1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Playing it safe
Page 53
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The European Framework 6 safety initiative is designed to protect vulnerable road users who come into close contact with a heavy truck. CM investigates...
Words: Jesse Cross Improving safety is something all truckmakers would consider a high priority. But until now-, most development work has focused on active safety such as lane departure warning and autonomous emergency braking systems When it comes to taking major steps to protect pedestrians, or what the safety industry calls, -vulnerable road users" (VRUs), it's probably fair to say little significant progress has been made.
Now, the Aprosys Integrated Project, part of the European Framework 6 (FP6) safety initiative, is looking at ways to reduce injuries to VRUs involved in collisions with heavy trucks. Aprosys (Advanced Protection Systems) and its associated projects, is split into various work packages looking at human injury biometrics, vehicle crashworthiness and protection systems.
One of these, the SP2 project lead by Jurgen Gugler, focuses on developing analytical tools to establish the effectiveness of the various measures under investigation. Gugler and his team have developed the Aggressivity Index (Al), which is used to estimate the outcome of a heavy goods vehicle coming into contact with a VRU. "It's a rating for heavy goods vehicles separated into three categories." explains Gugler. "It should help 'evaluate] the aggressivity of HGVs to VRUs. It can be used by anyone to evaluate passive safety and visibility from trucks. The Index assesses three aspects of VRU protection: run-over; active Al; and structural Al."
Over-rolling
Frontal impacts are the most common form of accident between HGVs and VRUs, so the investigators discriminate between victims being over-run and over-rolled. Over-rolling refers to a victim being literally rolled over by the vehicle's wheels, whereas over-running means knock-down injuries sustained from the vehicle's chassis or other components. The most common form of injuries below 20km/h are those caused by over-rolling; above that, and they will most likely be due to primary and secondary impact forces, In relation to the Aggressivity Index, "run-over is tested by simulation of specific scenarios using a dummy model." reveals Gugler. "Structural Al is gauged by means of a pedestrian impactor test, similar to that used for passenger cars. The active index is evaluated on the basis of the geometry of the truck and the view for the driver, including their direct and indirect view."
Results have been good and prompted a new cab design that reduces the likelihood of a run-over when a VRU is struck by the vehicle. A nose-cone has been developed by one of the project partners, IKA (Aachen Automotive Institute) in expanded polypropylene foam and attached to the front of existing truck cabs for testing. MA's Sven Fassbender explains: "The nose-cone gives the pedestrian or cyclist a pulse to one side or the other, pushing them clear of the vehicle." The nose-cone is more effective at slightly higher speeds. providing a more substantial pulse with which to push the VRU clear.
Active systems
-The tests were made between 12km/h and 30km/h," Fassbender continues, adding that the nose-cone is relatively ineffective at parking speeds. "You would need active systems to deal with those situations, or improved mirrors" In these situations, fatalities are often caused by impact with the road or other objects, rather than by the vehicle itself. Production nose-cone systems would be integrated into the cab design and would not impede engine cooling. Likely materials are deep-drawn steel or plastic. "The material has no effect on functionality, but it has to be stiff enough to absorb the impact and to deflect the victim's body in several different accident scenarios. Too soft and the deflection doesn't work," says Fassbender.
OEMs have expressed an interest in the system, although there will be production difficulties to overcome. "The truck's length would be increased beyond the legal maximum; that would mean reducing the length available for cargo," says Fassbender. "The EU is being briefed and we're waiting to see if the truck regulations can be revised to accommodate the extra few 100mm needed, based not just on safety, but on aerodynamic benefits."
Energy absorbing bar
Another technology developed by Aprosys is the EA (Energy Absorbing) bar, aimed at reducing the likelihood of run-over. The EA bar has been developed jointly by researchers at Graz University of Technology,The Polytechnic of Turin and Fiat Centro Ricerche.Testing and simulation of a range of different designs with a fullscale dummy yielded promising results with injuries to both the head and lower body being reduced by as much as 97% at impact speeds of up to 40km/h.
An important aspect of the Aprosys programme has been access to European accident research data that reveals the effectiveness of safety measures over a period of time. Figures produced by TRL suggest that accidents between VRUs and heavy goods vehicles account for 34% of all European road fatalities. 'A high percentage of those," explains TRL senior research engineer Tanya Smith. "take place in urban areas, although there are some on dual carriageways and on high-speed roads."
The usual scenario involves a pedestrian walking in front of a stationary truck that then moves off
Insurance industry
Data on more than 200 accidents was also analysed by the German Insurance Association (GdV).The analysis took into account both low and high-speed accidents, the collision mechanism, impact area, VRU type, age, injury mechanism and the outcome. Data was acquired from members in Germany, Spain, Austria and TRL in the UK.
With the new technologies emerging from the Aprosys project, it would be easy to imagine that some kind of subsidy may be forthcoming from insurers or the EU. However, neither option seems likely and any extra production costs arc more likely to be passed on to the customer. GdV's Axel Maczyk says: "The insurance industry is unlikely to offer reduced premiums because this type of accident is relatively uncommon and there will probably need to be legislation for this."
In the case of the nose cone, aerodynamic benefits could prompt road licence subsidies by government or it may just be that the cost to the end user is offset by reduced fuel consumption. Either way the work done by Aprosys could lead to heavy goods vehicles that are not only safer, but environmentally friendly as well. •