Frontal Occupant Safety Simulations For Coach and Bus Passengers
Frontal Occupant Safety Simulations For Coach and Bus Passengers
Frontal Occupant Safety Simulations For Coach and Bus Passengers
C.G. Huijskens
M. Schrooten
P. de Coo
TNO-Automotive
The Netherlands
Huijskens, 1
2. Develop a mathematical occupant model, Table 1.
using the standard seat, a variety of dummy ECE-R.80 requirements
sizes, and various restraint systems.
3. Optimise the protection offered to the Chest/Head < 1.6 m from SRP
occupant through study of key seat and displacement
restraint design parameters. This was done HIC < 500
for various dummy sizes. ThAC < 30g
FAC < 10 kN (all time)
4. Develop a generic model of a bus, which is
able to reproduce the kinematics of selected
Also a series of component tests was carried out
cases present in the ECBOS accident for measuring the stiffness and strength
database. characteristics of the main seat elements such as
5. Combine bus structure model and occupant the seatback, seatbase and seatpan/belt
model to ‘reconstruct’ a selected number of anchorage’s as required input variables for
cases from the ECBOS database. Verify that modelling (Figure 2).
the combined model is able to predict the
observed injuries.
6. Using the verified models, investigate how
improvements determined in sub-task 3
could be used to improve occupant safety in
real-world accident scenarios.
Huijskens, 2
The injury parameters of the dummy models The data from each selected case was entered
indicate where injury criteria limits are being into a record of the ECBOS database:
exceeded.
1. vehicles involved.
Parametric studies have been carried out to 2. make and type of bus, mass, weight, etc.
investigate the influence on injury risk when
3. crash scenario, impact locations, and
certain key parameters, such as vehicle structure,
deformations of vehicle.
seat characteristics and stiffness are changed.
These results indicate areas of the vehicles that 4. passenger data, including sitting position,
could be improved. age, and sustained injuries.
Huijskens, 3
It is concluded that for the upper part of the Simulations performed by the ECBOS partner
human body, the recliner stiffness has the biggest ‘POLITO’ [1] showed that for head injury
influence on the injury values. When the neither 2 point nor 3 point seatbelts prevent a
occupant is unbelted, the head-ashtray contact HIC value over 1000 for the occupant seated by
also has a large influence on the injury values the impacted side, the head always strikes the
(Figure 5) side window. If any seatbelt is used the injury
levels for occupants in the seats on the other,
Unbelted - Influence of variable on injury. non-impacted side of the bus, are always below
100.00%
90.00%
HIC
FNIC-T
the HIC limit. The real advantage of restraint use
80.00%
70.00%
FNIC-C here is the prevention of occupant movement and
NTE
60.00% NTF the loading of other occupants.
50.00% NCE
40.00% NCF
30.00% Thac
FAC-right
For the occupant in the inboard seat, near the
20.00%
10.00% FAC-right impacted side, a 2 point belt does not prevent the
0.00%
head injury mechanism of striking the side, but a
ht
ht
t
h
th
th
gh
gh
ig
ig
id
id
id
i
ei
ei
He
e
l-W
-W
-W
-H
-H
-H
y-
y-
ee
ck
ec
cl
ee
ck
ra
ra
Re
ba
Kn
R
ba
ht
Kn
ht
at
As
at
As
Se
Se
Huijskens, 4
head contacts during frontal impacts compared to in front of it. It is therefore absolutely necessary
a 3 point seat belt (Figure 6). to prevent it.
Additionally, wearing a 3 point seat belt reduces
the head injury of the behind-row passenger and With all tested belt configurations, it is also
the energy absorption capabilities of the seat observed, especially in the performed full scale
backrests in front of the occupant are not always sled tests, that the load path (belt-seat-floor)
enough to avoid injuries. allows too much deflection, which may result in
extensive head excursions. In the 3 point belt
2 Point Belt configurations little differences in the results are
200%
found when changing the seat pitch. Femur loads
180%
are reduced as the pitch increases. This is due to
160%
140%
the decreased interaction of the dummy with the
120%
forward seat.
1 Occupant
100%
3 Occupants
20%
are no longer apparent. This is because increased
0%
seat back recliner stiffness needed for best
Chest 3ms HIC Nij TE Nij TF Nij CE Nij CF Femur Left Femur Right
results with the 3 point belt configurations.
2 point belt
3 Point Belt
Bulkhead
200%
To evaluate the effect of a bulkhead in front of
180%
160%
the dummy, a bulkhead model was used to
140% replace one row of seats in the occupant model.
120%
1 Occupant
The bulkhead structure was placed in front of the
100%
80%
3 Occupants
occupant, 72-cm forward of the rearmost point of
60%
the seat base structure. The geometry of the seat
40% model is shown in Figure 7. The model was
20%
evaluated with the 5th-percentile, 50th-percentile,
and 95th-percentile dummy models in the three
0%
Chest 3ms HIC Nij TE Nij TF Nij CE Nij CF Femur Left Femur Right
Huijskens, 5
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING
ECE-R.80
Children
It is clear that passive safety of bus and coach
Using a 3 point belt in combination with a child occupants will be improved if the following
below the age of 12 years requires specific recommendations could be implemented in ECE-
adaptations. An adult 3 point belt system may R.80:
not be able to protect child, and can even be
more harmful than protective when no specific • Combined dynamic test configuration;
adaptation is defined. It is therefore essential to • Worst-case seat/floor/sled combination;
evaluate the risk caused by not adapted three
• Requirements for child and small occupant
point belt systems, and the benefits of adaptable
restraint systems.
systems. Simulations have been carried out in
order to evaluate the benefit of three point belt
A sled test configuration could be two rows of
systems for children.
seats, the front with restrained passengers (50th
percentile dummies) and the rear with
In case no adaptation is made to the adult seat
unrestrained passengers (50th percentile
belt, the child occupant will have no choice but
dummies).
to wear a seat belt with a very high shoulder
attachment point. The main risk is that the child
Both the vehicle floor and the seat structure
occupant will experience major neck loads, due
affect the crash behaviour of the combination to
to direct contact between neck and belt. Also
be tested. To avoid having to tailor the bus seat
severe throat injuries, which cannot be predicted
of a certain seat manufacturer to the various bus
by simulation models, may result from such
and coach structures, the bus seats should be
loading conditions. In any case a 3 point belt
designed for a rigid floor structure that does not
must offer the possibility to lower the shoulder
absorb energy during impact. Tests performed on
attachment point. This adaptation is of interest
a combination of a rigid vehicle floor structure
not only for children, but also for small adults.
and seats specifically tailored to this structure are
applicable to all kind of different floor structures.
Simulations with 3 and 6 years old dummies
A special rigid floor structure and wall rail
wearing an adapted 3 point belt system (Figure
system should be defined for performing sled
8) have shown that good kinematics could be
tests according to ECE-R.80 [7].
obtained. However, the load on the thorax and
resulting injury criterions are high due to the fact
From the summary of ECE-R80, it is clear that
that the seat backrest and seat belt stiffness were
no interest is given to the necessary adaptation of
optimised for an adult 50th percentile occupant.
3 point belt systems to children or small
occupants. This probably is the main concern
related to this regulation, because wearing not
adapted 3 point belt systems can not be
considered as a solution for children. It seems
therefore necessary to update the ECE-R.80 with
respect to 3 point belt systems and the necessity
to either check the suitability of the belt system
for children or to limit the access to 3 point belts
for children.
CONCLUSIONS
Figure 8 Proposal for shoulder point
adaptation
Direct intrusion, seat ruptures due to the impact
of other passengers and ejection of the
In fact, 3 point seat belts adapted for children
passengers are the three main causes of injuries
require specific solutions to be designed for
during a bus or coach accident. Ejection out of
(school) buses and coaches.
the bus or coach through side window or
Huijskens, 6
windscreen is not only found in rollover Vehicles Safety and Reliability, 2-4
accidents, but also in frontal accidents and September 2002, Keszthely Hungary.
causes fatal injuries to the passengers. That’s
3. Mitsuishi H, Sukegawa Y, Matsukawa F,
why the use of seat belts, 2 points or 3 points, is
Japan Automobile Research Institute, Okano
strongly recommended for adult as well as for
S, Japan Automobile Manufactures
child passengers.
Association, Inc., “Crash-Safety
Performances of Bus Passengers”, 33rd
Additionally, it would be better to have all
Meeting of Bus and Coach Experts
children restrained during an accident, even with
International Conference on Vehicles Safety
a 2 point belt, than having them unrestrained, as
and Reliability, 2-4 September 2002,
the biggest risk to be injured is by ejection.
Keszthely Hungary.
Making 2 point or 3 point belt systems 4. Langwieder K, Gwehenberger J, Bende J,
obligatory in buses and coaches requires “Coaches and buses in the accident scene –
sufficient strength of the bus structure regarding Results of a study regarding passenger
the seat belt load path. The seat to floor protection”, 33rd Meeting of Bus and Coach
attachments should be sled tested on a rigid floor Experts International Conference on
at 50 km/h and 20g as this represents the worst Vehicles Safety and Reliability, 2-4
case. September 2002, Keszthely Hungary.
5. Páez Ayuso F.J, Aparicio Izquierdo F,
Finally, based on the best compromises between
Garcia Gracia A, INSIA-UPM, “Injury
wearing a 2 point or a 3 point belt system, the
mechanism analysis in accidents with buses
use of 3 point belt systems is recommended for
involveld”, 33rd Meeting of Bus and Coach
adult and child occupant passengers in buses and
Experts International Conference on
coaches.
Vehicles Safety and Reliability, 2-4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
September 2002, Keszthely Hungary.
6. Mayrhofer E, Geigl B, Institut fuer
The work described in this paper form part of the Mechanik, Technische Universitaet Graz,
EC funded research programme ECBOS [1] Austria, Steffan H, Dr.Steffan Datentechnik,
conducted by the Safety Department of TNO Linz, Austria, “Enhanced Coach and Bus
Automotive. Occupant Safety through analysys of current
test procedures and real world accident
The help and co-operation of the Dutch bus incidents”, 33rd Meeting of Bus and Coach
manufacturer BOVA is gratefully acknowledged. Experts International Conference on
Vehicles Safety and Reliability, 2-4
The authors want to acknowledge also that the September 2002, Keszthely Hungary.
collaboration of the partners CIC (Cranfield
Impact Centre, UK), GDV (Gesamtverband der 7. Vogelsitze GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany,
Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft, DE) INSIA “Compliance wit European safety
(Universidad de Madrid, ES), POLITO requirements for coach seats”, 33rd Meeting
(Politecnico di Torino, IT), TUG (Technische of Bus and Coach Experts International
Universitaet Graz, AT) and VSRC Conference on Vehicles Safety and
(Loughborough University, UK) has been Reliability, 2-4 September 2002, Keszthely
essential to complete this paper. Hungary.
8. Crasas C, Ferrer I, IDIADA Automotive
REFERENCES Technology SA, “Application of accident
reconstruction in the assessment of the use
1. ECBOS, Enhanced Coach and Occupant of seat belts in buses”, European
Safety, EC project within Framework 5; Automotive Congress, Bratislava 18th-20th
Project No: 1999-RD.11130. June 2001.
2. Matolcsy M, Scientific Society of
Mechanical Engineers (GTE), “Frontal
collision of buses – problems, questions,
regulations”, 33rd Meeting of Bus and
Coach Experts International Conference on
Huijskens, 7
APPENDIX A
RELATED REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES
Based on a resolution of the European Conference of Transport Ministers the co-ordination of technical
specifications for coaches was taken up by the ECE Working Party 29 in 1967 as their terms of reference.
In the process, a high level of safety was supposed to be obtained. Nine ECE Regulations dealing with
occupant safety requirements for buses and coaches resulted from these negotiations (Table 2).
These ECE Regulations came into force between 1976 and 1989. The application of some of these ECE
Regulations is still not obligatory in all countries within the EC. For the passive safety of single decked
touring cars (M2, M3) there are only three ECE Regulations today which are of importance: Regulation
No. 80 (Seats of large passenger vehicles, their anchorage’s and installation), Regulation 14 (Safety-belt
anchorage’s) and Regulation 16 (Safety-belts and restraint systems). Although, these Regulations (and
comparable EC Directives) are not compulsory in all European countries, but they are taken into account
by most bus manufacturers in the development of new bus and coach model types and by most authorities
for approval.
Huijskens, 8