Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Prüfverfahren (9)
- Test method (9)
- Driver assistance system (8)
- Fahrerassistenzsystem (8)
- Fußgänger (7)
- Pedestrian (7)
- Radfahrer (6)
- Aktives Sicherheitssystem (5)
- Antikollisionssystem (5)
- Collision (5)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (18) (entfernen)
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.
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.
Accidents between right turning trucks and straight riding cyclists often show massive consequences. Accident severity is much higher than in other accidents. The situation is critical especially due to the fact that, in spite of the six mirrors that are mandatory for ensuring a minimum field of sight for the truck drivers, cyclists in some situations cannot be seen or are not seen by the driver. Either the cyclist is overlooked or is in a blind spot area that results from the turning manoeuvre of the truck and its articulation if it is a truck trailer or truck semitrailer combination. At present driver assistance systems are discussed that can support the driver in the turning situation by giving a warning when cyclists are riding parallel to the truck just before or in the turning manoeuvre. Such systems would generally bear a high potential to avoid accidents of right turning trucks and cyclists no matter if they ride on the road or on a parallel bicycle path. However, performance requirements for such turning assist systems or even test procedures do not exist yet. This paper describes the development of a testing method and requirements for turning assist systems for trucks. The starting point of each development of test procedures is an analysis of accident data. A general study of accident figures determines the size of the problem. In-depth accident data is evaluated case by case in order to find out which are representative critical situations. These findings serve to determine characteristic parameters (e.g. boundary conditions, trajectories of truck and cyclist, speeds during the critical situation, impact points). Based on these parameters and technical feasibility by current sensor and actuator technology, representative test scenarios and pass/fail-criteria are defined. The outcome of the study is an overview of the accident situation between right turning trucks and straight driving cyclists in Germany as well as a corresponding test procedure for driver assistance systems that at this first stage will be informing or warning the driver. This test procedure is meant to be the basis for an international discussion on introducing turning assist systems in vehicle regulations.
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.
The term test procedure refers to a method that describes how a system has to be tested to identify and assess specific behavior or properties by experiments. This also includes the specification of required tools, equipment, boundary conditions, and evaluation methods. Test procedures are an essential tool to check whether desired product properties are present, which of course also applies to the development of driver assistance systems. In addition to development and release testing that mainly is performed by the vehicle or system manufacturer, there are tests with the purpose of an independent product testing that are conducted by external test organizations. These tests are needed for vehicle type approval (for admission to a specific market), in the context of applying the standard for functional safety (in both cases mainly executed by technical services (being accredited as certification laboratory)) or for customer information purposes (by a test institute for consumer protection). The focus of this chapter is these "external" test methods. After a taxonomy of test procedures, the differences between legislation (type approval) and consumer testing are highlighted. Typical tests and the associated test setup, tools, and assessment criteria are discussed, and an outlook toward testing in the near and mid-future is given.
Motorcycling is a fascinating kind of transportation. While the riders' direct exposure to the environment and the unique driving dynamics are essential to this fascination, they both cause a risk potential which is several times higher than when driving a car. This chapter gives a detailed introduction to the fundamentals of motorcycle dynamics and shows how its peculiarities and limitations place high demands on the layout of dynamics control systems, especially when cornering. The basic principles of dynamic stabilization and directional control are addressed along with four characteristic modes of instability (capsize, wobble, weave, and kickback). Special attention is given to the challenges of braking (brake force distribution, dynamic over-braking, kinematic instability, and brake steer torque induced righting behavior). It is explained how these challenges are addressed by state-of-the-art brake, traction, and suspension control systems in terms of system layout and principles of function. It is illustrated how the integration of additional sensors " essentially roll angle assessment " enhances the cornering performance in all three categories, fostering a trend to higher system integration levels. An outlook on potential future control systems shows exemplarily how the undesired righting behavior when braking in curves can be controlled, e.g., by means of a so-called brake steer torque avoidance mechanism (BSTAM), forming the basis for predictive brake assist (PBA) or even autonomous emergency braking (AEB). Finally, the very limited potential of brake and chassis control to stabilize yaw and roll motion during unbraked cornering accidents is regarded, closing with a promising glance at roll stabilization through a pair of gimbaled gyroscopes.
Except for corrective steering functions automatic steering is up to now only allowed at speeds up to 10 km/h according to UN Regulation No. 79. Progress in automotive engineering with regard to driver assistance systems and automation of driving tasks is that far that it would be technically feasible to realise automatically commanded steering functions also at higher vehicle speeds. Besides improvements in terms of comfort these automated systems are expected to contribute to road traffic safety as well. However, this safety potential will only be exhausted if automated steering systems are properly designed. Especially possible new risks due to automated steering have to be addressed and reduced to a minimum. For these reasons work is currently ongoing on UNECE level with the aim to amend the regulation dealing with provisions concerning the approval of steering equipment. It is the aim to revise requirements for automatically commanded steering functions (ACSF) so that they can be approved also for higher speeds if certain performance requirements are fulfilled. The paper at hand describes the derivation of reasonable system specifications from an analysis of relevant driving situations with an automated steering system. Needs are explained with regard to covering normal driving, sudden unexpected critical events, transition to manual driving, driver availability and manoeuvres to reach a state of minimal risk. These issues form the basis for the development of test procedures for automated steering to be implemented in international regulations. This holds for system functionalities like automatic lane keeping or automatic lane change as well as for addressing transition situations in which the system has to hand over steering to the driver or addressing emergency situations in which the system has to react instead of the driver.
PROSPECT (Proactive Safety for Pedestrians and Cyclists) is a collaborative research project involving most of the relevant partners from the automotive industry (including important active safety vehicle manufacturers and tier-1 suppliers) as well as academia and independent test labs, funded by the European Commission in the Horizon 2020 research program. PROSPECT's primary goal is the development of novel active safety functions, to be finally demonstrated to the public in three prototype vehicles. A sound benefit assessment of the prototype vehicle's functionality requires a broad testing methodology which goes beyond what has currently been used. Since PROSPECT functions are developed to prevent accidents in intersections, a key aspect of the test methodology is the reproduction of natural driving styles on the test track with driving robots. For this task, data from a real driving study with subjects in a suburb of Munich, Germany was used. Further data from Barcelona will be available soon. The data suggests that intersection crossing can be broken down into five phases, two phases with straight deceleration / acceleration, one phase with constant radius and speed turning, and two phases where the bend is imitated or ended. In these latter phases, drivers mostly combine lateral and longitudinal accelerations and drive what is called a clothoid, a curve with curvature proportional to distance travelled, in order to change lateral acceleration smoothly rather than abrupt. The data suggests that the main parameter of the clothoid, the ratio distance travelled to curvature, is mostly constant during the intersections. This parameter together with decelerations and speeds allows the generation of synthetic robot program files for a reproduction of natural driving styles using robots, allowing a much greater reproducibility than what is possible with human test drivers. First tests show that in principle it is possible to use the driving robots for vehicle control in that manner; a challenge currently is the control performance of the robot system in terms of speed control, but it is anticipated that this problem will be solved soon. Further elements of the PROSPECT test methodology are a standard intersection marking to be implemented on the test track which allows the efficient testing of all PROSPECT test cases, standard mobile and light obstruction elements for quick reproduction of obstructions of view, and a concept for tests in realistic surroundings. First tests using the PROSPECT test methodology will be conducted over the summer 2017, and final tests of the prototype vehicles developed within PROSPECT will be conducted in early 2018
The UN Regulation No. 79 is going to be amended to allow automatically commanded steering functions (ACSF) at speeds above 10 km/h. Hence, requirements concerning the approval of automatically performed steering manoeuvres have to be set in order to allow safe use of automatic steering on public roads as well as improve overall road safety for the driver and the surroundings. By order of the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI), BASt developed and verified physical test procedures for automatic steering to be implemented in UN Regulation No. 79. The usability of currently available test tools was examined. The paper at hand describes these test procedures and presents results from verification tests. The designated tests are divided in three sections: functionality tests, verifications for the transition of control and emergency tests. System functionality tests are auto matic lane keeping, automatic lane change and an automatic abort of an initiated lane change due to traffic. Those tests check if the vehicle remains in its lane (under normal operating conditions), is able to perform safe automatic lane change manoeuvres and if it considers other road users during its manoeuvres. Transition tests examine the vehicle's behaviour when the driver fails to monitor the system and in situations when the system has to hand over the steering control back to the driver. For instance these tests provoke driver-in-the-loop requests by approaching system boundary limitations, like missing lane markings, surpassing maximum lateral acceleration in a bend or even a major system failure. Even further the driver and his inputs are monitored and if the system detects that he is overriding system actions or contrary want to quit the driving task and unfastens the seat belt, it has to shut down and put the human back into manually control and the responsibility of driving. The last series of test consists of two emergency situations in which the system has to react to a time critical event: A hard decelerating vehicle and a stationary vehicle in front both with no lane change possibility for the ACSF vehicle. Some of the tests, especially the emergency manoeuvres, require special target vehicles and propulsion systems. Since no fully automatic steering vehicles are available, a current Mercedes E-Class with Mercedes' "drive pilot" system was used. It was shown that the vehicle is automatically able to brake to a full stop towards a static Euro NCAP target from partial-automatic driving at 90 km/h, that it could brake towards a rapidly decelerating lead vehicle when travelling at 70 km/h, that it was able during partially automatic driving to remain in its lane in normal operation conditions and to perform a automatic (driver initiated) lane change while surveilling the driver- activities.
Schutz von schwächeren Verkehrsteilnehmern: kommende Anforderungen aus Gesetzgebung und Euro NCAP
(2017)
Systeme der aktiven Fahrzeugsicherheit, insbesondere Notbremsassistenzsysteme und automatische Notbremssysteme, haben in den letzten zwei Dekaden große technische Fortschritte gemacht, und das im Wesentlichen ohne "Druck" von Gesetzgeber oder unabhängigen Testorganisationen " diese können aber durch passende Anforderungen den Vormarsch der Systeme in die Breite und die Ausnutzung von ansonsten für den Hersteller vielleicht nicht wirtschaftlichen Potentialen unterstützen. Dieser Bericht hat das Ziel, einen Überblick über die kommenden Anforderungen an Schutzsysteme für schwächere Verkehrsteilnehmer zu geben und diese Anforderungen in den Kontext Euro NCAP (=welchen Einfluss haben diese Anforderungen auf die Gesamtbewertung?) sowie Gesetzgebung (schwächere Anforderungen, aber dafür ein Markteintrittskriterium) zu stellen: - Anforderungen und Testprozeduren für Notbremsassistenz Fahrradunfälle 2018 und 2020 in Euro NCAP; - Anforderungen und Testprozeduren für Notbremsassistenz bei Nachtunfällen mit Fußgängern in Euro NCAP 2018; - Anforderungen und Testprozeduren für Abbiegeassistenzsysteme zum Schutz von Radfahrern in Unfallsituationen mit rechtsabbiegenden Lkw innerhalb der Fahrzeugtypgenehmigung.