Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Automatische Notbremsung (8) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (5)
- Sonstige (2)
Motorradfahrer zählen zu den besonders gefährdeten Verkehrsteilnehmern. Trotzdem werden – im Gegensatz zu Systemen wie ABS und Traktionskontrolle – Assistenzsysteme wie die automatische Notbremse bislang nicht im Zweiradbereich eingesetzt. Grund hierfür ist unter anderem die motorradspezifische Fahrdynamik, die z. B. durch instabiles Systemverhalten besondere Herausforderungen für die Umsetzung solcher Systeme bietet. Ziel des Projekts FE 82.0661/2015 „Automatische Notbremssysteme für Motorräder“ war es, die Grenzen zu ermitteln, innerhalb derer ein Einsatz entsprechender Systeme im Motorrad möglich ist. Neben den fahrdynamischen Grenzen zählen hierzu auch Grenzen, die der Fahrer der Anwendbarkeit setzt. Als integraler Bestandteil des Fahrer-Fahrzeug-Systems muss er in der Lage sein einen Eingriff eines Notbremssystems zu kontrollieren, da es sonst zur Destabilisierung des Fahrzeugs bis hin zum Sturz kommen kann. Zunächst wurde in einer Expertenstudie untersucht, welche Verzögerungen Normalfahrern zugemutet werden können. Die Experten waren Fahrlehrer und -trainer, die besonders geeignet sind, die Fähigkeiten ungeübter Fahrer einzuschätzen. Mit der Erkenntnis, welche Verzögerungen Normalfahrern zuzumuten sind, wurde anschließend eine Probandenstudie durchgeführt, in der untersucht wurde, inwiefern verschiedene Arten von Eingriffen geeignet sind, den Fahrer in einer Notbremssituation zu unterstützen und welche Verbesserung damit im Vergleich zu durch den Fahrer selbst durchgeführten Notbremsmanövern erzielt wird. Die Realfahrversuche mit Probanden fanden ausschließlich in Geradeausfahrt mit voller Konzentration auf die Fahraufgabe statt. Um zu untersuchen, wie sich Notbremsmanöver in anderen Situationen (z. B. ein- oder freihändige Fahrt) auswirken, wurde zusätzlich eine Studie auf dem dynamischen Motorrad-Fahrsimulator des Würzburger Instituts für Verkehrswissenschaften durchgeführt (WIVW). Hier wurde zudem der Einfluss von Warnelementen untersucht. Die Studien zeigen, dass durch den Einsatz geeigneter automatischer Bremseingriffe bereits nahezu die Hälfte der Ausgangsgeschwindigkeit abgebaut werden kann, bevor der Fahrer selbst überhaupt eingreift. Die Simulatorversuche zeigen außerdem, dass eine Warnung vor dem automatischen Bremseingriff die Fahrerreaktion positiv beeinflusst.
Lkw-Notbremsassistenzsysteme
(2020)
Notbremsassistenzsysteme für Lkw können einen großen Beitrag zur Verkehrssicherheit leisten, indem sie Unfälle, die von schweren Lkw verursacht werden, wirkungsvoll vermeiden helfen. Die aktuellen Anforderungen für diese Notbremsassistenzsysteme wurden allerdings vor über zehn Jahren festgelegt. Der Stand der Technik hat sich seitdem stark weiterentwickelt. Aufgabe der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen war daher, zu überprüfen, ob die technischen Anforderungen für Notbremsassistenz noch zeitgemäß sind oder ob eine Anpassung sinnvoll für die Verkehrssicherheit ist. Der technische Fortschritt im Bereich der Fahrerassistenzsysteme ist so groß, dass die vor knapp 10 Jahren festgelegten Anforderungen an Notbremssysteme heute nicht mehr dem Stand der Technik entsprechen – sowohl hinsichtlich der in den derzeit geltenden Vorschriften explizit erlaubten Abschaltbarkeit der Notbremssysteme als auch hinsichtlich der geforderten Bremsleistung beziehungsweise des Geschwindigkeitsabbaus. Es war daher zunächst zu prüfen, ob die derzeit zulässige Abschaltbarkeit erforderlich ist, und falls ja, ob sie auf bestimmte Verkehrssituationen und Fahrzeugtypen eingeschränkt werden kann. Es war weiterhin zu prüfen, ob höhere Mindestverzögerungswerte gefordert werden können, ob insbesondere im Falle von stehenden Fahrzeugen vor dem Fahrzeug (z. B. am Stauende) Notbremsungen mit deutlich höherer Geschwindigkeitsreduktion eingeleitet werden können und durch die Systeme auch kleinere Fahrzeuge als bisher vorgeschrieben erkannt werden müssen. In Notbremssituationen ist es denkbar, dass Fahrer unabsichtlich eine Übersteuerung (und damit eine Abschaltung des Notbremssystems) vornehmen, indem sie beispielsweise „in das Pedal fallen“. Es sollte daher untersucht werden, ob dieser Fall relevant ist und Abhilfe bedarf. Auch eine Anpassung der Regelkriterien an unterschiedliche Straßenverhältnisse (Niedrigreibwert) sowie die Möglichkeit einer Warnung von Fahrern bei geringen Sicherheitsabständen sollte geprüft werden. Insbesondere die erforderlichen automatischen Geschwindigkeitsreduktionen bei bevorstehenden Kollisionen auf stehende Ziele können deutlich angehoben werden. Aus fahrdynamischen Grundlagen wurden, je nach Ausgangsfahrgeschwindigkeit, unterschiedliche Zeitpunkte für Bremseingriffe bestimmt. Als Voraussetzung für automatische Bremseingriffe wurde angenommen, dass diese spätestens dann gerechtfertigt sind, wenn ein menschlicher Fahrer keine Möglichkeit mehr hat, einem Zielobjekt auszuweichen. Messungen zeigen eine gute Übereinstimmung eines aus den Annahmen abgeleiteten Simulationsmodells mit den tatsächlichen Bremseingriffszeitpunkten und Bremseingriffen eines mit einem modernen Notbremssystem ausgerüsteten Lkw. Als Ergebnis wurden durchaus erzielbare Geschwindigkeitsreduktionen in Abhängigkeit von Ausgangsgeschwindigkeit und Fahrbahnoberfläche ermittelt, die sich als Anforderung für internationale Vorschriften eignen. Bezüglich der Abschaltbarkeit von Notbremsassistenzsystemen wurde anhand der durchgeführten Untersuchungen festgestellt, dass sich Fehlwarnungen im Fahrbetrieb, selbst unter Nutzung eines der derzeit am weitesten entwickelten Notbremssysteme, nicht gänzlich vermeiden lassen. Grund dafür ist im Wesentlichen die unzureichende Erkennbarkeit der Fahrerintention in bestimmten Verkehrssituationen. Fehlwarnungen in ungestörter Autobahnfahrt (= außerhalb von Autobahnbaustellen) konnten aber nicht gefunden werden. Aus technischer Sicht ist es daher sinnvoll, die Deaktivierbarkeit eines Notbremssystems nur in solchen Verkehrssituationen zu erlauben, in denen es durch Fehlinterpretationen seitens des Systems (Objekte abseits der Fahrbahn) zu Fehlfunktionen kommen kann. Ein Indikator hierfür kann eine bestimmte Geschwindigkeitsgrenze sein. Für eine zusätzliche frühzeitige Warnung des Fahrers bei zu geringem Mindestabstand ist gegebenenfalls eine Verbesserung der Verkehrssicherheit denkbar. Der tatsächliche Nutzen einer Abstandswarnung hängt aber davon ab, ob der Abstand irrtümlich oder bewusst gering gehalten ist und ob die Lkw-Fahrenden auf eine Warnung durch eine Vergrößerung des Abstands reagieren.
The Intersection 2020 project was initiated to develop a test procedure for Automatic Emergency Braking systems in intersection car-to-car scenarios to be transferred to Euro NCAP. The project aims to address current road traffic accidents on European roads and therefore sets a priority of the identification of the most important car-to-car accidents and Use Cases. Taking into account technological and practical limitations, Test Scenarios are derived from the Use Cases in a later stage of the project. This paper presents parts of a larger study and provides an overview of common car-to-vehicle(at least four wheels) collision types at junctions in Europe and specifies seven Accident Scenarios from which the three scenarios “Straight Crossing Paths (SCP)”, “Left Turn Across Path – Opposite Direction Conflict (LTAP/OD)” and “Left Turn Across Path – Lateral Direction (LTAP/LD)” are most important due to their high relevance regarding severe car-to-car accidents. Technical details about crash parameters such as collision and initial speeds are delivered. The analysis work performed is input for the definition and selection of the Use Cases as well as for the project’s benefit estimation. The numbers of accidents and fatalities in accidents at intersections involving a passenger car were shown per intersection type. In both statistics, it was found that accidents at crossroads and T- or staggered junctions are of highest relevance, followed by roundabouts. Focusing on accidents at intersections between one passenger car and another road user shows that around one-third of all accidents and related fatalities could have been assigned to car-to-PTW accidents and one-fifth of all accidents and fatalities to car-to-car accidents. Regarding car-to-car accidents with at least serious injury outcome 38% out of 34,489 car-to-car accidents happened at intersections. These figures correspond to 18% of the fatalities (4,236 fatalities in total). Considering all intersection types, around half of all related accidents happened in urban environments whereas this number decreased to one-third of all fatalities. Further, the proportion of road fatalities per country occurring at intersections varies widely across the EU. Also, there are proportionately more fatalities in daylight or twilight conditions at junctions. Use Cases are supposed to be derived from Accident Scenarios and by adding detailed information for example about the road layout, right-of-way and the vehicle trajectories prior to the collision. Instead of applying cluster algorithms to the accident data, a pragmatic approach was finally preferred to create them. Note: Use Cases serve as an intermediate step between the Accident Scenarios and the Test Scenarios which describe the actual testing conditions. Finally, 74 Use Cases were identified. This large number indicates the complexity of intersection crashes due to the combination of several parameters.
Injury probability functions for pedestrians and bicyclists based on real-world accident data
(2017)
The paper is focusing on the modelling of injury severity probabilities, often called as Injury Risk Functions (IRF). These are mathematical functions describing the probability for a defined population and for possible explanatory factors (variables) to sustain a certain injury severity. Injury risk functions are becoming more and more important as basis for the assessment of automotive safety systems. They contribute to the understanding of injury mechanisms, (prospective) evaluation of safety systems and definition of protection criteria or are used within regulation and/or consumer ratings. In all cases, knowledge about the correlation between mechanical behavior and injury severity is needed. IRFs are often based on biomechanical data. This paper is focusing on the derivation of injury probability models from real world accident data of the GIDAS database (German In-depth Accident Study). In contrast to most academic terms there is no explicit term definition or definition of creation processes existing for injury probability models based on empirical data. Different approaches are existing for such kind of models in the field of accident research. There is a need for harmonization in terms of the used methods and data as well as the handling with the existing challenges. These are preparation of the dataset, model assumptions, censored/unknown data, evaluation of model accuracy, definition of dependent and independent variable, and others. In the presented study, several empirical, statistical and phenomenological approaches were analyzed regarding their advantages and disadvantages and also their applicability. Furthermore, the identification of appropriate prediction parameters for the injury severity of pedestrians has been considered. Due to its main effect on injuries of pedestrians and bicyclists, the importance of the secondary impact has also been analyzed. Finally, the model accuracy, evaluated by several criteria, is the rating factor that gives the quality and reliability for application of the resulting models. After the investigation and evaluation of statistical approaches one method was chosen and appropriate prediction variables were examined. Finally, all findings were summarized and injury risk functions for pedestrians in real world accidents were created. Additionally, the paper gives instructions for the interpretation and usage of such functions. The presented results include IRFs for several injury severity levels and age groups. The presented models are based on a high amount of real world accidents and describe very well the injury severity probability of pedestrians and bicyclists in frontal collisions with current vehicles. The functions can serve as basis for the evaluation of effectiveness of systems like Pedestrian-AEB or Bicycle-AEB.
Twenty-eight percent of traffic accidents in Japan are rear-end collisions, and of these, 13% are multiple collisions (three or more vehicles and/or roadside objects). A post-crash braking system enables the driver to stop the vehicle in a short distance after a rear-end collision to prevent secondary collisions. In this study, the effectiveness of a post-crash braking system was examined using a drive recorder database. In 64% of rear-end collisions, the driver's braking was interrupted after the collision. The stopping distance was estimated with time data from the drive recorder. We predict that the brake assist would be effective in preventing secondary collisions in 21% of cases.
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.
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.
Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems for pedestrians have been predicted to offer substantial benefit. On this basis, consumer rating programmes, e.g. Euro NCAP, are developing rating schemes to encourage fitment of these systems. One of the questions that needs to be answered to do this fully, is to determine how the assessment of the speed reduction offered by the AEB is integrated with the current assessment of the passive safety for mitigation of pedestrian injury. Ideally, this should be done on a benefit related basis. The objective of this research was to develop a benefit based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with pre-crash braking and passive safety components. A methodology has been developed which calculates the cost of pedestrian injury expected, assuming all pedestrians in the target population (i.e. pedestrians impacted by the front of a passenger car) are impacted by the car being assessed, taking into account the impact speed reduction offered by the car’s AEB (if fitted) and the passive safety protection offered by the car’s frontal structure. For rating purposes, this cost can be normalised by comparing it to the cost calculated for selected cars. The methodology uses the speed reductions measured in AEB tests to determine the speed at which each casualty in the target population will be impacted. The injury to each casualty is then calculated using the results from standard Euro NCAP pedestrian impactor tests and injury risk curves. This injury is converted into cost using ‘Harm’ type costs for the body regions tested. These costs are weighted and summed. Weighting factors were determined using accident data from Germany and GB and the results of a benefit analysis performed by the EU FP7 AsPeCSS project. This resulted in German and GB versions of the methodology. The methodology was used to assess cars with good, average and poor Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings, with and without a current AEB system fitted. It was found that the decrease in casualty injury cost achieved by fitting an AEB system was approximately equivalent to that achieved by increasing the passive safety rating from poor to average. Also, it was found that the assessment was influenced strongly by the level of head protection offered in the scuttle and windscreen area because this is where head impact occurs for a large proportion of casualties. The major limitation within the methodology is the assumption used implicitly during weighting. This is that the cost of casualty injuries to body areas, such as the thorax, not assessed by the headform and legform impactors, and other casualty injuries such as those caused by ground impact, are related linearly to the cost of casualty injuries assessed by the impactors. A methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems was developed. This methodology is of interest to consumer rating programmes which wish to include assessment of these systems. It also raises the interesting issue if the head impact test area should be weighted to reflect better real-world benefit.