Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (7)
- Buch (Monographie) (1)
- Bericht (1)
Schlagworte
- Fahrerassistenzsystem (5)
- Prüfverfahren (5)
- Test method (5)
- Driver assistance system (4)
- Antikollisionssystem (3)
- Automatische Notbremsung (3)
- Cyclist (3)
- Efficiency (3)
- Fußgänger (3)
- Leistungsfähigkeit (allg) (3)
Institut
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.
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.
Lkw-Notbremsassistenzsysteme
(2020)
Notbremsassistenzsysteme für Lkw können einen großen Beitrag zur Verkehrssicherheit leisten, indem sie Unfälle, die von schweren Lkw verursacht werden, wirkungsvoll vermeiden helfen. Die aktuellen Anforderungen für diese Notbremsassistenzsysteme wurden allerdings vor über zehn Jahren festgelegt. Der Stand der Technik hat sich seitdem stark weiterentwickelt. Aufgabe der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen war daher, zu überprüfen, ob die technischen Anforderungen für Notbremsassistenz noch zeitgemäß sind oder ob eine Anpassung sinnvoll für die Verkehrssicherheit ist. Der technische Fortschritt im Bereich der Fahrerassistenzsysteme ist so groß, dass die vor knapp 10 Jahren festgelegten Anforderungen an Notbremssysteme heute nicht mehr dem Stand der Technik entsprechen – sowohl hinsichtlich der in den derzeit geltenden Vorschriften explizit erlaubten Abschaltbarkeit der Notbremssysteme als auch hinsichtlich der geforderten Bremsleistung beziehungsweise des Geschwindigkeitsabbaus. Es war daher zunächst zu prüfen, ob die derzeit zulässige Abschaltbarkeit erforderlich ist, und falls ja, ob sie auf bestimmte Verkehrssituationen und Fahrzeugtypen eingeschränkt werden kann. Es war weiterhin zu prüfen, ob höhere Mindestverzögerungswerte gefordert werden können, ob insbesondere im Falle von stehenden Fahrzeugen vor dem Fahrzeug (z. B. am Stauende) Notbremsungen mit deutlich höherer Geschwindigkeitsreduktion eingeleitet werden können und durch die Systeme auch kleinere Fahrzeuge als bisher vorgeschrieben erkannt werden müssen. In Notbremssituationen ist es denkbar, dass Fahrer unabsichtlich eine Übersteuerung (und damit eine Abschaltung des Notbremssystems) vornehmen, indem sie beispielsweise „in das Pedal fallen“. Es sollte daher untersucht werden, ob dieser Fall relevant ist und Abhilfe bedarf. Auch eine Anpassung der Regelkriterien an unterschiedliche Straßenverhältnisse (Niedrigreibwert) sowie die Möglichkeit einer Warnung von Fahrern bei geringen Sicherheitsabständen sollte geprüft werden. Insbesondere die erforderlichen automatischen Geschwindigkeitsreduktionen bei bevorstehenden Kollisionen auf stehende Ziele können deutlich angehoben werden. Aus fahrdynamischen Grundlagen wurden, je nach Ausgangsfahrgeschwindigkeit, unterschiedliche Zeitpunkte für Bremseingriffe bestimmt. Als Voraussetzung für automatische Bremseingriffe wurde angenommen, dass diese spätestens dann gerechtfertigt sind, wenn ein menschlicher Fahrer keine Möglichkeit mehr hat, einem Zielobjekt auszuweichen. Messungen zeigen eine gute Übereinstimmung eines aus den Annahmen abgeleiteten Simulationsmodells mit den tatsächlichen Bremseingriffszeitpunkten und Bremseingriffen eines mit einem modernen Notbremssystem ausgerüsteten Lkw. Als Ergebnis wurden durchaus erzielbare Geschwindigkeitsreduktionen in Abhängigkeit von Ausgangsgeschwindigkeit und Fahrbahnoberfläche ermittelt, die sich als Anforderung für internationale Vorschriften eignen. Bezüglich der Abschaltbarkeit von Notbremsassistenzsystemen wurde anhand der durchgeführten Untersuchungen festgestellt, dass sich Fehlwarnungen im Fahrbetrieb, selbst unter Nutzung eines der derzeit am weitesten entwickelten Notbremssysteme, nicht gänzlich vermeiden lassen. Grund dafür ist im Wesentlichen die unzureichende Erkennbarkeit der Fahrerintention in bestimmten Verkehrssituationen. Fehlwarnungen in ungestörter Autobahnfahrt (= außerhalb von Autobahnbaustellen) konnten aber nicht gefunden werden. Aus technischer Sicht ist es daher sinnvoll, die Deaktivierbarkeit eines Notbremssystems nur in solchen Verkehrssituationen zu erlauben, in denen es durch Fehlinterpretationen seitens des Systems (Objekte abseits der Fahrbahn) zu Fehlfunktionen kommen kann. Ein Indikator hierfür kann eine bestimmte Geschwindigkeitsgrenze sein. Für eine zusätzliche frühzeitige Warnung des Fahrers bei zu geringem Mindestabstand ist gegebenenfalls eine Verbesserung der Verkehrssicherheit denkbar. Der tatsächliche Nutzen einer Abstandswarnung hängt aber davon ab, ob der Abstand irrtümlich oder bewusst gering gehalten ist und ob die Lkw-Fahrenden auf eine Warnung durch eine Vergrößerung des Abstands reagieren.
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.
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.
In the last years there has been a decline in accident figures in Germany especially for four wheeled vehicles. At the same time, accident figures for motorcycles remained nearly constant. About 17 % of road traffic fatalities in the year 2006 were motorcyclists. 33 % of these riders were killed in single vehicle crashes. This leads to the conclusion that improving driving dynamics and driving stability of powered two wheelers would yield considerable safety gains. However, the well-known measures for cars and trucks with their proven effectiveness cannot be transferred easily to motorcycles. Therefore studies were carried out to examine the safety potential of Anti Lock Braking Systems (ABS) and Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) for motorcycles by means of accident analysis, driving tests and economical as well as technical assessment of the systems. With regard to ABS, test persons were assigned braking tasks (straight and in-curve) with five different brake systems with and without ABS. Stopping distances as well as stress and strain on the riders were measured for 9 test riders who completed 105 braking manoeuvres each. Knowing the ability of ABS to avoid falls during braking in advance of a crash and taking into account the system costs, a cost benefit analysis for ABS for motorcycles was carried out for different market penetration of ABS, i.e. equipment rates, and different time horizons. The potential of VSC for motorcycles was estimated in two steps. First the kinds of accidents that could be prevented by such a system at all have been analysed. For these accident configurations, simulations and driving tests were then performed to determine if a VSC was able to detect the critical driving situation and if it was technically possible to implement an actuator which would help to stabilise the critical situation.
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 driving cyclists often show massive consequences. Accident severity in terms of seriously or fatally injured cyclists that are involved is much higher than in accidents of other traffic participants in other situations. It seems clear that adding additional mirrors will very likely not improve the situation. At ESV 2015, a methodology to derive test procedures and first test cases as well as requirements for a driver assist system to address blind spot accidents has been presented. However, it was unclear if and how testing of these cases is feasible, to what extent characteristics of different truck concepts (e.g. articulated vehicles, rigid vehicles) influence the test conduction and outcome, and what tolerances should be selected for the different variables. This work is important for the acceptance of a draft regulation in the UN working group on general safety. In the meantime, three test series using a single tractor vehicle, a tractor-semitrailer combination and a rigid vehicle have been conducted. The test tools (e.g. surrogate devices) have been refined. A fully crashable, commercially available bicycle dummy has been tested. If used correct, this dummy does follow a straight line quite precisely and it does not cause any damage to the truck under test in case of accidental impact. The dummy specifications are freely available. During testing, the different vehicle categories resulted in different trajectories being driven. Articulated vehicle combinations did first execute a turn into the opposite direction, and on the other hand, single tractor vehicles did behave comparable to passenger cars. A possible solution to take these behaviors into account is to require the vehicles to drive through a corridor that is narrow for a precise straight-driving phase and extends during the turn. Other investigated parameters are the dummy and vehicle speed tolerances. The results from this research make it possible to draft a regulation for a driver assistance system that helps to avoid blind spot accidents: test cases have been refined, their feasibility has been checked, and corridors for the vehicles and for important parameters (e.g. test speeds) have been set. The test procedure is applicable to all types of heavy goods vehicles. In combination with the accidentology (ESV 2015 paper), the work provides the basis for a regulation for such an assistance system.