91 Fahrzeugkonstruktion
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Buch (Monographie) (54)
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (44)
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (10)
- Arbeitspapier (9)
- Teil eines Buches (Kapitel) (4)
- Bericht (2)
Schlagworte
- Sicherheit (123) (entfernen)
The objective of this deliverable is to describe the expected influence of the candidate test procedures developed in FIMCAR for frontal impact on other impact types. The other impact types of primary interest are front-to-side impacts, collisions with road restraint systems (e.g. guardrails), and heavy goods vehicle impacts. These collision types were chosen as they involve structures that can be adapted to improve safety. Collisions with vulnerable road users (VRU) were not explicitly investigated in FIMCAR. It is expected that the vehicle structures of interest in FIMCAR can be designed into a VRU friendly shell. Information used for this deliverable comes from simulations and car-to-car crash tests conducted in FIMCAR or review of previous research. Three test configurations (full width, offset, and moving deformable barriers) were the input to the FIMCAR selection process. There are three different types of offset tests and two different full width tests. During the project test procedures could be divided into three groups that provide different influences or outcomes on vehicle designs: 1. The ODB barrier provides a method to assess part of the vehicles energy absorption capabilities and compartment test in one test. 2. The FWRB and FWDB have similar capabilities to control structural alignment, further assess energy absorption capabilities, and promote the improvements in the occupant restraint system for high deceleration impacts. 3. The PDB and MPDB can be used to promote better load spreading in the vehicle structures, in addition to assessing energy absorption and occupant compartment strength in an offset configuration. The consortium selected the ODB and FWDB as the two best candidates for short term application in international rulemaking. The review of how all candidates would affect vehicle performance in other impacts (beside front-to-front vehicle or frontal impacts with fixed obstacles) however is reported in this deliverable to support the benefit analysis reported in FIMCAR. The grouping presented above is used to discuss all five test candidates using similarities between certain tests and thereby simplify the discussion.
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.
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.
The "Autonomous driving on the roads of the future: Villa Ladenburg Project" by the Daimler und Benz-Stiftung looks at degrees of automation that will only become technically feasible in the distant future. The treatment of the legal questions in the present chapter therefore draws heavily on the description of the use cases, which begin to provide a concrete basis for evaluating individual issues. Uncertainties in predicting future technical developments can be expected and will have a commensurate impact on the assumptions and conclusions of this chapter. The resulting uncertainty is nevertheless unavoidable if one wants to press ahead with important interrelated issues. This chapter is therefore intended as a contribution to the debate on societal aspects of automated driving from a legal perspective and not as a legalistic evaluation of the subject. The consideration will largely focus on the situation within the context of current German law. The legal views expressed are those of the author and are based on nine years of experience in the field of driver assistance system research. In terms of the underlying conception presented here, the societal dimension of autonomous vehicles addressed in the present project goes well beyond the adjustments to the legal framework currently being called for in Germany. The following will examine the question of "societal acceptance" in the context of the legal questions raised by autonomous vehicles. This line of investigation is not immediately obvious and covers only a segment of the more thoroughgoing focus of the project.
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.
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.
The term driver assistance systems in the chapter title shall be understood to include vehicle automation. This chapter starts with a homogeneous and consistent classification and nomenclature of all kinds of driver assistance systems known and under discussion today (including vehicle automation). It thereby builds upon familiar classification schemes by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) and the standardization body SAE international. Detailed evaluation of the German legal situation for driver assistance systems and vehicle automation is provided in the following Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, an overview is given on the legal system in the US to reveal aspects relevant for vehicle automation. This is intended as initial information for those not acquainted to the US legal system which has been the first to regulate automation in several federal states. Finally, in Sect. 4, the current rating scheme of the European New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP) is presented in comparison to legal instruments. The model of a consumer protection based approach proves to be a flexible instrument with great advantages in promoting new technologies. Technical vehicle regulations on the other hand rule minimum requirements. Both approaches are needed to achieve maximum vehicle safety.
Für eine quantitativ exakte Beschreibung der mit der Gefahrgutbeförderung verbundenen Risiken fehlen sowohl statistische Voraussetzungen als auch eine wissenschaftlich begründete Risikoanalyse. Eine Risikoanalyse der Gefahrgutbeförderung soll zweckmäßigerweise auf Transportketten und nicht auf den direkten Vergleich von Verkehrsträgern abstellen. Zentrale Kategorie zur Definition des Risikos sollte dabei der Unfall sein. Zusammen mit der Transportleistung sollte er das Risiko als Wahrscheinlichkeitsaussage beschreiben. Mit in die Risikobestimmung einzubeziehen ist die Unfallschwere. Im Rahmen des Beitrages schlägt eine Projektgruppe eine dreistufig angelegte Risikoanalyse vor. Die Bausteine dieser Risikoanalyse bestehen aus 1. einer mathematisch-statistischen Risikoanalyse, 2. einer Schwachstellenanalyse und 3. einem Systemmodell zur ständigen Analyse des Gefahrgutbeförderungsrisikos. Dazu werden in dem Forschungsbericht grundsätzliche Überlegungen zur Risikobewertung angestellt, auf das Regelwerk des Gefahrguttransportes eingegangen, Ausbildung, Training und Überprüfung der Fahrzeugführer behandelt sowie auf das Gefahrgut und die Gefahrgutumschließung eingegangen. Ferner befasst sich der Bericht mit der Fahrzeugtechnik, der Verkehrsinfrastruktur, Informationssystemen und der Sicherheit im Gefahrguttransport in den neuen Bundesländern. Zum Schluss werden Forschungsempfehlungen bezüglich der Sicherheit in der Gefahrgutbeförderung formuliert.
The objectives of the FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) project are to answer the remaining open questions identified in earlier projects (such as understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of force based metrics and barrier deformation based metrics, confirmation of specific compatibility issues such as structural interaction, investigation of force matching) and to finalise the frontal impact test procedures required to assess compatibility. Research strategies and priorities were based on earlier research programs and the FIMCAR accident data analysis. The identified real world safety issues were used to develop a list of compatibility characteristics which were then prioritised within the consortium. This list was the basis for evaluating the different test candidates. This analysis resulted in the combination of the Full Width Deformable Barrier test (FWDB) with compatibility metrics and the existing Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) as described in UN-ECE Regulation 94 with additional cabin integrity requirement as being proposed as the FIMCAR assessment approach. The proposed frontal impact assessment approach addresses many of the issues identified by the FIMCAR consortium but not all frontal impact and compatibility issues could be addressed.
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.