US-12617177-B2 - Automotive glazing with vulnerable road user protection

Abstract

An optically transparent discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel in a daylight opening of an upright automotive glazing to provide a controlled fracture response of the glazing under impact from a vulnerable road user. The discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel may be tailored to offer a more consistent fracture response for the glazing, and provide a fracture response of the glazing that meets automotive regulations.

Inventors

• Amir OUESLATI
• BRIAN TIMOTHY O'HARA

Assignees

• HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.

Dates

Publication Date

20260505

Application Date

20230417

Claims (18)

1. 1 . An upright automotive glazing comprising: an upright glass substrate with a daylight opening; a tinted band arranged on the glass substrate and extending around a perimeter of the daylight opening, wherein the tinted band is opaque or translucent; and a discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel arranged in the daylight opening, wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel includes areas of ceramic enamel with voids therebetween; wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel controls a fracture response of the upright automotive glazing by weakening the upright automotive glazing such that the upright automotive glazing fractures when subjected to the Headform Test as described in United Nations ECE regulation 43, revision 4, wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel is configured to provide local weakenings at positions where the areas of ceramic enamel are arranged such that the upright automotive glazing begins to break at one of the local weakenings and then spreads throughout the rest of the upright automotive glazing upon impact, wherein each of the areas of the ceramic enamel have a CIELAB lightness value of less than 50, and the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel is optically transparent.
2. 2 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 1 , wherein: the Headform Test includes subjecting the daylight opening to an impact; and the upright automotive glazing fractures in the daylight opening when subjected to the impact.
3. 3 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 2 , wherein the Headform Test includes subjecting an outer surface of the upright automotive glazing to the impact.
4. 4 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 2 , wherein the Headform Test includes subjecting an inner surface of the upright automotive glazing to the impact.
5. 5 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 1 , wherein the upright automotive glazing is a vehicle windscreen.
6. 6 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 1 , wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel is arranged over an entirety of the daylight opening.
7. 7 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 1 , wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel includes a pattern of dots, a pattern of diagonal squares, a pattern of vertical lines, a pattern of horizontal dashed lines, a pattern of diagonal lines forming a brick pattern, diagonal lines forming a diagonal grid pattern, vertical and horizontal lines forming a grid pattern, wavy lines, or random arrangement of dots, lines or shapes.
8. 8 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 1 , wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel forms a pattern.
9. 9 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 1 , wherein the tinted band is made of ceramic enamel.
10. 10 . The upright automotive glazing of claim 1 , wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel is arranged on an inner surface of the upright automotive glazing.
11. 11 . A vehicle comprising an upright automotive glazing, the upright automotive glazing including: an upright glass substrate with a daylight opening; a tinted band arranged on the glass substrate and extending around a perimeter of the daylight opening, wherein the tinted band is opaque or translucent; and a discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel arranged in the daylight opening, wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel includes areas of ceramic enamel with voids therebetween; wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel controls a fracture response of the upright automotive glazing by weakening the upright automotive glazing such that the upright automotive glazing fractures when subjected to the Headform Test as described in United Nations ECE regulation 43, revision 4, wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel is configured to provide local weakenings at positions where the areas of ceramic enamel are arranged such that the upright automotive glazing begins to break at one of the local weakenings and then spreads throughout the rest of the upright automotive glazing upon impact, wherein each of the areas of the ceramic enamel have a CIELAB lightness value of less than 50, and the discontinuous arrangement is optically transparent.
12. 12 . The vehicle of claim 11 , wherein the upright automotive glazing is a windscreen of the vehicle.
13. 13 . The vehicle of claim 12 , wherein the upright automotive glazing is arranged in an upright position on the vehicle.
14. 14 . The vehicle of claim 11 , wherein: the Headform Test includes subjecting the daylight opening to an impact; and the upright automotive glazing fractures in the daylight opening when subjected to the impact.
15. 15 . The vehicle of claim 14 , wherein the Headform Test includes subjecting an outer surface of the upright automotive glazing to the impact.
16. 16 . The vehicle of claim 14 , wherein the Headform Test includes subjecting an inner surface of the upright automotive glazing to the impact.
17. 17 . The vehicle of claim 11 , wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel is arranged over an entirety of the daylight opening.
18. 18 . The vehicle of claim 11 , wherein the discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel includes a pattern of dots, a pattern of diagonal squares, a pattern of vertical lines, a pattern of horizontal dashed lines, a pattern of diagonal lines forming a brick pattern, diagonal lines forming a diagonal grid pattern, vertical and horizontal lines forming a grid pattern, wavy lines, or random arrangement of dots, lines or shapes.

Description

BACKGROUND Glazing surfaces in automotive applications present challenges when considering impacts with vulnerable road users, e.g. pedestrians. Unlike metallic vehicle components, glazing surfaces often have significant variation in response under the same impact conditions. Typical glazing surfaces have highly variable impact responses/properties even though they are tested under the same conditions and may be identical to each other. This is because under impact, it is difficult to make the fracture response of the glazing surfaces consistent, which can lead to highly variable responses. Multiple impact tests from the same angle or speed often result in significant differences in the fracture response between the tests. The inconsistent impact response of glazings may be exacerbated in vehicles where the glazing is upright, or in situations where impacting bodies contact the glazing at a shallow relative angle. BRIEF DESCRIPTION According to one aspect, an upright automotive glazing includes a glass substrate with a daylight opening; a tinted band arranged on the glass substrate and extending around a perimeter of the daylight opening; and a discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel arranged in the daylight opening. The discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel controls a fracture response of the upright automotive glazing by weakening the upright automotive glazing such that the upright automotive glazing fractures when subjected to the Headform Test as described in United Nations ECE regulation 43, revision 4. According to another aspect, a vehicle includes an upright automotive glazing. The upright automotive glazing includes a glass substrate with a daylight opening; a tinted band arranged on the glass substrate and extending around a perimeter of the daylight opening; and a discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel arranged in the daylight opening. The discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel controls a fracture response of the upright automotive glazing by weakening the upright automotive glazing such that the upright automotive glazing fractures when subjected to the Headform Test as described in United Nations ECE regulation 43, revision 4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS FIG. 1 is a front view of a prior art vehicle with a tinted band around a windscreen. FIG. 2 is a partial side view of the prior art vehicle of FIG. 1. FIG. 3 is a partial front view of a vehicle including a discontinuous arrangement of ceramic enamel in a daylight opening of a glazing according to the present subject matter. FIG. 4 is a partial side view of the vehicle of FIG. 3. FIG. 5 shows various discontinuous arrangements of ceramic enamel according to the present subject matter. FIG. 6 is a cross section view of a glazing according to the present subject matter. FIG. 7 is a cross section view of another glazing according to the present subject matter. DETAILED DESCRIPTION The problem of controlling the glazing surface (for example windscreens) fracture response to make it more consistent between tests is a problem for manufactures, since the windscreens often need to meet head impact regulations. One test to assess the fracture properties of automotive glazing surfaces (e.g. windscreens) is the Headform Test as presented in the United Nations ECE Regulation No. 43 (UN-R43-00), revision 4 (2017), entitled the “Uniform provisions concerning the approval of safety glazing materials and their installation on vehicles”. Another test to assess the fracture properties of automotive glazing surfaces is the Proposal for the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 127 (Pedestrian Safety). In these tests, under the same impact conditions, the fracture responses of similar windscreens to impact from a headform can be significantly different, wherein some windscreens fracture and some do not fracture. This inconsistent fracture response can be exacerbated due to the vehicle architecture. The issue of inconsistent glazing surface fracture response can be exacerbated in vehicles where the glazing surface is more vertical, i.e. where the impact angle is close to 90° to the surface of the glazing, or where the headform contacts the glazing surface at a shallow relative angle, i.e. a “glancing blow” where the impact angle approaches being parallel to the glazing surface so less energy is directed into the glazing. An example of a more perpendicular impact angle with the glazing may be in a vehicle with a styling motif that has a glazing that is upright. The present subject matter addresses inconsistent fracture response in this situation, and may also be applicable to a traditional passenger vehicle shape with a sloped glazing (See FIGS. 1-2). The present subject matter offers control of the fracture response (fracture vs. no fracture) of upright glazing surfaces upon impact, leading to more controlled performance under loading from an impacting body, and therefore meeting the impact response requirements or regulatory guid