FIMCAR I: Summary report

The goal of the FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) project was to propose a frontal impact assessment approach addressing self- and partner protection. Research strategies and priorities were based on earlier research programs and the FIMCAR accident data analysis looking at modern cars. The identified real world safety issues – such as structural interaction (especially under-/override), high acceleration loading of the occupant especially in large overlap accidents and insufficient horizontal and vertical load spreading were used for evaluating the different test candidates. In addition to the issues mentioned above, the FIMCAR accident analysis suggested that frontal force compartment integrity matching is less of an issue as originally expected. FIMCAR developed a car-to-car test program that investigated the performance of vehicle structures. Results of the test program show that the presence of a lower load path contributes to a more robust performance of the vehicle. The rearward offset of a lower load path could be reviewed and used to quantify when a lower structure design can contribute to structural interaction in both frontal and side impact configurations. In addition to the car crash test programme, numerical models of actual cars and barriers were developed and used. As car-to-car simulations with models of different car manufacturers are almost impossible because of confidentiality, Parametric Car Models (PCM) and Generic Car Models (GCM) were developed. Due to the parametric design of the PCMs it is possible to modify the models in an easy and fast way. The GCMs model virtual cars which represent an average real car of the respective category in a comparable way to the OEM models. Within the FIMCAR project, different frontal impact test candidates were analysed regarding their potential for future frontal impact legislation. The research activities focused on car-tocar frontal impact. Test procedures were developed with both a crash test programme and numerical simulations. This analysis resulted in the combination of the Full Width Deformable Barrier test (FWDB) with compatibility metrics and the existing Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) as described in UN-ECE Regulation 94 with additional cabin integrity requirement as being proposed as the FIMCAR assessment approach. The advantages of the FWDB compared to the rigid wall are the more representative pulse and deformation pattern as well as the better assessment of load paths. The introduction of a (M)PDB without compatibility metrics (that FIMCAR was unable to deliver in time) was considered as not being appropriate. The proposed frontal impact assessment approach addresses many of the issues identified by the FIMCAR consortium (impact alignment, high acceleration pulse loading, maintenance of compartment strength requirements, etc.) but not all frontal impact and compatibility issues could be addressed (load spreading).A benefit analysis estimated the benefit of the following three options: no change, introduction of full width test with compatibility assessment in addition to current ECE R94 and introduction of full width test with compatibility assessment and replacement of current ODB test by PDB test with load spreading metric. The comparison of calculated break even costs for option 2 with estimated costs for achieving the benefit from previous projects suggests a positive cost benefit ratio

FIMCAR IV: FIMCAR Models

The aim of the FIMCAR project is to develop and validate a frontal impact assessment approach that considers self and partner protection. In order to assess the influence of different test procedures and metrics on car-to-car compatibility a huge simulation programme was executed. However, car-to-car simulations with models of different car manufacturers are almost impossible to obtain because of confidentiality. In order to overcome these problems, parametric car models (PCM) were built, allowing fast modifications and more detailed generic car models (GCM) were developed for structural interaction analysis. Three different PCM representing a super mini, a large family car and an executive car were developed. By simplifying the models, computational efforts are reduced. Due to the parametric design it is possible to modify the models in an easy and fast way. The models are delivered in three crash codes (LS-DYNA, PAM-CRASH and RADIOSS) in order to be usable at all FIMCAR OEMs. The Generic Car Models (GCM) model virtual cars which represent an average real car of the respective category (super mini, small family car, executive car) in a comparable way to the OEM models. All together five different models were generated (2 super minis, 2 small family cars and one executive), again delivered in three different FE codes (LS-DYNA, PAM- CRASH and RADIOSS). The models can be used to evaluate the behaviour of the crash structure (e.g., crash pulse, deformation characteristics and intrusions). For supermini and small family categories, two models were generated in each class in order to describe the two main architectural/structural car variants that can usually be found on the road, i.e. with and without a lower load path in the frontal frame (structural elements below the main rails); the availability of both structural solutions in the GCMs is in fact important for the study of compatibility issues

Exploring European Heavy Goods Vehicle Crashes Using a Three-Level Analysis of Crash Data

Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) are involved in 4.5% of police-reported road crashes in Europe and 14.2% of fatal road crashes. Active and passive safety systems can help to prevent crashes or mitigate the consequences but need detailed scenarios based on analysis of region-specific data to be designed effectively; however, a sufficiently detailed overview focusing on long-haul trucks is not available for Europe. The aim of this paper is to give a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of crashes in the European Union that involve HGVs weighing 16 tons or more (16 t+). The identification of the most critical scenarios and their characteristics is based on a three-level analysis, as follows. Crash statistics based on data from the Community Database on Accidents on the Roads in Europe (CARE) provide a general overview of crashes involving HGVs. These results are complemented by a more detailed characterization of crashes involving 16 t+ trucks based on national road crash data from Italy, Spain, and Sweden. This analysis is further refined by a detailed study of crashes involving 16 t+ trucks in the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS), including a crash causation analysis. The results show that most European HGV crashes occur in clear weather, during daylight, on dry roads, outside city limits, and on nonhighway roads. Three main scenarios for 16 t+ trucks are characterized in-depth: rear-end crashes in which the truck is the striking partner, conflicts during right turn maneuvers of the truck with a cyclist riding alongside, and pedestrians crossing the road in front of the truck. Among truck-related crash causes, information admission failures (e.g., distraction) were the main crash causation factor in 72% of cases in the rear-end striking scenario while information access problems (e.g., blind spots) were present for 72% of cases in the cyclist scenario and 75% of cases in the pedestrian scenario. The three levels of data analysis used in this paper give a deeper understanding of European HGV crashes, in terms of the most common crash characteristics on EU level and very detailed descriptions of both kinematic parameters and crash causation factors for the above scenarios. The results thereby provide both a global overview and sufficient depth of analysis of the most relevant cases and aid safety system development

FIMCAR XI: FIMCAR Final Assessment Approach

The objectives of the FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) project are to answer the remaining open questions identified in earlier projects (such as understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of force based metrics and barrier deformation based metrics, confirmation of specific compatibility issues such as structural interaction, investigation of force matching) and to finalise the frontal impact test procedures required to assess compatibility. Research strategies and priorities were based on earlier research programs and the FIMCAR accident data analysis. The identified real world safety issues were used to develop a list of compatibility characteristics which were then prioritised within the consortium. This list was the basis for evaluating the different test candidates. This analysis resulted in the combination of the Full Width Deformable Barrier test (FWDB) with compatibility metrics and the existing Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) as described in UN-ECE Regulation 94 with additional cabin integrity requirement as being proposed as the FIMCAR assessment approach. The proposed frontal impact assessment approach addresses many of the issues identified by the FIMCAR consortium but not all frontal impact and compatibility issues could be addressed

FIMCAR VI: Off-set Test Procedure: Updated Protocol

The off-set assessment procedure potentially contributes to the FIMCAR objectives to maintain the compartment strength and to assess load spreading in frontal collisions. Furthermore it provides the opportunity to assess the restraint system performance with different pulses if combined with a full-width assessment procedure in the frontal assessment approach. Originally it was expected that the PDB assessment procedure would be selected for the FIMCAR assessment approach. However, it was not possible to deliver a compatibility metric in time so that the current off-set procedure (ODB as used in UNECE R94) with some minor modifications was proposed for the FIMCAR Assessment Approach. Nevertheless the potential to assess load spreading, which appears not to be possible with any other assessed frontal impact assessment procedure was considered to be still high. Therefore the development work for the PDB assessment procedure did not stop with the decision not to select the PDB procedure. As a result of the decisions to use the current ODB and to further develop the PDB procedure, both are covered within this deliverable. The deliverable describes the off-set test procedure that will be recommended by FIMCAR consortium, this corresponds to the ODB test as it is specified in UN-ECE Regulation 94 (R94), i.e. EEVC deformable element with 40% overlap at a test speed of 56 km/h. In addition to the current R94 requirements, FIMCAR will recommend to introduce some structural requirements which will guarantee sufficiently strong occupant compartments by enforcing the stability of the forward occupant cell. With respect to the PDB assessment procedure a new metric, Digital Derivative in Y direction - DDY, was developed, described, analysed, and compared with other metrics. The DDY metric analyses the deformation gradients laterally across the PDB face. The more even the deformation, the lower the DDY values and the better the metric’s result. In order analyse the different metrics, analysis of the existing PDB test results and the results of the performed simulation studies was performed. In addition, an assessment of artificial deformation profiles with the metrics took place. This analysis shows that there are still issues with the DDY metric but it appears that it is possible to solve them with future optimisations. For example the current metric assesses only the area within 60% of the half vehicle width. For vehicles that have the longitudinals further outboard, the metric is not effective. In addition to the metric development, practical issues of the PDB tests such as the definition of a scan procedure for the analysis of the deformation pattern including the validation of the scanning procedure by the analysis of 3 different scans at different locations of the same barrier were addressed. Furthermore the repeatability and reproducibility of the PDB was analysed. The barrier deformation readings seem to be sensitive with respect to the impact accuracy. In total, the deliverable is meant to define the FIMCAR off-set assessment procedure and to be a starting point for further development of the PDB assessment procedure

Implications of estimating road traffic serious injuries from hospital data

To determine accurately the number of serious injuries at EU level and to compare serious injury rates between different countries it is essential to use a common definition. In January 2013, the High Level Group on Road Safety established the definition of serious injuries as patients with an injury level of MAIS3+(Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale). Whatever the method used for estimating the number or serious injuries, at some point it is always necessary to use hospital records. The aim of this paper is to understand the implications for (1) in/exclusion criteria applied to case selection and (2) a methodological approach for converting ICD (International Classification of Diseases/Injuries) to MAIS codes, when estimating the number of road traffic serious injuries from hospital data. A descriptive analysis with hospital data from Spain and the Netherlands was carried out to examine the effect of certain choices concerning in- and exclusion criteria based on codes of the ICD9-CM and ICD10. The main parameters explored were: deaths before and after 30 days, readmissions, and external injury causes. Additionally, an analysis was done to explore the impact of using different conversion tools to derive MAIS3 + using data from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, and Spain. Recommendations are given regarding the in/exclusion criteria and when there is incomplete data to ascertain a road injury, weighting factors could be used to correct data deviations and make more real estimations

Identification of key risk factors related to serious road injuries and their health impacts, deliverable 7.4 of the H2020 project SafetyCube

Because of their high number and slower reduction compared to fatalities, serious road injuries are increasingly being adopted as an additional indicator for road safety, next to fatalities. Reducing the number of serious road injuries is one of the key priorities in the EU road safety programme 2011- 2020. In 2013, the EU Member States agreed on the following definition of serious road traffic injuries: a serious road traffic injury is a road traffic casualty with a Maximum AIS level of 3 or higher (MAIS3+). One recommendation created by the EU SUSTAIN project was to conduct “A more detailed study of the causes of serious road injuries, [which] could reveal more specific keys to reduce the number of serious injuries in the EU”. This recommendation is addressed through the identification of crashrelated causation and contributory factors for selected groups of casualties with relatively many MAIS3+ casualties compared to fatalities and groups with a relatively high burden of injury of MAIS3+ casualties. This deliverable is made up of two parts brought together in order to determine the main contributory factors detailed above. This two-step approach initially identifies groups of casualties that are specifically relevant from a serious injury perspective using national level collision and hospital datasets from 6 countries. Following the determination of groups of interest a detailed analysis of the selected groups using indepth data was conducted. On the basis of in-depth data from 4 European countries the main contributory and causal factors are determined for the selected MAIS3+ casualty groups. Alongside the three proceeding deliverables that have formed the major outputs of WP7, deliverable D7.4 is aimed at addressing serious injury policy at an EU levels. As such this report is broadly aimed at policy makers although the inclusion of results from in-depth data analysis also provides information relevant to stakeholders, particularly those working in vehicle design and manufacture or road user behaviour

Practical guidelines for the registration and monitoring of serious traffic injuries, D7.1 of the H2020 project SafetyCube

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Crashes also cause numerous serious traffic injuries, resulting in considerable economic and human costs. Given the burden of injury produced by traffic, using only fatalities as an indicator to monitor road safety gives a very small picture of the health impact of traffic crashes, just the tip of the iceberg. Moreover, in several countries during the last years the number of serious traffic injuries has not been decreasing as fast as the number of fatalities. In other countries the number of serious traffic injuries has even been increasing (Berecki-Gisolf et al., 2013; IRTAD Working Group on Serious Road Traffic Casualties, 2010; Weijermars et al., 2015).Therefore, serious traffic injuries are more commonly being adopted by policy makers as an additional indicator of road safety. Reducing the number of serious traffic injuries is one of the key priorities in the road safety programme 2011-2020 of the European Commission (EC, 2010). To be able to compare performance and monitor developments in serious traffic injuries across Europe, a common definition of a serious road injury was necessary. In January 2013, the High Level Group on Road Safety, representing all EU Member States, established the definition of serious traffic injuries as road casualties with an injury level of MAIS ≥ 3. The Maximum AIS represents the most severe injury obtained by a casualty according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Traditionally the main source of information on traffic accidents and injuries has been the police registration. This provides the official data for statistics at national and European level (CARE Database). Data reported by police usually is very detailed about the circumstances of the crash particularly if there are people injured or killed. But on the other hand police cannot assess the severity of injuries in a reliable way, due, obviously to their training. Therefore, police based data use to classify people involved in a crash as fatality, severe injured if hospitalised more than 24 hours and slight injured if not hospitalised. Moreover, it is known that even a so clear definition as a fatality is not always well reported and produces underreporting. This is due to several factors such as lack of coverage of police at the scene or people dying at hospital not followed by police (Amoros et al., 2006; Broughton et al., 2007; Pérez et al., 2006). Hospital records of patients with road traffic injuries usually include very little information on circumstances of the crash but it does contain data about the person, the hospitalisation (date of hospitalisation and discharge, medical diagnosis, mechanism or external cause of injury, and interventions). Hospital inpatient Discharge Register (HDR) offers an opportunity to complement police data on road traffic injuries. Medical diagnoses can be used to derive information about severity of injuries. Among others, one of the possible scales to measure injury severity is the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The High Level group identified three main ways Member States can collect data on serious traffic injuries (MAIS ≥ 3): 1) by applying a correction on police data, 2) by using hospital data and 3) by using linked police and hospital data. Once one of these three ways is selected, several additional choices need to be made. In order to be able to compare injury data across different countries, it is important to understand the effects of methodological choices on the estimated numbers of serious traffic injuries. A number of questions arise: How to determine the correction factors that are to be applied to police data? How to select road traffic casualties in the hospital data and how to derive MAIS ≥ 3 casualties? How should police and hospital data be linked and how can the number of MAIS ≥ 3 casualties be determined on the basis of the linked data sources? Currently, EU member states use different procedures to determine the number of MAIS ≥ 3 traffic injuries, dependent on the available data. Given the major differences in the procedures being applied, the quality of the data differs considerably and the numbers are not yet fully comparable between countries. In order to be able to compare injury data across different countries, it is important to understand the effects of methodological choices on the estimated numbers of serious traffic injuries. Work Package 7 of SafetyCube project is dedicated to serious traffic injuries, their health impacts and their costs. One of the aims of work package 7 is to assess and improve the estimation of the number of serious traffic injuries. The aim of this deliverable (D7.1) is to report practices in Europe concerning the reporting of serious traffic injuries and to provide guidelines and recommendations applied to each of the three main ways to estimate the number of road traffic serious injuries. Specific objectives for this deliverable are to: Describe the current state of collection of data on serious traffic injuries across Europe Provide practical guidelines for the estimation of the number of serious traffic injuries for each of the three ways identified by the High Level Group Examine how the estimated number of serious traffic injuries is affected by differences in methodology

Physical and psychological consequences of serious road traffic injuries, deliverable 7.2 of the H2020 project SafetyCube

SafetyCube aims to develop an innovative road safety Decision Support System (DSS) that will enable policy-makers and stakeholders to select the most appropriate strategies, measures and cost-effective approaches to reduce casualties of all road user types and all severities. Work Package 7 of SafetyCube is dedicated to serious road traffic injuries, their health impacts and their costs. This Deliverable discusses health impacts of (serious) road traffic injuries