Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Autonomous emergency braking (3) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (3) (entfernen)
A methodology to derive precision requirements for automatic emergency braking (AEB) test procedures
(2015)
AEB Systems are becoming important to increase traffic safety. Test procedures in testing for consumer information, manufacturer self-certification and technical regulations are used to ensure a certain minimum performance of these systems. Consequently, test robustness, test efficiency and finally test cost become increasingly important. The key driver for testing effort and test costs is the required repeatable accuracy in a test design - the higher the accuracy, the higher effort and test costs. On the other hand, the performance of active safety systems depends on time discretization in the environment perception and other sub-systems: for instance, typical sensors supply information with a cycle time of 50 - 150 ms. Time discretization results in an inherent spread of system performance, even if the test conditions are perfectly equal. The proposed paper shows a methodology to derive requirements for a test setup (e.g. test repeats, use of driving robots, ...) as function of AEB system generation and rating method (e.g. Euro NCAP points awarded, pass/fail, ...). While the methodology itself is applicable to AEB pedestrian and AEB Car-Car scenarios, due to the lack of sufficient test data for AEB Car-Car, the focus of this paper is on AEB pedestrian scenarios. A simulation model for the performance of AEB Pedestrian systems allows for the systematic variation of the discretization time as well as test condition accuracy. This model is calibrated with test results of 4 production vehicles for AEB Pedestrian, all fully tested by BASt according to current Euro NCAP test protocols. Selected parameters to observe the accuracy of the test setup in case of pedestrian AEB is the calculated impact position of pedestrian on the vehicle front (as if no braking would have occurred), and the test vehicle speed accuracy. These variable was shown in real tests to be repeatable in the range of ± 5 cm and ± 0,25 km/h, respectively, with a fully robotized state of the art test setup. The sensitivity of AEB performance (measured in achieved speed reduction as well as overall rating result according to current Euro NCAP rating methods) towards discretization and the sensitivity of performance towards test accuracy then is compared to identify economic yet robust test concepts. These comparisons show that the available repeatability accuracy of current test setups is more than sufficient for today's AEB system capabilities. Time discretization problems dominate the performance spread especially in test scenarios with a limited pedestrian dummy reveal time (e.g. child behind obstruction, running adult scenarios with low car speeds). This would allow to increase test tolerances to decrease test cost. A methodology which allows to derive the required tolerances in active safety tests might be valuable especially for NCAPs of emerging countries that do not have the necessary equipment (e.g. driving robots, positioning units) available for the full-scale and high tolerance EuroNCAP active safety procedures yet still want to rate active safety systems, thus improving the global safety.
Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems for pedestrians have been predicted to offer substantial benefit. On this basis, consumer rating programmes, e.g. Euro NCAP, are developing rating schemes to encourage fitment of these systems. One of the questions that needs to be answered to do this fully, is to determine how the assessment of the speed reduction offered by the AEB is integrated with the current assessment of the passive safety for mitigation of pedestrian injury. Ideally, this should be done on a benefit related basis. The objective of this research was to develop a benefit based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with pre-crash braking and passive safety components. A methodology has been developed which calculates the cost of pedestrian injury expected, assuming all pedestrians in the target population (i.e. pedestrians impacted by the front of a passenger car) are impacted by the car being assessed, taking into account the impact speed reduction offered by the car’s AEB (if fitted) and the passive safety protection offered by the car’s frontal structure. For rating purposes, this cost can be normalised by comparing it to the cost calculated for selected cars. The methodology uses the speed reductions measured in AEB tests to determine the speed at which each casualty in the target population will be impacted. The injury to each casualty is then calculated using the results from standard Euro NCAP pedestrian impactor tests and injury risk curves. This injury is converted into cost using ‘Harm’ type costs for the body regions tested. These costs are weighted and summed. Weighting factors were determined using accident data from Germany and GB and the results of a benefit analysis performed by the EU FP7 AsPeCSS project. This resulted in German and GB versions of the methodology. The methodology was used to assess cars with good, average and poor Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings, with and without a current AEB system fitted. It was found that the decrease in casualty injury cost achieved by fitting an AEB system was approximately equivalent to that achieved by increasing the passive safety rating from poor to average. Also, it was found that the assessment was influenced strongly by the level of head protection offered in the scuttle and windscreen area because this is where head impact occurs for a large proportion of casualties. The major limitation within the methodology is the assumption used implicitly during weighting. This is that the cost of casualty injuries to body areas, such as the thorax, not assessed by the headform and legform impactors, and other casualty injuries such as those caused by ground impact, are related linearly to the cost of casualty injuries assessed by the impactors. A methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems was developed. This methodology is of interest to consumer rating programmes which wish to include assessment of these systems. It also raises the interesting issue if the head impact test area should be weighted to reflect better real-world benefit.
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.