# Assessment of Nanobag as a New Safety System in the Frontal Sled Test
## 4 Conclusions  
This paper tested the safety assessment of a new safety system called nanobag. Such a system consists of thin polymer foil protecting the head in the similar way to a traditional airbag. It is a brand new system, and it is not certified yet. This paper compares its protective effect in the frontal test and compares it to standard airbag performance. The benefits of the nanobag solution lie in the minimization of the volume of the folded nanobag, the minimization of the weight, the simplicity of the technology production and the low cost of material inputs, including the assembly and maintenance. The system can be easily adapted for nonstandard seating positions (tightly connected with the autonomous vehicles), where the side, oblique or rear direction of the impact are to be occurred. The performance of the standard airbag is assumed to lose its benefit in such configurations. The numerical simulations with the application of human body models as a surrogate for the occupant could lead to faster progress in the field of safety measure optimization for a diverse society. The nanobag safety system shows comparable performance to the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Criteria**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Min**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Max**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Average**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-7}  & **Value** & **Anthropometry** & **SRS** & **Value** & **Anthropometry** & **SRS** \\ \hline HIC & 377 & F P05, 54 YO, 154 cm, 55 kg & NB4 & 702 & M P95, 54 YO, 184 cm, 96 kg & NB10 & 454 \\ \hline Nij & 0.07 & M P95, 14 YO, 180 cm, 70 kg & NB10 & 0.44 & \begin{tabular}{c} F P05, 28 YO, 158 cm, 53 kg \\ \end{tabular} & AB & 0.09 \\ \hline BrIC & 0.5 & F P05, 64 YO, 154 cm, 60 kg & AB & 1.09 & \begin{tabular}{c} M P50, 64 YO, 172 cm, 83 kg \\ \end{tabular} & AB & 0.6 \\ \hline UBrIC—MPS & 0.17 & F P05, 14 YO, 153 cm, 41 kg & NB10 & 0.4 & \begin{tabular}{c} M P50, 64 YO, 172 cm, 83 kg \\ \end{tabular} & AB & 0.2 \\ \hline UBrIC—CSDM & 0.24 & F P05, 64 YO, 154 cm, 60 kg & AB & 0.55 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} M P50, 64 YO, 172 cm, 83 kg \\ \end{tabular} & AB & 0.29 \\ \hline Fc [kN] & 0.12 & M P50, 28 YO, 178 cm, 76 kg & AB & 3.69 &
\begin{tabular}{c} M P95, 64 YO, 180 cm, 95 kg \\ \end{tabular} & AB & 1.16 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary of the extreme values of the particular criteria for 50 km/h. traditional airbag solution in frontal direction impacts. For the tested populations (five age groups and 5 th female, 50 th percentile male and 94 th percentile male) the assessment of the nanobag is comparable to the airbag. Most of the monitored criterion gave the maximum values (weak protection) for the airbag, but the airbag also predicts the minimal values in the same criterion (for different anthropometries). Such results show a similar protective effect for both safety systems (traditional airbag and new nanobag) for a frontal impact. The maximal HIC criterion results are below the critical safety limit of 1000 (214 for 30 km/h and 702 for 50 km/h), which is considered a safety region. However, the key point of the calculated results are comparable to the safety assessment of the nanobag system compared to the traditional airbag in the two velocities for frontal crashes. It gives another possible safety solution for car developers and enables them to build future cars safer. The suggested technology does not try to replace the airbag; it only suggests a new technical solution, which, of course, could have some pros and cons, especially that a prototype of the mechanical system based on a nanobag must be tested in a real full-scale setup to be certified. Moreover, the technology of adjusting the system to real vehicles is also not fully developed. However, the safety effect is expected to be beneficial and comparable to the traditional airbag. Together with other safety technologies, the annanobag can find some benefits for future cars. Conceptualization, J.S., T.B. and L.H. ; methodology, J.S., T.B., L.H.