak lap loads varying between 6.0-6.8 kN with a subsequent
stable lap load of 3.6 to 4.1 kN. Based on the experiments, the authors suggest that the
ratio between subject weight and size affects the injury results. From this study it could
not be determined whether the injuries were caused by the peak load or later in the
stable load period.
VSRC Loughborough University reported three fatal head injuries associated with
airbag deployment [40] with a high degree of certainty. Amongst others, complicated
fracture of the skull was observed as cause for fatal injury. A strong blow of the airbag
against the front of the head (being at close proximity of the airbag) caused the fatal
fracture. According to VSRC, this kind of injury would not be identified in crash tests
using current test dummies.
For thoracic injury case review, VSRC noticed that it was difficult to separate injuries
from seat belt loading, steering wheel interaction and airbag deployment. However, two
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 32 / 68
cases with fatal thoracic injuries were reported that were caused by the fact that the
chest was in very close proximity to the steering wheel at time of airbag deployment.
Abrasions, burns and contusions to the hands and arms were observed by VSRC.
Movement of airbag across the occupant surface material causes abrasions. Burns are
caused by the hot gases coming through the ventholes (sodium azide burns extremely
rapidly to provide the nitrogen gas to inflate the airbag) and by airbag material that
slides. Contusions can be the result of the airbag striking the occupant.
Ocular injuries from high velocity objects were studied by Virginia Tech Impact
Biomechanics Laboratory [6]. Traditionally, airbag designs included a door with an
opening seam to release the airbag. As described in the previous chapter as well, a
recent trend involves eliminating the door and deploying the airbag through a seamless
panel. This enables small foam particles to be released from the dashboard with high
velocity, causing ocular injuries to the occupant without touching the airbag. A finite
element eye model was used to investigate ocular injuries and it was concluded that the
model was effective at simulating ocular impacts from various particles in the event of
an automobile accident. Simulation results agreed well with experimental results.
Currently the eye model included material properties up to rupture and large
deformation could be taken into account accurately. Material properties were taken
from literature and experiments on eyes ‘in situ’ will be developed to further refine the
model.
Recent (1997-2000) accidents involving upper extremity fracture associated with airbag
deployment were analysed by Kettering University [7]. Detailed injury level
information was obtained for a limited set of recent cases in which the driver or front-
seat passenger suffered from fracture level injuries of the upper extremity as a result of
a crash including airbag deployment. Analysis showed that airbag deployment increases
the risk of forearm fracture as a proportion of all upper extremity fractures and that
females are at increased risk of such injury. The reason of increased risk for females
was not explained in this study.
Impaired hearing was reported by the German insurance Association, Institute for
Vehicle Safety [46] in about 10% of 564 vehicles in which at least one airbag was
deployed. From the 57 cases in which impaired hearing was reported, in 11 cases the
impaired hearing was permanent. This was particularly the case when both driver and
passenger airbag had been fired.
In the past, airbags were only developed for use with normal seated occupants (so called
‘in-position’ occupants). Occupant – airbag interaction would only take place with a
completely deployed airbag and generic, mean size males were used as a reference
occupant. The opposite of ‘in-position’ is out-of-position (OOP), in which the occupant
is interacting with the deploying airbag. In case of OOP, the occupant is in close
proximity to the airbag, i.e. steering wheel or dashboard. Whereas airbags are
developed to reduce injuries, the interaction of the OOP occupant with the airbag during
deployment may even cause extra injuries to the occupant.
using no restraint at all for child or adult occupants. Also misuse of belts was reported,
in particular for smaller children. In all cases, the occupants were very close to the
dashboard when the airbag deployed. Because of their proximity, the children sustained
fatal head or neck injuries from the deploying passenger air bag. For some drivers, out-
of-position situations as a result of ‘black-out’ were reported at the time of the crash.
Most of the crashes occurred at relatively low speed.
The influence of airbag folding pattern on out-of-position (OOP) injury potential was
studied by the Institute of Automotive Technology (TU Berlin) [8]. Four different
folding patterns for a driver airbag were studied by means of simulation techniques
using Pam-Crash. The influences of leporello folding (conventional folding, ‘L’), raff
folding (also known as petri folding, ‘R’), stochastical folding (‘S’) and z-folding
(comes from the ‘peter patent’, ‘Z’) were studied. It was concluded that the folding
pattern strongly influences the OOP injury danger. Compared to the other folding
patterns, the conventional folding pattern turned out to be the most ‘critical’ pattern for
OOP injuries, see Figure 16.
Figure 16 – OOP injury danger for ‘head centred on module’ position for different folding methods [8]
(limit values are indicated in lowest two rows)
The study also showed the success of a combined design, test and simulation approach
as a tool to investigate the influence of airbag design parameters on OOP injury and
develop advanced airbags.
Driver out-of-position injuries mitigation was studied by Daimler Crysler [9]. OOP
countermeasures were illustrated by a combination of computer simulation using
coupled structural/computational fluid dynamics scheme and laboratory tests. The
following OOP countermeasures were discussed.
− Reversible multi-stage and variable output inflator
− Pyrotechnic-assist collapsible steering column
− Recess airbag module cover with ‘I’ tear seams
− Flexible airbag mounting with petal cover seams
− Airbag with hood/band and dual tear seams
These measures did not compromise the high-speed crash performance. Only part of the
simulated design proposals was verified with laboratory tests. It was illustrated that for
accurate computer simulation of a static OOP tests, very detailed information about the
initial dummy position and accurate mathematical dummy models are needed.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 34 / 68
For older people, the range of joint motion decreases and the location of the shoulder
belt height adjustment may become a problem because of ‘stiffness’ of the elderly. A
study of Delphi Automotive Systems [48] investigating comfort and usability of seat
belts showed that drivers over 40 years have more complaints regarding to comfort and
usability of seat belts than younger drivers. For drivers over 55 years old, high belt
pulling force and inappropriate and loose fitting of the belt on the body was shown to be
a problem.
Although child restraints are not the main subject of this study, some attention will be
paid towards interaction of airbags with child restraints.
OOP related injuries. The new FMVSS 208 will be effective from September 2003 on
(for 20% of yearly vehicle production, for all OEM’s selling on the US market).
The effect of occupant characteristics on injury risk and the development of active-
adaptive restraint systems was studied by TRL and VSRC [77]. The objective was to
identify specific occupant characteristics for which active-adaptive restraint systems
might contribute the most to injury reductions. 12605 car occupant records from the UK
Co-operative Crash Injury Study (CCIS, phase 4 and 5) were analysed to establish the
injury risk for front seat occupants in frontal and side impacts. The occupant
characteristics focussed at were the Body Mass Index (BMI) and the age. The main
conclusions of this study were
- A greater proportion of older occupants sustain serious injuries
- Some evidence was found that a greater proportion of heavier male drivers and
male drivers with high BMI sustains serious injuries
- Some evidence was found that lighter female drivers and a greater proportion of
female drivers with low BMI values sustain more serious injuries.
- Some evidence was found that taller males and shorter females sustain more serious
injuries.
The main injury regions for frontal and side impacts were head and chest regions.
Related to the conclusions as mentioned before, it was also concluded that occupant
groups that differ most from 50th percentile could benefit most from adaptive airbags.
A comparison of injury risk and pattern of injury for male and female occupants of
modern European passenger cars was made by VSRC [133]. Accident injury data from
the UK Co-operative Crash Injury Study (CCIS) was analysed for differences between
male and female occupants in accident circumstances and injury outcomes. Female
occupants were about 40% of the whole sample, of which one third of the drivers
involved and over half of the passengers involved. Soft tissue neck injury (like
Whiplash) was reported more frequently amongst women across front, side and rear
impacts. In frontal impact, female occupants appeared to be more vulnerable for
skeletal chest injury and leg injuries. Therefore restraint system design (including the
seat belt, pretensioners and airbag) focused also on women’s characteristics, could have
potential in reducing injury risk.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 36 / 68
This chapter describes current and future trends in the field of restraint systems. Some
of the systems described are already introduced in so called ‘concept cars’.
The general trend in nowadays occupants’ safety clearly is the development of ‘smart’
restraint systems. These systems can be adaptive to take into account occupant
characteristics during deployment.
Some other general trends from the field are summarised below:
• More attention is paid to development of occupant specific systems and prevention of
lower extremity injuries.
• Integrated systems with airbag design integrated in design of the vehicle instead of
attaching some sensors to the steering column (late firing of the airbag).
• Improved seats with side wings for better performance in lateral impact.
• Allow for automatically seat movement to reduce the delta v:
− in frontal crashes for passenger seats,
− side movement of the seat (about 100 mm) in side impact.
• More attention is paid towards the safety of rear occupants.
• Whiplash protection for rear seats by means of the self inflating head restraint that
presses air in a bag in the headrest, moving the headrest to reduce the gap between
head and headrest.
• Integration of advanced airbag and belt systems.
Potential effects of these new ideas are difficult to quantify as long as these are not
actually included in vehicles on the road. Virtual testing could be a way to investigate
the potential of the systems.
A clear trend is the introduction of more and more virtual testing in restraint system
development. Using virtual simulation techniques, destructive testing can be limited and
costs are saved. Also injury risks for arbitrary sized people could be taken into account
easily.
Tools for occupant protection analysis were described in [124]. In automotive crash
safety, the use of structural vehicle models in combination with multi-body based
occupant models is common practice. This study showed two approaches for
simulation:
1. coupling between MADYMO software that has specific occupant protection
features and the finite element crash program LS-DYNA
2. modeling the vehicle and occupant in the combined FE-Multibody code
MADYMO
Both approaches were shown to be successful for a sled test model with a 50th
percentile dummy under NCAP conditions, however, CPU times were higher in case of
the coupling.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 37 / 68
The European project Proposed Reduction of car crash Injuries through improved
Smart restraint development technologies (PRISM) is a 3-years project that started
December 2002. PRISM has the following primary research objectives [109]:
- To review existing European accident data and current "state of art" smart
technologies, to assess the potential effects of smart restraints on the European
accident statistics.
- To obtain European statistical data regarding the actual locations of occupants
within vehicles, to allow determination of realistic worst case occupant "event start
positions" for impact events.
- To investigate the effects of pre-impact occupant kinematics, (for example under
pre-impact braking) to determine worst case occupant "impact start positions"
- To identify impact / occupant scenarios worthy of detailed study and to evaluate the
issues and likely effects of smart restraints on those scenarios.
- To identify, create and use advanced computer models that allow the effective
evaluation of such scenarios.
- To generate standard guidelines to define and evaluate the functional requirements
of smart restraints.
Equipment of all vehicles with ‘black boxes’, that give the crash pulse data and the
deployment characteristics of any multistage restraint system, could improve accident
analysis. With the improved accident analysis, effectiveness of the latest airbag designs
could be estimated easier and in that way, accident analysis facilitates future restraint
system development.
Effects of optimised restraint systems for rear seat passengers were studied by means of
virtual testing [119]. A MADYMO model was validated with sled tests. With the
validated model, parameter studies were performed to determine the parameters
influencing dummy loading, like anchor fitting buckle, upper fastening point shoulder
belt, belt slack, foot position, seat ramp, load limiter, crash pulse, pretensioner.
Chest deflection was reduced with 10 mm using force limiters, 6 mm using a softer
vehicle pulse and approximately 5 mm using a pretensioner. For the chest injury
criterion ‘V*C’, the use of pretensioners resulted in largest reduction. The optimal force
level for the load limiters was shown to be dependent on space for the rear seat
passenger to move without touching the interior of the vehicle. For further studies, the
inclusion of 5th % and 95th % dummies was suggested.
the volunteer’s neck. The interaction between the shoulder belts and the volunteer’s
neck was dependent on the horizontal and vertical position of the shoulder belts and the
occupant’s gender, weight and cloths.
Human tolerance levels of pretension for reversible seatbelt tensioners in the pre-crash
phase were studied in [131]. Effects of the reversible seatbelt tensioners that generate
lower belt forces and velocities but show performance characteristics over a longer
period of time in contrast to pyrotechnic seatbelt tensioners were studied. Volunteer
tests were performed, using a stationary vehicle fitted with a prototype of a reversible
belt pretension system. It was concluded that the loading applied by the prototype of the
belt pretensioner was tolerable / acceptable for the test persons. However, risk groups
like pregnant women or elderly) would need separate assessment of their potential
injury risk. It was emphasised that the research is on-going, amongst others with driving
tests and repeated examination through volunteers.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 40 / 68
Trends include:
• Adaptive airbags which are variable in airbag size and airbag firing time.
• New airbag venting systems, including multilevel venting systems to better control
the airbag pressure [103].
• Folding patterns to focus on radial expansion.
• Multiple compartment airbags [103].
• New airbag materials with controlled fabric porosity so that discrete ventholes
could be eliminated [103].
• Introduction of new airbags like centre curtains, front airbags for rear seated
passengers, etc.
• Firing of curtain airbags in frontal crashes as well.
• Cover properties, like cover stiffness, opening geometry, rotation points that are
located deep in the steering wheel [115].
• Modules located in top mounted position for passenger side [115]
• Active module that moves ‘backwards’ in the dashboard upon firing [115]
4.6 Sensors
Sensors are needed to enable development of adaptive restraints systems that can really
act dependent on the specific situation.
Current sensors in airbag systems are only crash severity sensors [103]. These sensors
detect changes in velocity and acceleration of the vehicle and decide to deploy restraints
(airbag, belt pretensioner) or not. Current limitations of airbag performance are a result
of insufficient information about the crash event and the occupant characteristics. New
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 41 / 68
sensors and integration of information from different sensors can be applied to improve
restrain systems performance, see Figure 17 for an overview.
How advanced airbag regulations will effect non-FMVSS test procedures for vehicle
seats is described by MGA Research Corporation [74]. In response to the new FMVSS
208 (see appendix C.2.2), vehicles in future will have electronic sensors located in the
seat and could also be equipped with other advanced sensor systems. The sensors will
be developed for measuring occupant weight and size and the output is to be used to
control the airbag deployment. The reliability of the sensors during the entire life of a
vehicle is essential for the vehicle’s safety performance. Since sensors are also added to
the seats, seat suppliers will have to deal with the increasing design complexity and
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 42 / 68
extended validation testing. New test procedures for seat durability testing were
proposed, taking into account avoiding damage to seat-mounted airbags and its wiring.
The overall effectiveness of adaptive restraint systems for MAIS 3 injuries was
estimated between 14% and 25% and for MAIS 2 injuries between 33% and 41%. The
method used, including the Injury Severity Reduction Matrices, is ‘subjective’, but it
was intended to calculate a range of results, based on a range of possibilities, for a
future theoretical adaptive restraint system.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 43 / 68
In passenger cars, technology is taking over tasks of drivers in order to increase the
level of safety and comfort. “Intelligent Vehicle Systems” are the key to achieve this
task. Each system including sensing of the outside and/or inside vehicle environment
and lead to an action for driver safety or driver comfort after that the sensor data have
been processed is called Intelligent Vehicle System or IVS. Intelligent Vehicle Systems
(IVS) are part of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). ITS are the systems used to
achieve mobile and safer traffic conditions by providing a link between the drivers,
vehicles and the infrastructure. Electronic communication and computer-controlled
technology [41] provide this link. Figure 19 provides an overview of the possible
actions performed in the field of IVS.
Figure 19 provides an overview on the measures that can be performed for comfort or
for safety purpose in the frame of IVS. In this report the focus will be on safety. The
active safety measures reduce the probability of an accident to occur. Passive safety
measures allow the mitigation of crash effects during the accident and tertiary safety
involves rescue measures.
The applications covered nowadays by the intelligent vehicle systems involve both
comfort and safety applications. The requirements for safety are more complex and
difficult to fulfil than the requirements for comfort. One rising question is: ‘What is the
added value of IVS systems for safety?’ A key answer to this question is that Intelligent
Vehicle Systems for Safety (IVSS) tackle the first well-known cause of road accidents,
namely, driver errors. Already in 1979, a study performed by Indian University showed
that driver errors contribute to 93 % of the accidents [129].
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 44 / 68
In a study on driver behaviour NHTSA found that 99% of the accidents investigated
were caused by driver errors [93]. The errors can be of different types like delay to
recognise potential risks, misinterpretation of the traffic situation, errors during a
manoeuvre etc… In any case the misperception is a major factor.
Moreover, IVSS allows an integrated approach for safety creating a link between active
and passive safety. The potential of IVSS to integrate both passive and active safety will
be described in this report. Some active safety systems like ABS and ESP (described
below) include intelligence and can also be considered as IVSS. These “conventional”
IVSS take into account parameters concerning the driver and/or the vehicle behaviour.
[Km/h] [m]
Figure 22 is obtained from the EC funded project ADASE [54] (more European projects
related to this issue are listed in Appendix B). The figure provides a holistic approach to
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 47 / 68
safety in which the overlap of passive and active safety is shown. Note that the pre-
crash phase in this case includes both collision avoidance and occupant protection.
Pre-Crash Sensing (PCS) systems are based on the three functions of IVS:
• Sensing: To detect the relevant obstacle into the traffic and the infrastructure,
• Monitoring: To inform the vehicle of the obstacle characteristics and
• Acting: To take decision for automatic deployment of passive safety devices and/or
active safety devices to mitigate and/or to avoid the crash.
Current passive safety devices can be subdivided in systems that are deployed in the
initial stage of the crash like restraint systems (details are given in the first part of this
report) and systems that do not need activation (e.g. padding). Besides that, most of
passive safety devices could be deployed before the crash occurrence in combination
with active safety actions by the use of the so-called pre-crash sensing systems.
the functioning of passive safety systems like airbag in case of accident by avoiding
OOP occurrence (see chapter 3).
Toyota developed a similar pre-crash sensing system activating pre-crash seatbelts and
braking. The system in this case uses millimetre-wave radar to sense the vehicle
environment and determine the possibility of collision with potential obstacles [150].
A European project “Chameleon” [29] performed in the frame of the 5th framework
programme was dedicated entirely to PCS systems. It is interesting to highlight some
output of this project.
The relevancy of obstacles for pre-crash sensing applications was studied within the
project. According to accident statistics and their own (passive) protection
requirements, the 5 car manufacturers involved in this project have given their detection
priorities (Table 4).
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 49 / 68
- obstacles which must be absolutely detected → car, truck, pole and tree,
- obstacles interesting to be detected → wall, security rail, motorcycle, bicycle,
- obstacles out of CHAMELEON interest → animal, pedestrian, ditch.
Note that Pre-crash sensing systems for pedestrian protection were taken out of this
project. The reasons for this decision were not described in the documents used for this
survey.
Pre-crash sensing systems are introduced in the market since short. The social cost
benefits depend on many factors like the type of safety measure to be deployed, the
level of false alarms and the new type of risks generated. The main recognised benefit
of pre-crash sensing systems is definitely “time”. In many accidents a relatively long
time (in the range of seconds) passes from the accident-causing event to the actual
impact [55]. In the “conventional” passive safety systems this time is not used at all to
mitigate the crash. Pre-crash sensing systems can be used in both self-protection and
partner-protection (e.g. for cars compatibility purpose). PCS have great opportunities
for protection of vulnerable road users. PCS facilitate both post-impact and pre-impact
countermeasures [83].
In the Chameleon project described above, the potential of passive safety systems
deployed by pre-crash sensors has been investigated on the basis of simulation studies
and experts opinion. A resuming evaluation is shown in Figure 24.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 50 / 68
The main apprehension of these systems is false alarm and missing alarm risks:
associated active safety measures such, as breaking unnecessarily could be dangerous
for the driver. Unnecessary deployment of passive safety measures, as airbags etc. could
also be dangerous for the occupants. It is foreseen therefore that reversible safety
systems will be used at a first stage with limited or no consequences on driver safety.
The responsibility (driver/manufacturer) in case of system failure is also an important
concern. These issues are addressed in the European projects RESPONSE and
RESPONSE2 (see appendix). As for all IVSS, an important potential of Pre-crash
sensing is that the systems allows an integrated approach for safety linking passive
safety measures and active safety measures. This issue (passive-active safety
interaction) is under study by the European Enhanced Vehicle Committee: EEVC
WG19 (See appendix C).
The implementation of advanced cruise control is a bigger step than it might seem for
IVSS developments. ACC systems are described as “comfort IVS” but proper
knowledge of the vehicle surroundings can result in the following (future) applications:
• Stop&go cruise control in a city environment
• Country road ACC (automatic speed adaptation for curves)
• Collision warning (forward and sideways)
• Collision avoidance
• Lane departure warning
• Automatic lane-keeping / lane-change
These IVS are part of the so-called Advanced Driver Assistance ADAS (note that ACC
is also an ADAS). Many European research projects besides the ones described above
provided studies on the potential of Advanced Driver Assistance (ADAS) systems to
improve safety, efficiency and minimise the environmental impacts of road traffic was
addressed (see Appendix B for a list of some of these EC-projects).
A first step to be taken is to use the obstacle detection systems for driver warning.
Warning systems are already used for parking aid. Audible or visible signals are used to
warn the driver on the proximity of danger. Even if false and missing alarms have less
influence on safety, it is vital that warnings not distract or confuse the driver during an
impending collision. On the other hand one driver may not want to be warned until the
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 51 / 68
threat is severe while another driver may want to be notified at the slightest hint of
trouble [83].
The best protection is of course to avoid the accident. According to Stephen N. Rohr et
Al from Delphi [56], the collision avoidance systems (CAS) will evolve into three
modes:
• Driver initiated
• Vehicle initiated
• A blend of both
The actions concerned by collision avoidance are: steering and automatic stopping. A
fully automated CAS is not foreseen to be introduced in the market in the next future.
The reliability and the potential of the state of the art obstacle detection systems
(sensors) is too small to be used in an unstructured environment like roads.
A road map for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems in Europe is presented in Figure
25 obtained from the ADASE2 EC project [85]. The figure provides an overview of the
complexity of technological issues and also expected safety enhancements.
Figure 25 – Road map for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems in Europe [89]
In Figure 26 [110] [111], an attempt to provide the trends of safety systems is shown. In
this figure ADAS have a great potential of penetration in the automotive market. Note
that most of IVS systems for safety like ACC are depicted as active safety systems.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 52 / 68
A rather equivalent figure is provided by Themic [112] in which the ADAS are shown
separately, see Figure 27.
5.5 Discussion
IVSS have a great potential to enhance vehicle safety. In order to get precise overview
on IVSS potential, the capability of the used sensor should be addressed first. The
engineers involved in the design of the upcoming systems should have a
multidisciplinary background to understand the requirements. New tools and/or links
should be created between the design tools developed for passive safety (FE codes and
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 53 / 68
Multibody dynamics for passive safety) and the ones developed for active safety. There
is a clear need to define the interconnections between passive and active safety via IVS
and their influence on actual vehicle safety standards. The EEVC WG19 (see Appendix
C) addresses this issue. New testing procedures should be developed for the design and
validation of IVS.
In the chameleon project (see appendix B) a simulation tool called EICAS was used for
design and analysis of PCS purpose. In the Netherlands a large testing facility called
VEHIL is under development to test IVS [151]. This facility is aimed to be an
intermediate step between simulation and full-scale road test.
The sensors are the key element for developing IVS for automotive applications, which
can be used for safety purpose. One obstacle to the introduction of IVS used for safety
purpose is the difficulty of assessment of the false and missing alarm rate. New design
and validation tools should be developed for this purpose (which could also be used to
demonstrate the potential of these systems). Nowadays radar appears to be the most
promising sensing technology. Artificial vision provided also promising results. More
details on radar and other types of remote sensors used in automotive applications are
provided in the next chapter.
The combination of different sensors would probably be the ideal solution (see next
chapter). However, the use of any remote sensor for safety applications is tricky for
several reasons like driver acceptability, responsibilities in case of system failure and
the limitations of the actual sensors to cover a large angle. Regulations are also an issue
for remote sensing use in automotive application. The actual radar used for ACC use a
77 GHz frequency, 24 GHz radar can cover a larger angle with a higher accuracy and
resolution and lower production costs than 77Ghz radar. However, this frequency it is
not “yet?” allowed in automotive applications (see information on the SARA group in
appendix C). The information obtained from the sensors should be more reliable and
complete than its actual state. More details on sensor technology can be found in the
next chapter.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 54 / 68
Roughly 37% of serious road accidents (with injuries) occur in conditions of limited
visibility, like darkness and fog [59]. Different types of sensors are (or can be) used to
obtain information about the surrounding environment of the driver and/or the vehicle.
The anticipatory sensors used in automotive industry are:
• Ultrasonic sensors
• Infrared sensors
• Radar
• Lidar
• Artificial vision
Each type of sensor operate in a frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum (apart
from the ultrasonic sensors) shown in Figure 28. Each sensor provides partial
information of the surrounding world. The combination of these sensors could give
better results than using them separately. In this chapter the sensors mentioned above
are described and also the so-called sensor fusion.
Ultrasonic devices work with sound waves with a frequency higher than human ear
perception (20 kHz). The main advantage of the device is their low costs. The limitation
is the low scan rate (10 Hz) which is proportional to the sound speed. For this reason
the ultrasonic sensors are restricted to low speed manoeuvres (e.g. parking aid).
6.3 Radar
The radar appears to be the most promising remote sensing technology for automotive
applications. Radar is an acronym made up of the words radio detection and ranging.
Radar is a device that detects the presence, the direction, and the position of objects by
using reflected electromagnetic energy. One advantage for automotive applications is
that radar is unaffected by darkness and is able to look through fog, clouds and snow to
some degree. The experts in Radar field use a specific terminology, for instance, the
energy reflected from an object is called echo, the distance from the radar to an object is
called range. The object in this case is called target.
The Continuous wave (CW) radars: transmit a constant beam of radar energy. As
opposed to pulsed radar systems, continuous wave (CW) radar systems emit a
continuous electromagnetic radiation. If an object is moving, the radar waves returns to
a separate antenna with a frequency that is slightly different than the original
transmitted pulse frequency. Measuring this so-called Doppler Shift the speed of the
object can be determined. One limitation of pure CW radar is that the range to the
object cannot be determined. However, by manipulating the frequency of the radar over
time (Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave –FMCW), the object’s range can also be
calculated from a CW radar. An advantage of FMCW radar systems in comparison with
classical pulse radar is the low measurement time.
Radar systems rely upon a portion of the transmitted radar energy being reflected off of
targets or obstacles to be detected. The reflective strength of a radar target is a measure,
which has units of m². This ability to reflect energy is called Radar Cross Section or
RCS. The RCS depends on shape, size, material properties and aspect angle. Typical
values for the radar cross section for different objects in square meters is shown in the
Table 5:
pedestrian 1
cyclist 2
car 100
Pickup,truck 200
Table 5: Typical RCS values
It can be seen that a radar system can detect a truck at a greater distance than it can
detect a pedestrian.
ACC systems available on the European market are based on pulsed radar devices or
frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) operating within the frequency range
76 – 77 GHz. The maximum range for this type of radar is about 150 meters. An other
type of radar is the 24 GHz radar, which is not used in Europe because it is not allowed
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 56 / 68
by legislation (see info on the SARA group in appendix C). The motivation provided by
car manufacturers and sensor providers for using this technology is that it will enable
mass-production (cost effective) and also that the 24 GHz radar allows both large angle
and near field detection (needed for pre-crash sensing applications). Bosch point of
view concerning the use of radar for automotive applications in function of the used
frequency is shown in Figure 29. In Table 6 some characteristics of the two radar are
shown [35], [38].
Figure 29 – Possibilities of using radar in automotive applications in function of the used frequency from
[39].
6.4 Lidar
The radar principle is also used in optics. LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) or
LADAR (LAser Detection And Ranging) can be used for automotive applications like
ACC and pre-crash sensing. IBEO Automobile Sensor GmbH of Germany is actually
the only supplier of such devices for the automotive market. For pre-crash application a
high dynamic Laserscanner for near field scanning was developed in the frame of the
European project Chameleon [29]. The Pre-Crash Laserscanner measures distance,
velocity, direction and outline of the obstacle with 40 Hz scan frequency and an angular
resolution of 1.0°. The update rate is of 25 ms with a viewing angle of up to 270°. A
truck driving 3 m ahead of the test-vehicle is detected by more than 40 measurement
points, that means a measurement point every 5 cm on the outline of the truck’s back.
The Laserscanner is eye-safe (laser class 1) and has a single shot measurement accuracy
of ± 5 cm (1 Sigma) with a max. range of 20 m.
The Laserscanner creates a 2-dimensional range profile of the environment. The built-in
DSP allows a high-speed object detection and the use of a high performance object
tracking algorithm for real-time tracking. The main limitation for the use of Lidar in
automotive applications is that weather conditions affect its potential.
Reliable obstacle detection is one of the most important issues for pre-crash sensing and
collision avoidance systems. Artificial vision does not provide the range or the speed of
the potential obstacles but can be used for the recognition of the surrounding
environment. Other advantage of using a camera is that it can provide information on
the infrastructure and be used for lane keeping (follow the road and keep within the
correct lane).
Two techniques can be used: The monocular vision and the stereo vision. The
advantage of analysing stereo images instead of a monocular sequence lies in the
possibility of directly detecting the presence of obstacles, which is, otherwise,
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 58 / 68
indirectly derived. The techniques will not be described in this report. More details can
be found in a survey on artificial vision performed on this item by M. Bertozzi et Al
[87].
The system developed by mobileye [116] for driving assistance systems on basis of
monocular vision can detect and track other vehicles on the road and includes ego-
motion estimation and road geometry analysis. The literature shows many projects in
which artificial vision is used for automatic vehicle guidance and/or obstacle detection
[88] [89] [90] [91]. In a project called Urban Traffic Assistant (UTA and UTA2) a
stereo vision camera is developed by Daimler Chrysler which is able to recognise
pedestrians, traffic signs, lanes and can be used for stop and go applications [92].
The technology is not ready yet to be used in commercial vehicles. The artificial vision
combined with other remote sensing techniques like radar would provide promising
results (see Data sensor fusion)
The ideal solution to contain the production costs would be to use the same sensor for
different applications (e.g. ACC and pre-crash sensing). However, each of the sensor
technologies listed above has its advantages and inconvenient. In order to take over
some tasks of the driver the technology should imitate the human way of sensing. The
driver uses simultaneously different sensors (in particular his eyes and his ears) to
understand its environment. In sensor technology the simultaneous use of different
sensors is known as sensor data fusion.
The data obtained by a single sensor give only incomplete information. A combination
of sensors data allows a better understanding of the surrounding world. Use of sensor
data fusion generates however new problems. For instance, the data can be redundant or
obtained at different time step.
The sensor data fusion is foreseen to be used in future cars equipped by both radar and
artificial vision systems for target detection, classification, identification, and tracking.
The literature shows that different techniques can be used like Bayesian methods, the
Artificial Neural Networks, or the fuzzy logic method [27] [87] [105] [113]. The
obtained data obtained from each sensor are processed together to increase the level of
understanding of the surrounding world.
.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 59 / 68
7 Conclusions
This chapter shortly presents the most important findings from this literature survey.
This literature study showed the benefits of current restraint systems. Wearing seat belts
still offers the biggest reduction of injury potential during a crash, regardless of impact
situation. For example, for frontal impact injury risk reduction up to 60%. The use of
seat belts in combination with airbags reduces the injury risk for frontal impact little
more (plus 10-20%, compared to belt-only). However, the belt is often not worn in case
of a crash. Not much literature was available about field performance of side and
curtain airbags. These systems were introduced only recently and very limited accident
cases were available in literature. Still, some preliminary field studies and numerical
simulations seem to show benefits of new systems. Some ‘recent’ seat concepts claim
reduction of Whiplash injury risk in case of (low severity) rear impacts and also
reduction of fatality risk for high severity impacts.
Side effects of restraint systems were investigated in literature. Only limited serious
injuries due to restraint systems were reported. To prevent occupants from being injured
by the airbag instead of being protected, more stringent airbag regulations will be
included in the USA. The so-called out-of-position situation will be included in the new
FMVSS 208. Since also in Europe close proximity to the airbags as a result of pre-crash
braking may occur, even when wearing seatbelts, these trends are important for Europe
as well.
Current trends indicate the increasing importance of the use of adaptive systems. It was
shown that for the population that differs most from the standard 50th % the
improvement potential might be the biggest. Future trends also include more focus on
the second and later impacts in multiple impact events, as current systems protect
reasonably well during the first impact. More attention is paid towards safety of rear
passengers.
There have been large reductions in fatalities in the last decade. However, still the
number of fatalities unacceptable. IVSS offers new solutions to tackle road safety
problems. The devices for obstacle detection used for ADAS and pre-crash sensing
systems in particular are foreseen to play an important role in the next generation of
vehicles. The “conventional” IVSS provide have a high potential on vehicle safety.
Estimations from in depth accidents analysis showed that ESP could have reduced the
likelihood or avoided the accident in 18% of all injury accidents and in 34% of fatal
accidents. The remote sensing technology will play an important role in the
development of IVS in general. Sensed information of the upcoming crash can
effectively be used to perform actions for the mitigation of the crash.
A lot of research work was done on IVSS in the frame of European projects. IVS in
general and IVSS particularly introduce a new perspective on safety. IVSS tackle the
first cause of accidents which is driver errors. IVSS will enhance safety also by
permitting an integrated approach to safety issues. A multi-disciplinary approach is
needed to develop IVSS. New simulation tools and testing procedures are needed for
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 60 / 68
the design and validation of the systems but also to show the potential of this relatively
new automotive application. Finally regulations will probably be modified because of
the introduction of these tools.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 61 / 68
8 References
[58] J. S. Koziol and Vaughan W. Inman “Safety Evaluation Methodology for the
intelligent cruise Control Field Operational test” SAE 970457.
[59] EC funded project for the 5th framework programme “EUCLIDE: Enhanced
human machine interface for on vehicle integrated driving support system”
http://www.euclide-eu.org/
[60] European Vehicle Passive Safety Network (PSN-I) flyer ‘a road to European
co-operation’.
[61] http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/presbelt/america_seatbelt.html
[62] Ching Yao Chan, 2000. Fundamentals of crash sensing in airbag systems.
ISBN 0-7680-0499-3, chapter 8 – Side impact sensing and airbags.
[63] http://media.siemensauto.com/mediacenter2/queries/releasefull.phtml?prjob
_num=1036
[64] Rodney W. Rudd, Jeff R. Crandall, University of Virginia Automobile Safety
Laboratory Unites States. Erik Hjerpe, Yngve Haland, Autoliv Research
Sweden. Evaluation of lower limb injury mitigation from inflatable carpet in
sled tests with intrusion using the thor LX. ESV Conference 2001, paper 149.
[65] EEVC website www.eevc.org. Report on recent activities 2003.
[66] Jesse V. Benny, Himamshu B. Marigowda and Patrick J. Atkinson, Kettering
University. Ed Clancy, Randal Gosk, Tom Jett and Mike Jendrowski, Breed
Technologies. High speed measurement of contact pressure and area during
knee-to-instrument panel impact events suffered from frontal crashes. SAE
paper 2001-01-0174.
[67] Lisandro Trevino, Esther Sun, Anna Cardenas and Deepak Patel, Visteon
Corporation. Molded-in-color PP instrument panel with seamless passenger
airbag. SAE paper 2002-01-0311. SAE congress 2002.
[68] Gerhard Slik, Vikas Gupta and Dave Chapman. Dow chemical company.
Engineering development of a fully-integrated polypropylene instrument panel
concept. SAE paper 2001-01-0841.
[69] Tae-Seung Lee and Kie-Youn Jeong, Hyundai Motor Company. Seung-Wook
Lee, Honam Petrochemical Corp. The characteristics of TPE for skin of
automotive instrument panel. SAE paper 2002-01-0313.
[70] John E. Hinger and Harold E. Clyde. Exponent Failure Analysis Associates.
Advanced airbag systems and occupant protection: recent modifications to
FMVSS 208. Airbag Technology 2001.
[71] Annette Sandberg, National Highway traffic Safety Administration, US DOT
Fraunhofer Airbag 2002 symposium.
[72] Alan. L. Dorris and Nathan T. Dorris, Dorris and Associates, Inc. Mandatory
airbag warnings: a human factors analysis of their development. SAE paper
2001-01-0046.
[73] Suzanne Tylko, Dainius Dalmotas. Transport Canada. Static out-of-position test
methodologies: identifying a realistic worst case scenario for small stature
female drivers. ESV conference 2001, Amsterdam. Paper 421.
[74] P. Michal Miller II and Suzanne Philips, MGA Research corporation. Vehicle
Seating – An overview of how advanced airbag regulations will effect non-
FMVSS test procedures. SAE paper 2001-01-0116.
[75] Leonard Evans, Operating Sciences Department, General motors Research
Laboratories, Warren U.S.A. Restraint effectiveness, occupant ejection from
cars and fatality reductions. Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 22. No 2 pp167-175,
1990.
[76] http://www.nhtsa.gov/airbags/rule/section02.html#s02_6
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 65 / 68
[101] Welcher JB, Szabo T.J., The relationship between seat properties and human
subject kinematics in rear impact tests. Compendium of the Whiplash
associated Disorders world Congress, February 1999, Vancouver, BC.
[102] Song, D., Uriot, J., Trosseille P, Mack, C., Tarriere, C., Got, C., Domont, A.
Modelling and analysis of interactions between occupant, seatback and
headrest in rear impact. IRCOBI 1996, Dublin, Ireland.
[103] EEVC WG 19 proceedings of meeting on active & passive interaction, 27
February 2003, section 5 on occupant protection advanced technology.
[104] Airbag development and performance. New perspectives from industry,
government and Academica. Edited by Richard Kent. ISBN 0-7680-1119-1,
SAE 2003.
[105] C. Wöhler, U. Kressler, and J. K. Anlauf, “Pedestrian recognition by
classification of image sequences. Global approaches vs local spatiotemporal
processing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition, 2000.
[106] http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-50/ciren/um_fragile.html
[107] http://www.euroncap.com
[108] http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/whowhenhow/who.html
[109] Annex 1: Description of work for PRISM project. Proposal number GRD2-
2001-50109. December 2002.
[110] G. Leen, D. Heffernan “Expanding automotive electronic systems” IEEE
computer 2002, 0018-9162/02
[111] Brite Euram/3 project of the 4th f European framework programme “X-By-
Wire: Safety Related Fault Tolerant Systems in Vehicles”. Final report.
[112] T. Gornig “Advanced sensors for future restraint systems” Airbag 2002
[113] Lages, U. “Collision Avoidance System for fixed Obstacles - Fuzzy Controller
Network for Robot Driving of an Autonomous Vehicle” Proceedings of ITSC
2001, IEEE 4th International Conference on Intelligent Transport Systems,
ITSC 2001 Oakland, page 489-491.
[114] Third Report to Congress, Effectiveness of Occupant Protection Systems and
Their Use. NHTSA, December 1996.
[115] Proceedings for course on FMVSS 208 and OOP, IIR Deutschland Gmbh,
prepared and given by ACTS Germany.
[116] www.mobileye.com
[117] Leonard Evens, General Motors Corp. How we know safety belts reduce injury
and fatality risks. SAE paper 950241
[118] Augustus “Chip” Chidester, NHTSA, Side impact Inflatable Restraint systems –
Real world Experience of Side Impact Airbags in the Special Crash
Investigations. October 25, 2001
[119] Harald Zellmer, Stefan Lührs, Klaus Brüggemann, Autoliv GmbH Elmshorn,
Germany. Optimized restraint systems for rear seat passengers. Paper 98-S1-
W-23
[120] Barry M. Hare, Lance K. Lewis, Raymond J Hughes, Nissan North America,
inc. Yoshiyuki Ishikawa, Kazuo Iwasaki, Kazuhiko Tsukaguchi, Noriko Doi.
Nissan Motor Co, Ltd. Analysis of rollover restraint performance with and
without seat belt pretensioner at vehicle trip. SAE paper 2002-01-0941
[121] Richard Cuerden, Julian Hill, Alan Kirk Vehicle Safety Research Centre,
Loughborough University, UK, Marray Mackay, Automotive Safety Centre,
The University of Birmingham, UK. The potential effectiveness of adaptive
restraints. IRCOBI conference 2001
[122] Paul A Fay and Raimondo Sferco, ford Motor Company, UK and Germany.
Richard Frampton, Vehicle Safety Research Centre, Loughborough University,
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 67 / 68
[138] Williams, A.F., Wells, J.K., Farmer, C.M. Insurance Institue for Highway
Safety (IIHS), USA. Effectiveness of Ford’s belt reminder system in increasing
seat belt use. Injury Prevention 2002; 8:293-296.
[139] Cummings, P., Wells, J.D, Rivara, F.P., Estimating seat belt effectiveness using
matched-pair cohort methods. Journal of accident analysis and prevention 35
(2003) 143-149.
[140] Viano, D.C., ProBiomechanics LLC and General Motors Corporation.
Effectiveness of High-Retension seats in preventing fatality: initial results and
trends. SAE paper 2003-01-1351.
[141] Lundell, B., Jakobsson, L., Alfredsson, B., Volvo Car Corp. Linström, M.,
Simonsson, L., Autoliv. The WHIPS seat - A car seat for improved protection
against neck injuries in rear-end impact. ESV conference 1998, 98-S7-O-08.
[142] Jakobsson, L., Lundell B., Norin H., Isaksson-Hellman, I., WHIPS – Volvo’s
whiplash protection study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 32 (2000) 307-
319.
[143] Robertson, L.S., Yale University and Nanlee Research, USA. Reduced fatalities
related to rear seat shoulder belts. Injury Prevention 1999; 5:62-64.
[144] European Commission. White paper European transport policy for 2010: time
to decide. ISBN 92-894-0341-1.
[145] Interim report of the AV3 TNO project. “Automatic Safety in traffic and
transport” 2002.
[146] Leonard Evans, Traffic Safety and the Driver. Van Nostrand Reinhold. Page
263, New York, 1991.
[147] David C. Viano, Dr. med. PhD. Stefan Olsen, BS. Effectiveness of Active Head
Restraint in Preventing Whiplash. Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection and
Critical Care Volume 51, number 5, page 959-969. November 2001.
[148] [www.nhtsa.gov/airbags/abvideos.html]
[149] Peter Baur, BMW of North America Inc. Wolfgang Lange, Georg Messner,
Stafan Rauscher, BMW group Germany. Oliver Pieske, Dpeartment of
Traumatology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Comparison of real world side impact / rollover collisions with and without
thorax airbag / head protection system: a first field experience. 44th Annual
Proceedings Association for the advancements of automotive medicine,
October 2-4, 2000. Chigago, Illinois.
[150] “The world’s fastest Pre-Crash System” AutoTechnology 2/2003
[151] J. Ploeg, A. C.M. van der Knaap & D. J. Verburg “ATS/AGV, Design,
Implementation and Evaluation of a High Performance AGV” Proceedings
IEEE Intelligent Vehicle Symposium (IV’2002) Versailles, France, June 18 –
20, 2002.
[152] http://www.passivesafety.com/documents/02_docs_projects/
tf_projects_ongoing/tf_rollover.doc.
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 Appendix A.1/1
A Glossary
OA (Obstacle Avoidance)
OD (Obstacle Detection)
ADVISORS: Action for advanced Driver assistance and Vehicle control systems
Implementation, Standardisation, Optimum use of the Road network and
Safety.
Based on test site demonstrations, a methodology is developed to assess
the impact of different types and different levels of penetration of ADAS
in terms of the safety, efficiency and environmental performance of the
road transport system. Furthermore, implementation scenarios is
developed in order to help introducing appropriate ADAS.
This chapter provides a brief overview of the current or near future regulations and
consumer tests that are related to restraint systems and IVS.
C.1.5 ISO
The technical work of ISO is highly decentralised, carried out in a hierarchy of some 2
850 technical committees, subcommittees and working groups. In these committees,
qualified representatives of industry, research institutes, government authorities,
consumer bodies, and international organisations from all over the world come together
as equal partners in the resolution of global standardisation problems [108].
instrumentation) for evaluating the performance of the following types of road vehicles
and their equipment:
• mopeds (item m);
• motor cycles (item n);
• motor vehicles (item p);
• trailers (item q);
• semi-trailers (item r);
• light trailers (item s);
• combination vehicles (item t);
• articulated vehicles (item u).
Most important in this field are the regulations related to airbags and seat belts. There
are large differences between the US and the EU and although our main focus is the EU
situation, attention is paid towards the stronger US regulations as well since these may
be followed in Europe as well in future.
C.2.1 EU requirements
In the EU, vehicles have to comply ECE regulations. The ECE regulations include:
• ECE/R12 for steering column behaviour during a crash
• ECE/R14 for attachment points of safety belts
• ECE/R16 for safety belts and attachment systems
• ECE/R17 for seat strength and attachment
• ECE/R21 for sharp interior parts
• ECE/R25 for head restraint systems
• ECE/R32 for rear end crashes (deformation of passenger compartment)
• ECE/R33 for front end crashes (deformation of passenger compartment)
• ECE/R35 foot well intrusion
• ECE/R94 protection for frontal crash
• ECE/R95 protection for side crash
Note that currently, the ECE regulations do not include airbag requirements.
Besides the ECE regulations, there are EU directives which are often equal to the ECE
regulations. In general, if the vehicle complies the ECE regulations, also the EU-
directives are fulfilled.
C.2.2 US requirements
FMVSS 208
The purpose of the FMVSS 208 is to reduce the number of deaths of vehicle occupants
and severity of injuries by specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements and
specifying equipment requirements for active and passive restraint systems.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published an amended
version of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 208 for occupant safety in
motor vehicles on May 2000. Changes in the FMVSS 208 were needed because of the
Transportation Equity for the 21st Century “to improve occupant protection for
occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted… while minimising the risk to infants,
children and other occupants from injuries and deaths causes by airbags, by means that
include advanced airbags” [2].
TNO report 03.OR.BV.037.1/MRE | Literature survey ‘In-vehicle safety devices’ | 09 May 2003 Appendix C.3/3
Previously, the FMVSS 208 required all passenger cars manufactured after September
1, 1997, to be equipped with driver and passenger airbags including sun visor warning
labels, along with manual lap and shoulder belt. For vehicles to be certified a 48 km/h
frontal barrier test or a sled test with 48km/h generic sled pulse (unbelted) and 48 km/h
frontal and oblique belted barrier tests with instrumented dummies had to be performed.
The recent modifications to the FMVSS 208 include the use of small dummies to
represent small stature drivers and child dummies to limit the risk of injuries to
children. The new FMVSS 208 will be effective from September 2003 on (for 20% of
vehicle production). The new additional tests include several static airbag tests to limit
the risk of OOP related injuries. The airbag systems must either inflate in a low risk
manner or suppress the deployment of the airbag if an out-of-position driver were
detected. For the passenger side, the system must inflate at a low-speed impact inflation
rate, suppress the airbag deployment in presence of a child, or suppress the deployment
if the child moves close to the airbag during an impact [70].
Warning labels for airbags were specified by NHTSA in 1995 and were updated in the
new FMVSS 208 proposal. Dorris and Associates [72] reviewed and analysed
NHTSA’s activities on airbag labels related to Human Factors Engineering (HFE) and
warning literature. The introduction of an airbag-warning standard had to balance
between informing people on minimising possible risk and avoiding alarm that could
stop the acceptance and use of airbags. The need for occupants to be properly restrained
and positioned as a primary prevention strategy should be clear from the labels. It was
concluded that the requirements for the labels developed by NHTSA addressed the
respective injury prevention policies, responding to Human Factors Engineering
criteria. However, current Human Factor Engineering literature is found to inadequately
meet the needs of regulatory agencies involved in precautionary labelling.
Transport Canada suggested that the procedure described for the static out-of-position
tests for the 5th percentile female dummy may not be representative for the worst case
condition [73]. Therefore, a modified chin on hub procedure is proposed which
prioritises chest placement. The procedure also positions the steering wheel in a
location that is compatible with the visibility and comfort requirements of a 5th
percentile driver.
FMVSS 201
Requirements for instrument panels, seat backs, interior compartment doors, armrests
and sun visors were specified by NHTSA in the FMVSS 201 (‘Occupant protection in
interior impact’). In 1995, the FMVSS 201U was created which also included
requirements for a head striking pillars, side rails, headers and the roof. An update of
the FMVSS201 in 1998 allows the presence of dynamically deployed upper-interior
head protection systems. Advancements in testing methodologies in response to the
FMVSS 201U requirements for curtain-type side airbags are studied by MGA Research
Corporation [13]. Both airbag component testing and full scale testing (pole impact) are
described.
Note that the FMVSS 201 has similarities with ECE-21 head impact tests, in which a
rigid sphere (6,7 kg, 165 mm) impacts the IP with 6.7 m/s.
The side airbag OOP injury technical working group (TWG) was sponsored by the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), Automotive Occupant Restraints Council
(AORC), and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The objective was to
develop a common understanding of the risks associated with side airbag deployments
and ways to minimize those risks. A set of recommended procedures on side airbag
OOP testing was the result. The side OOP test procedures proposed by the TWG cover
airbags which deploy from the door or side trim panel, the back or cushion, the roof
support pillars or roof rail area and occupants ranging from young children to adults.
The technology developed in the field of IVS starts to emerge but it is not foreseen to be
well implemented in the market in 5 to 10 years. Regulations actions fall in the
following categories
• The EEVC created a new working group to study the effects of active-passive
interaction on new legislation/. The terms of reference of this group are listed below
(see: www.eevc.org):
− Overview of existing and future techniques and how this is coordinated by
existing organisations
− Effect of these techniques on priorities for injury prevention
− Effect of these techniques on existing regulations
EuroNCAP strongly influences car design because typically the severity levels in
EuroNCAP test are higher than in regulatory tests. This results in stronger demands on
the restraint systems.