Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (37)
- Buch (Monographie) (23)
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (15)
- Arbeitspapier (10)
- Teil eines Buches (Kapitel) (4)
Schlagworte
- Safety (89) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (89) (entfernen)
Zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt werden verschiedene Ansätze diskutiert, wie der Verbesserung der Straßenverkehrssicherheit durch den Einsatz moderner Fahrerassistenzsysteme (FAS) neue Impulse gegeben werden können. Unter dem Dach der von der Europäischen Kommission gemeinsam mit der Industrie im Frühjahr 2002 ins Leben gerufenen eSafety-Initiative soll die Entwicklung und Implementierung "Intelligenter Integrierter Sicherheitssysteme" (Intelligent Integrated Road Safety Systems) koordiniert und vorangetrieben werden. Erwartet werden hiervon entscheidende Beiträge zur Erreichung der bis zum Jahr 2010 angestrebten Halbierung der Zahl der Verkehrstoten in Europa, entsprechend dem Weissbuch der Europäischen Kommission. Intelligente Unterstützung des Fahrers meint in diesem Zusammenhang die Berücksichtigung des Gesamtsystems "Fahrer-Fahrzeug-Umwelt". Für die fahrzeugseitige Umsetzung der Unterstützungsfunktion wurden verschiedene Ausformungsgrade (zum Beispiel Information, Warnung, korrigierender Eingriff) vorgeschlagen und entwickelt. Die BASt ist an einer Reihe von Projekten und Arbeitsgruppen beteiligt, die sich direkt oder indirekt mit Fragen befassen, die sich bei der Entwicklung und Bewertung intelligenter FAS zur Beeinflussung der Fahrzeuggeschwindigkeit stellen. Im Mittelpunkt stehen dabei vor allem Fragen der Sicherheitsbewertung und der Machbarkeit, wie zum Beispiel - Realisierung der fahrzeugseitigen Umsetzung, - Kosten-Nutzen-Gesichtspunkte, - Rechtliche Aspekte, - Voraussetzungen der Datenbasis. Beispielsweise ist die BASt an der von ERTICO koordinierten "SpeedAlert"-Initiative beteiligt. Ziel dieser Aktivität ist die europaweite Implementierung eines Geschwindigkeitswarnsystems. An der hierzu im Jahre 2001 gegründeten "SpeedAlert" Arbeitsgruppe beteiligen sich Industrie und Verwaltung.
It is commonly agreed that active safety will have a significant impact on reducing accident figures for pedestrians and probably also bicyclists. However, chances and limitations for active safety systems have only been derived based on accident data and the current state of the art, based on proprietary simulation models. The objective of this article is to investigate these chances and limitations by developing an open simulation model. This article introduces a simulation model, incorporating accident kinematics, driving dynamics, driver reaction times, pedestrian dynamics, performance parameters of different autonomous emergency braking (AEB) generations, as well as legal and logical limitations. The level of detail for available pedestrian accident data is limited. Relevant variables, especially timing of the pedestrian appearance and the pedestrian's moving speed, are estimated using assumptions. The model in this article uses the fact that a pedestrian and a vehicle in an accident must have been in the same spot at the same time and defines the impact position as a relevant accident parameter, which is usually available from accident data. The calculations done within the model identify the possible timing available for braking by an AEB system as well as the possible speed reduction for different accident scenarios as well as for different system configurations. The simulation model identifies the lateral impact position of the pedestrian as a significant parameter for system performance, and the system layout is designed to brake when the accident becomes unavoidable by the vehicle driver. Scenarios with a pedestrian running from behind an obstruction are the most demanding scenarios and will very likely never be avoidable for all vehicle speeds due to physical limits. Scenarios with an unobstructed person walking will very likely be treatable for a wide speed range for next generation AEB systems.
A methodology to derive precision requirements for automatic emergency braking (AEB) test procedures
(2015)
AEB Systems are becoming important to increase traffic safety. Test procedures in testing for consumer information, manufacturer self-certification and technical regulations are used to ensure a certain minimum performance of these systems. Consequently, test robustness, test efficiency and finally test cost become increasingly important. The key driver for testing effort and test costs is the required repeatable accuracy in a test design - the higher the accuracy, the higher effort and test costs. On the other hand, the performance of active safety systems depends on time discretization in the environment perception and other sub-systems: for instance, typical sensors supply information with a cycle time of 50 - 150 ms. Time discretization results in an inherent spread of system performance, even if the test conditions are perfectly equal. The proposed paper shows a methodology to derive requirements for a test setup (e.g. test repeats, use of driving robots, ...) as function of AEB system generation and rating method (e.g. Euro NCAP points awarded, pass/fail, ...). While the methodology itself is applicable to AEB pedestrian and AEB Car-Car scenarios, due to the lack of sufficient test data for AEB Car-Car, the focus of this paper is on AEB pedestrian scenarios. A simulation model for the performance of AEB Pedestrian systems allows for the systematic variation of the discretization time as well as test condition accuracy. This model is calibrated with test results of 4 production vehicles for AEB Pedestrian, all fully tested by BASt according to current Euro NCAP test protocols. Selected parameters to observe the accuracy of the test setup in case of pedestrian AEB is the calculated impact position of pedestrian on the vehicle front (as if no braking would have occurred), and the test vehicle speed accuracy. These variable was shown in real tests to be repeatable in the range of ± 5 cm and ± 0,25 km/h, respectively, with a fully robotized state of the art test setup. The sensitivity of AEB performance (measured in achieved speed reduction as well as overall rating result according to current Euro NCAP rating methods) towards discretization and the sensitivity of performance towards test accuracy then is compared to identify economic yet robust test concepts. These comparisons show that the available repeatability accuracy of current test setups is more than sufficient for today's AEB system capabilities. Time discretization problems dominate the performance spread especially in test scenarios with a limited pedestrian dummy reveal time (e.g. child behind obstruction, running adult scenarios with low car speeds). This would allow to increase test tolerances to decrease test cost. A methodology which allows to derive the required tolerances in active safety tests might be valuable especially for NCAPs of emerging countries that do not have the necessary equipment (e.g. driving robots, positioning units) available for the full-scale and high tolerance EuroNCAP active safety procedures yet still want to rate active safety systems, thus improving the global safety.
Euro NCAP will start to test pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEB) from 2016 on. Test procedures for these tests had been developed by and discussed between the AsPeCSS project and other initiatives (e.g. the AEB group with Thatcham Research from the UK). This paper gives an overview on the development process from the AsPeCSS side, summarizes the current test and assessment procedures as of March 2015 and shows test and assessment results of five cars that had been tested by BASt for AsPeCSS and the respective manufacturer. The test and assessment methodology seems appropriate to rate the performance of different vehicles. The best test result - still one year ahead of the test implementation - is around 80%, while the worst rating result is around 10%. Other vehicles are between these boundaries.
Um die Automobilhersteller zu animieren, mehr als die gesetzlich geforderte Sicherheit anzubieten, haben strengere Versuche im Rahmen des Verbraucherschutzes in den letzten Jahren nicht nur in den USA, sondern auch in Europa deutlich an Bedeutung zugenommen. Besonders Initiativen aus England ist es zu verdanken, dass sich heute die Testverfahren nach dem sogenannten Euro NCAP, dem European New Car Assessment Programme, durchgesetzt haben. Diese Entwicklung wurde auch von der Europäischen Kommission unterstützt. Ziel des Euro NCAP ist es, die unabhängige und objektive Bewertung des Sicherheitsniveaus von Fahrzeugen zu einer transparenten und leicht verständlichen Verbraucherberatung zu fördern. Weiterhin sollen objektive Bewertungsverfahren entwickelt werden, um die Fahrzeughersteller zu ermutigen, die Fahrzeuge sicherer zu machen. Im Beitrag wird auf die Struktur des Euro NCAP sowie auf seine Arbeitsweise eingegangen. Vorgestellt werden ferner bisherige Testphasen mit Fahrzeugen deutscher Hersteller oder Tochtergesellschaften sowie deren Bewertung.
Accident analysis
(2014)
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions compatibility (which consists of self and partner protection) between opponents is crucial. Although compatibility has been analysed worldwide for years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and frontal impact working group (WG15) and the EC funded FP5 VC-COMPAT project activities, two test approaches have been identified as the most promising candidates for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed of an off-set and a full overlap test procedure. In addition another procedure (a test with a moving deformable barrier) is getting more attention in today- research programmes. The overall objective of the FIMCAR project is to complete the development of the candidate test procedures and propose a set of test procedures suitable for regulatory application to assess and control a vehicle- frontal impact and compatibility crash safety. In addition an associated cost benefit analysis should be performed. The specific objectives of the work reported in this deliverable were: - Determine if previously identified compatibility issues are still relevant in current vehicle fleet: Structural interaction, Frontal force matching, Compartment strength in particular for light cars. - Determine nature of injuries and injury mechanisms: Body regions injured o Injury mechanism: Contact with intrusion, Contact, Deceleration / restraint induced. The main data sources for this report were the CCIS and Stats 19 databases from Great Britain and the GIDAS database from Germany. The different sampling and reporting schemes for the detailed databases (CCIS & GIDAS) sometimes do not allow for direct comparisons of the results. However the databases are complementary " CCIS captures more severe collisions highlighting structure and injury issues while GIDAS provides detailed data for a broader range of crash severities. The following results represent the critical points for further development of test procedures in FIMCAR.
The objectives of the FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) project are to answer the remaining open questions identified in earlier projects (such as understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of force based metrics and barrier deformation based metrics, confirmation of specific compatibility issues such as structural interaction, investigation of force matching) and to finalise the frontal impact test procedures required to assess compatibility. Research strategies and priorities were based on earlier research programs and the FIMCAR accident data analysis. The identified real world safety issues were used to develop a list of compatibility characteristics which were then prioritised within the consortium. This list was the basis for evaluating the different test candidates. This analysis resulted in the combination of the Full Width Deformable Barrier test (FWDB) with compatibility metrics and the existing Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) as described in UN-ECE Regulation 94 with additional cabin integrity requirement as being proposed as the FIMCAR assessment approach. The proposed frontal impact assessment approach addresses many of the issues identified by the FIMCAR consortium but not all frontal impact and compatibility issues could be addressed.
The objective of this deliverable is to describe the expected influence of the candidate test procedures developed in FIMCAR for frontal impact on other impact types. The other impact types of primary interest are front-to-side impacts, collisions with road restraint systems (e.g. guardrails), and heavy goods vehicle impacts. These collision types were chosen as they involve structures that can be adapted to improve safety. Collisions with vulnerable road users (VRU) were not explicitly investigated in FIMCAR. It is expected that the vehicle structures of interest in FIMCAR can be designed into a VRU friendly shell. Information used for this deliverable comes from simulations and car-to-car crash tests conducted in FIMCAR or review of previous research. Three test configurations (full width, offset, and moving deformable barriers) were the input to the FIMCAR selection process. There are three different types of offset tests and two different full width tests. During the project test procedures could be divided into three groups that provide different influences or outcomes on vehicle designs: 1. The ODB barrier provides a method to assess part of the vehicles energy absorption capabilities and compartment test in one test. 2. The FWRB and FWDB have similar capabilities to control structural alignment, further assess energy absorption capabilities, and promote the improvements in the occupant restraint system for high deceleration impacts. 3. The PDB and MPDB can be used to promote better load spreading in the vehicle structures, in addition to assessing energy absorption and occupant compartment strength in an offset configuration. The consortium selected the ODB and FWDB as the two best candidates for short term application in international rulemaking. The review of how all candidates would affect vehicle performance in other impacts (beside front-to-front vehicle or frontal impacts with fixed obstacles) however is reported in this deliverable to support the benefit analysis reported in FIMCAR. The grouping presented above is used to discuss all five test candidates using similarities between certain tests and thereby simplify the discussion.
Although cruise control (CC) is available for most cars, no studies have been found which examine how this automation system influences driving behaviour. However, a relatively large number of studies have examined adaptive cruise control (ACC) which compared to CC includes also a distance control. Besides positive effects with regard to a better compliance to speed limits, there are also indications of smaller distances to lead vehicles and slower responses in situations that require immediate braking. Similar effects can be expected for CC as this system takes over longitudinal control as well. To test this hypothesis, a simulator study was conducted at the German Aerospace Center. Twenty-two participants drove different routes (highway and motorway) under three different conditions (assisted by ACC, CC and manual driving without any system). Different driving scenarios were examined including a secondary task condition. On the one hand, both systems lead to lower maximum velocities and less speed limit violations. There was no indication that drivers shift more of their attention towards secondary tasks when driving with CC or ACC. However, there were delayed driver reactions in critical situations, e.g., in a narrow curve or a fog bank. These results give rise to some caution regarding the safety effects of these systems, especially if in the future their range of functionality (e.g., ACC Stop-and-Go) is further increased.
There is considerable evidence for the negative effects of driver distraction on road safety. In many experimental studies, drivers have been primarily viewed as passive receivers of distraction. Thus, there is a lack of research on the mediating role of their self-regulatory behavior. The aim of the current study was to compare drivers' performance when engaged in a system-paced secondary task with a self-paced version of this task and how both differed from baseline driving performance without distraction. Thirty-nine participants drove in a simulator while performing a secondary visual"manual task. One group of drivers had to work on this task in predefined situations under time pressure, whereas the other group was free to decide when to work on the secondary task (self-regulation group). Drivers' performance (e.g., lateral and longitudinal control, brake reaction times) was also compared with a baseline condition without any secondary task. For the system-paced secondary task, distraction was associated with high decrements in driving performance (especially in keeping the lateral position). No effects were found for the number of collisions, probably because of the lower driving speeds while distracted (compensatory behavior). For the self-regulation group, only small impairments in driving performance were found. Drivers engaged less in the secondary task during foreseeable demanding or critical driving situations. Overall, drivers in the self-regulation group were able to anticipate the demands of different traffic situations and to adapt their engagement in the secondary task, so that only small impairments in driving performance occurred. Because in real traffic drivers are mostly free to decide when to engage in secondary tasks, it can be concluded that self-regulation should be considered in driver distraction research to ensure ecological validity.