Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2015 (13) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Fußgänger (5)
- Pedestrian (5)
- Prüfverfahren (5)
- Safety (5)
- Sicherheit (5)
- Test method (5)
- Antikollisionssystem (4)
- Deutschland (4)
- Driver assistance system (4)
- Efficiency (4)
- Fahrerassistenzsystem (4)
- Germany (4)
- Leistungsfähigkeit (allg) (4)
- Active safety system (3)
- Aktives Sicherheitssystem (3)
- Automatische Notbremsung (3)
- Collision avoidance system (3)
- Europa (3)
- Europe (3)
- Injury (3)
- Passives Sicherheitssystem (3)
- Severity (accid, injury) (3)
- Unfall (3)
- Verletzung (3)
- Abbiegen (2)
- Accident (2)
- Autonomous emergency braking (2)
- Bewertung (2)
- Brustkorb (2)
- Collision (2)
- Crashtest (2)
- Evaluation (assessment) (2)
- Fahrzeug (2)
- Forecast (2)
- Impact test (veh) (2)
- Insasse (2)
- Lkw (2)
- Lorry (2)
- Passive safety system (2)
- Prognose (2)
- Richtlinien (2)
- Schweden (2)
- Schweregrad (Unfall, Verletzung) (2)
- Simulation (2)
- Specifications (2)
- Sweden (2)
- Test (2)
- Thorax (2)
- Turning (2)
- Vehicle (2)
- Versuch (2)
- Zusammenstoß (2)
- Ablenkung (psychol) (1)
- Accident prevention (1)
- Accident reconstruction (1)
- Accuracy (1)
- Air bag (restraint system) (1)
- Airbag (1)
- Analyse (math) (1)
- Analysis (math) (1)
- Anthropometric dummy (1)
- Attention (1)
- Auffahrunfall (1)
- Aufmerksamkeit (1)
- Autonomous emerhency braking (1)
- Beanspruchung (1)
- Bein (menschl) (1)
- Belastung (1)
- Bicycle (1)
- Blind spot (veh) (1)
- Breite (1)
- Bumper (1)
- Child (1)
- Collisison avoidance system (1)
- Conference (1)
- Consumer protection (1)
- Cost benefit analysis (1)
- Cyclist (1)
- Decrease (1)
- Detection response task (1)
- Distraction (1)
- Driver information (1)
- Driver information system (1)
- Dummy (1)
- Electric vehicle (1)
- Elektrofahrzeug (1)
- Emergency (1)
- Empfindlichkeit (1)
- Ersatzfahraufgabe (1)
- Fahrerinformation (1)
- Fahrerinformationssystem (1)
- Fahrrad (1)
- Fahrzeuginnenraum (1)
- Forschungsbericht (1)
- Frontalzusammenstoß (1)
- Gefahr (1)
- Genauigkeit (1)
- Gestaltung (1)
- Gewicht (1)
- Great Britain (1)
- Großbritannien (1)
- Head on collision (1)
- Hinten (1)
- Interior (veh) (1)
- Kind (1)
- Kognitive Aufgabenanforderung (1)
- Konferenz (1)
- Laborexperiment (1)
- Layout (1)
- Leg (human) (1)
- Load (1)
- Man-machine interface (1)
- Mathematical model (1)
- Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstelle (1)
- Method (1)
- Notfall (1)
- Occupant (1)
- On the right (1)
- Perception (1)
- Prevention (1)
- Radfahrer (1)
- Rear (1)
- Rear end collision (1)
- Rechenmodell (1)
- Rechts (1)
- Research report (1)
- Risk (1)
- Schweregrad (Unfall (1)
- Schweregrad (Unfall, Verletzung (1)
- Seat belt (1)
- Sensitivity (1)
- Severity (accid (1)
- Sicherheitsgurt (1)
- Specification (standard ) (1)
- Stadt (1)
- Standard (1)
- Statistical analysis (1)
- Statistische Analyse (1)
- Stochastic process (1)
- Stochastischer Prozess (1)
- Stoßstange (1)
- Stress (psycho) (1)
- Surrogate driving set-up (1)
- Tactile perception (1)
- Taktiles Signal (1)
- Toter Winkel (1)
- Tracking task (1)
- Trackingaufgabe (1)
- USA (1)
- Unfallrekonstruktion (1)
- Unfallverhütung (1)
- Urban area (1)
- Vehicle occupant (1)
- Verbraucherschutz (1)
- Verfahren (1)
- Verhütung (1)
- Verletzung) (1)
- Verminderung (1)
- Vibration (1)
- Wahrnehmung (1)
- Warning (1)
- Warnung (1)
- Weight (1)
- Width (1)
- Wirtschaftlichkeitsrechnung (1)
- injury) (1)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (13) (entfernen)
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.
Abbiegeunfälle mit Kollisionen zwischen rechtsabbiegenden Güterkraftfahrzeugen und Fahrrädern haben in der Regel schwerwiegende Folgen für den ungeschützten Verkehrsteilnehmer. In der Vergangenheit wurde durch eine steigende Anzahl von Spiegeln das individuelle Sichtfeld des Lkw-Fahrers vergrößert und die Sicherheit für ungeschützte Verkehrsteilnehmer durch den Seitenunterfahrschutz verbessert. Da Abbiegeunfälle trotz der Vielzahl an Spiegeln auch heute noch geschehen, gleichzeitig aber Fahrerassistenzsysteme Einzug in viele Fahrzeugklassen gehalten haben, liegt es nahe, derartige Systeme für die Verhinderung von Abbiegeunfällen zu nutzen. Um entsprechende Systementwicklungen fördern zu können oder aber auch Systeme vorschreiben zu können, sind Anforderungen und passende Testmethoden für Abbiegeassistenzsysteme erforderlich. Ziel der BASt war es, solche Anforderungen und ein mögliches Testverfahren hierfür zu entwickeln. Ausgehend von Analysen des Unfallgeschehens wurden charakteristische Parameter und Begleitumstände von Unfällen zwischen Fahrrädern und rechtsabbiegenden Lkw identifiziert. Aus fahrdynamischen Überlegungen folgt bei den gegebenen Parametern, dass nur eine frühe, aber niederschwellige Fahrerinformation eine wirkungsvolle Assistenzfunktion zur Verhinderung der Unfälle sein kann. Für automatische Bremsungen gibt es bisher noch zu wenig Erfahrungen im Feld, und klassische, hochschwellige, aber sehr spät erfolgende Warnsignale würden durch die dann noch verstreichende Reaktionszeit keine rechtzeitige Bremsung des Lkw-Fahrers mehr hervorrufen. Basierend auf dem identifizierten Parameterraum, der zum komfortablen Anhalten erforderlichen Zeit und einem geeigneten Kinematikmodell lassen sich die räumlichen Bereiche um den Lkw definieren, in dem eine Umfelderkennung den Fahrradfahrer detektieren können muss, damit das Informationssignal durch das Assistenzsystem an den Lkw-Fahrer rechtzeitig ausgegeben wird. Aktuell wird davon ausgegangen, dass ein Abbiegeassistenzsystem, das die hier beschriebenen Prüfungen besteht, einen sehr positiven Einfluss auf das Unfallgeschehen zwischen rechtsabbiegenden Lkw und Fahrrädern haben wird.
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.
During the past five years, a Euro NCAP technical working group on pedestrian safety has been working on improving test and assessment procedures for enhanced passive pedestrian safety. After harmonizing the tools and procedures as much as possible with legislation, the work was mainly focused on the development of grid procedures for the pedestrian body regions head, upper leg with pelvis and lower leg with knee. Furthermore, the test parameters for the head and the upper leg were revised, a new lower legform impactor was introduced and the injury thresholds were adjusted or, where necessary, the injury criteria were changed. Finally, the assessment limits and colour scheme were refined, widening the range and adding two more colours in order to provide a more detailed description of the pedestrian safety performance. By abstaining from an assessment based on a worst point selection philosophy, the improved test point determination procedures that were introduced during the years 2013 and 2014 give a more homogeneous, high resolution picture of the pedestrian safety performance of the vehicle frontends. By using a uniform grid for each test zone approximately 200 test points, evenly distributed within each area, can now be assessed per vehicle. The introduction of the flexible pedestrian legform impactor in 2014 enables a more realistic injury prediction of the knee and the tibia using a biofidelic test tool. With the new upper legform test that has been launched in 2015 the assessment in that area is now focusing on the injured body region instead of the injury causing vehicle part and thus is aligned with the approach in the remaining body regions head and lower leg. At the same time, a monitoring test with the headform impactor against the bonnet leading edge is closing the possible gap between the test areas to identify injury causing vehicle parts that moved out of focus due to the introduction of the new upper legform test. The paper describes the new test and assessment procedures with their underlying philosophy and gives an outlook in terms of open issues, specifying the needs for further improvement in the future. In parallel to the work of the pedestrian subgroup, a Euro NCAP working group on heavy vehicles introduced a set of protocol changes in 2011 that were related to the assessment of M1 vehicles derived from commercial vehicles, with a gross vehicle weight between 2.5 and 3.5 tons and 8 or 9 seats. The paper also investigates the applicability of the new pedestrian test and assessment procedures to heavy vehicles.
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.
This paper presents findings of a laboratory experiment which aimed at evaluating the sensitivity and intrusiveness of Tactile Detection Response Task (TDRT) methodology. Various single-task, dual-task and triple-task scenarios were compared. The task scenarios included a surrogate of driving (tracking task) and different secondary tasks (N-back, surrogate reference task (SuRT)). The results suggest that the TDRT is sensitive to load levels of secondary tasks which primarily demand for cognitive resources (N-back). Sensitivity to variations of visual"manual load could not be shown (SuRT). TDRT seems also to be able to differentiate between modes of primary task which varies in terms of cognitive load (visual against auditory tracking task). Results indicated intrusiveness of TDRT on primary task performance and secondary task performance depending on the type of underlying task scenario. As a conclusion, TDRT can be recommended as a method to assess attentional effects of cognitive load of a secondary task, but should be used with caution for secondary tasks with strong motor demands.
In the paper it is investigated to what extend one can extrapolate the detailed accident database GIDAS (German In-Depth Accident Study), with survey area Hanover and Dresden region, to accident behavior in other regions and countries within Europe and how such an extrapolation can be implemented and evaluated. Moreover, it is explored what extent of accident data for the target country is necessary for such an extrapolation and what can be done in situations with sparse and low accident information in a target region. It will be shown that a direct transfer of GIDAS injury outcomes to other regions does not lead to satisfactory results. But based on GIDAS and using statistical decision tree methods, an extrapolation methodology will be presented which allows for an adequate prediction of the distribution of injury severity in severe traffic accidents for European countries. The method consists essentially of a separation of accidents into well-described subgroups of accidents within which the accident severity distribution does not vary much over different regions. In contrast the distribution over the various subgroups of accidents typically is rather different between GIDAS and the target. For the separation into the subgroups meaningful accident parameters (like accident type, traffic environment, type of road etc.) have been selected. The developed methodology is applied to GIDAS data for the years 1999-2012 and is evaluated with police accident data for Sweden (2002 to 2012) and the United Kingdom (2004 to 2010). It is obtained that the extrapolation proposal has good to very good predictive power in the category of severe traffic accidents. Moreover, it is shown that iterative proportional fitting enables the developed extrapolation method to lead to a satisfactory extrapolation of accident outcomes even to target regions with sparse accident information. As an important potential application of the developed methodology the a priori extrapolation of effects of (future) safety systems, the operation of which can only be well assessed on the basis of very detailed GIDAS accident data, is presented. Based on the evaluation of the presented extrapolation method it will be shown that GIDAS very well represents severe accidents, i.e. accidents with at least one severely or fatally injured person involved, for other countries in Europe. The developed extrapolation method reaches its limits in cases for which only very little accident information is available for the target region.
Since the beginning of the testing activities related to passive pedestrian safety, the width of the test area being assessed regarding its protection level for the lower extremities of vulnerable road users has been determined by geometrical measurements at the outer contour of the vehicle. During the past years, the trend of a decreased width of the lower extremity test and assessment area realized by special features of the outer vehicle frontend design could be observed. This study discusses different possibilities for counteracting this development and thus finding a robust definition for this area including all structures with high injury risk for the lower extremities of vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle. While Euro NCAP is addressing the described problem by defining a test area under consideration of the stiff structures underneath the bumper fascia, a detailed study was carried out on behalf of the European Commission, aiming at a robust, worldwide harmonized definition of the bumper test area for legislation, taking into account the specific requirements of different certification procedures of the contracting parties of the UN/ECE agreements from 1958 and 1998. This paper details the work undertaken by BASt, also serving as a contribution to the TF-BTA of the UN/ECE GRSP, towards a harmonized test area in order to better protect the lower extremities of vulnerable road users. The German In-Depth Accident Database GIDAS is studied with respect to the potential benefit of a revised test area. Several practical options are discussed and applied to actual vehicles, investigating the differences and possible effects. Tests are carried out and the results studied in detail. Finally, a proposal for a feasible definition is given and a suggestion is made for solving possible open issues at angled surfaces due to rotation of the impactor. The study shows that, in principle, there is a need for the entire vehicle width being assessed with regard to the protection potential for lower extremities of vulnerable road users. It gives evidence on the necessity for a robust definition of the lower extremity test area including stiff and thus injurious structures at the vehicle frontend, especially underneath the bumper fascia. The legal definition of the lower extremity test area will shortly be almost harmonized with the robust Euro NCAP requirements, as already endorsed by GRSP, taking into account injurious structures and thus contributing to the enhanced protection of vulnerable road users. After finalization of the development of a torso mass for the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) it is recommended to consider again the additional benefit of assessing the entire vehicle width.
The EVERSAFE project addressed many safety issues for electric vehicles including the crash and post-crash safety. The project reviewed the market shares of full electric and hybrid vehicles, latest road traffic accident data involving severely damaged electric vehicles in Europe, and identified critical scenarios that may be particular for electric vehicles. Also, recent results from international research on the safety of electric vehicles were included in this paper such as results from performed experimental abuse cell and vehicle crash tests (incl. non-standardized tests with the Mitsubishi i-MiEV and the BMW i3), from discussions in the UN IG REESS and the GTR EVS as well as guidelines (handling procedures) for fire brigades from Germany, Sweden and the United States of America. Potential hazards that might arise from damaged electric vehicles after severe traffic accidents are an emerging issue for modern vehicles and were summarized from the perspective of different national approaches and discussed from the practical view of fire fighters. Recent rescue guidelines were reviewed and used as the basis for a newly developed rescue procedure. The paper gives recommendations in particular towards fire fighters, but also to vehicle manufacturers and first-aiders.
Upcoming test procedures and regulations consider the use of Q-dummies. Especially Q6 and Q10 will be introduced to assess the safety of child occupants in vehicle rear seats. Therefore detailed knowledge of these dummies is important to improve safety. As recent studies have shown, chest deflection measurements of both dummies are influenced by parameters like belt geometry. This could lead to a non optimized design of child restraint systems (CRS) and belt systems. The objective of this study is to obtain a more detailed understanding of the sensitivity of chest measurements to restraint parameters and to investigate the possibilities of chest acceleration as an alternative for the assessment of chest injury risks. A study of frontal impact sled tests was performed with Q6 and Q10 in a generic rear seat environment on a bench. Belt parameters like modified belt attachment locations were varied. For the Q6 dummy, different positioning settings of the CRS (booster with backrest) and of the dummy itself were investigated. The Q10 dummy was seated on a booster cushion. Here the position of the upper belt anchorage point was varied. To simulate the influence of vehicle rotation in the ODB crash configuration, the bench was pre-rotated on the sled in additional tests with the Q10. This configuration was tested with and without pretensioner and load limiter. Chest deflection in Q6 showed a high sensitivity to changes in positioning of the CRS and the dummy itself. A more slouched position of the CRS or dummy resulted in a reduction of measured chest deflection, whereas chest acceleration increased for a more slouched position of the CRS. Chest deflection in Q10 is sensitive to belt geometry as already shown in other studies. In a more outboard position of the shoulder belt anchorage the measured chest deflection is higher. Chest acceleration shows the opposite tendency, which is highest for the rearmost location of the upper belt anchorage. On a pre-rotated bench the highest chest deflection within this test series was observed without load limiter/pretensioner and an outboard belt position. By optimizing the belt location and the use of pretensioner/load limier the chest deflection was significantly reduced. For the Q6 a criterion based on chest acceleration as well as deflection measured at two locations might be the most reliable approach, which requires further research with an additional upper deflection sensor. In the Q10 the measured chest deflection does not always correctly reflect the severity of chest loading. The deflection is depending on initial belt position and restraint parameters as well as test conditions, which result in different directions of belt migration. A3ms chest acceleration might be a better indicator for severity of chest loading independent of different conditions like belt geometries. However, in some cases the benefit of an optimized restraint system could only be shown by deflection. These findings suggest that further research is needed to identify a chest injury assessment method, which could be based on deflection as well as acceleration or other parameters related to belt to occupant interaction.