Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, this study indicates that current BEVs are not excessively aggressive in terms of stiffness metrics for frontal crash compatibility compared with ICE vehicles.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, this study indicates that current BEVs are not excessively aggressive in terms of stiffness metrics for frontal crash compatibility compared with ICE vehicles.
摘要：
■这项研究的目的是确定是否存在与电池电动汽车\'（BEV\'）几何形状有关的任何新出现的问题，力分布,和额外的重量，这可能使他们更积极的合作伙伴在前面到前面的碰撞通过比较刚度指标得出的碰撞测试。
■我们检查了美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）新车评估计划在56km/h的全宽正面碰撞测试中的称重传感器壁数据。14辆BEV，从小型车到大型SUV，与92辆内燃机(ICE)车辆进行了比较，从小型车到中型皮卡。我们根据NHTSA车辆碰撞测试数据库中提供的测试结果选择了车辆，并且没有电池电动（BE）拾音器的测试。数据包括称重传感器壁的力-时间历史和车身结构的纵向车辆加速度。我们构造了力-位移图，并计算了静力，动态,能量等效，和来自称重传感器壁力的初始前端刚度指标，车辆加速度,和每辆车的静态前端挤压测量。线性回归模型应用于动力总成之间的比较指标。
■BE汽车和BESUV的重量比ICE的重量更大，平均369公斤和286公斤，分别。初始（200mm和400mm），能量等效和动态前端刚度指标，力的平均高度,和个人最大力，与车辆阴影相比，动力总成之间没有统计学差异。静态刚度（p=0.04）和初始刚度（300mm；p=0.05）对于阴影较大的BEV降低，而对于ICE车辆则随着阴影较大而增加。控制车辆阴影时，动态挤压更大(p=0.01)，中心力的百分比较低(p<0.001)，与ICE车辆相比，BEV的最大峰值力更高（p=0.01）。对于起亚NiroBEV和ICE来说，329公斤重的BEV具有165毫米长的挤压距离，与传统的ICE对应物相比，这导致了较低的力和刚度指标。
■总的来说，这项研究表明，与ICE车辆相比，当前的BEV在正面碰撞兼容性的刚度指标方面没有过分激进。
■我们检查了美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）新车评估计划在56km/h的全宽正面碰撞测试中的称重传感器壁数据。14辆BEV，从小型车到大型SUV，与92辆内燃机(ICE)车辆进行了比较，从小型车到中型皮卡。我们根据NHTSA车辆碰撞测试数据库中提供的测试结果选择了车辆，并且没有电池电动（BE）拾音器的测试。数据包括称重传感器壁的力-时间历史和车身结构的纵向车辆加速度。我们构造了力-位移图，并计算了静力，动态,能量等效，和来自称重传感器壁力的初始前端刚度指标，车辆加速度,和每辆车的静态前端挤压测量。线性回归模型应用于动力总成之间的比较指标。
■BE汽车和BESUV的重量比ICE的重量更大，平均369公斤和286公斤，分别。初始（200mm和400mm），能量等效和动态前端刚度指标，力的平均高度,和个人最大力，与车辆阴影相比，动力总成之间没有统计学差异。静态刚度（p=0.04）和初始刚度（300mm；p=0.05）对于阴影较大的BEV降低，而对于ICE车辆则随着阴影较大而增加。控制车辆阴影时，动态挤压更大(p=0.01)，中心力的百分比较低(p<0.001)，与ICE车辆相比，BEV的最大峰值力更高（p=0.01）。对于起亚NiroBEV和ICE来说，329公斤重的BEV具有165毫米长的挤压距离，与传统的ICE对应物相比，这导致了较低的力和刚度指标。
■总的来说，这项研究表明，与ICE车辆相比，当前的BEV在正面碰撞兼容性的刚度指标方面没有过分激进。
