汽车工程 ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (10): 1920-1927.doi: 10.19562/j.chinasae.qcgc.2024.10.018

• • 上一篇    下一篇

AEB工况下驾驶员姿态对损伤风险的影响

韩勇1,2(),张悦苁1,李明旺1,潘迪1,2,张海洋3   

  1. 1.厦门理工学院机械与汽车工程学院, 厦门 361024
    2.福建省客车先进设计与制造重点实验室, 厦门 361024
    3.浙江吉利汽车研究院有限公司, 宁波 315336
  • 收稿日期:2023-12-21 修回日期:2024-03-09 出版日期:2024-10-25 发布日期:2024-10-21
  • 通讯作者: 韩勇 E-mail:Yonghanxmut@gmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    厦门市自然科学基金(3502Z20227223);浙江省汽车安全技术研究重点实验室基金(JYN2207Y03493);福建省技术创新重点攻关及产业化项目(2022G043)

Effect of Driver Posture on Injury Risk Under AEB Conditions

Yong Han1,2(),Yuecong Zhang1,Mingwang Li1,Di Pan1,2,Haiyang Zhang3   

  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering,Xiamen Institute of Technology,Xiamen 361024
    2.Fujian Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing of Buses,Xiamen 361024
    3.Geely Automobile Research Institute,Ningbo 315336
  • Received:2023-12-21 Revised:2024-03-09 Online:2024-10-25 Published:2024-10-21
  • Contact: Yong Han E-mail:Yonghanxmut@gmail.com

摘要:

有无紧急制动(AEB)的正面碰撞工况中驾驶员姿态对运动学响应及损伤风险具有重要影响。本文采用THUMS(Ver.6.1)人体有限元模型建立了标准、后仰和前倾等3种驾驶姿态,搭建了正面碰撞约束系统模型,进行了6组50 km/h的仿真实验,对比分析驾驶员不同姿态在有和无AEB作用下的运动学响应以及驾驶员头、胸部损伤参数。结果表明:在有和无AEB介入时,后仰姿态的头部损伤风险均最高,其中有和无AEB介入的HIC15分别为817.5和626.9。AEB的介入对驾驶员胸部压缩量影响最大,3种姿态的胸部压缩量分别增大了89%、115%和22%,后仰姿态胸部压缩量损伤最严重。研究结果厘清了驾驶姿态与AEB对驾驶员运动学响应以及头、胸部损伤的影响,为汽车约束系统和AEB的开发与设计提供了参考价值。

关键词: 正面碰撞, 驾驶员姿态, 紧急制动, 运动学响应, 损伤风险

Abstract:

Driver posture in frontal crash conditions with and without autonomous emergency braking (AEB) has a significant impact on kinematic response and injury risk. In this paper, the THUMS (Ver.6.1) human finite element model is used to establish three driving postures, including standard, rearward recline, and forward recline, and a frontal collision constraint system model is established to conduct six sets of 50 km/h simulation tests for comparative analysis of the kinematic response of different driver postures with and without AEB, as well as the injury parameters of driver’s head and chest. The results show that the risk of head injury is highest in the recline posture with and without AEB intervention, with the HIC15 of 817.5 and 626.9 with and without AEB, respectively. The intervention of AEB has the greatest effect on the driver's chest compression, which is increased by 89%, 115%, and 22% for the three postures, respectively. The chest compression in the reward recline posture suffers the most serious injury. The results clarify the effect of driving posture and AEB on driver kinematic response and head and chest injuries, providing a reference value for the development and design of automotive restraint systems and AEB.

Key words: frontal impact, driver posture, autonomous emergency braking, kinematic response, injury risk