Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Test method (46) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (46) (entfernen)
Beschrieben wird die Evaluierung eines Testverfahrens der Arbeitsgruppe 10 des European Experimental Vehicle Committee, mit dem die "Fußgängerverträglichkeit" von Frontflächen von Personenkraftwagen bestimmt werden kann. Dabei werden verschiedene Anprallarten von Fußgängern an Fahrzeugen simuliert: der Anprall eines Beines an den Stoßfänger, der Anprall des Oberschenkels an die Vorderkante der Fronthaube und der Anprall des Kopfes auf die Fronthaube. Im Beitrag wird auf die Durchführung von Tests zum Oberschenkelanprall und zum Beinanprall an drei verschiedenen Fahrzeugtypen eingegangen. Beschrieben werden Testverfahren, Versuchsaufbau und Versuchsdurchführung. Die Versuchsreihe zeigte, dass das entwickelte Testverfahren praktikabel ist.
Der Anteil von Geländefahrzeugen an der Gesamtzahl von Personenkraftwagen betrug im Juli 1991 in den alten Bundesländern ca. 1,1 Prozent. Nach eigenen Erhebungen sind etwa 62 Prozent der Geländefahrzeuge mit einem Frontschutzbügel ausgestattet. Der Bundesminister für Verkehr hat die BASt beauftragt zu prüfen, ob solche Konstruktionen einen Einfluss auf die Verletzungen bei Kollisionen mit Fußgängern und Zweiradbenutzern haben. Dazu wurde das Datenmaterial der Unfallerhebung der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover ausgewertet und die um fahrzeugtechnische Angaben ergänzten Unfalldaten aus Nordrhein-Westfalen betrachtet. Weiterhin wird von Komponententests berichtet, die den Anprall menschlicher Körperteile an das Fahrzeug simulieren. Mit den Ergebnissen dieser Untersuchung wurde ein Frontschutzbügel hergestellt, der weniger aggressiv gegenüber ungeschützten Verkehrsteilnehmern ist. Zur Quantifizierung der Gefährdung von Fußgängern wurden zwei gängige Geländefahrzeugtypen mit und ohne Frontschutzbügel gemäß dem Prüfvorschlag der EEVC-WG 10 zur Bestimmung der Fußgängerverträglichkeit von Pkw-Frontflächen getestet. Die Ergebnisse aus den Versuchsreihen wurden mit Ergebnissen aus Versuchen an normalen Pkw verglichen.Es kann festgestellt werden, dass bei einem Unfall mit Kopfanprall eines Kindes an ein mit Frontschutzbügel ausgestattetes Geländefahrzeug bei 20 km/h mit gleichen Kopfbelastungen zu rechnen ist, wie bei einem Unfall mit 30 km/h mit einem Geländefahrzeug ohne Frontschutzbügel, beziehungsweise mit 40 km/h mit einem normalen Pkw. Für den Hüftanprall eines Erwachsenen an die Haubenkante ist bei einer Fahrzeuggeschwindigkeit von 25 km/h bei einem Fahrzeug mit Frontschutzbügel mit gleichen Belastungen zu rechnen, wie bei einem Unfall mit einem Fahrzeug ohne Frontschutzbügel bei 40 km/h (Pkw oder Geländewagen). Für die Belastungen des Knies eines Erwachsenen lässt sich keine Verschlechterung durch montierte Frontschutzbügel ableiten.
In der Europäischen Gemeinschaft werden derzeit jährlich ca. 50.000 Menschen bei Verkehrsunfällen getötet, ca. 10.000 davon als Fußgänger. Von den 10.600 (1992) in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland bei Straßenverkehrsunfällen Getöteten waren 1.800 Fußgänger (etwa 17 Prozent). Problemgruppen bei Fußgängerunfällen bilden die Kinder wegen ihrer hohen Unfallhäufigkeit und alte Personen wegen ihrer hohen Unfallschwere. Kopfverletzungen sind die häufigste Todesursache bei Fußgängerunfällen. Eine Verringerung der Unfallschwere kann - außer durch Verminderung von Fahr- beziehungsweise Aufprallgeschwindigkeiten der Fahrzeuge - nur durch konstruktive Eingriffe an der vorderen Fahrzeugaußenkontur oder dem Unterbau von Pkw erfolgen. Dazu ist es notwendig, einheitliche Prüfverfahren für die Beurteilung der "Fahrzeugaggressivität" gegenüber Fußgängern bereitzustellen. Die Ableitung eines Prüfvorschlages zur Simulation des Kopfaufpralls auf Fronthauben von Pkw beim Fußgängerunfall, unterteilt in Kopfaufpralltests für Erwachsene und Kinder, ist Gegenstand dieser Arbeit. Es werden, ausgehend von einer Analyse der Unfallstatistik, der Entstehungsmechanismus von Kopfverletzungen erklärt, die für ein Prüfverfahren notwendigen Eingangsparameter (Masse, Geschwindigkeit, Aufprallstellen am Fahrzeug etc.) abgeleitet und die Ergebnisse der gewählten Prüfkörpertestmethode mit Ergebnissen von Leichenversuchen verglichen. Eine Kosten-/Nutzen-Betrachtung am Schluss der Arbeit zeigt, dass sich bei nur geringen Kosten ein volkswirtschaftlicher Nutzen durch eine allgemeine Anwendung des Prüfverfahrens mit ca. 270 Millionen DM allein in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland pro Jahr erzielen ließe.
Wegen der wachsenden Verbreitung von Fahrradanhängern zum Kindertransport und der möglichen Unfallgefährdung ist im vorliegenden Forschungsprojekt deren passive Sicherheit untersucht worden. Zudem wurde der Frage nachgegangen, ob der Transport von Kindern im Fahrradanhänger sicherer ist als mit dem Fahrrad mit Kindersitzen. In Absprache mit Herstellern und Vertreibern wurden verschiedene Untersuchungen durchgeführt. Es handelte sich um Anprallversuche (Anfahrversuche), Rollwagenversuche (Schlittenversuche) sowie Kopffreiheitsprüfungen und Fallversuche. Bei den Versuchen waren die Prüfobjekte mit einem oder zwei Dummies besetzt, die mit Messdatenaufnehmern ausgestattet waren. Verschiedene Messdaten, zum Beispiel Kopf- und Brustbeschleunigung, wurden erfasst und ausgewertet. Zusätzlich wurde das Kopfschutzkriterium (HPC) berechnet und bewertet. Entstandene Schäden an den Prüfobjekten wurden aufgenommen und durch Fotos dokumentiert. Die Versuchsabläufe selbst wurden mit Hochgeschwindigkeitskameras aus verschiedenen Positionen aufgezeichnet. Beim Anfahrversuch mit einem Pkw gegen ein Gespann aus Fahrrad und Anhänger waren direkte Anstöße der Anhängerinsassen an die Pkw-Front zu erkennen. Die Beschleunigungswerte waren dabei relativ hoch. Anstöße gegen Anhängerinnenteile waren bei fast allen Versuchen zu beobachten. Teilweise wurden Radaufhängungen und Radnaben beschädigt. Durch die Rollwagenversuche wurden konstruktive Schwächen bei den Sitzen und Rückhaltesystemen festgestellt. Nähte, Befestigungen und Verstellösen wurden zerstört. Es stellte sich heraus, dass die Qualität des Gurtsystems, die Steifigkeit des Anhängeraufbaus, die Sitzposition der Kinder und die vorhandene Kopffreiheit ausschlaggebend für das Verletzungsrisiko der Insassen sind. Bei den Versuchen mit Fahrradsitzen ergaben sich hohe Beschleunigungswerte durch den direkten Kontakt des Radfahrers mit der Fahrzeugfront und/oder der Fahrbahn. Das Gewicht des Radfahrers, des Fahrrades und auch Fahrradteile bergen ein erhöhtes Verletzungsrisiko für das Kind. Zusätzlich besteht die Gefahr überfahren zu werden, wenn das Kind nach dem Sturz des Fahrrades ungeschützt auf der Fahrbahn liegt. Ein direkter Vergleich der beiden Transportmöglichkeiten war aufgrund der geringen Daten der Versuche mit Fahrradkindersitzen nur bedingt möglich. Tendenziell ist der Transport der Kinder im Fahrradanhänger als weniger gefährlich zu bewerten. Es werden die Vor- und Nachteile dargestellt. Zur Bewertung der Sicherheit von Fahrradanhängern wurden die folgenden Prüfmethoden erarbeitet: - Pendelschlagprüfung für die gesamte Chassisstruktur; - Kopffreiheitsprüfung; - Belastungsprüfung der Aufbaustruktur; - Festigkeitsprüfung der Gurtsysteme. Die Prüfungen sind so aufgebaut, dass sie mit einfachen Mitteln durchzuführen sind. Es sollte somit jedem Anhängerhersteller möglich sein, die passive Sicherheit seiner Produkte umfassend zu untersuchen. Die Prüfverfahren für die Sicherheitsbewertung sollen in eine DIN-Norm und in das Merkblatt für Fahrradanhänger einfließen. Der Original-Forschungsbericht enthält einen umfangreichen Fotoband zu den Einzelheiten der Versuche und Versuchsaufbauten sowie zu den Beschädigungen der Prüfobjekte und kann bei der BASt eingesehen werden.
Side-impact safety of passenger cars is assessed in Europe in a full-scale test using a moving barrier. The front of this barrier is deformable and represents the stiffness of an 'average' car. The EU Directive 96/27/EC on side impact protection has adopted the EEVC Side Impact Test Procedure, including the original performance specification for the barrier face when impacting a flat dynamometric rigid wall. The requirements of the deformable barrier face, as laid down in the Directive, are related to geometrical characteristics, deformation characteristics and energy dissipation figures. Due to these limited requirements, many variations are possible in designing a deformable barrier face. As a result, several barrier face designs are in the market. However, research institutes and car manufacturers report significant difference in test results when using these different devices. It appears that the present approval test is not able to distinguish between the different designs that may perform differently when they impact real vehicles. Therefore, EEVC Working Group 13 has developed a number of tests to evaluate the different designs. In these tests the barrier faces are loaded and deformed in a specific and/or more representative way. Barrier faces of different design have been evaluated. In the paper the set-up and the reasoning behind the tests is presented. Results showing specific differences in performance are demonstrated.
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.
Ausgehend von den Unfalldaten der letzten Jahre wird die Bedeutung von Fußgängerunfällen im Unfallgeschehen dargestellt. Betrachtet man die bei Unfällen getöteten Verkehrsteilnehmer, so sind am häufigsten Personen in Kraftfahrzeugen betroffen. Am zweithäufigsten werden, gemäß der Unfallstatistik, Fußgänger getötet. Eine Möglichkeit zur Verbesserung des Schutzes von Fußgängern und anderen sogenannten "ungeschützten Verkehrsteilnehmern" im Falle einer Kollision mit einem Kraftfahrzeug sind Maßnahmen am Fahrzeug. Um die Wirksamkeit derartiger Maßnahmen zu beurteilen, wurde durch das EEVC (European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee) ein Prüfverfahren entwickelt. Es handelt sich dabei um ein Komponentenprüfverfahren, mit dem die Frontstruktur von Fahrzeugen, die bei einer Kollision mit einem Fußgänger hauptsächlich betroffen ist, geprüft wird. Es werden keine den gesamten Menschen repräsentierende Dummies verwendet, stattdessen werden Prüfkörper, die einzelne Körperteile simulieren, eingesetzt. Dieser EEVC Vorschlag wird geschildert. Darüber hinaus wird über Aktivitäten außerhalb des EEVC berichtet, sowie über den aktuellen Stand der Bemühungen der Europäischen Kommission in Bezug auf den Fußgängerschutz, die derzeit, auf Grundlage des Prüfvorschlages des EEVC, einen Vorschlag für eine Europäische Richtlinie erarbeitet.
EEVC Working Group 15 (Compatibility Between Passenger Cars) has carried out research for several years thanks to collaborative project funded by the E.C. and also by exchanging results of projects funded by national programmes. The main collaborative activity of the EEVC WG15 for the last four years was a research project partly funded by the European Commission, where the group made the first attempt to investigate compatibility between passenger cars in a comprehensive research program. Accident, crash test, and mathematical modelling data were analysed. The main result was that structural incompatibilities were frequently found and identified as the main source of incompatibility problems but were not easy to quantify. Unfortunately as little vehicle information other than mass is recorded in most accident databases, most analyses have only been able to show the effect of mass or mass ratio. Common ideas to improve compatibility have been reached by this group and from discussion with other research groups. They will be investigated in the next phase, where research work will concentrate on the development of methods to assess compatibility of passenger cars. The main idea is that the prerequisite to improve crash compatibility between cars is to improve structural interaction. The most important issue is that improved compatibility must not compromise a vehicle- self protection. Test methods should lead to vehicles which show good structural interaction in car to car accidents. Test methods to prove good compatibility may be an adaptation of existing regulatory test procedures (offset deformable barrier test or full width test like in the USA) for frontal impact or may be new compatibility tests. Additional criteria, e.g. impact force distribution, and maximum vehicle deceleration or maximum vehicle impact force should result in compatible cars. Attempts will be made to estimate the benefit of a more compatible car fleet for the European Community.
Despite the steadily declining number of pedestrian fatalities and injuries in most European countries during recent decades, pedestrian protection is still of great importance in the European Union as well as in Germany. This is because they still constitute a large proportion of road user casualties and are more likely to suffer serious and fatal injuries than most other road users. In 1999 only car occupants suffered more fatal injuries than pedestrians in Germany. In December 1998, EEVC WG 17 completed their review and updating of the EEVC WG 10 pedestrian test procedure that made it possible to evaluate the protection afforded to pedestrians by the front of passenger cars in an accident. Within the scope of this procedure, four different impactors are used representing those parts of the body which are injured very often and/or very seriously in vehicle-pedestrian-collisions. In a project executed by IKA and BASt, a small family car was tested according to the EEVC WG 17 test procedure. Afterwards modifications to the car were carried out in order to improve the pedestrian protection provided by the vehicle design. There were certain restrictions placed on the level of modifications undertaken, e.g. only minor modifications to vehicle styling and to the vehicle structures, which provide passenger protection. The redesigned vehicle was tested again using the WG 17 test procedure. The test results of the modified vehicle were compared with those of the standard vehicle and evaluated. The results show that considered measures for pedestrian protection in many areas of the vehicle front structure and the use of innovative techniques can lead to a significant reduction of the loads of pedestrians at an acceptable expense.
In der Europäischen Union (EU) gab es 1999 circa 1,3 Millionen Straßenverkehrsunfälle mit Personenschaden, wobei circa 42.000 Personen getötet wurden. Ziel der EU ist es diese Zahl auf 25.000 im Jahr 2010 zu senken. Die EEVC befasst sich bereits seit Anfang der 80er Jahre mit der Thematik Fußgängerschutz in verschiedenen Arbeitsgruppen. Im Dezember 1998 legte die EEVC-Arbeitsgruppe 17 "Fußgängersicherheit" ihren Abschlussbericht vor, in dessen Anhang ein Prüfverfahren zum fahrzeugseitigen Fußgängerschutz enthalten ist. Dieses Prüfverfahren wird vorgestellt. Es basiert auf Komponententests. Unterschieden werden drei Prüfkörperarten und insgesamt vier Prüfkörper. Aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht und aus Sicht der Unfallforschung empfiehlt die EEVC-Arbeitsgruppe 17 eine umfassende Einführung des vorgeschlagenen Prüfverfahrens mit allen Prüfkörpern, gegebenenfalls in Form einer stufenweisen Einführung.
The Swedish National Road Administration (SNRA), the Japanese Automobile Research Institute (JARI) and the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) are co-operating in the International Harmonized Research Activities on Intelligent Transportation Systems (IHRA-ITS). Under this umbrella a joint study was conducted. The overall objective of this study was to contribute to the definition and validation of a "battery of tools" which enables a prediction and an assessment of changes in driver workload due to the use of in-vehicle information systems (IVIS) while driving. In this sense \"validation\" means to produce empirical evidence from which it can be concluded that these methods reliably discriminate between IVIS which differ in terms of relevant features of the HMI-design. Additionally these methods should also be sensitive to the task demands imposed on the driver by the traffic situation and their interactions with HMI-design. To achieve these goals experimental validation studies (on-road and in the simulator) were performed in Sweden, Germany and Japan. As a common element these studies focused on the secondary task methodology as an approach to the study of driver workload. In a joint German-Swedish on-road study the Peripheral Detection Task (PDT) was assessed with respect to its sensitivity to the complexity of traffic situations and effects of different types of navigation systems. Results show that the PDT performance of both the German and the Swedish subjects reflects the task demands of the traffic situations better than those of the IVIS. However, alternative explanations are possible which will be examined by further analyses. Results of this study are supplemented by the Japanese study where informational demands induced by various traffic situations were analysed by using a simple arithmetic task as a secondary task. Results of this study show that relatively large task demands can be expected even from simple traffic situations.
At the 2001 ESV-Conference the EEVC working group on compatibility (WG 15) reported the first phase of the research work to investigate the major factors influencing compatibility between passenger cars. Following this, WG15 performed an interim study, which was partly subventioned by the European Commission, the results of which are reported in this paper. In the next phase of work, it is intended to complete the development of a suite of test procedures and associated performance criteria to assess the compatibility of passenger cars in frontal impacts The main areas of work for the interim study were: - in depth accident data analysis - the development of methods to assess the potential benefit of improved compatibility - crash testing. The accident analysis identified the major compatibility problems to be poor structural interaction, stiffness mismatching and compartment strength. Different methods to assess the potential benefit of improved compatibility were applied to in depth accident data. Full scale crash testing including a car to car test was performed to help develop the following candidate compatibility test procedures: - a full width wall test with a deformable aluminium honeycomb face and a high resolution load cell wall - an offset barrier test with the EEVC barrier face and a high resolution load cell wall - an offset barrier test with the progressively deformable barrier (PDB) face. The results of the interim study will be presented in detail and the proposed methodology of the next phase to complete the development of a suite of test procedures for the assessment of car to car compatibility in frontal impacts will be outlined
When the EEVC proposed the full-scale side impact test procedure, it recommended that consideration should be given to an interior headform test in addition. This was to evaluate areas of contact not assessed by the dummy. EEVC Working Group 13 has been researching the parameters of a possible European headform test procedure in four phases. Earlier stages of the research have been presented at previous ESV conferences. The conclusions from these have suggested that the US free motion headform should be used in any European test procedure and that it should be a free flight test, not guided. This research has now culminated in proposals for a European test procedure. This paper presents the proposed EEVC side impact interior headform test procedure, giving the rationale for the test and the first results from the validation phase of the test protocol.
The European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) Working Group 13 for Side Impact Protection has been developing an Interior Headform Test Procedure to complement the full-scale Side Impact Test Procedure for Europe and for the proposed IHRA test procedures. In real world accidents interior head contacts with severe head injuries still occur, which are not always observed in standard side impact tests with dummies. Thus a means is needed to encourage further progress in head protection. At the 2003 ESV-Conference EEVC Working Group 13 reported the results on Interior Headform Testing. Further research has been performed since and the test procedure has been improved. This paper gives an overview of its latest status. The paper presents new aspects which are included in the latest test procedure and the research work leading to these enhancements. One topic of improvement is the definition of the Free Motion Headform (FMH) impactor alignment procedure to provide guidelines to minimize excessive headform chin contact and to minimize potential variability. Research activities have also been carried out on the definition of reasonable approach head angles to avoid unrealistic test conditions. Further considerations have been given to the evaluation of head airbags, their potential benefits and a means of ensuring protection for occupants regardless of seating position and sitting height. The paper presents the research activities that have been made since the last ESV Conference in 2003 and the final proposal of the EEVC Headform Test Procedure.
As set out in the Terms of Reference, the objective of European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) Working Group (WG) 15 Car Crash Compatibility and Frontal Impact is to develop a test procedure(s) with associated performance criteria for car frontal impact compatibility. This work should lead to improved car to car frontal compatibility and self protection without decreasing the safety in other impact configuration such as impacts with car sides, trucks, and pedestrians. Since 2003, EEVC WG 15 served as a steering group for the car-to-car activities in the "Improvement of Vehicle Crash Compatibility through the development of Crash Test Procedures" (VC-COMPAT) project that was finalised at the end of 2006 and partly funded by the European Commission. This paper presents the research work carried out in the VC-COMPAT project and the results of its assessment by EEVC WG 15. Other additional work presented by the UK and French governments and industry " in particular the European industry - was taken into consideration. It also identifies current issues with candidate testing approaches. The candidate test approaches are: - an offset barrier test with the progressive deformable barrier (PDB) face in combination with a full width rigid barrier test - a full width wall test with a deformable aluminium honeycomb face and a high resolution load cell wall supplemented by the forces measured in the offset deformable barrier (ODB) test with the current EEVC barrier. These candidate test approaches must assess the structural interaction and give information of frontal force levels and compartment strength for passenger vehicles. Further, this paper presents the planned route map of EEVC WG 15 for the evaluation of the proposed test procedures and assessment criteria.
At the 2005 ESV conference, the International Harmonisation of Research Activities (IHRA) side impact working group proposed a 4 part draft test procedure, to form the basis of harmonisation of regulation world-wide and to help advances in car occupant protection. This paper presents the work performed by a European Commission 6th framework project, called APROSYS, an further development and evaluation of the proposed procedure from a European perspective. The 4 parts of the proposed procedure are: - A Mobile Deformable Barrier test; - An oblique Pole side impact test; - Interior headform tests; - Side Out of Position (OOP) tests. Full scale test and modelling work to develop the Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (AE-MDB) further is described, resulting in a recommendation to revise the barrier face to include a bumper beam element. An evaluation of oblique and perpendicular pole tests was made from tests and numerical simulations using ES-2 and WorldSID 50th percentile dummies. It was concluded that an oblique pole test is feasible but that a perpendicular test would be preferable for Europe. The interior headform test protocol was evaluated to assess its repeatability and reproducibility and to solve issues such as the head impact angle and limitation zones. Recommendations for updates to the test protocol are made. Out-of-position (OOP) tests applicable for the European situation were performed, which included additional tests with Child Restraint Systems (CRS) which use is mandatory in Europe. It was concluded that the proposed IHRA OOP tests do cover the worst case situations, but the current test protocol is not ready for regulatory use.
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.
The PDB, BASt and Opel conducted two test series to evaluate possible effects on the results obtained using the EEVC WG17 Lower Legform Impactor as a test tool for the assessment of pedestrian safety. The reproducibility and repeatability of the test results were assessed using six legform impactors while keeping the test parameters constant. In the second series one impactor was used and the test parameters were varied to assess the effects on the readings of the legform. The test parameters were velocity, temperature, relative humidity, the point of first contact regarding the deviation in z-direction and the deviations of the pitch, roll and yaw angle. The tests were performed using an inverse setup, i.e. the legform was hit by a guided linear impactor equipped with a honeycomb deformation element. This setup was chosen to be able to vary each single parameter while avoiding variations of the other test parameters at the same time. The test parameters were varied stronger than allowed in regulatory use in order to determine possible dependencies between the parameters and the readings which were acceleration, bending angle and shear displacement.
Die zukünftige Entwicklung der Straßenverkehrssicherheit und damit auch der Fahrzeugsicherheit wird durch gesellschaftliche, wirtschaftliche, klimapolitische und verkehrspolitische Rand- und Rahmenbedingungen und die voranschreitende technische Entwicklung geprägt sein, die auch für den Gesetzgeber eine Herausforderung darstellen. So wird sich auch das Folgeprogramm des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) für das derzeitige aus dem Jahr 2001 stammende "Programm für mehr Sicherheit im Straßenverkehr" an den Schwerpunkten des "4th Road Safety Action Programme" ausrichten, das im Frühjahr 2010 durch die EU-Kommission veröffentlicht werden soll. Im Prozess zu einer weiteren Verbesserung der Straßenverkehrssicherheit werden unter anderem der demografische Wandel in unserer Gesellschaft, die durch eine erforderliche CO2-Reduktion bedingte Einführung alternativer Antriebe (Elektromobilität) verbunden mit Leichtbau sowie die gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingung (Wiener Abkommen) eine bedeutende Rolle spielen. Die Klärung der gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingungen ist unerlässlich, um die Vision vom unfallfreien Fahren Realität werden lassen zu können.
Proposal for a test procedure of assistance systems regarding preventive pedestrian protection
(2011)
This paper is showing a proposal for a test procedure regarding preventive pedestrian protection based on accident analysis. Over the past years pedestrian protection has become an increasing importance also during the development phase of new vehicles. After a phase of focusing on secondary safety, there are current activities to detect a possible collision by assistance systems. Such systems have the task to inform the driver and/or automatically activate the brakes. How practical is such a system? In which kind of traffic situations will it work? How is it possible to check the effectiveness of such a system? To test the effectiveness, currently there are no generally approved identifiable procedures. It is reasonable that such a test should be based on real accidents. The test procedure should be designed to test all systems, independent of the system- working principle. The vFSS group (advanced Forward-looking Safety Systems) was founded to develop a proposal for a technology independent test procedure, which reflects the real accident situation. This contribution is showing the results of vFSS. The developed test procedure focuses on accidents between passenger cars and pedestrians. The results are based on analysis results of in-depth databases of GIDAS, German insurers and DEKRA and added by analysis of national and international statistics. The in-depth analysis includes many pre-crash situations with several influencing factors. The factors are e. g. speed of the car, speed of the pedestrian, moving direction and a possible obscuration of the pedestrian by an object. The results comprise also the different situations of adults and children. Furthermore, they include details regarding influence of the lighting conditions (daylight or night) especially with respect to the accident consequences. In fact, more accidents happen at daylight, but fatal accidents are more often at night. A clustering of parameter combinations was found which represents typical accident scenarios. There are six typical accident scenarios which were merged in four test scenarios. The test scenarios are varying the starting position of the pedestrian, the pedestrian size (adult or child) and the speed of the pedestrian, whereas the speed of the car will not be varied. To ensure the independency from used sensing technologies it is necessary to use a suitable dummy. For example, if sensors are based on infrared, the dummy should emit the temperature of a human being. The test procedure will identify the collision speed as the key parameter for assessing the effectiveness of the tested system. The collision speed is defined as the reduction between initial test speed of the car and impact speed. The assessment of the speed reduction value regarding the safety benefit, however, will be part of a separate procedure.
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility compromises both the self protection and the partner protection properties of vehicles. For the accident data analysis, the CCIS (GB) and GIDAS (DE) in-depth data bases were used. Selection criteria were frontal car accidents with car in compliance with ECE R94. For this study belted adult occupants in the front seats sustaining MAIS 2+ injuries were studied. Following this analysis FIMCAR concluded that the following compatibility issues are relevant: - Poor structural interaction (especially low overlap and over/underriding) - Compartment strength - Frontal force mismatch with lower priority than poor structural interaction In addition injuries arising from the acceleration loading of the occupant are present in a significant portion of frontal crashes. Based on the findings of the accident analysis the aims that shall be addressed by the proposed assessment approach were defined and priorities were allocated to them. The aims and priorities shall help to decide on suitable test procedures and appropriate metrics. In general it is anticipated that a full overlap and off-set test procedure is the most appropriate set of tests to assess a vehicle- frontal impact self and partner protection.
It is well known that most accidents with pedestrians are caused by the driver not being alert or misinterpreting the situation. For that reason advanced forward looking safety systems have a high potential to improve safety for this group of vulnerable road users. Active pedestrian protection systems combine reduction of impact speed by driver warning and/or autonomous braking with deployment of protective devices shortly before the imminent impact. According to the Euro NCAP roadmap the Autonomous Emergency Braking system tests for Pedestrians Protection will be set in force from 2016 onwards. Various projects and organisations in Europe are developing performance tests and assessment procedures as accompanying measures to the Euro NCAP initiative. To provide synthesised input to Euro NCAP so-called Harmonisation Platforms (HP-) have been established. Their main goal is to foster exchange of information on key subjects, thereby generating a clear overview of similarities and differences on the approaches chosen and, on that basis, recommend on future test procedures. In this paper activities of the Harmonisation Platform 2 on the development of Test Equipment are presented. For the testing targets that mimic humans different sensing technologies are required. A first set of specifications for pedestrian targets and the propulsion systems as collected by Harmonisation Platform 2 are presented together with a first evaluation for a number of available tools.
Past European collaborative research involving government bodies, vehicle manufacturers and test laboratories has resulted in a prototype barrier face called the Advanced European Mobile Deformable Barrier (AE-MDB) for use in a new side impact test procedure . This procedure offers a better representation of the current accident situation and, in particular, the barrier concept is a better reflection of front-end stiffness seen in today- passenger car fleet compared to that of the current legislative barrier face. Based on the preliminary performance corridors of the prototype AE-MDB, a refined AE-MDB specification has been developed. A programme of barrier to load cell wall testing was undertaken to complete and standardise the AE-MDB specification. Barrier faces were supplied by the four leading manufacturers to demonstrate that the specification could be met by all. This paper includes background, specification and proof of compliance.
Although the number of road accident casualties in Europe (EU27) is falling the problem still remains substantial. In 2011 there were still over 30,000 road accident fatalities. Approximately half of these were car occupants and about 60 percent of these occurred in frontal impacts. The next stage to improve a car's safety performance in frontal impacts is to improve its compatibility. The objective of the FIMCAR FP7 EU-project was to develop an assessment approach suitable for regulatory application to control a car's frontal impact and compatibility crash performance and perform an associated cost benefit analysis for its implementation. This paper reports the cost benefit analyses performed to estimate the effect of the following potential changes to the frontal impact regulation: • Option 1 " No change and allow current measures to propagate throughout the vehicle fleet. • Option 2 " Add a full width test to the current offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) test. • Option 3 " Add a full width test and replace the current ODB test with a Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test. For the analyses national data were used from Great Britain (STATS 19) and from Germany (German Federal Statistical Office). In addition in-depth real word crash data were used from CCIS (Great Britain) and GIDAS (Germany). To estimate the benefit a generalised linear model, an injury reduction model and a matched pairs modelling approach were applied. The benefits were estimated to be: for Option 1 "No change" about 2.0%; for Option 2 "FW test" ranging from 5 to 12% and for Option 3 "FW and PDB tests" 9 to 14% of car occupant killed and seriously injured casualties.
A biofidelic flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) has been developed from the year 2000 onwards and evaluated by a technical evaluation group (Flex-TEG) of UN-ECE GRSP. A recently established UN-ECE GRSP Informal Group on GTR9 Phase 2 is aiming at introducing the FlexPLI within world-wide regulations on pedestrian safety (Phase 2 of GTR No. 9 as well as the new UN regulation 127 on pedestrian safety) as a test tool for the assessment of lower extremity injuries in lateral vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents. Besides, the FlexPLI has already been introduced within JNCAP and is on the Euro NCAP roadmap for 2014. Despite of the biofidelic properties in the knee and tibia sections, several open issues related to the FlexPLI, like the estimation of the cost benefit, the feasibility of vehicle compliance with the threshold values, the robustness of the impactor and of the test results, the comparability between prototype and production level and the finalization of certification corridors still needed to be solved. Furthermore, discussions with stakeholders about a harmonized lower legform to bumper test area are still going on. This paper describes several studies carried out by the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) regarding the benefit due to the introduction of the FlexPLI within legislation for type approval, the robustness of test results, the establishment of new assembly certification corridors and a proposal for a harmonized legform to bumper test area. Furthermore, a report on vehicle tests that previously had been carried out with three prototype legforms and were now being repeated using legforms with serial production status, is given. Finally, the paper gives a status report on the ongoing simulation and testing activities with respect to the development and evaluation of an improved test procedure with upper body mass for assessing pedestrian femur injuries.
A series of drop tests and vehicle tests with the adult head impactor according to Regulation (EC) 631/2009 and drop tests with the phantom head impactor according to UN Regulation No. 43 have been carried out by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS). Aim of the test series was to study the injury risk for vulnerable road users, especially pedestrians, in case of being impacted by a motor vehicle in a way described within the European Regulations (EC) 78/2009 and (EC) 631/2009. Furthermore, the applicability of the phantom head drop test described in UN Regulation No. 43 for plastic glazing should be investigated. In total, 30 drop tests, thereof 18 with the adult head impactor and 12 with the phantom head impactor, and 49 vehicle tests with the adult head impactor were carried out on panes of laminated safety glass (VSG), polycarbonate (PC) and laminated polycarbonate (L-PC). The influence of parameters such as the particular material properties, test point locations, fixations, ambient conditions (temperature and impact angle) was investigated in detail. In general, higher values of the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) were observed in tests on polycarbonate glazing. As the HIC is the current criterion for the assessment of head injury risk, polycarbonate glazing has to be seen as more injurious in terms of vulnerable road user protection. In addition, the significantly higher rebound of the head observed in tests with polycarbonate glazing is suspected to lead to higher neck loads and may also cause higher injury risks in secondary impacts of vulnerable road users. However, as in all tests with PC glazing no damage of the panes was observed, the risk of skin cut injuries may be expected to be reduced significantly. The performed test series give no indication for the test procedure prescribed in UN Regulation No. 43 as a methodology to approve glass windscreen not being feasible for polycarbonate glazing, as all PC panes tested fulfilled the UN R 43 requirements. The performance of the windscreen area will not be relevant for vehicle type approval according to the upcoming UN Regulation for pedestrian protection. However, it is recommended that pedestrian protection being considered for plastic windscreens to ensure at least the same level of protection as glass windscreens.
Recent accident statistics from the German national database state bicyclists being the second endangered group of vulnerable road users besides pedestrians. With 399 fatalities, more than 14.000 seriously injured and more than 61.000 slightly injured persons on german roads in the year 2011, the group of bicyclists is ranked second of all road user groups (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2012). While the overall bicycle helmet usage frequency in Germany is very low, evidence is given that its usage leads to a significant reduction of severe head injuries. After an estimation of the benefit of bicycle helmet usage as well as an appropriate test procedure for bicyclists, this paper describes two different approaches for the improvement of bicyclist safety. While the first one is focusing on the assessment of the vehicle based protection potential for bicyclists, the second one is concentrating on the safety assessment of bicycle helmets. Within the first part of the study the possible revision of the existing pedestrian testing protocols is being examined, using in depth accident data, full scale simulation and hardware testing. Within the second part of the study, the results of tests according to supplemental test procedures for the safety assessment of bicycle helmets developed by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) are presented. An additional full scale test performed at reduced impact speed proves that measures of active vehicle safety as e.g. braking before the collision event do not necessarily always lead to a reduction of injury severity.
The goal of the project FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) was to define an integrated set of test procedures and associated metrics to assess a vehicle's frontal impact protection, which includes self- and partner-protection. For the development of the set, two different full-width tests (full-width deformable barrier [FWDB] test, full-width rigid barrier test) and three different offset tests (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test, progressive deformable barrier [PDB] test, moveable deformable barrier with the PDB barrier face [MPDB] test) have been investigated. Different compatibility assessment procedures were analysed and metrics for assessing structural interaction (structural alignment, vertical and horizontal load spreading) as well as several promising metrics for the PDB/MPDB barrier were developed. The final assessment approach consists of a combination of the most suitable full-width and offset tests. For the full-width test (FWDB), a metric was developed to address structural alignment based on load cell wall information in the first 40 ms of the test. For the offset test (ODB), the existing ECE R94 was chosen. Within the paper, an overview of the final assessment approach for the frontal impact test procedures and their development is given.
Müdigkeit am Steuer ist eine bedeutsame Ursache von Straßenverkehrsunfällen. Es steht eine Fülle unterschiedlicher Methoden zur Verfügung, um Müdigkeit beim Fahrer zu erkennen. Ziel des vorliegenden Projekts war es, auf Basis einer mehrstufigen Befragung von zwölf Experten aus Industrie- und Hochschulforschung die Stärken und Schwächen der derzeit validesten objektiven Müdigkeitsmessverfahren vergleichend zu beschreiben. Als Basis der Bewertung diente ein eigens erarbeiteter Gütekriterienkatalog. Zu den validesten Müdigkeitsmessverfahren gehören aus Expertensicht Lenkverhalten und Spurhaltung, Indikatoren des Lidschlussverhaltens und des EEG, das videobasierte Expertenrating sowie der kontrovers diskutierte Pupillografische Schläfrigkeitstest. Die Güteprofile der sechs ausgewählten Messverfahren werden aufgeführt. Je nach Einsatzgebiet sind alle ausgewählten Messverfahren (Forschung und Entwicklung), nur einige (Müdigkeitswarnsystem im Fahrzeug), oder kein einziges (Verkehrskontrolle) geeignet. Dem Urteil der Experten nach bedarf eine valide Müdigkeitserfassung der Kombination von mindestens zwei Messverfahren unter Berücksichtigung der spezifischen Stärke-Schwächenprofile.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Established in 1997, the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) provides consumers with a safety performance assessment for the majority of the most popular cars in Europe. Thanks to its rigorous crash tests, Euro NCAP has rapidly become an important driver safety improvement to new cars. After ten years of rating vehicles, Euro NCAP felt that a change was necessary to stay in tune with rapidly emerging driver assistance and crash avoidance systems and to respond to shifting priorities in road safety. A new overall rating system was introduced that combines the most important aspects of vehicle safety under a single star rating. The overall rating system has allowed Euro NCAP to continue to push for better fitment and higher performance for vehicles sold on the European market. In the coming years, the safety rating is expected to play an important role in the support of the roll-out of highly automated vehicles.
Automatische Lenkfunktionen sind abgesehen von korrigierenden Lenkeingriffen entsprechend der UN-Regelung Nr. 79 bisher nur in einem Geschwindigkeitsbereich bis 10 km/h erlaubt. Die Weiterentwicklung der Technik im Bereich der Fahrerassistenzsysteme und der Automatisierung der Fahraufgabe wuerden es jedoch technisch erlauben, automatische Lenkfunktionen auch bei höheren Geschwindigkeiten einzusetzen. Neben einem Zugewinn an Komfort wird von diesen Systemen auch ein Beitrag zur Erhöhung der Verkehrssicherheit erwartet. Dieses Verkehrssicherheitspotenzial wird man jedoch nur ausschöpfen können, wenn die automatisierten Lenksysteme entsprechend gestaltet sind. Insbesondere sollten mögliche Risiken auf Grund automatischen Lenkens minimiert sein. Aus diesen Gründen laufen derzeit Arbeiten auf UNECE-Ebene, die Regelung Nr. 79 über einheitliche Bedingungen für die Genehmigung der Fahrzeuge hinsichtlich der Lenkanlage in Bezug auf automatische Lenkfunktionen (ACSF = Automatically Commanded Steering Functions) zu überarbeiten, um diese unter bestimmten Bedingungen auch bei höheren Geschwindigkeiten genehmigen zu können. Der vorliegende Beitrag reflektiert diese Arbeiten und stellt die Entwicklung der technischen Anforderungen an automatisches Lenken und der für die fahrzeugtechnischen Vorschriften vorgesehenen Testprozeduren dar.
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.
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.
Für eine Reihe von EU Regelungen im Bereich Fahrzeugsicherheit erlaubt eine Verordnung bereits seit dem Jahr 2010 virtuelles Testen für die Typzulassungsprüfung. Technische Details bzw. konkrete Prozeduren für spezifische Regelungen sind in dieser Verordnung jedoch nicht enthalten. Das Hauptziel des europäischen Projekts IMVITER (lmplementation of Virtual Testing in Safety Regulations) war es, basierend auf der neuen Verordnung ein virtuelles Testverfahren auszuarbeiten und dabei offene Fragen zu berücksichtigen. Um die im Projekt-Konsortium unter Berücksichtigung der Anliegen aller Interessensgruppen wie Autohersteller, Zulassungsbehörden und technischer Dienste erarbeiteten offenen Punkte zu adressieren, wurde ein generisches Flussdiagramm entwickelt, das den Ablauf einer virtuell basierten Typprüfung darstellt. ln diesem Diagramm ist der virtuelle Typgenehmigungsprozess in drei aufeinander folgende Phasen aufgeteilt, die Verifikations-, Validierungs- und Typgenehmigungsphase. Von entscheidender Bedeutung ist die Phase der Validierung des Simulationsmodells, für die im IMVITER-Projekt eine Methodik vorgeschlagen wurde. Mit der im Projekt vorgeschlagenen Validierungsmethode ist kein Austausch des Simulationsmodells zwischen Fahrzeughersteller und technischem Dienst notwendig, so dass die Vertraulichkeit von Betriebsgeheimnissen nicht gefährdet ist. Zur Validierung des Modells werden jedoch immer Versuche notwendig sein. Dies gilt sowohl für die Überpruefung von passiven als auch aktiven Fahrzeugsicherheitssystemen. Eine zusammenfassende Betrachtung der Erfahrungen aus dem IMVITER-Projekt ergab, dass mit der Einführung von virtuellem Testen keine Erhöhung der Anforderungen an die Fahrzeugsicherheit bzgl. bestehender Regelungen verbunden sein sollte. Jedoch werden auch weiterhin neue zusäztliche Regelungen erforderlich sein, da sich das Unfallgeschehen und die Fahrzeugtechnologie weiterentwickeln und ändern werden. Diese sollten von Beginn an die Möglichkeiten des virtuellen Testens nutzen, insbesondere bei Testverfahren für neue Technologien, z.B. aktiver Fahrzeugsicherheitssysteme. Hier bieten virtuelle Testverfahren nicht nur eine Kosten- oder Zeitersparnis, sondern ermöglichen teilweise erst die sinnvolle Abprüfung von neuen Sicherheitssystemen, die mit aktuellen auf Hardware-Test basierenden Verfahren überhaupt nicht möglich wären.
Test and assessment procedures for passive pedestrian protection based on developments by the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) have been introduced in world-wide regulations and consumer test programmes, with considerable harmonization between these programmes. Nevertheless, latest accident investigations reveal a stagnation of pedestrian fatality numbers on European roads running the risk of not meeting the European Union- goal of halving the number of road fatalities by the year 2020. The branch of external road user safety within the EC-funded research project SENIORS under the HORIZON 2020 framework programme focuses on investigating the benefit of modifications to pedestrian test and assessment procedures and their impactors for vulnerable road users with focus on the elderly. Injury patterns of pedestrians and cyclists derived from the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) show a trend of AIS 2+ and AIS 3+ injuries getting more relevant for the thorax region in crashes with newer cars (Wisch et al., 2017), while maintaining the relevance for head and lower extremities. Several crash databases from Europe such as GIDAS and the Swedish Traffic Accident Data Acquisition (STRADA) also show that head, thorax and lower extremities are the key affected body regions not only for the average population but in particular for the elderly. Therefore, the SENIORS project is focusing on an improvement of currently available impactors and procedures in terms of biofidelity and injury assessment ability towards a better protection of the affected body regions, incorporating previous results from FP 6 project APROSYS and subsequent studies carried out by BASt. The paper describes the overall methodology to develop revised FE impactor models. Matched human body model and impactor simulations against generic test rigs provide transfer functions that will be used for the derivation of impactor criteria from human injury risk functions for the affected body regions. In a later step, the refined impactors will be validated by simulations against actual vehicle front-ends. Prototyping and adaptation of test and assessment procedures as well as an impact assessment will conclude the work of the project at the final stage. The work will contribute to an improved protection of vulnerable road users focusing on the elderly. The use of advanced human body models to develop applicable assessment criteria for the revised impactors is intended to cope with the paucity of actual biomechanical data focusing on elderly pedestrians. In order to achieve optimized results in the future, the improved test methods need to be implemented within an integrated approach, combining active with passive safety measures. In order to address the developments in road accidents and injury patterns of vulnerable road users, established test and assessment procedures need to be continuously verified and, where needed, to be revised. The demographic change as well as changes in the vehicle fleet, leading to a variation of accident scenarios, injury frequencies and injury patterns of vulnerable road users are addressed by the work provided by the SENIORS project, introducing updated impactors for pedestrian test and assessment procedures.
Supported by field accident data and monitoring results of European Regulation (EC) No. 78/2009, recent plans of the European Commission regarding a way forward to improve passive safety of vulnerable road users include, amongst other things, an extension of the head test area. The inclusion of passive cyclist safety is also being considered by Euro NCAP. Although passenger car to cyclist collisions are often severe and have a significant share within the accident statistics, cyclists are neither considered sufficiently in the legislative nor in the consumer ratings tests. Therefore, a test procedure to assess the protection potential of vehicle fronts in a collision with cyclists has been developed within a current research project. For this purpose, the existing pedestrian head impact test procedures were modified in order to include boundary conditions relevant for cyclists as the second big group of vulnerable road users. Based on an in-depth analysis of passenger car to cyclist accidents in Germany the three most representative accident constellations have been initially defined. The development of the test procedure itself was based on corresponding simulations with representative vehicle and bicycle models. In addition to different cyclist heights, reaching from a 6-year-old child to a 95%-male, also four pedal positions were considered. By reconstruction of a real accident the defined simulation parameters could be validated in advance. The conducted accident kinematics analysis shows for a large portion of the constellations an increased head impact area, which can reach beyond the roof leading edge, as well as high average values for head impact velocity and angle. Based on the simulation data obtained for the different vehicle models, cyclist-specific test parameters for impactor tests have been derived, which have been further examined in the course of head and leg impact tests. In order to study the cyclist accident kinematics under real test conditions, different full scale tests with a Polar-II dummy positioned on a bicycle have been conducted. Overall, the tests showed a good correlation with the simulations and support the defined boundary test conditions. Typical accident scenarios and simulations reveal higher head impact locations, angles and velocities. An extended head impact area with modified test parameters will contribute to an improved protection of vulnerable road users including cyclists. However, due to significantly differing impact kinematics and postures between the lower extremities of pedestrians and cyclists, these injuries cannot be addressed by the means of current test tools such as the flexible pedestrian legform impactor FlexPLI. Based on the findings obtained within the project as well as the existing pedestrian protection requirements a cyclist protection test procedure for use in legislation and consumer test programmes has been developed, whose requirements have been transferred into a corresponding test specification. This specification provides common head test boundary conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, whereby the existing requirements are modified and two parallel test procedures are avoided.
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.
Bicyclists and pedestrians belong to the most endangered groups in urban traffic. The EU-funded collaborative research project PROSPECT (‘PROactive Safety for PEdestrians and CyclisTs´) aims to significantly improve safety of those unprotected traffic participants by expanding the scope of scenarios covered by future active safety systems in passenger cars. Concepts for sensor control systems are built into three prototypes covering emergency interventions such as Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) as well as Autonomous Emergency Steering (AES). These systems tackle the well-known challenges of currently available systems including limited field-of-view by sensors, fuzzy path prediction, unreliable intent reaction times and slow reaction times. These highly innovative functions call for extensive validation methodologies based on already established consumer testing procedures. Since these functions are developed towards the prevention of intersection accidents in urban areas, a key aspect of the advanced testing methodology is the valid approximation of naturalistic trajectories using driving robots. Eventually, several simulator studies complemented a user acceptance and benefit analysis to evaluate the expected overall impact of the PROSPECT systems. The results achieved within the PROSPECT project are highly relevant for upcoming test protocols regarding the most critical situations with Vulnerable Road Users (VRU). With introducing the new methods in Euro NCAP (European New Car Assessment Programme) a significant increase in road safety is expected.
Test and assessment procedures for passive pedestrian protection of passenger cars are in place for many years within world-wide regulations as well as consumer test programmes. Nevertheless, recent accident investigations show a stagnation of pedestrian fatality numbers on European roads alongside increasing injury severities for older road users. The EU-funded SENIORS (Safety ENhancing Innovations for Older Road userS) project developed and evaluated a thorax injury prediction tool (TIPT) for later incorporation within test and assessment procedures. Accident data indicates an increasing portion of AIS2 and AIS3+ thoracic injuries of older pedestrians and cyclists which are currently not assessed in any test procedure for vulnerable road users. Therefore, SENIORS focused on the development of a test tool predicting the risk of rib fractures of vulnerable road users (VRU). While injury risk functions were reanalyzed, human body model (HBM) simulations against categorized generic vehicle frontends served as input for the definition of test setups and corresponding impact parameters. TIPT component tests against a generic frontend and an actual vehicle were used for the evaluation of the technical feasibility. The TIPT component tests shows the general feasibility of a test procedure for the assessment of thoracic injuries, with good repeatability and reproducibility of kinematics and results. Impact parameters such as the inclination angles of the thorax, angles of the velocity vector and impact speeds well replicate the parameters gained from the HBM simulations. The proposed markup and assessment scheme offers the possibility of a homogeneous evaluation of the protection potential of vehicle frontends while maintaining justifiable testing efforts. During evaluation testing, the proposed requirements were entirely met. The developed prototype of TIPT and launching system offer impact angles and speeds as suggested by HBM simulations. However, since thorax impacts during pedestrian accidents do not occur perpendicularly to the vehicle surface in most cases, the TIPT built-in linear potentiometers do not acquire the true resultant intrusions on the ribcage and thus, TIPT rib deflections do not reflect the actual human injury risk. However; for the impact forward to the bonnet leading edge, the TIPT seems applicable without further modifications. The test and assessment procedures using the TIPT offer for the first time the possibility of replicating the kinematics of a pedestrian thorax with a component test. The developed assessment scheme gives a first indication on how the risk for thoracic injuries could be implemented within the Euro NCAP Box 3 assessment. Future development of the TIPT may focus on implementing a rib cage that can deflect in all axes in a humanlike way.