电池电动乘用车与内燃机乘用车正面碰撞兼容性指标比较。

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Becky C. Mueller , Matthew L. Brumbelow , Haden Bragg , Jessica S. Jermakian
{"title":"电池电动乘用车与内燃机乘用车正面碰撞兼容性指标比较。","authors":"Becky C. Mueller ,&nbsp;Matthew L. Brumbelow ,&nbsp;Haden Bragg ,&nbsp;Jessica S. Jermakian","doi":"10.1080/15389588.2024.2337126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The objective of this study was to determine if there are any emerging issues related to battery-electric vehicles’ (BEVs’) geometry, force distribution, and extra weight that may make them more aggressive partners in front-to-front crashes through comparisons of stiffness metrics derived from crash tests.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We examined load cell wall data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) New Car Assessment Program full-width frontal crash test at 56 km/h. Fourteen BEVs, ranging in class from small cars to large SUVs, were compared with 92 internal-combustion-engine (ICE) vehicles, ranging in class from small cars to midsize pickups. We selected vehicles based on the test results available in the NHTSA Vehicle Crash Test Database, and there were no tests of battery-electric (BE) pickups. Data included load-cell-wall force-time histories and longitudinal vehicle acceleration from the body structure. We constructed force-displacement diagrams and calculated static, dynamic, energy-equivalent, and initial front-end-stiffness metrics from load cell wall forces, vehicle acceleration, and static front-end crush measurements for each vehicle. Linear regression models were applied to the metrics for comparison between powertrains.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>BE cars and BE SUVs weighed more than their ICE counterparts, on average 369 kg and 286 kg more, respectively. Initial (200 mm and 400 mm), energy-equivalent and dynamic front-end-stiffness metrics, average height of force, and individual maximum forces, when compared with vehicle shadow, were not statistically different between powertrains. Static stiffness (<em>p</em> = 0.04) and initial stiffness (300 mm; <em>p</em> = 0.05) decreased for BEVs with greater shadow and increased with greater shadow for ICE vehicles. When controlling for vehicle shadow, dynamic crush was greater (<em>p</em> = 0.01), the percentage of center force was lower (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and maximum peak force was higher (<em>p</em> = 0.01) for BEVs compared with ICE vehicles. For the Kia Niro BEV and ICE pair, the 329 kg heavier BEV had a 165 mm longer crush distance, which resulted in lower forces and stiffness metrics compared with the traditional ICE counterpart.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, this study indicates that current BEVs are not excessively aggressive in terms of stiffness metrics for frontal crash compatibility compared with ICE vehicles.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54422,"journal":{"name":"Traffic Injury Prevention","volume":"25 5","pages":"Pages 750-756"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of frontal crash compatibility metrics between battery-electric and internal-combustion-engine passenger vehicles\",\"authors\":\"Becky C. Mueller ,&nbsp;Matthew L. Brumbelow ,&nbsp;Haden Bragg ,&nbsp;Jessica S. Jermakian\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15389588.2024.2337126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The objective of this study was to determine if there are any emerging issues related to battery-electric vehicles’ (BEVs’) geometry, force distribution, and extra weight that may make them more aggressive partners in front-to-front crashes through comparisons of stiffness metrics derived from crash tests.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We examined load cell wall data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) New Car Assessment Program full-width frontal crash test at 56 km/h. Fourteen BEVs, ranging in class from small cars to large SUVs, were compared with 92 internal-combustion-engine (ICE) vehicles, ranging in class from small cars to midsize pickups. We selected vehicles based on the test results available in the NHTSA Vehicle Crash Test Database, and there were no tests of battery-electric (BE) pickups. Data included load-cell-wall force-time histories and longitudinal vehicle acceleration from the body structure. We constructed force-displacement diagrams and calculated static, dynamic, energy-equivalent, and initial front-end-stiffness metrics from load cell wall forces, vehicle acceleration, and static front-end crush measurements for each vehicle. Linear regression models were applied to the metrics for comparison between powertrains.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>BE cars and BE SUVs weighed more than their ICE counterparts, on average 369 kg and 286 kg more, respectively. Initial (200 mm and 400 mm), energy-equivalent and dynamic front-end-stiffness metrics, average height of force, and individual maximum forces, when compared with vehicle shadow, were not statistically different between powertrains. Static stiffness (<em>p</em> = 0.04) and initial stiffness (300 mm; <em>p</em> = 0.05) decreased for BEVs with greater shadow and increased with greater shadow for ICE vehicles. When controlling for vehicle shadow, dynamic crush was greater (<em>p</em> = 0.01), the percentage of center force was lower (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and maximum peak force was higher (<em>p</em> = 0.01) for BEVs compared with ICE vehicles. For the Kia Niro BEV and ICE pair, the 329 kg heavier BEV had a 165 mm longer crush distance, which resulted in lower forces and stiffness metrics compared with the traditional ICE counterpart.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, this study indicates that current BEVs are not excessively aggressive in terms of stiffness metrics for frontal crash compatibility compared with ICE vehicles.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Traffic Injury Prevention\",\"volume\":\"25 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 750-756\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Traffic Injury Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1538958824000468\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Traffic Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1538958824000468","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是通过比较碰撞测试得出的刚度指标,确定电池电动汽车(BEV)的几何形状、力分布和额外重量是否存在任何新问题,这些问题可能会使它们在正面碰撞中成为更具攻击性的伙伴。14辆从小型车到大型SUV的BEV与92辆从小型车到中型皮卡的内燃机(ICE)汽车进行了比较。我们根据美国国家公路交通安全管理局(NHTSA)车辆碰撞测试数据库中的测试结果选择车辆,没有对电池电动(BE)皮卡进行测试。数据包括来自车身结构的载荷-壁面力-时间历程和车辆纵向加速度。我们构建了力-位移图,并根据每辆车的传感器壁力、车辆加速度和静态前端挤压测量值计算出静态、动态、能量等效和初始前端刚度指标。结果 BE 轿车和 BE SUV 比内燃机车重,平均分别重 369 千克和 286 千克。与车辆阴影相比,不同动力系统的初始(200 毫米和 400 毫米)、能量等效和动态前端刚度指标、平均力高度和单个最大力在统计上没有差异。静态刚度(p = 0.04)和初始刚度(300 毫米;p = 0.05)对于阴影越大的 BEV 车型越低,而对于阴影越大的 ICE 车型越高。在控制车辆阴影的情况下,与内燃机汽车相比,BEV 的动态挤压更大(p = 0.01),中心力百分比更低(p < 0.001),最大峰值力更高(p = 0.01)。对于起亚 Niro BEV 和内燃机汽车,重量为 329 千克的 BEV 挤压距离长 165 毫米,与传统的内燃机汽车相比,挤压力和刚度指标更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of frontal crash compatibility metrics between battery-electric and internal-combustion-engine passenger vehicles

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine if there are any emerging issues related to battery-electric vehicles’ (BEVs’) geometry, force distribution, and extra weight that may make them more aggressive partners in front-to-front crashes through comparisons of stiffness metrics derived from crash tests.

Methods

We examined load cell wall data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) New Car Assessment Program full-width frontal crash test at 56 km/h. Fourteen BEVs, ranging in class from small cars to large SUVs, were compared with 92 internal-combustion-engine (ICE) vehicles, ranging in class from small cars to midsize pickups. We selected vehicles based on the test results available in the NHTSA Vehicle Crash Test Database, and there were no tests of battery-electric (BE) pickups. Data included load-cell-wall force-time histories and longitudinal vehicle acceleration from the body structure. We constructed force-displacement diagrams and calculated static, dynamic, energy-equivalent, and initial front-end-stiffness metrics from load cell wall forces, vehicle acceleration, and static front-end crush measurements for each vehicle. Linear regression models were applied to the metrics for comparison between powertrains.

Results

BE cars and BE SUVs weighed more than their ICE counterparts, on average 369 kg and 286 kg more, respectively. Initial (200 mm and 400 mm), energy-equivalent and dynamic front-end-stiffness metrics, average height of force, and individual maximum forces, when compared with vehicle shadow, were not statistically different between powertrains. Static stiffness (p = 0.04) and initial stiffness (300 mm; p = 0.05) decreased for BEVs with greater shadow and increased with greater shadow for ICE vehicles. When controlling for vehicle shadow, dynamic crush was greater (p = 0.01), the percentage of center force was lower (p < 0.001), and maximum peak force was higher (p = 0.01) for BEVs compared with ICE vehicles. For the Kia Niro BEV and ICE pair, the 329 kg heavier BEV had a 165 mm longer crush distance, which resulted in lower forces and stiffness metrics compared with the traditional ICE counterpart.

Conclusion

Overall, this study indicates that current BEVs are not excessively aggressive in terms of stiffness metrics for frontal crash compatibility compared with ICE vehicles.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Traffic Injury Prevention
Traffic Injury Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The purpose of Traffic Injury Prevention is to bridge the disciplines of medicine, engineering, public health and traffic safety in order to foster the science of traffic injury prevention. The archival journal focuses on research, interventions and evaluations within the areas of traffic safety, crash causation, injury prevention and treatment. General topics within the journal''s scope are driver behavior, road infrastructure, emerging crash avoidance technologies, crash and injury epidemiology, alcohol and drugs, impact injury biomechanics, vehicle crashworthiness, occupant restraints, pedestrian safety, evaluation of interventions, economic consequences and emergency and clinical care with specific application to traffic injury prevention. The journal includes full length papers, review articles, case studies, brief technical notes and commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信