Road Safety 2013 Berg

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 45

Aspects on the Secondary Safety of Motorcycles

Part 1: Motorcycle impacts on roadside barriers - new solutions


based on real-world accident studies and crash tests
Part 2: Motorcycle Airbags - an option?

Alexander Berg, DEKRA Automobil GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany

Mobility and Safety Conference, Lietuva, Vilnius, 30-06-2013


Aspects on the Secondary Safety of Motorcycles

Structure:
 Introduction
 Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
- Statistics and Real-World Crashes
- Crash Tests
- First Prototype of a “Motorcycle Friendly” Barrier
- Further Developments and Status Quo
 Motorcycle Airbags – an Option?
- Historical Background and Status Quo
- Prototype of an Airbag for a Mid-Sized Touring Motorcycle
- Crash Tests
- Potential
 Summary

Page 2 © 2013 DEKRA


Introduction
Historic Evolutions of MC Fleet and Killed MC Riders in Germany
since 2008
without vehicles temporarily out of registration
4.000
1969: 3.828 million MCs
registered
308 killed MC riders registered in the fleet
3.500 motorcycles in
per 100,000 MCs the rolling fleet
registered in the fleet [ x 1,000 ] killed
3.000 motorcycle riders
rural
absolute frequency

2.500
killed
2.000 motorcycle riders
urban

1.500
2011:
since 1992
18 killed MC riders
incl. New Laender of FRG
1.000 per 100,000 MCs
registered in the fleet
500
556
708 killed MC riders
0 152
1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010
year (1956 til 2011)

Page 3 © 2013 DEKRA


Introduction
Shares of killed Road Users Urban in Germany

N = 3,349 N = 1,115

100%
others

commercial vehicle
80% occupants
car occupants

60% pedestrians
share

bycicle riders
40%
mofa/moped riders

20% motorcycle riders

the share of killed motorcycle riders


0% of all killed road users urban
increased from 8 % (out of 3,349 fatalities) in 1991
1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

up to 14% (out of 1,115 fatalities in 2011


year (1991 until 2011)

Page 4 © 2013 DEKRA


Introduction
Shares of killed Road Users Rural in Germany

N = 7,951 N = 2,894

100%
others
90%
commercial vehicle
80% occupants
70% car occupants

60% pedestrians
share

50%
bycicle riders
40%

30% mofa/moped riders

20% motorcycle riders


10%
the share of killed motorcycle riders
0% of all killed road users rural
increased from 9% (out of 7,951 fatalities) in 1991
1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

to 19% (out of 2,894 fatalities) in 2011


year (1991 until 2011)

Page 5 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Reports

Heike Bürkle, Alexander Berg Marcus Gärtner, Peter Rücker Ralf Klöckner, Maike Zedler
September 2001, BASt V90 Alexander Berg April 2010, BASt V 193
Juni 2006, BASt 940

Page 6 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Barrier Examples

 Steel-made roadside protection systems (examples)

„Einfache Schutzplanke ESP“ „Einfache Distanzschutzplanke EDSP“

 Concrete Barrier
“New Jersey Profile“

Page 7 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Figure of Killed Motorcycle Riders due to Barrier Impacts

 German accident statistics


Estimation Federal
Highway Research
1200 Institute (BASt, 2002):
“Approx. 50 killed
motorcycle riders killed

1000
864 motorcycle riders
800 total
708
per year involved
626 rural* in single vehicle
600
508 accidents with
400 rural* in single
accidents only crashes into
200 180 174 roadside protection
* without Autobahn
systems” seems to
0
be still valid today
1996

1998

2000
2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

year (1996 - 2011)

Page 8 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Real-World Crash Example 1

R = 100m

15°
V = V =
K 85 ... K 85 ...
95 km 95 km
/h /h

Accident MC rider
 MC leaves the road  v = 85 - 95 km/h
in a left-hand curve  neck impact
 single vehicle accident  AIS 5
 sliding into steel barrier  neck fracture below C4
 einfache Schutzplanke (ESP)  internal injuries
 sigma post (no jacket)
 vMC = 85 - 95 km/h

Page 9 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Real-World Crash Example 2

Accident MC rider & passenger


 MC leaves the road  v = 50 - 55 km/h
due to a tyre defect
 impact with left leg
 single vehicle accident
 rider: AIS 3
 MC impacts upright leg and left arm fractured
 einfache Schutzplanke (ESP)  passenger: AIS 3
 sigma post (no jacket) leg and left arm fractured
 vMC = 50 - 55 km/h

R = 170m
VK = 50 ... 5
5 km/h

Page 10 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests

velocity ≈ 60 km/h

MC impacts upright MC impacts sliding

Kawasaki ER-5 Twister `98 Hybrid III, 50th percentile male

Page 11 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests Using Conventional Barriers

MC impacts upright MC impacts upright


into „Einfache Distanzschutzplanke (EDSP)” into concrete barrier (H = 0.81 m)
Impact angle 12°, velocity = 60.5 km/h Impact angle 12°, velocity 60.5 km/h

Vo = 60.5 km/h Vo = 60.5 km/h

MC impacts sliding MC impacts sliding


into „Einfache Schutzplanke (ESP)” into concrete barrier (H = 0.81 m)
Impact angle 25°, velocity 59.5 km/h Impact angle 25°, velocity 59.3 km/h

Vo = 59.5 km/h Vo = 59.3 km/h

Page 12 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests Using Conventional Barriers

MC impacts upright into


„Einfache Distanzschutzplanke EDSP“

Movements shown until t = 2.30 s after first impact

Distance 1st impact to final rest position


MC: 28.0 m
Dummy: 20.5 m

Page 13 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests Using Conventional Barriers

MC impacts upright
into concrete barrier

Movements shown until t = 1.75 s afer first impact

Distance 1st impact to final rest position


MC: 38.0 m
Dummy: 25.5 m

Page 14 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests Using Conventional Barriers

MC impacts sliding
into „Einfache Distanzschutzplanke ESP“

Distance 1st impact to final rest position


MC: 1.9 m
Dummy: 4.8 m

Page 15 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests Using Conventional Barriers

MC impacts sliding
into a concrete barrier

Distance 1st impact to final rest position


MC: 13.6 m
Dummy: 13.6 m

Page 16 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests Using Improved First Prototype Barrier

„Swiss box-type“ profile


150/180 MC impacts upright and sliding
150
Sigma post
750
600

300
450

M12
Lower rail
150
Ground

Page 17 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests Using Improved First Prototype Barrier

MC impacts upright

Movements show n until t = 2,30 s after first


impact

Distance 1st impact to final rest position


MC: 23.0 m
Dummy: 21.7 m

Page 18 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Crash Tests Using Improved First Prototype Barrier

MC impacts sliding

Distance 1st impact to final rest position


MC: 1.0 m
Dummy: 7.1 m

Page 19 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Assessment Results for the Improved First Prototype Barrier

MC impacts upright MC sliding

Advantages: Advantages:
• Sliding along the barrier after first • Separation of dummy and MC
impact (may also be a disadvantage) • No snagging of the dummy
smaller delta-v of dummy
• Short distances from first impact
• No snagging of the dummy to final rest position of MC and
• Separation of dummy and MC dummy
• No rebound of MC • Impact damping effect by
• Absorption of energy resulting lower rail
from deformation • absorption of energy resulting
from deformation

Disadvantages:
• Possible movement of dummy over
Disadvantages:
protection system into other traffic • The fastening of the lower rail failed
(should be reinforced)

Page 20 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Assessment Results for the Improved First Prototype Barrier

MC upright MC sliding

Advantages: Advantages:
• Sliding along the barrier after first • Separation of dummy and MC
impact (may also be a disadvantage) • No snagging of the dummy
slow delta-v of dummy
• Short distances from first impact
• No snagging of the dummy to final rest position of MC and
• Separation of dummy and MC dummy
• No rebound of MC • Impact damping effect by
• Absorption of energy resulting lower rail
from deformation • absorption of energy resulting
from deformation

Disadvantages:
• Possible movement of dummy over
Disadvantages:
protection system into other traffic • The fastening of the lower rail failed
(should be reinforced)

Page 21 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Follow-up-improvements on Barriers and Current Status

Problem of Propagation:
The Installation of a new barrier is much more expensive then the retro fitment of an already
installed conventional barrier (ESP or EDSP).
Problem of Compatibility:
Improvements on barriers regarding increased safety for motorcycle riders could lead to
reduced safety for car occupants (test according to DIN EN 1317)

Therefore:
 System “Euskirchen” was assembled for retro fitment of an ESP using the lower rail only
for sliding impact protection (not the “Swiss box type profile” on the top for upright
impact protection) – but crash tests (DIN EN 1317) have shown degradations of the safety
for occupants in impacting cars
 Improved system “EuskirchenPlus” was developed using retrofitting components for
ESP and EDSP to improve the safety of an impacting motorcycle rider in both upright and
sliding impact situation
 Advanced systems “ESP Motorrad” and “EDSP Motorrad” are now available to replace
conventional steel barriers ESP and EDSP on all roads that are relevant with high regard
to motorcycle accidents

Page 22 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Impacts on Roadside Barriers
Follow-up-improvements on Barriers and Current Status

BASt application release for roadside barriers in Germany

WEBSITE:
http://www.bast.de/nn_39148/DE/Qualitaetsbewertung/Listen/Strassenausstattung/pdf/einsatzfreigabeliste260712,
templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/einsatzfreigabeliste260712.pdf

 Long term: Supplement for DIN EN 1317 to describe additional demands for
impacting motorcycles (and riders)

Page 23 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Historical Background

 First proposals to equip motorcycles with airbags go back to the 70’s


Bothwell P, Hirsch A E: Airbag Crash Protection for Motorcycle Application
NHTSA, ASME-Paper, 1973
 Further proposals followed in the 80’s
Chinn B P, Donne G L, Hopes P D: Motorcycle Rider Protection in Frontal Collisions.
10th ESV-Conference, Oxford, 1985
Danner M, Langwieder K, Sporner A: Accidents of Motorcyclists Increase of Safety by Technical
Measures on the Basis of Knowledge derived from Real-Life Accidents.
10th ESV-Conference, Oxford, 1985
Langwieder K, Sporner A, Polauke J: Stand der Passiven Sicherheit für den Motorradfahrer und
mögliche Entwicklungstendenzen.
1. VDI-Tagung Aktive und Passive Sicherheit von Krafträdern, Berlin, 1987

Page 24 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Historical Background

 1987: HUK-organisation (now GDV), DEKRA and Winterthur-insurance conducted a


joint crash-test project in Wildhaus (Switzerland) – a moving motorcycle (equipped
with kneepads and airbag) crashed into the side of a moving passenger car

Motorcycle equipped with knee pads and airbag

Motorcycle baseline

Page 25 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Historical Background

1994: Motorcycle-airbag feasibility study carried out by the motorcycle industry


and various research institutes
Zellner J W, Newman J A, Rogers N M: Preliminary Research into the Feasibility of Motorcycle Airbag
Systems.
14th ESV-Conference, Munich, 1994
1996: Motorcycle-airbag study was developed and tested in Great Britain (Triumph/Lotus
Engineering/TRL)
Grose G, Patel B, Okello J: The Development of a Motorcycler Rider Airbag Restraint System.
XXVI FISITA-Congress, Prague, 1996
Chinn B P, Okello J A, McDonough P J, Grose G: Development and Testing of a Purpose built Motorcycle Restraint System
15th ESV-Conference, Melbourne, 1996

Page 26 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Historical Background

1999: BMW pointed out the airbag as an option for further development to improve
the passive safety of the C1
1990 … 2004: Honda developed an airbag for a large touring motorcycle (Gold Wing)
Iijima S, Hosono S, Ota A, Yamamoto T: Exploratory Study of an Airbag Concept for a Large Touring Motorcycle.
16th ESV-Conference, Windsor 1998
Yamazaki T, Iijima S, Yamamoto T: Exploration Study of an Airbag Concept for a Large Touring Motorcycle: Further
Research.
17th ESV-Conference, Amsterdam, 2001

Source: Honda

Page 27 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Recent and Future Projects

Page 28 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Prototype of an Airbag for a Mid-Sized Touring Motorcycle

Volume and geometry

Definition of requirements: 300 mm


DEKRA Accident Research
Design and production:
hs-Technik + Design

660 mm
1. Volume determination 440 mm
(60 litre)
2. Design of bag geometry
when undeployed 450 mm
3. Assessment of
Bag-Geometry
when deployed

Page 29 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Prototype of an Airbag for a Mid-Sized Touring Motorcycle

Side Time to
view deploy:
to airbag 40 ms
in 1st
inflation
test

Page 30 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Prototype of an Airbag for a Mid-Sized Touring Motorcycle

Stationary Test
To check geometry and inflation
on the motorcycle relative to the rider

Page 31 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

Since 1996 : ISO 13232 is the worldwide standard for motorcycle crash tests
Purpose: Investigate the effects of passive safety elements fitted to motorcycles
Configuration 143 Configuration 114 Configuration 413 Configuration 412
35 kph \ 0 kph 24 kph \ 48 kph 24 kph \ 48 kph 24 kph \ 48 kph
90° L mc
L mc
2
135° 45°

v Motorcycle = 0 kph L OV
2
L OV
2

= 48 kph
L OV L OV

v Car = 0 kph W/2 W/2

= 24 kph W W 5 cm

= 35 kph 45°

L OV L OV
2 2

L OV L OV

135°

Configuration 414 Configuration 225 Configuration 413


24 kph \ 48 kph 0 kph \ 48 kph 0 kph \ 48 kph

Page 32 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

Test configuration:
 Impact configuration 413 (ISO 13232)
LOV
 1st step: „moving/stationary“ 2

 2nd step: “moving moving


LOV
Protective effects:
 Cushioning of the rider's impact in the early phase
of the collision and reduction of the rider's velocity
 Avoidance of severe contact with the roof rail of the car
 Influence of the rider's cinematic in a later phase of the
collision (movement of rider into upward direction)
due to a “airbag ramp”
 Sliding onto the roof of a car
 No negative influence to the free movement of the rider
 No negative influence to the rider's injury risk

Page 33 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

Test configuration:
 vMotorcycle = 48 kph
 vCar = 0 kph
 Dummy: Hybrid III
 No airbag

Page 34 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

Test configuration:
 vMotorcycle = 48 kph
 vCar = 24 kph
 Dummy: Hybrid III
 Airbag

Page 35 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

with airbag without airbag Body Limit Value


region [100 %]
Head HIC
Head HIC 1000
Head a 3ms
Head a 3ms 80 g
Neck Fx
Neck F x, max 3.1 kN
Neck Fz
Neck My Neck F z, max 4.0 kN
Neck My, min -57 Nm
Chest a (3ms)
Chest a 3ms 60 g
Pelvis a (3ms)
Pelvis a 3ms 60 g
Femur Fz (right)
Femur Fz (left) Femur left Fz 10 kN
Femur right Fz 10 kN
0

20

40

60

80

100

120
% of limit

Page 36 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

Test configuration:
 vMotorcycle = 48 kph
 vCar = 0 kph
 Dummy: MATD
 No airbag

Page 37 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

Test configuration:
 vMotorcycle = 48 kph
 vCar = 24 kph
 Dummy: MATD
 No airbag

Page 38 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

with airbag without airbag Body Limit Value


region [100 %]
Head HIC
Head HIC 1000
Head a 3ms
Head a 3ms 80 g
Neck Fx
Neck F x, max 3.1 kN
Neck Fz
Neck F z, max 4.0 kN
Neck My
Chest a (3ms) Neck My, min -57 Nm

Pelvis a (3ms) Chest a 3ms 60 g

Femur Fz (right) Pelvis a 3ms 60 g

Femur Fz (left) Femur left Fz 10 kN

Femur right Fz 10 kN
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

% of limit 140

Page 39 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Crash Tests

broken femur (test without airbag)

Page 40 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
ADAC Crash Test with Honda Gold Wing

Honda with without


Gold Wing airbag airbag
Config. 413 head 0 6
ISO 13232, neck 0 6
“moving chest 0 0
stationary”, abdomen 0 0
v = 72 km/h femur 0 2
Dummy: MATD knee 0 0
lower leg 2 2

injury risk

very low 0
low 2
medium to high 4
very high 6

source: www.adac.de

Page 41 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Findings from Real-World Accidents

DEKRA study on 97 real-world motorcycle crashes

13% unknown
76%
no influence
injury reduction

11%
Result:
In 11 % of the
real-world crashes analysed
an MC airbag may reduce
rider´s injury severity

Page 42 © 2013 DEKRA


Motorcycle Airbags – An Option?
Conclusions

 A motorcycle airbag is a real option - especially for the passive safety of touring bikes
 The development of an airbag by DEKRA Accident Research is an additional contribution
to corresponding research
 The damping of the impact by the airbag plays an important role especially for large-sized
touring motorcycles
 A combination of damping the impact (by reducing the rider's velocity) and influencing the
passenger's movement is more target-oriented for smaller-sized touring motorcycles
 Additional crash tests (all 7 full scale test as per ISO 13232) and numerical simulations
(200 impact scenarios) are necessary
 Protection clothing may contribute to solve remaining problems, also during secondary
impacts on the road (system-approach)
 Accident research can deliver more knowledge on the performance of motorcycle airbags
in real-world crashes

Page 43 © 2013 DEKRA


Safety of Motorcycles

4.000

3.500

3.000
absolute frequency

2.500

2.000

1.500 © BMW Motorrad

1.000

500

0
1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010
year

Page 44 © 2013 DEKRA


Thank you Takk Cám ón Ngiyabonga

Mahalo Shukran Jag tackar

Kiitoksia Efcharisto

Gracias

Merci

Danke schön

You might also like