Road Safety 2013 Berg

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)

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)

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)

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

Barrier Examples
 Steel-made roadside protection systems (examples)
„Einfache Schutzplanke ESP“ „Einfache Distanzschutzplanke EDSP“
 Concrete Barrier
“New Jersey Profile“

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)

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

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
5°

Crash Tests
velocity ≈ 60 km/h
MC impacts upright MC impacts sliding
Kawasaki ER-5 Twister `98 Hybrid III, 50th percentile male

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

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

MC impacts upright
into concrete barrier
Movements shown until t = 1.75 s afer first impact

MC: 38.0 m
Dummy: 25.5 m

MC impacts sliding
into „Einfache Distanzschutzplanke ESP“

MC: 1.9 m
Dummy: 4.8 m

MC impacts sliding
into a concrete barrier

MC: 13.6 m
Dummy: 13.6 m

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

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

impact

MC: 23.0 m
Dummy: 21.7 m

MC impacts sliding

MC: 1.0 m
Dummy: 7.1 m

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)

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)

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

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)

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

 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

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

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

Recent and Future Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crash Tests
Test configuration:
 vCar = 24 kph
 Dummy: Hybrid III
 Airbag

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

Crash Tests
Test configuration:
 vCar = 0 kph
 Dummy: MATD
 No airbag

Crash Tests
Test configuration:
 vCar = 24 kph
 Dummy: MATD
 No airbag

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

Crash Tests
broken femur (test without airbag)

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

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

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

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

Thank you Takk Cám ón Ngiyabonga
Mahalo Shukran Jag tackar
Kiitoksia Efcharisto
Gracias
Merci
Danke schön

Road Safety 2013 Berg

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Road Safety 2013 Berg

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Aspects on the Secondary Safety of Motorcycles

Part 1: Motorcycle impacts on roadside barriers - new solutions

Alexander Berg, DEKRA Automobil GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany

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

Page 2 © 2013 DEKRA

Page 3 © 2013 DEKRA

20% motorcycle riders

the share of killed motorcycle riders

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

Page 4 © 2013 DEKRA

30% mofa/moped riders

20% motorcycle riders

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

Page 5 © 2013 DEKRA

Page 6 © 2013 DEKRA

 Steel-made roadside protection systems (examples)

„Einfache Schutzplanke ESP“ „Einfache Distanzschutzplanke EDSP“

Page 7 © 2013 DEKRA

 German accident statistics

year (1996 - 2011)

Page 8 © 2013 DEKRA

Page 9 © 2013 DEKRA

Accident MC rider & passenger

Page 10 © 2013 DEKRA

MC impacts upright MC impacts sliding

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

Page 11 © 2013 DEKRA

MC impacts upright MC impacts upright

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

MC impacts sliding MC impacts sliding

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

Page 12 © 2013 DEKRA

MC impacts upright into

Movements shown until t = 2.30 s after first impact

Distance 1st impact to final rest position

Page 13 © 2013 DEKRA

Movements shown until t = 1.75 s afer first impact

Distance 1st impact to final rest position

Page 14 © 2013 DEKRA

Distance 1st impact to final rest position

Page 15 © 2013 DEKRA

Distance 1st impact to final rest position

Page 16 © 2013 DEKRA

„Swiss box-type“ profile

Page 17 © 2013 DEKRA

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

Distance 1st impact to final rest position

Page 18 © 2013 DEKRA

Distance 1st impact to final rest position

Page 19 © 2013 DEKRA

MC impacts upright MC sliding

Page 20 © 2013 DEKRA

Page 21 © 2013 DEKRA

Page 22 © 2013 DEKRA

BASt application release for roadside barriers in Germany

Page 23 © 2013 DEKRA

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

Page 24 © 2013 DEKRA

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

Motorcycle equipped with knee pads and airbag

Page 25 © 2013 DEKRA

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

Page 26 © 2013 DEKRA

Page 27 © 2013 DEKRA