I’m counting on enough people seeing the light. I know that underride is an engineering problem with engineering solutions. And I have been suitably impressed with learning that there are engineers who look to God’s amazing creation for some of those answers.
Like sheep HORNS and honeycomb to stop cars!
“I love Thee, O Lord my strength.”
The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer,
My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge;
My shield and the HORN of my salvation. . . Psalm 18:1-2
“The sheep horn presents outstanding mechanical properties of impact resistance and energy absorption, which suits the need of the vehicle bumper design, but the mechanism behind this phenomenon is less investigated. The microstructure and mechanical properties of the sheep horn of Small Tailed Han Sheep (Ovis aries) living in northeast China were investigated in this article. The effect of sampling position and orientation of the sheep horn sheath on mechanical properties were researched by tensile and compression tests.
“Meanwhile, the surface morphology and microstructure of the sheep horn were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The formation mechanism of the mechanical properties of the sheep horn was investigated by biological coupling analysis. The analytical results indicated that the outstanding mechanical properties of the sheep horn are determined by configuration, structure, surface morphology and material coupling elements.
“The rear under-run protection devices (RUPD) could prevent the entry of a small vehicle under rear side of the heavy truck, and decrease the injuries and deaths when the accident occurs. In this paper, a new concept of the mechanical design of heavy truck RUPD is presented based on the bio-inspired method, by analyzing the structure of a kind of sheep horn, which has good capacities of energy absorption and structural strength. Firstly, the space geometry characteristic of the sheep horn in macroscopic view was analyzed. Then the research was focused on its mechanical property, and the microstructure of the horn sample was observed by the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Based on the test results, the structure characteristic and force condition of the horn were discussed. A new RUPD structure was designed in both macro and micro levels using bionic principle. The superior mechanics performance of the sheep horn was transplanted into the new RUPD. Finally, the finite element model for the new RUPD, which is inspired from the sheep horn, was established and analyzed. Simulation results showed that the protection device had better strength characteristic and could effectively protect car occupants in under-run accidents. Therefore, with the remarkable strength performance and simple structure, the bionic RUPD shows the promise for practical application. “
Oh, look, I found some other engineering students who got patents in their name from their senior projects! Let’s harness all that amazing creative ingenuity, in young and not-so-young engineers, to save lives!
Engineering ingenuity goes hand in hand with the saying, Necessity is the mother of invention. I say, let engineers have at occupant protection — including protection of occupants in the other vehicle.
How about this external airbag on a truck — or some version thereof? Along with installation on the passenger vehicles, I’m thinking this could do much to improve crash survivability.
“Designed to be deployed externally from the side of the vehicle, this airbag helps serve as an additional crumple zone in the event of an accident.”
Preventing traffic deaths and injuries can be accomplished in multiple ways. Some involve active safety and some passive safety countermeasures. Some say that “passive safety technology is reaching a level of maturity, so further room for improvement is limited.”
As far as I am concerned, there is plenty of room for improvement in comprehensive underride protection — a form of passive safety — both in the U.S. and globally.
Why would a major semi-truck manufacturer, Volvo Trucks, install FRONT UNDERRIDE PROTECTION [FUP] — safety equipment which could prevent catastrophic injuries and unimaginable deaths — on their trucks in some countries (Europe and Australia) but leave it off in other countries (North America)? Any guesses?
A Road to Zero Coalition quarterly meeting was held on March 20, 2018, at the National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center in Washington, DC. The topic was Commercial Vehicles, from Safe Systems to Technology Innovations. (View the March 20 meeting agenda.)
The speakers and panelists at the Road to Zero Coalition spent the morning talking about Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety. Not one word was mentioned about underride until the end of the panel when the Safety VP of Schneider Trucking, Tom DeSalvio, mentioned that they are looking at using the improved rear bumper (on new trailers). I think that they have something like 56,000 trucks in their fleet. I could be wrong.
When I asked him if they would retrofit existing trucks he talked about looking at the fleet and what ones would be turning over. I assume by that that he meant when they would get rid of old trailers and purchase new. Not retrofit existing.
I asked Skip Yeagel, Volvo Trucks, about when would Volvo put Front Underride Protection (FUP) on their trucks [in the United States] or does he think that it would take a federal mandate for them to do so. He said that he couldn’t really say but he figured that it would probably take a mandate.
I just found this pdf from the expert from the European Commission. . . a draft amendment to update the Frontal Underrun Protection regulation. “The amendment is proposed in particular to allow more rounded shape of the cab in light of better aerodynamic performance.” https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2018/wp29grsg/GRSG-115-25e.pdf
Good job! Join my Underride Hero Hall of Fame. Certainly ongoing traffic safety research & development is appropriate if the pursuit of the best possible protection for road users is our goal.
Europe and Australia have underride protection on the front of large trucks. Yet, here in the U.S., there is not much talk about installing front underride protection to stop the horrific devastation which occurs when the front of a truck goes over the top of a car. Why is that?
Well, for one thing, it is not mandated by law in the U.S. whereas it is in Australia and European countries. And because it is not required, the trucking industry is not particularly motivated to use it since they don’t directly benefit from it — although they might change their mind if they look at the whole picture.
And the other thing is that front underride is a vastly misunderstood problem. The general attitude seems to be that it’s not something we can do anything about. Of course, a truck is so much bigger than a smaller passenger vehicle. So if a truck hits your car, you don’t stand a chance. The only thing we can do is try to stop the collision in the first place. Is that true?
As with rear and side underride, we continue to discover appalling facts about the problem of front underrride and how it, too, has been swept under the rug despite available research and technology. Supposedly, there has not been much research done to solve this problem. I’m finding that that’s not the case, after all. Let’s start with these links:
Update on November 23, 2018: Found this pdf from the expert from the European Commission. . . a draft amendment to update the Frontal Underrun Protection regulation. “The amendment is proposed in particular to allow more rounded shape of the cab in light of better aerodynamic performance.” https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2018/wp29grsg/GRSG-115-25e.pdf
Australian FUP signed into law on September 16, 2009. Of note are some of the comments in a press release: a) FUP involves an impact barrier of prescribed strength and dimensions that catches or deflects a light vehicle during a collision to stop it sliding under a heavy truck. b) It can either be built in to the structure of the truck, or added on – in some cases replacing the function of a bull bar at the same time. c) By catching or deflecting the light vehicle, its occupant protection systems are then able to work effectively, mitigating injury to the light vehicle occupants. d) The international regulation (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe – UNECE – R 93) that the ADR is based on has been adopted in Europe. It will be adopted by Japan in 2012. It has not been adopted by the United States. e) In 2007, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government invited public comment on a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for Underrun Protection. A draft ADR was then developed that took into account local requirements.It is estimated that FUP will provide benefits of over $20 million a year (including lives saved and injuries reduced and averted), once fully implemented. http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/new-truck-safety-rule-to-save-lives-2
We should be very concerned about the fact that, in a collision, when the FRONT of a truck hits a smaller passenger vehicle — either in a head-on collision or when a truck rear-ends a car — the lack of a front underride protection system (FUPS) means that we are very vulnerable to that truck going over the top of our car. FUPS can change the outcome.
Sapa Front Underride Presentation (international aluminum extrusion company has made FUP in Europe): Sapa Front Underride Presentation
That means there is a potential front override 96 times/day, 672 times/week, 2,912 times/month, and 34,944 times/year! So, tell me why we would not want to have Front Underride Protection (FUP) on trucks in this country!!!
And there are countless head-on collisions every year. I’m not sure how many of those are even being counted as truck underride fatalities.
Abstract, “Improvements to highway safety are in continual demand. One of the most severe instances of vehicle collision occurs as a result of vehicle weight and sizing mismatch. The fitment of Front Underride Protection Devices (FUPDs) upon tractor-trailers is studied as a method to improve crash compatibility between passenger vehicles and tractor-trailers involved in head-on highway crashes. While some countries require the use of FUPDs, no such regulation exists in North America. North America’s use of Conventional Tractors also presents a variation to Cab-over Engine Tractors popular in Europe. The distinction presents variations to FUPD design boundary conditions. A three tier design strategy is proposed and implemented in an effort to guide development of FUPDs for improved performance and robustness. Extensive testing is undertaken in establishing guidelines for further development and testing of Front Underride Protection Devices.” from a Canadian Thesis on Front Underride Presentation on Front Underride Protection: https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/xmlui/handle/10155/413?show=full
Although Europe has a different design for their Semi-Trucks, we discovered this weekend that Australia has a combination of trucks such as are found in Europe and those manufactured in the U.S. But because they are all required to have FUPS, major truck manufacturers, such as Kenworth, Freightliner, Mack, Mercedes-Benz, etc., have all developed FUPS designs which would work on North American trucks (Canada and the U.S.).
George Rechnitzer, Australian professor shared this with us: “The analysis of FUP requirements has been done decades ago in Great Britain and Europe, and in our studies in Australia (e.g see my 1993 MUARC report “Truck Involved Crash Study: Fatal and Injury Crashes of Cars and Other Road Users with the Front and Sides of Heavy Vehicles Monash University Accident Research Centre – Report #35 – 1993, download from here: https://www.monash.edu/muarc/our-publications/muarc035. Of course such findings and recommendations could be improved nowadays including the design and use of “large airbags on the front of trucks” – this would clearly need design, crash testing etc. But this should not stop the USA from adopting existing well established FUP designs and principles from Europe, Australia and elsewhere.”
Notice that last sentence: FUPS also helps to protect against any damage to the truck’s steering. That means not only is the passenger vehicle occupants protected but the truck’s steering is also protected and the truck driver is more likely to be able to stay in control when there is a collision. Win/Win!
I found that same good news in another document shared with us this weekend by George Rechnitzer. The Australian underride regulatory review (which unfortunately does a cost/benefit analysis unfavorable to side underride protection and improved rear protection) approved FUPS (front underride protection system): Aust Regulation Impact Statement for Underrun Protection 2009
From the Nature of the Problem section of that Australian document, p. 13: When an underrun crash between vehicles occurs, there are two noticeable outcomes. The first, as described above, is the trauma from the exposure of the smaller vehicle’s occupants to impacts with the interior compartment of their vehicle, occupant protection measures in the smaller vehicle being unlikely to engage. The second is the likelihood of further collisions arising from the loss of control of the heavy vehicle. This follows from damage to the steering or braking components of the heavy vehicle by the smaller vehicle.
Oh, look! Remember what the Kenworth Trucks brochure said about that: FUPS also helps to protect against any damage to the truck’s steering, thus enabling the truck driver to stay in control.
Then I noticed the crash test manager mention that very thing in the Volvo Youtube video of FUPS crash testing:
Also, Volvo is the first vehicle manufacturer to fit this type of underrun protection system to buses.
From the Background of that Australian document, p. 11: In terms of traffic safety, issues relating to heavy commercial vehicles have drawn considerable attention from policy makers, road safety engineers and the general public. For the purposes of this Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), a heavy commercial vehicle is defined as a goods carrying vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) greater than 3.5 tonnes. Heavy commercial vehicles have many unique operating characteristics that have an effect on crash severity, such as high gross mass, long vehicle length and relatively long stopping distances. Aggregate data and previous research has shown that crashes involving trucks colliding with passenger cars, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians have an increased likelihood of producing a severe injury or fatality. This increase is in large part due to the incompatibility between vehicles due to geometric and mass differences. The compatibility of a vehicle is a combination of its crashworthiness and its aggressivity when involved in crashes with vehicles in the fleet. While crashworthiness focuses on the capability of a vehicle to protect its occupants in a collision, aggressivity is measured in terms of the casualties to occupants of the other vehicle involved in the collision. Crashworthiness is sometimes referred to as self-protection while aggressivity is sometimes referred to as partner-protection. Crash incompatibility is of concern in all vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Heavy commercial vehicle-to-car collisions are one specific aspect of this problem but another one relates to heavy commercial vehicle-to-vulnerable road user collisions, such as motorcycles, bicycles and non-vehicles (ie pedestrians). This RIS addresses a particular type of crash event, which is a subset of heavy commercial vehicle crashes and referred to as a “heavy vehicle underrun crash”. A heavy vehicle underrun crash occurs when a passenger car, motorcycle, bicycle or pedestrian slides underneath the front, side, or rear end of a heavy commercial vehicle.
The terms aggressivity & partner protection, which I have not seen discussed at length in U.S. literature, reminds me of the 2002 American Trucking Associations/Technology Maintenance Council prediction of underride regulations by 2006 — including, Frontal aggressivity regulations (tractors) (estimated). Imagine! The trucking industry has been well aware of the great need to do something about this preventable cause of death.
From the Summary of that Australian document, p. 6: The objective of the Australian Government is to reduce the cost of underrun trauma. To this end, heavy commercial vehicle Underrun Protection (UP) has been investigated since the 1980s in various countries and is now mandatory in the European Union (EU) for commercial vehicles exceeding a GVM of 3.5 tonnes. While the heavy commercial vehicle manufacturer or operator would bear the cost of fitting UP, the principal beneficiaries would be other road users and the community generally (through the reduction in the severity of injuries). Therefore, existing market arrangements are not likely to respond to the problem and government intervention of a non-regulatory or regulatory type may be needed. Eight options, both non-regulatory (Options 1-5) and regulatory (Options 6-8), were investigated. The provision of Underrun Protection (UP) by self-regulation (Option 1) could be a low cost option and yet is unlikely to generate the high application rate required for new vehicles if underrun trauma is to reduce significantly. This is due to the competitive nature of the industry and because the costs of the option would be borne in the main by the vehicle manufacturer, and subsequently passed onto the operator and consumer, while a significant portion of the benefits would be received by the wider community.
Also, from the Abstract document, p. 3: The aim of this Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is to examine whether there is a need for government intervention, to be directed towards new vehicle construction, in order to reduce the trauma from road crashes involving heavy commercial vehicle underrun. These crashes are often severe, because of the incompatibility in both mass and geometry of heavy vehicles and other road users such as passenger cars, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians. The need for some type of Underrun Protection (UP) was identified. Costs and benefits were estimated for eight possible non-regulatory and regulatory options to introduce UP. Although self-regulation is very much on the agenda of the road freight transport industry, it was concluded that the level of competition within the industry and the externality of any benefits achieved would not make this an effective option.
The front underrun protection prevents smaller vehicles in frontal crashes from being dragged under the body of a large truck. In its function as a high-strength steel abutment, it activates the energy-absorbing areas of the body of the advancing vehicle (crumple zones) so that the energy of the collision can be dissipated. See a photo of an FUP by Kirchoff Automotive (Germany): https://www.kirchhoff-automotive.com/products/commercial-vehicles/front-underrun-protection/
The Volvo brand is the brand that is most linked to safety. The reason is that since its founding in 1927 one of the most important goals of the company has been to make motor vehicles as safe as possible in traffic.
Many of the safety solutions in use today were first introduced by Volvo. Thanks to the scale of the combined resources of the Volvo Group and Volvo Car Corporation, the companies can invest heavily in research and development on traffic safety.
Two years ago, Volvo Buses was the first to launch FIP (Front Impact Protection), a reinforced front that increases protection for the driver and guide in a front-end collision. Currently, there are no EU requirements regarding the amount of energy the front of a bus must withstand. However, there is a standard for trucks and Volvo Buses’ FIP withstands energy amounts that exceed the truck requirement by 50%. VOLVOS COACHES FIRST WITH A FRONT UNDERRUN PROTECTION SYSTEM, 2006
So, why did Volvo publicly state at the Road to Zero Coalition, in March 2018, that they would not put Front Underride Protection on trucks unless the government mandates that they do so?!
Here is the STOP Underrides! Bill text for FUP: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2219/text“(5) ‘front underride guard’ means a device installed on or near the front of a motor vehicle that limits the distance that a vehicle struck in the rear by the vehicle with the device will slide under the front of the striking vehicle.”;
“(c) Front Underride Guards.—
“(1) RULE REQUIRED.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue a final rule requiring all commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after the effective date of the rule to be equipped with front underride guards.
“(2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall—
“(A) complete research on equipping commercial motor vehicles with a gross weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds with a front underride guard to prevent trucks from overriding the passenger vehicle; and
“(B) submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the research described in subparagraph (A).
“(3) RETROFIT REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue a rule requiring all commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds to be equipped with a front underride guard.
“(4) COMPLIANCE DATES.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), compliance with each of the rules issued by the Secretary under paragraphs (1) and (3) shall be required beginning on the date that is 1 year after the respective issuance date of each such rule.
“(B) PHASE-IN.—The Secretary may permit a phase-in period (not to exceed 3 years) pursuant to paragraph (3) for the installation of front underride guards on commercial motor vehicles.
Just found a 21st Century Truck Partnership Third Report in which SAFETY is mentioned. Front override is also mentioned! I have not yet read every single word, but I see little mention of Front Underride/Override Protection (only crash avoidance technologies).
Please read it with the STOP Underrides Bill in mind (in which Front Underride Protection would be mandated by Congress).
(Note: How is it that I brought up the 21st Century Truck Partnership with NHTSA officials in 2017 but they did not once mention this report!)
p.s. Some quotes:
The review of LTCC cases produced evidence that front override and side underride are significant problems in serious crashes between heavy trucks and light vehicles. Front override and side underride were found in most of the crashes examined. Preliminary estimates from this review are that override occurs in almost three-quarters of crashes involving the front of the truck and in over half of the crashes when the sides of the trucks were struck (Blower and Woodrooffe, 2012).
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 7-1. Many safety technologies could be effectively evaluated and demonstrated in a safety-focused program— for example, a Safety SuperTruck similar to the DOE fuel consumption reduction SuperTruck program.
Recommendation 7-1. DOT should consider implementing a Safety SuperTruck program to develop, integrate, and evaluate safety technologies such as cab structural integrity, side curtain airbags, advanced forward warning and collision mitigating systems to help industry attain a more integrated and complete safety package with a view to generating greater purchaser acceptance of safety technology not mandated by law.
