Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (61) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Safety (61) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (61) (entfernen)
Es wurden Versuchsreihen mit Trageeinrichtungen von Motorrad- und Fahrradhelmen durchgeführt. Trageeinrichtungen sollen bei einem Unfall verhindern, dass es zu einem Verlust des Helms kommt. Zur Prüfung der Belastbarkeit von Trageeinrichtungen wurde ein Prüfstand entwickelt und aufgebaut, mit dem die Kraft, der ein Tragesystem standhalten kann, bestimmt werden kann. Die Ergebnisse belegen, dass Tragesysteme von Motorradhelmen Kräften widerstehen können, die fast dreimal so hoch sind, wie die unter Standardbedingungen der ECE-R 22 aufgebrachten. Vier der fünf getesteten Fahrradhelme widerstanden höheren Kräften als im Normentwurf gefordert.
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.
A legform impactor with biofidelic characteristics (FlexPLI) which is being developed by the Japanese Automobile Research Institute (JARI) is being considered as a test tool for legislation within a proposed Global Technical Regulation on pedestrian protection (UNECE, 2006) and therefore being evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) of GRSP. In previous built levels it already showed good test results on real cars as well as under idealised test conditions but also revealed further need for improvement. A research study at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) deals with the question on how leg injury risks of modern car fronts can be revealed, reflected and assessed by the FlexPLI and how the impactor can be used and implemented as a legislative instrument for the type approval of cars according to current and future legislations on pedestrian protection. The latest impactor built level (GTα ) is being evaluated by a general review and assessment of the certification procedure, the knee joint biofidelity and the currently proposed injury criteria. Furthermore, the usability, robustness and durability as a test tool for legislation is examined and an assessment of leg injuries is made by a series of tests with the FlexPLI on real cars with modern car front shapes as well as under idealised test conditions. Finally, a comparison is made between the FlexPLI and the current european legislation tool, the legform impactor according to EEVC WG 17.
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.
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.
Per definition, SAE Level 2 (L2) Systems perform both the lateral and longitudinal vehicle motion control with the expectation that the driver completes the Object and Event Detection and Response (OEDR). Since every system performs also parts of the OEDR itself and this amount of OEDR also varies between different L2 systems depending on the intended system design, it cannot be taken for granted that drivers automatically understand their roles and responsibilities in interaction with the system. Especially highly reliable L2 systems performing a greater amount of OEDR while at the same time requiring only little driver input over time can make it difficult for drivers to correctly identify their role and responsibility. Until now, neither application-oriented assessment methods nor design guidelines for OEDR related system design features taking safety of human-machine-interaction into account are available. The objective is therefore to deliver a standardized tool for the assessment of human-machine-interaction-related safety of vehicles with L2 systems currently available on the market. To evaluate the impact of different system design aspects on safety of human-machine-interaction and also to be able to differentiate between system designs, a holistic, standardized and application-oriented assessment procedure is proposed. The novel tablet-based assessment tool focuses not only on available standards and guidelines but measures also concrete user behaviour and user understanding in interaction with the L2 systems. The aim is to gain further insights which cannot be measured directly by simple checklist instruments. For preparation, based on international standards, literature reviews and expert consultations, a first checklistbased expert-evaluation for currently available vehicles with L2 systems was developed. These assessments are focusing on different sources of user information (e.g. user manual), human-machine-interface design as well as the prevention of unintended use by different driver monitoring techniques. The checklist-tool was developed in cooperation with experts of different EuroNCAP test laboratories and validated in a common expert workshop to gain high level of standardization and agreement. However, to assess safety of human-machine-interaction holistically beyond these rather explicit forms of information design criteria, also implicit forms of drivervehicle-communication via vehicle dynamics, functional behavior or reliability play an important role and should be taken into account. Therefore, the main and novel methodological aim is to consider also interaction related processes regarding user´s understanding of roles and responsibilities when applying automated driving functions as well as user´s awareness of automation modes or traffic situations in the modular tablet-based assessment tool.
The use of proper child restraint systems (CRS) is mandatory for children travelling in cars in most countries of the world. The analysis of the quantity of restrained children shows that more than 90% of the children in Germany are restrained. Looking at the quality of the protection, a large discrepancy between restrained and well protected children can be seen. Two out of three children in Germany are not properly restrained. In addition, considerable difference exists with respect to the technical performance of CRS. For that reason investigations and optimisations on two different topics are necessary: The technical improvement of CRS and the ease of use of CRS. Consideration of the knowledge gained by the comparison of different CRS in crash tests would lead to some improvements of the CRS. But improvement of child safety is not only a technical issue. People should use CRS in the correct way. Misuse and incorrect handling could lead to less safety than correct usage of a poor CRS. For that reason new technical issues are necessary to improve the child safety AND the ease of use. Only the combination of both parts can significantly increase child safety. For the assessment of the safety level of common CRS, frontal and lateral sled tests simulating different severity levels were conducted comparing pairs of CRS which were felt to be good and CRS which were felt to be poor. The safety of some CRS is currently at a high level. All well known products were not damaged in the performed tests. The performance of non-branded CRS was mostly worse than that of the well known products. Although the branded child restraint systems already show a high safety level it is still possible to further improve their technical performance as demonstrated with a baby shell and a harness type CRS.
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.
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.
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.