外文翻譯--ncap評估標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及限定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

1、<p><b>　　附 錄Ⅰ 英文原文</b></p><p>　　Evaluation standards and limit standard NCAP</p><p>　　This protocol has been developed jointly by TRL and Vehicle Safety Consultants Ltd., under

2、contract to the UK Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions and International Testing respectively. </p><p>　　The EuroNCAP programme is designed to provide a fair, meaningful and objective ass

3、essment of the impact performance of cars. It is intended to inform consumers, so providing an incentive to manufacturers as well as giving credit to those who excel at occupant or pedestrian protection. The tests used a

4、re based on those developed for legislation by the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC), for frontal and side impact protection of car occupants and for the protection of pedestrians hi</p><p>　

5、　No stylised test procedure fully reflects the protection provided by a car in the wide variety of accidents which occur on the roads. However, cars that perform well in these tests should provide better protection in ac

6、cidents than cars which perform less well. </p><p>　　No anthropometric dummies are available which can measure all the potential risks of injury to humans or assess protection for different sizes of occupant

7、 in different seating positions. To compensate for this, the assessment procedure takes account of other information related to occupant kinematics, interior contact points and vehicle structure. </p><p>　　E

8、conomic constraints prevent the tests from being repeated, so to take account of vehicle and test variations takes account of actions have been taken: </p><p>　　Manufacturers have been asked to compare the r

9、esults from these tests with those from tests they may have conducted and to draw our attention to any anomalies they may find. They have also been requested to supply data from their own tests to us for comparison. Seve

10、ral manufacturers have supplied data for this purpose. Apart from considering the effects of test variation and identifying anomalies, no account of such data is taken in rating the cars and it is kept confidential. <

11、/p><p>　　The overall assessments are based on the combination of multiple results. Variations in any one of these will only have a limited effect on the overall rating. </p><p>　　The least demandin

12、g performance boundaries for the frontal and side impact parameters have been set to be equivalent to the limits proposed in the EEVC test procedures. The EEVC limits were set to provide a basic minimum level of protecti

13、on and only protect in a moderate proportion of accidents. For car occupants, these limits are too lenient to adequately identify best practice in current production cars and to provide a goal for further improvement. Ad

14、ditional, more demanding, protection bound</p><p>　　Most parts of most cars fare relatively badly in the pedestrian impact tests. With so few examples where the proposed EEVC limits are met, the need for a l

15、ess demanding lower level limit has been recognised. This will separate those cars which more nearly reach the EEVC limit from those well away from it. </p><p>　　The starting point for the assessment is the

16、dummy response data. Initially, each body area is given a rating based on the measured dummy parameters. For frontal impact, consideration is given to whether this assessment should be adjusted to reflect occupant kinema

17、tics or sensitivity to small changes in contact location, which might influence the protection of different sized occupants in different seating positions. The assessment also considers the structural performance of the

18、car by taking a</p><p>　　The adjusted rating for the different body regions is presented, in a visual format of coloured segments within a human body outline. This is presented for the driver and front seat

19、passenger in frontal impact and for the driver in side and pole impact. For the pedestrian impact tests, it is presented in the form of coloured dots on the outline of a car front. </p><p>　　From this inform

20、ation, an overall rating for the car is computed for frontal and side impact protection and separately for pedestrian impact. For occupant protection, the overall rating is based on the driver data, unless part of the pa

21、ssenger fared less well. It is stated that the judgement relates primarily to the driver. </p><p>　　No attempt is made to rate the risk of life threatening injury any differently from the risk of disabling i

22、njury. Similarly, no attempt is made to rate the risk of the more serious but less frequent injury any differently from the risk of less serious but more frequent injury. Care has been taken to try to avoid encouraging m

23、anufacturers to concentrate their attention on areas which would provide little benefit in accidents. </p><p>　　In addition to the basic Euro NCAP assessment, additional information is recorded and may be re

24、ported. In future, some of these additional aspects may be added to the Euro NCAP assessment. In the first series of tests, a three year old child in a child restraint was fitted on the rear seat, in the frontal and side

25、 impact tests. In subsequent series, an 18 month old child dummy has been added. </p><p>　　From Phase 3, a sliding scale system of points scoring has been used. This involves two limits for each parameter, a

26、 more demanding limit (higher performance), beyond which a maximum score is obtained and a less demanding limit (lower performance), below which no points are scored. In frontal and side impact, the maximum score for eac

27、h body region is four points. In the pole impact, 2 additional points are available if certain conditions are met. For each impact site in the pedestrian tests, a m</p><p>　　If a steering wheel airbag is fit

28、ted the following criteria are used to assess the protection of the head for the driver. These criteria are always used for the passenger. </p><p><b>　　Note:</b></p><p>　　HIC36 level

29、s above 1000 have been recorded with airbags, where there is no hard contact and no established risk of internal head injury. A hard contact is assumed, if the peak resultant head acceleration exceeds 80 g, or if there i

30、s other evidence of hard contact. </p><p>　　If there is no hard contact a score of 4 points is awarded.</p><p>　　If there is hard contact, the following limits are used: </p><p>　　H

31、igher performance limit</p><p>　　HIC36 650 (5%≥ AIS3 [1,2]) </p><p>　　Lower performance limit </p><p>　　HIC36 1000* (20%≥ AIS3 [1,2]) </p><p>　　Drivers with no steering

32、 wheel airbag </p><p>　　If no steering wheel airbag is fitted, and the following requirements are met in the frontal impact test: HIC36 <1000 then, deformable honeycomb faceform tests are carried out on t

33、he steering wheel. The tester attempts to choose the most aggressive sites to test and it is expected that two tests will be required, one aimed at the hub and spoke junction and one at the rim and spoke junction. The as

34、sessment is then based on the following criteria. </p><p>　　Higher performance limit </p><p>　　Resultant peak Acc. 80 g </p><p>　　Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence 65 gLower performa

35、nce limit </p><p>　　Honeycomb crush 1 mm HIC36 1000 </p><p>　　Resultant peak Acc. 120 g </p><p>　　Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence 80 g </p><p>　　From the faceform test

36、s, a maximum of 2 points are awarded for performance better than the lower limits. For values worse than the lower performance limit, no points are awarded. The results from the worst performing test are used for the ass

37、essment. This means that for cars, not equipped with a steering wheel airbag, the maximum score obtainable for the driver’s head is 2 points. </p><p><b>　　Neck</b></p><p>　　Higher pe

38、rformance limit </p><p>　　Shear 1.9 kN @ 0 msec, 1.2 kN @ 25 - 35 msec, 1.1 kN @ 45 msec </p><p>　　Tension 2.7 kN @ 0 msec, 2.3 kN @ 35 msec, 1.1 kN @ 60 msec </p><p>　　Extensio

39、n 42 Nm </p><p>　　Lower performance limit </p><p>　　Shear 3.1 kN @ 0 msec, 1.5 kN @ 25 - 35 msec, 1.1 kN @ 45 msec* </p><p>　　Tension 3.3 kN @ 0 msec, 2.9 kN @ 35 msec, 1.1 kN @

40、60 msec* </p><p>　　Extension 57 Nm* (Significant risk of injury [3]) </p><p><b>　　Note: </b></p><p>　　Neck Shear and Tension are assessed from cumulative exceedence plo

41、ts, with the limits being functions of time. By interpolation, a plot of points against time is computed. The minimum point on this plot gives the score. Plots of the limits and colour rating boundaries are given in Appe

42、ndix I. </p><p><b>　　Chest</b></p><p>　　Higher performance limit </p><p>　　Compression 22 mm (5% risk of injury ≥ AIS3 [4]) </p><p>　　Viscous Criterion 0.5

43、m/sec (5% risk of injury ≥ AIS4) </p><p>　　Lower performance limit </p><p>　　Compression 50 mm* (50% risk of injury ≥ AIS3 [4]) </p><p>　　Viscous Criterion 1.0 m/sec* (25% risk of i

44、njury ≥ AIS4) </p><p>　　Knee, Femur and Pelvis </p><p>　　Higher performance limit </p><p>　　Femur compression 3.8 kN (5% risk of pelvis injury [5]) </p><p>　　Knee slide

45、r compressive displacement 6 mm</p><p>　　Lower performance limit </p><p>　　Femur Compression 9.07 kN @ 0 msec, 7.56 kN @ ≥ 10 msec* (Femur fracture limit [3]) </p><p>　　Knee slider

46、compressive displacement 15 mm* (Cruciate ligament failure limit [3,6]) </p><p>　　Note: Femur compression is assessed from a cumulative exceedence plot, with the limits being functions of time. By interpolat

47、ion, a plot of points against time is computed. The minimum point on this plot gives the score. Plots of the limits and colour rating boundaries are given in Appendix I. </p><p>　　Lower Leg </p><p

48、>　　Higher performance limit </p><p>　　Tibia Index 0.4</p><p>　　Tibia Compression 2 kN </p><p>　　Lower performance limit </p><p>　　Tibia Index 1.3* </p><p&

49、gt;　　Tibia Compression 8 kN* (10 % risk of fracture [3,7]) </p><p>　　Foot/Ankle </p><p>　　Higher performance limit</p><p>　　Pedal rearward displacement 100 mm </p><p>　

50、　Lower performance limit</p><p>　　Pedal rearward displacement 200 mm </p><p>　　Notes:1.Pedal displacement is measured for all pedals with no load applied to them. </p><p>　　2.If any

51、 of the pedals are designed to completely release from their mountings during the impact, no account is taken of the pedal displacement, provided that release occurred in the test and that the pedal retains no significan

52、t resistance to movement. </p><p>　　3.If a mechanism is present to move the pedal forwards in an impact, the resulting position of the pedal is used in the assessment. </p><p>　　4.The passenger’

53、s foot/ankle protection is not currently assessed. </p><p>　　5.Footwell intrusion is currently being measured. It is expected that requirements for footwell intrusion will be added in the near future. </p

54、><p>　　FRONTAL IMPACT MODIFIERS</p><p><b>　　Driver</b></p><p>　　The score generated from driver dummy data may be modified where the protection for different sized occupant

55、s or occupants in different seating positions, or accidents of slightly different severity, can be expected to be worse than that indicated by the dummy readings or deformation data alone. In any single body region, the

56、score may reduce by up to a maximum of two points. The concepts behind the modifiers are explained in a later section. </p><p><b>　　Head</b></p><p>　　Unstable Contact on the airbag&l

57、t;/p><p>　　If during the forward movement of the head its centre of gravity moves further than the outside edge of the airbag, head contact is deemed to be unstable. The score is reduced by one point. If for an

58、y other reason head protection by the airbag is compromised, such as by detachment of the steering wheel from the column, or bottoming-out of the airbag by the dummy head, the modifier is also applied. </p><p&

59、gt;　　Head bottoming-out is defined as: There is a definite rapid increase in the slope of one or more of the head acceleration traces, at a time when the dummy head is deep within the airbag. The acceleration spike assoc

60、iated with the bottoming out should last for more than 3ms. </p><p>　　The acceleration spike associated with the bottoming out should generate a peak value more than 5 g above the likely level to have been r

61、eached if the spike had not occurred. This level will be established by smooth extrapolation of the curve between the start and end of the bottoming out spike. </p><p>　　Unstable Contact on a Steering Wheel

62、without an Air Bag </p><p>　　If, during the forward movement of the head, its centre of gravity moves radially outwards further than the outside edge of the steering wheel rim, head contact is deemed to be u

63、nstable. The score is reduced by one point. If for any other reason head contact on the steering wheel is unstable, such as detachment of the steering wheel from the column, the modifier is also applied. </p><

64、p>　　Displacement of the steering column </p><p>　　The score is reduced for excessive rearward, lateral or upward static displacement of the top end of the steering column. Up to 90 percent of the EEVC lim

65、its, there is no penalty. </p><p>　　Beyond 110 percent of the EEVC limits, there is a penalty of one point. Between these limits, the penalty is generated by linear interpolation. The EEVC recommended limits

66、 are: 100 mm rearwards, 80 mm upwards and 100mm lateral movement. The modifier used in the assessment is based on the worst of the rearward, lateral and upward penalties. Chest </p><p>　　Displacement of the

67、A Pillar </p><p>　　The score is reduced for excessive rearward displacement of the driver’s front door pillar, at a height of 100 mm below the lowest level of the side window aperture. Up to 100 mm displac

68、ement there is no penalty. Above 200 mm there is a penalty of two points. Between these limits, the penalty is generated by linear interpolation. </p><p>　　Integrity of the passenger compartment</p>&

69、lt;p>　　Where the structural integrity of the passenger compartment is deemed to have been compromised, a penalty of one point is applied. The loss of structural integrity may be indicated by characteristics such as: &

70、lt;/p><p>　　· Door latch or hinge failure, unless the door is adequately retained by the door frame. </p><p>　　· Buckling or other failure of the door resulting in severe loss of fore/aft

71、 compressive strength. </p><p>　　· Separation or near separation of the cross facia rail to A pillar joint. </p><p>　　· Severe loss of strength of the door aperture. </p><p

72、>　　Steering Wheel Contact </p><p>　　Where there is obvious direct loading of the chest from the steering wheel, a one point penalty is applied. </p><p>　　Knee, Femur & Pelvis</p>&

73、lt;p>　　Variable Contact</p><p>　　The position of the dummy’s knees are specified by the test protocol. Consequently, their point of contact on the facia is pre-determined. This is not the case with human

74、drivers, who may have their knees in a variety of positions prior to impact. Different sized occupant and those seated in different positions may also have different knee contact locations on the facia and their knees ma

75、y penetrate into the facia to a greater extent. In order to take some account of this, a larger area of poten</p><p>　　The area considered extends vertically 50 mm above and below the maximum height of the a

76、ctual knee impact location [10]. Vertically upwards, consideration is given to the region up to 50 mm above the maximum height of knee contact in the test. If the steering column has risen during the test it may be repos

77、itioned to its lowest setting if possible. Horizontally, for the outboard leg, it extends from the centre of the steering column to the end of the facia. For the inboard leg, it extends from t</p><p>　　Conce

78、ntrated Loading </p><p>　　The biomechanical tests, which provided the injury tolerance data, were carried out using a padded impactor which spread the load over the knee. Where there are structures in the k

79、nee impact area which could concentrate forces on part of the knee, a one point penalty is applied to the relevant leg. </p><p>　　Where a manufacturer is able to show, by means of acceptable test data, that

80、the Variable Contact and/or Concentrated Loading modifiers should not be applied, the penalties may be removed. </p><p>　　The area considered extends vertically 50 mm above and below the maximum height of th

81、e actual knee impact location [10]. Vertically upwards, consideration is given to the region up to 50 mm above the maximum height of knee contact in the test. If the steering column has risen during the test it may be re

82、positioned to its lowest setting if possible. Horizontally, for the outboard leg, it extends from the centre of the steering column to the end of the facia. For the inboard leg, it extends from t</p><p>　　Co

83、ncentrated Loading </p><p>　　The biomechanical tests, which provided the injury tolerance data, were carried out using a padded impactor which spread the load over the knee. Where there are structures in th

84、e knee impact area which could concentrate forces on part of the knee, a one point penalty is applied to the relevant leg. </p><p>　　Where a manufacturer is able to show, by means of acceptable test data, th

85、at the Variable Contact and/or Concentrated Loading modifiers should not be applied, the penalties may be removed. </p><p><b>　　Lower Leg</b></p><p>　　Upward Displacement of the wors

86、t performing Pedal </p><p>　　The score is reduced for excessive upward static displacement of the pedals. Up to 90 percent of the limit considered by EEVC, there is no penalty. Beyond 110 percent of the limi

87、t, there is a penalty of one point. Between these limits, the penalty is generated by linear interpolation. The limit agreed by EEVC was 80 mm. </p><p>　　Higher performance limit</p><p>　　HIC36

88、650 (5% ≥ AIS3 [1,2]) </p><p>　　Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence 72 g </p><p>　　Lower performance limit </p><p>　　HIC36 1000* (20%≥ AIS3 [1,2]) </p><p>　　Resultant Acc.

89、 3 msec exceedence 88 g (*EEVC limit) </p><p><b>　　附 錄Ⅱ 譯文</b></p><p>　　NCAP評估標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及限定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)</p><p>　　該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，是在與英國環(huán)境交通部門簽定草案并分別進(jìn)行了區(qū)域和國際實(shí)驗(yàn)的條件下，由TRL公司和汽車安全顧問有限公司共同推出的。</p>&l

90、t;p>　　推出歐洲NCAP標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，目的是建立一個公平的、有意義的、客觀的汽車碰撞性能評價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有助于消費(fèi)者從中獲取信息，可以激勵生產(chǎn)廠商，并為那些具有乘員或行人保護(hù)性能的車輛提供良好的信譽(yù)。所進(jìn)行的實(shí)驗(yàn)，是以歐洲高級汽車安全委員會（EEVC）的法規(guī)為基礎(chǔ)的，主要針對汽車乘員的前碰撞與后碰撞保護(hù)，還針對汽車前方的行人碰撞保護(hù)。</p><p>　　對于在路面上發(fā)生的多種事故中，那些設(shè)定的實(shí)驗(yàn)程序不能全面

91、地反應(yīng)出汽車所提供的保護(hù)措施。但是，能夠看出，這些通過實(shí)驗(yàn)的汽車比那些不能完全通過實(shí)驗(yàn)的汽車，在事故中可以提供更好的保護(hù)措施。用沒有經(jīng)過人體測量的假人進(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)，可以測量人類傷害的所有潛在危險(xiǎn)，或者針對不同座位上的不同大小的乘員進(jìn)行保護(hù)評估。為了彌補(bǔ)這一方面的空缺，評估方法考慮了乘員運(yùn)動學(xué)、內(nèi)部接觸點(diǎn)和汽車結(jié)果等信息。經(jīng)濟(jì)條件的約束，使實(shí)驗(yàn)不能重復(fù)，因此，考慮到車輛和實(shí)驗(yàn)的變化，采取如下措施：</p><p>　　

92、制造者們將這些實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果與那些他們已經(jīng)實(shí)驗(yàn)過的結(jié)果進(jìn)行比較，并將他們的精力放在他們認(rèn)為反常的現(xiàn)象上。他們也可以把他們的實(shí)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù)提供給我們進(jìn)行比對。一些生產(chǎn)商已經(jīng)提供了一些實(shí)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù)。除非考慮到實(shí)驗(yàn)差異的效果和鑒別的異常，在評定汽車等級上將不考慮這些數(shù)據(jù)，而且要保持?jǐn)?shù)據(jù)機(jī)密。</p><p>　　總體評估是以多種實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果的聯(lián)系為基礎(chǔ)的。這些中的任何一點(diǎn)發(fā)生變化將對總體級別產(chǎn)生限制性的影響。</p><

93、;p>　　前面和側(cè)面碰撞參數(shù)的最低需求性能界限，已經(jīng)被設(shè)定為與EEVC實(shí)驗(yàn)程序中提出的限度相同。EEVC限度被設(shè)定為，提供一個基本的最低水平的保護(hù)，并且只能達(dá)到事故中的中等比例的保護(hù)。對于汽車乘員來說，這些限度太寬泛，就不能充分地鑒別出目前產(chǎn)出汽車的最好的實(shí)際情況，也不能為更長遠(yuǎn)的改進(jìn)提供一個目標(biāo)。此外，為了更大的需求，更多的保護(hù)界限已經(jīng)制定出來，用來鑒定汽車其它方面的性能，這樣，汽車可以提供更好的保護(hù)。</p>&

94、lt;p>　　大部分汽車在行人碰撞實(shí)驗(yàn)中表現(xiàn)的相對較差。只有少數(shù)的例子能滿足EEVC的限度水平，因此低水平的需求已經(jīng)被認(rèn)可。這樣，可以將那些與EEVC限度比較接近的汽車，與那些和此限度相差較遠(yuǎn)的汽車區(qū)分開來。</p><p>　　評估是以假人反映數(shù)據(jù)為開端的。在最開始的時候，以假人測量參數(shù)為基礎(chǔ)，對假人身體的每個部位給出一個評價(jià)。對正面碰撞來說，乘員由于接觸位置的細(xì)微變化而引起乘員的運(yùn)動和敏感度，從而就有可

95、能影響對不同大小的乘員在不同乘坐位置上的保護(hù)，評價(jià)系統(tǒng)要考慮是否要對這種情況作出調(diào)整。評估系統(tǒng)還要考慮車輛的結(jié)構(gòu)性能，例如方向盤的位移、踏板的移動、腳空的扭曲和A柱的位移等方面。將檢驗(yàn)和幾何考慮為基礎(chǔ)的調(diào)整應(yīng)用到與它們最相關(guān)的身體區(qū)域評價(jià)上。這些調(diào)整是很保守的，但是應(yīng)該充分確保制造商的顧慮。</p><p>　　不同人體部位的調(diào)整等級，以一種有顏色的形象的形式展現(xiàn)在人體輪廓圖上。用這種方法來表示正面碰撞中的駕駛員

96、和前座乘員，以及側(cè)面碰撞和柱撞過程中的駕駛員。對于行人碰撞試驗(yàn)，在車前部的輪廓上用彩色的點(diǎn)來表示。</p><p>　　從這些信息來看，正面和側(cè)面碰撞的整體評分可以計(jì)算出來，也可以單獨(dú)計(jì)算出行人碰撞的評分。對乘員保護(hù)來說，整體評分以駕駛員數(shù)據(jù)為基礎(chǔ)，除非乘員的某個部分表現(xiàn)的差。應(yīng)該指出，評價(jià)首先與駕駛員相關(guān)。</p><p>　　評價(jià)那些，與不很嚴(yán)重但頻率較高的危險(xiǎn)不同的，更嚴(yán)重但出現(xiàn)頻率

97、低的危險(xiǎn)。要注意，盡量避免鼓勵制造商將他們的精力放在那些，在事故中帶來很少利潤的地方上。</p><p>　　此外，在基本歐洲NCAP的評價(jià)中，還要記錄附加信息。將來，這些附加信息中的某些方面會加到歐洲NCAP評價(jià)體系中。第一個系列的試驗(yàn)，在正面碰撞和側(cè)面碰撞中，在后座的兒童約束系統(tǒng)上放置3歲兒童假人。在后續(xù)試驗(yàn)中，增加了一個18個月的兒童假人。</p><p>　　從第三階段來看，已經(jīng)使

98、用了得分點(diǎn)的滑動比例尺。這里每個參數(shù)包括了兩個界限，一個高要求界限（高性能），高于它時可以獲得一個最高分；還有一個低要求界限（低性能），低于它時，不得分。在正面和側(cè)面碰撞時，每個身體區(qū)域的最高得分為4分。在柱碰撞中，如果達(dá)到一定的條件，可以得到最高2分。在兩個界限值之間的值，分?jǐn)?shù)用線形方法計(jì)算。</p><p>　　在正面碰撞評價(jià)中使用的基本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和高、低性能限制值總結(jié)如下。對同一身體區(qū)域存在多個指標(biāo)時候，得分最低

99、的參數(shù)用來對該身體區(qū)域的性能進(jìn)行評價(jià)。</p><p>　　如果配備方向盤安全氣囊，以下指標(biāo)用來評價(jià)對駕駛員頭部的保護(hù)。這些指標(biāo)總是用來評價(jià)乘員。</p><p><b>　　注意：</b></p><p>　　記錄下來的HIC36水平超過100時候?yàn)?，沒有硬接觸和已經(jīng)形成的頭內(nèi)傷害。硬接觸被假定為，導(dǎo)致頭部加速度的峰值超過80g，或者有其他

100、證據(jù)證明有硬接觸。</p><p>　　如果沒有硬接觸，得4分</p><p>　　如果有硬接觸，則按照下列限制：</p><p>　　高性能限制 HIC36 650 (5% 傷害危險(xiǎn) ≥ AIS3 [1,2]) </p><p>　　抵性能限制 HIC36 1000* (20%傷害危險(xiǎn) ≥ AIS3 [1,2]) </p>&

101、lt;p><b>　　駕駛員（無方向盤）</b></p><p>　　如果沒有安裝方向盤氣囊，以下要求在正面碰撞試驗(yàn)中應(yīng)該滿足：HIC36 <1000 然后，對方向盤進(jìn)行可變臉型蜂窩鋁實(shí)驗(yàn)。測試者應(yīng)試圖選擇最強(qiáng)的位置進(jìn)行測試，并進(jìn)行兩次測試，一次對準(zhǔn)輪心與輻條的結(jié)合處，一次對準(zhǔn)輪緣與輻條的結(jié)合處。評價(jià)以下列指標(biāo)為基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行：</p><p><b>

102、;　　高性能限制</b></p><p>　　Resultant peak Acc. 80 g </p><p>　　Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence 65 g 低性能限制</p><p>　　Honeycomb crush 1 mm </p><p>　　HIC36 1000 </p>