Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Fahrzeug (6)
- Vehicle (6)
- Anfahrversuch (5)
- Compatibility (5)
- Impact test (veh) (5)
- Kompatibilität (5)
- Bewertung (4)
- Evaluation (assessment) (4)
- Method (4)
- Safety (4)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (7)
- Sonstige (1)
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions compatibility (which consists of self and partner protection) between opponents is crucial. Although compatibility has been analysed worldwide for over 10 years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and frontal impact working group (WG15) and the FP5 VC-COMPAT project activities, two test approaches have been identified as the most promising candidates for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed of an off-set and a full overlap test procedure. In addition another procedure (a test with a moving deformable barrier) is getting more attention in current research programmes. The overall objective of the FIMCAR project is to complete the development of the candidate test procedures and propose a set of test procedures suitable for regulatory application to assess and control a vehicle- frontal impact and compatibility crash safety. In addition an associated cost benefit analysis should be performed. The objectives of the work reported in this deliverable were to review existing full-width test procedures and their discussed compatibility metrics, to report recent activities and findings with respect to full-width assessment procedures and to assess test procedures and metrics. Starting with a review of previous work, candidate metrics and associated performance limits to assess a vehicle- structural interaction potential, in particular its structural alignment, have been developed for both the Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB) and Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB) tests. Initial work was performed to develop a concept to assess a vehicle- frontal force matching. However, based on the accident analyses performed within FIMCAR frontal force matching was not evaluated as a first priority and thus in line with FIMCAR strategy the focus was put on the development of metrics for the assessment of structural interaction which was evaluated as a first priority.
Accident analysis
(2014)
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions compatibility (which consists of self and partner protection) between opponents is crucial. Although compatibility has been analysed worldwide for years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and frontal impact working group (WG15) and the EC funded FP5 VC-COMPAT project activities, two test approaches have been identified as the most promising candidates for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed of an off-set and a full overlap test procedure. In addition another procedure (a test with a moving deformable barrier) is getting more attention in today- research programmes. The overall objective of the FIMCAR project is to complete the development of the candidate test procedures and propose a set of test procedures suitable for regulatory application to assess and control a vehicle- frontal impact and compatibility crash safety. In addition an associated cost benefit analysis should be performed. The specific objectives of the work reported in this deliverable were: - Determine if previously identified compatibility issues are still relevant in current vehicle fleet: Structural interaction, Frontal force matching, Compartment strength in particular for light cars. - Determine nature of injuries and injury mechanisms: Body regions injured o Injury mechanism: Contact with intrusion, Contact, Deceleration / restraint induced. The main data sources for this report were the CCIS and Stats 19 databases from Great Britain and the GIDAS database from Germany. The different sampling and reporting schemes for the detailed databases (CCIS & GIDAS) sometimes do not allow for direct comparisons of the results. However the databases are complementary " CCIS captures more severe collisions highlighting structure and injury issues while GIDAS provides detailed data for a broader range of crash severities. The following results represent the critical points for further development of test procedures in FIMCAR.
Within this paper different European accident data sources were used to investigate the causations and backgrounds of road traffic accidents with pedestrians. Analyses of high level national data and in-depth accident data from Germany and Great Britain was used to confirm and refine preliminary accident scenarios identified from other sources using a literature review. General observations made included that a high proportion of killed or seriously injured pedestrian casualties impacted by cars were in "dark" light conditions. Seven accident scenarios were identified (each divided into "daylight" and "dark" light conditions) which included the majority of the car front-to-pedestrian crash configurations. Test scenarios were developed using the identified accident scenarios and relevant parameters. Hypothetical parameters were derived to describe the performance of pedestrian pre-crash systems based on the assumption that these systems are designed to avoid false positives as a very high priority, i.e. at virtually all costs. As result, three "Base Test Scenarios" were selected to be developed in detail in the AsPeCSS project. However, further Enhanced Test Scenarios may be needed to address environmental factors such as darkness if it is determined that system performance is sensitive to these factors. Finally, weighting factors for the accident scenarios for Europe (EU-27) were developed by averaging and extrapolation of the available data. This paper represents interim results of Work Package 1 within the AsPeCSS project.
Cost benefit analysis
(2014)
Although the number of road accident casualties in Europe is falling the problem still remains substantial. In 2011 there were still over 30,000 road accident fatalities [EC 2012]. Approximately half of these were car occupants and about 60 percent of these occurred in frontal impacts. The next stage to improve a car- safety performance in frontal impacts is to improve its compatibility for car-to-car impacts and for collisions against objects and HGVs. Compatibility consists of improving both a car- self and partner protection in a manner such that there is good interaction with the collision partner and the impact energy is absorbed in the car- frontal structures in a controlled way which results in a reduction of injuries. Over the last ten years much research has been performed which has found that there are four main factors related to a car- compatibility [Edwards 2003, Edwards 2007]. These are structural interaction potential, frontal force matching, compartment strength and the compartment deceleration pulse and related restraint system performance. The objective of the FIMCAR FP7 EC-project was to develop an assessment approach suitable for regulatory application to control a car- frontal impact and compatibility crash performance and perform an associated cost benefit analysis for its implementation.
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions compatibility (which consists of self and partner protection) between opponents is crucial. Although compatibility has been analysed worldwide for over 10 years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and the final report to the steering committee on frontal impact [Faerber 2007] and the FP5 VC-COMPAT[Edwards 2007] project activities, two test approaches were identified as the most promising candidates for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed of an off-set and a full overlap test procedure. In addition another procedure (a test with a moving deformable barrier) is getting more attention in current research programmes. The overall objective of the FIMCAR project is to complete the development of the candidate test procedures and propose a set of test procedures suitable for regulatory application to assess and control a vehicle- frontal impact and compatibility crash safety. In addition an associated cost benefit analysis will be performed. In the FIMCAR Deliverable D 3.1 [Adolph 2013] the development and assessment of criteria and associated performance limits for the full width test procedure were reported. In this Deliverable D3.2 analyses of the test data (full width tests, car-to-car tests and component tests), further development and validation of the full width assessment protocol and development of the load cell and load cell wall specification are reported. The FIMCAR full-width assessment procedure consists of a 50 km/h test against the Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB). The Load Cell Wall behind the deformable element assesses whether or not important Energy Absorbing Structures are within the Common Interaction Zone as defined based on the US part 581 zone. The metric evaluates the row forces and requires that the forces directly above and below the centre line of the Common Interaction Zone exceed a minimum threshold. Analysis of the load spreading showed that metrics that rely on sum forces of rows and columns are within acceptable tolerances. Furthermore it was concluded that the Repeatability and Reproducibility of the FWDB test is acceptable. The FWDB test was shown to be capable to detect lower load paths that are beneficial in car-to-car impacts.
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.
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.