Injury characteristics and its protection for the near side occupants in side pole impacts of electric vehicles

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2024.06.005

Abstract

Abstract:

A theoretical analysis method was proposed for dummy arm kinematics in side pole collision to address the issue of thorax injuries caused by unlifted arm compression during side pole impact of electric vehicle. The root causes of uneasy lifting arm in electric vehicle were revealed combining with the analysis of occupant kinematics response, vehicle kinematics response and vehicle deformation mode in crash test. The key design factors of lifting dummy arm were determined for side airbag in side pole collision. A strategy of more balanced force distribution in dummy regions was proposed with the effectiveness of the strategy being verified through vehicle crash tests. The test results show that the overall performance of near side occupant is improved by 22.24%, with the injuries reducing of 68.89% for chest, 3.62% for abdomen. and 8.53% for pelvis; The head and shoulder injuries increase 3.75% and 5.33% with a safety design margin greater than 20% compared with before optimization. These results will provide some guidance for the electric vehicle developing with occupant protection in side pole impact.

Key words: electric vehicles, side pole impact, occupant protection, deformation mode, side airbags

CLC Number:

U467.1

GUO Jianbao, KANG Wei, JU Chunxian, WANG Gang, LIU Chuang. Injury characteristics and its protection for the near side occupants in side pole impacts of electric vehicles[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2024, 15(6): 839-847.

Figures/Tables 16

References 21

[1]	丁远航, 周澄靖, 张瑞文, 等. 汽车侧柱碰和侧碰假人伤害值对比分析及对策方法研究[C]// 2020中国汽车工程学会年会论文集, 2020: 2070-2076.
	DING Yuanhang, ZHANG Ruiwen, et al. Comparison of dummy injury between side pole and side crash study of countermeasure[C]// 2020 SAE-China Congress Selected Papers, 2020, :2070-2076. (in Chinese)
[2]	中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司. C-NCAP 管理规则(2021年版)[S/OL]. (2022-01-18). https://www.c-ncap.org.cn.
	China Automotive Technology and Research Center Co Ltd. C-NCAP management rules (2021)[S/OL]. (2022-01-18). https://www.c-ncap.org.cn/. (in Chinese)
[3]	Euro NCAP. Euro-NCAP-assessment-protocol-aop-v921, 2022[S/OL]. (2022-11-14). https://cdn.euroncap.com.
[4]	ANCAP. euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-aop-v921, 2022[S/OL]. (2022-11-14). https://www.ancap.com.au.
[5]	Hallman J J, Yoganandan N, Pintar F A. Door velocity and occupant distance affect lateral thoracic injury mitigation with side airbag[J]. Accid Anal Preve, 2011, 43: 829-839.
[6]	Tanaka S, Hayashi S, Fukushima S, et al. Investigation of a relationship between external force to shoulder and chest injury of World SID and THUMS in32 km/h oblique pole side impact[C]// 23rd Int’l Tech Conf Enha Safety Vehi, Republic of Korea. United States Department of Transportation, 2013: 321-334.
[7]	Gierczycka D, Watson B, Cronin D. Investigation of occupant arm position and door properties on thorax kinematics in side impact crash scenarios comparison of ATD and human models[J]. Int’l J Crashworthiness, 2015, 20(3-4): 242-269.
[8]	Gierczycka D, Cronin D. Occupant thorax response variations due to arm position and restraint systems in side impact crash scenarios[J]. Accid Anal Preve, 2017, 106: 173-180.
[9]	Gierczycka D, Cronin D. Importance of impact boundary conditions and pre-crash arm position for the prediction of thoracic response to pendulum, side sled, and near side vehicle impacts[J]. Comput Meth Biomech Biomed Engi 2021, 24(14): 1531-1544.
[10]	Rachmanr S, Rusyad M S. Crashworthiness design for an electric city car against side pole impact[J]. J Eng Tech Sci, 2017, 49(5): 587-587.
[11]	HUANG Zhigang, ZHANG Bin, WANG Linmin, et al. Experimental study on side pole collision and deformable barrier collision of car[J]. J Phys: Conf Seri, 2020, 1549(3): No 032120.
[12]	Shank S K, Forest H, et al. Investigation of crashworthiness of carbon fiber-based electric vehicle battery enclosure using finite element analysis[J]. Appl Compo Mat, 2023, 30(6): 1689-1715.
[13]	王鹏翔, 商恩义, 李月明, 等. 基于侧面柱碰撞试验的侧气囊开发方案探讨[J]. 汽车工程学报, 2023, 13(3): 298-307.
	WANG Pengxiang, SHANG Enyi, LI Yueming, et al. Exploring the initial scheme for side airbag development based on side pole impact tests[J]. Chin J Auto Eng, 2023, 13(3): 298-307. (in Chinese)
[14]	林诗远, 雷飞兵, 姬素春, 等. 优化侧气囊点火时刻的抬手臂策略及乘员胸部保护研究[C]//第17届国际汽车交通安全学术会议(INFATS2023)论文集, 2023: 100-107.
	LIN Shiyuan, LEI Feibing, JI Suchun, et al. Study on arm lifting strategy and occupant chest protection by optimization the ignition moment of side airbag, 2023: 100-107. (in Chinese)
[15]	夏丁, 张建, 胡涛, 等. 电动车侧柱碰翻转及对策[J]. 汽车工程师, 2020, 12: 32-35.
	XIA Ding, ZHANG Jian, HU Tao, et al. Research and countermeasure for turnover of electric vehicle in side pole impact[J]. Autom Engineer, 2020, 12: 32-35. (in Chinese)
[16]	牛卫中, 刘金鑫, 潘胜娟. 汽车侧面柱碰位置与速度对车体安全性的影响[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2016, 7(1): 55-59.
	NIU Zhongwei, LIU Jinxin, PAN Shengjuan. Influence of collision location and speed on the car body security in pole side impact of a passenger car[J]. J Auto Safety Energ, 2016, 7(1): 55-59. (in Chinese)
[17]	肖海涛, 董江涛, 王月, 等. 某车型侧面柱碰车身结构耐撞性优化[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2015, 6(2): 156-163.
	XIAO Haitao, DONG Jiangtao, WANG Yue et al. Optimization of body structure crashworthiness in side pole impact for a car[J]. J Auto Safe Energ, 2015, 6(2): 156-163. (in Chinese)
[18]	郝琪, 李海伦, 崔宏伟, 等. 考虑侧面柱碰的电动汽车车门多学科优化设计[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2020, 11(3): 314-321.
	HAO Qi, LI Hailun, CUI Hongwei, et al. Multidisciplinary design optimization of an electric vehicle door based on pole side crash[J]. J Auto Safe Energ, 2020, 11(3): 314-321. (in Chinese)
[19]	杨杨, 张洋, 王金龙, 等. 电动汽车侧面柱碰车身结构耐撞性优化[J]. 汽车工程师, 2020, 5: 24-26.
	YANG Yang, ZHANG Yang, WANG Jinlong, et al. Optimization of body structure crashworthiness in side pole impact for electric vehicle[J]. Autom Engineer, 2020, 5: 24-26. (in Chinese)
[20]	USA Society of Automotive Engineers.Instrumentation for impact test-part1-electronic instrumentation, rev [S/OL]. MAR 2014: SAE J211- 1, 2014. (2014-03-31). https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j211/1_201403/.
[21]	Humanetics Innovative Solutions Inc. WorldSID 50^th User Manual W50-9900 (Rev E.1)[EB/OL]. (2013-07-31). http//www.humaneticsatd.com/manual/W50-9900.

项目	动力车型	a_{3 ms}/ g	胸部肋骨压缩量/ mm			肩部力/ kN	总分
项目	动力车型	a_{3 ms}/ g	上	中	下	肩部力/ kN	总分
01	燃油	57.30	25.41	22.10	27.21	2.08	16.00
02	混动	65.03	24.12	22.50	26.82	2.23	16.00
03	燃油	66.08	26.12	24.43	22.63	2.07	16.00
04	混动	67.02	26.88	19.51	27.52	1.94	16.00
05	混动	51.03	24.71	22.80	22.41	2.07	16.00
06	燃油	60.02	29.72	24.90	34.21	2.36	15.24
07	混动	65.04	27.21	18.70	22.91	2.06	16.00
08	混动	63.03	22.21	23.41	23.92	2.32	16.00
09	燃油	61.02	28.01	27.71	32.34	2.51	15.84
10	混动	61.10	22.03	24.61	22.71	1.23	16.00
11	纯电	48.02	44.04	33.42	28.62	1.94	13.08
12	纯电	51.03	45.22	31.01	26.81	2.11	12.87
13	纯电	59.04	47.61	36.51	22.42	2.18	12.43
14	纯电	62.52	42.41	24.61	25.23	1.94	13.38
15	纯电	56.29	37.28	35.62	29.81	2.01	14.31

项目	动力车型	a_{3 ms}/ g	胸部肋骨压缩量/ mm			肩部力/ kN	总分
项目	动力车型	a_{3 ms}/ g	上	中	下	肩部力/ kN	总分
01	燃油	57.30	25.41	22.10	27.21	2.08	16.00
02	混动	65.03	24.12	22.50	26.82	2.23	16.00
03	燃油	66.08	26.12	24.43	22.63	2.07	16.00
04	混动	67.02	26.88	19.51	27.52	1.94	16.00
05	混动	51.03	24.71	22.80	22.41	2.07	16.00
06	燃油	60.02	29.72	24.90	34.21	2.36	15.24
07	混动	65.04	27.21	18.70	22.91	2.06	16.00
08	混动	63.03	22.21	23.41	23.92	2.32	16.00
09	燃油	61.02	28.01	27.71	32.34	2.51	15.84
10	混动	61.10	22.03	24.61	22.71	1.23	16.00
11	纯电	48.02	44.04	33.42	28.62	1.94	13.08
12	纯电	51.03	45.22	31.01	26.81	2.11	12.87
13	纯电	59.04	47.61	36.51	22.42	2.18	12.43
14	纯电	62.52	42.41	24.61	25.23	1.94	13.38
15	纯电	56.29	37.28	35.62	29.81	2.01	14.31

手臂运动	α_y / [(°)·ms^-2]	α_z / [(°)·ms^-2]
基础	0.36	3.04
策略1	1.41	1.13
策略2	1.59	0.31

手臂运动	α_y / [(°)·ms^-2]	α_z / [(°)·ms^-2]
基础	0.36	3.04
策略1	1.41	1.13
策略2	1.59	0.31

项目	侧气囊袋型	a_{3 ms} / g	胸部肋骨压缩量/ mm			肩部力 kN	总分
项目	侧气囊袋型	a_{3 ms} / g	上	中	下	肩部力 kN	总分
11	老袋型	52.14	43.21	26.61	24.51	2.05	13.24
	策略1	58.26	24.33	25.12	26.23	2.23	16.00
	策略2	62.31	23.23	24.54	27.01	2.61	16.00
12	老袋型	48.24	46.32	28.23	23.21	2.16	12.67
	策略1	54.31	26.94	25.23	27.52	2.32	16.00
	策略2	55.23	22.72	22.51	24.61	3.31	12.00
13	老袋型	53.12	49.52	23.52	20.72	2.23	12.09
	策略1	58.14	28.61	23.21	27.81	2.38	15.89
	策略2	62.36	25.52	22.52	23.73	3.81	12.00
14	老袋型	52.18	44.72	23.52	21.21	2.08	12.96
	策略1	54.27	24.22	25.13	26.21	2.12	16.00
	策略2	56.32	21.53	23.71	24.82	2.38	16.00
15	老袋型	53.14	39.4	32.01	21.51	2.12	12.93
	策略1	57.25	23.5	24.72	26.53	2.26	16.00
	策略2	59.31	22.7	23.61	24.51	2.82	16.00