Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik
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.
Zu Beginn des Jahres 2016 macht der Anteil der Pkws mit alternativem Antrieb rund 2% des Pkw-Gesamtbestandes aus. Der Bestand an Pkw mit alternativem Antrieb stieg auf rund 712.000 Fahrzeuge im Jahr 2016 (ein Plus von etwa 11% gegenüber 2013). Um die zukünftige Entwicklung von Fahrzeugen mit alternativem Antrieb in Deutschland beurteilen zu können, initiierte die Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt) im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI) schon im Jahr 2010 die Einrichtung einer langfristigen Beobachtung des Fahrzeugmarktes und des Unfallgeschehens von Fahrzeugen mit alternativen Antriebsarten mit dem Ziel, die tatsächliche Umsetzung des technologischen Fortschritts in marktgängige Produkte zu verfolgen, frühzeitig Kenntnis über die Bestandsentwicklung zu erhalten sowie mögliche Fehlentwicklungen " insbesondere mit Blick auf die Verkehrssicherheit " zu identifizieren. Vor allem die Betrachtung des letzten Punktes soll die Möglichkeit schaffen, Vorschläge für eine sinnvolle Steuerung der Entwicklung leisten zu können. Nachfolgend werden in Kapitel 2 die technischen Entwicklungslinien des Marktes für Fahrzeuge mit alternativem Antrieb dargestellt. In den Kapiteln 3 und 4 werden der Bestand sowie das Unfallgeschehen näher betrachtet.
Fahrzeuge, die mit alternativen Antrieben ausgestattet sind, machen 2013 lediglich etwa 2 Prozent des Pkw-Gesamtbestandes aus. Um jedoch die zukünftige Entwicklung von Fahrzeugen mit alternativem Antrieb in Deutschland analysieren und mögliche negative Auswirkungen auf die Verkehrssicherheit identifizieren zu können, ist eine langfristige Beobachtung des Fahrzeugmarktes und des Unfallgeschehens notwendig. Der vorliegende Bericht zeigt in den Kapiteln 2 und 3 die technischen Entwicklungen von Fahrzeugen mit alternativem Antrieb auf und gibt einen Überblick über die Rahmenbedingungen des deutschen Marktes bis 2015. In den Kapiteln 4 und 5 werden der Bestand sowie das Unfallgeschehen näher betrachtet. Der Bericht liefert in diesem statistischen Teil Daten für das Berichtsjahr 2013.
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.
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.
Die Level kontinuierlicher Fahrzeugautomatisierung sind unter Fahrerassistenzexperten weithin bekannt und erleichtern das Verständnis. Sie können aber nicht Fahrzeugautomatisierung insgesamt zufriedenstellend beschreiben: Insbesondere temporär intervenierende Funktionen, die in unfallnahen Situationen eingreifen, können offensichtlich nicht nach dem Level kontinuierlicher Fahrzeugautomatisierung beschrieben werden. Diese beschreiben nämlich die zunehmende Aufgabenverlagerung vom Fahrer zur maschinellen Steuerung bei zunehmendem Automatisierungsgrad. Notbremsfunktionen, beispielsweise, sind offensichtlich diskontinuierlich und nehmen zugleich auf intensive Weise Einfluss auf die Fahrzeugsteuerung. Sie lassen sich gerade nicht sinnvoll nach dem Level kontinuierlicher Fahrzeugautomatisierung beschrieben. Das Ergebnis kann indes nicht zufriedenstellen. Die fehlende Sichtbarkeit dieser Funktionen wird ihrer Bedeutung für die Verkehrssicherheit nicht gerecht. Daher wird im Beitrag, um ein vollständiges Bild der Fahrzeugautomatisierung zu erlangen, ein umfassender Ansatz zur Beschreibung verfolgt, der sich auf oberster Ebene nach Wirkweise unterscheidet. Auf dieser Basis lassen sich sowohl informierende und warnende Funktionen als auch solche, die nur temporär in unfallgeneigten Situationen intervenieren, im Detail beschrieben. Das ermöglicht es, eine eigenständige Klassifikation für unfallgeneigte Situationen zu erstellen; dies kann für diese wichtigen Funktionen die eigenständige Sichtbarkeit herstellen, die ihrer Bedeutung gerecht wird.
Die Level kontinuierlicher Fahrzeugautomatisierung sind unter Fahrerassistenzexperten weithin bekannt und erleichtern das Verständnis. Sie können aber nicht Fahrzeugautomatisierung insgesamt zufriedenstellend beschreiben: Insbesondere temporär intervenierende Funktionen, die in unfallnahen Situationen eingreifen, können offensichtlich nicht nach dem Level kontinuierlicher Fahrzeugautomatisierung beschrieben werden. Diese beschreiben nämlich die zunehmende Aufgabenverlagerung vom Fahrer zur maschinellen Steuerung bei zunehmendem Automatisierungsgrad. Notbremsfunktionen, beispielsweise, sind offensichtlich diskontinuierlich und nehmen zugleich auf intensive Weise Einfluss auf die Fahrzeugsteuerung. Sie lassen sich gerade nicht sinnvoll nach dem Level kontinuierlicher Fahrzeugautomatisierung beschreiben. Das Ergebnis kann indes nicht zufriedenstellen: Die fehlende Sichtbarkeit dieser Funktionen wird ihrer Bedeutung für die Verkehrssicherheit nicht gerecht. Daher wird hier, um ein vollständiges Bild der Fahrzeugautomatisierung zu erlangen, ein umfassender Ansatz zur Beschreibung verfolgt, der auf oberster Ebene nach Wirkweise unterscheidet. Auf dieser Basis lassen sich sowohl informierende und warnende Funktionen als auch solche, die nur temporär in unfallgeneigten Situationen intervenieren, im Detail beschreiben. Das ermöglicht es, eine eigenständige Klassifikation für unfallgeneigte Situationen zu erstellen. Dies kann für diese wichtigen Funktionen die eigenständige Sichtbarkeit herstellen, die ihrer Bedeutung gerecht wird.
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.
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.
The off-set assessment procedure potentially contributes to the FIMCAR objectives to maintain the compartment strength and to assess load spreading in frontal collisions. Furthermore it provides the opportunity to assess the restraint system performance with different pulses if combined with a full-width assessment procedure in the frontal assessment approach. Originally it was expected that the PDB assessment procedure would be selected for the FIMCAR assessment approach. However, it was not possible to deliver a compatibility metric in time so that the current off-set procedure (ODB as used in UNECE R94) with some minor modifications was proposed for the FIMCAR Assessment Approach. Nevertheless the potential to assess load spreading, which appears not to be possible with any other assessed frontal impact assessment procedure was considered to be still high. Therefore the development work for the PDB assessment procedure did not stop with the decision not to select the PDB procedure. As a result of the decisions to use the current ODB and to further develop the PDB procedure, both are covered within this deliverable. The deliverable describes the off-set test procedure that will be recommended by FIMCAR consortium, this corresponds to the ODB test as it is specified in UN-ECE Regulation 94 (R94), i.e. EEVC deformable element with 40% overlap at a test speed of 56 km/h. In addition to the current R94 requirements, FIMCAR will recommend to introduce some structural requirements which will guarantee sufficiently strong occupant compartments by enforcing the stability of the forward occupant cell. With respect to the PDB assessment procedure a new metric, Digital Derivative in Y direction - DDY, was developed, described, analysed, and compared with other metrics. The DDY metric analyses the deformation gradients laterally across the PDB face. The more even the deformation, the lower the DDY values and the better the metric- result. In order analyse the different metrics, analysis of the existing PDB test results and the results of the performed simulation studies was performed. In addition, an assessment of artificial deformation profiles with the metrics took place. This analysis shows that there are still issues with the DDY metric but it appears that it is possible to solve them with future optimisations. For example the current metric assesses only the area within 60% of the half vehicle width. For vehicles that have the longitudinals further outboard, the metric is not effective. In addition to the metric development, practical issues of the PDB tests such as the definition of a scan procedure for the analysis of the deformation pattern including the validation of the scanning procedure by the analysis of 3 different scans at different locations of the same barrier were addressed. Furthermore the repeatability and reproducibility of the PDB was analysed. The barrier deformation readings seem to be sensitive with respect to the impact accuracy. In total, the deliverable is meant to define the FIMCAR off-set assessment procedure and to be a starting point for further development of the PDB assessment procedure.
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.
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 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.
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.
To improve vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility aims to improve both the self and partner protection properties of vehicles. Although compatibility has received worldwide attention for many years, no final assessment approach has been defined. Within the Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research (FIMCAR) project, different frontal impact test procedures (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test as currently used for Economic Commission for Europe [ECE] R94, progressive deformable barrier test as proposed by France for a new ECE regulation, moveable deformable barrier test as discussed worldwide, full-width rigid barrier test as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard [FMVSS] 208, and full-width deformable barrier test) were analyzed regarding their potential for future frontal impact legislation. The research activities focused on car-to-car frontal impact accidents based on accident investigations involving newer cars. Test procedures were developed with both a crash test program and numerical simulations. The proposal from FIMCAR is to use a full-width test procedure with a deformable element and compatibility metrics in combination with the current offset test as a frontal impact assessment approach that also addresses compatibility. By adding a full-width test to the current ODB test it is possible to better address the issues of structural misalignment and injuries resulting from high acceleration accidents as observed in the current fleet. The estimated benefit ranges from a 5 to 12 percent reduction of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from frontal impact accidents. By using a deformable element in the full-width test, the test conditions are more representative of real-world situations with respect to acceleration pulse, restraint system triggering time, and deformation pattern of the front structure. The test results are therefore expected to better represent real-world performance of the tested car. Furthermore, the assessment of the structural alignment is more robust than in the rigid wall test.
The objective was to develop and validate a crash trolley (reference vehicle) equipped with a compartment and a full restraint system for driver and front seat passenger which can be used in full scale crash testing. Furthermore, the crash trolley should have a suspension to show rotation and nick effects similar to real vehicles. Within the development phase the reference vehicle was build based on a European family car. Special attention was needed to provide appropriate strength to the trolley and its suspension. The reference vehicle is equipped with a restraint system consisting of airbags, pedals, seats, dashboard, and windscreen. On the front of the vehicle different crash barriers can be installed to provide miscellaneous deceleration pulses. For the validation phase a series of low and high speed crash tests with HIII dummies were conducted and compared with full scale tests. For the comparison deceleration pulse, dummy numbers and vehicle movement were analyzed. Validation tests with velocities up to 60 km/h showed promising results. The compartment and the suspension systems stayed stable. Rotation effects were comparable with full scale car crash tests. The airbags and seat belt system worked reasonable. The acceleration pulse compared to an Euro NCAP test had a similar characteristic but was in general slightly lower. After the successful validation the reference vehicle is already in use in different studies in the field of vehicle safety research at BASt.
In Germany the number of casualties in passenger car to pedestrian crashes has been reduced by a considerable amount of 40% as regards fatalities and 25% with regard to seriously injured pedestrians since the year 2001. Similar trends can be seen in other European countries. The reasons for that positive development are still under investigation. As infrastructural or behavioral changes do in general take a longer time to be effective in real world, explanations related to improved active and passive safety of passenger vehicles can be more relevant in providing answers for this trend. The effect of passive pedestrian protection " specified by the Euro NCAP pedestrian test result " is of particular interest and has already been analyzed by several authors. However, the number of vehicles with some valid Euro NCAP pedestrian score (post 2002 rating) was quite limited in most of those studies. To overcome this problem of small datasets German National Accident Records have been taken to investigate a similar objective but now based on a much bigger dataset. The paper uses German National Accident Records from the years 2009 to 2011. In total 65.140 records of pedestrian to passenger car crashes have been available. Considering crash parameters like accident location (rural / urban areas) etc., 27.143 of those crashes have been classified to be relevant for the analysis of passive pedestrian safety. In those 27.143 records 7.576 Euro NCAP rated vehicles (post 2002 rating) have been identified. In addition it was possible to identify vehicles which comply with pedestrian protection legislation (2003/102/EG) where phase 1 came into force in October 2005. A significant correlation between Euro NCAP pedestrian score and injury outcome in real-life car to pedestrian crashes was found. Comparing a vehicle scoring 5 points and a vehicle scoring 22 points, pedestrians" conditional probability of getting fatally injured is reduced by 35% (from 0.58% to 0.37%) for the later one. At the same time the probability of serious injuries can be reduced by 16% (from 27.4% to 22.9%). No significant injury reducing effect, associated with the introduction of pedestrian protection legislation (phase 1) was detected. Considerable effects have also been identified comparing diesel and gasoline cars. Higher engine displacements are associated with a lower injury risk for pedestrians. The most relevant parameter has been "time of accident", whereas pedestrians face a more than 2 times higher probability to be fatally injured during night and darkness as compared to daytime conditions.
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.
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.
For a number of EU regulatory acts Virtual Testing (VT) is already allowed for type approval (see Commission Regulation No. 371/2010 of 16 April 2010 amending the Framework Directive 2007/46/EC). However, only a very general procedure on how to apply VT for type approval is provided. Technical details for specific regulatory acts are not given yet. The main objective of the European project IMVITER (IMplementation of VIrtual TEsting in Safety Regulations) was to promote the implementation of VT in safety regulations. When proposing VT procedures the new regulation was taken into account, in particular, addressing open issues. Special attention was paid to pedestrian protection as pilot cases. A key aspect for VT implementation is to demonstrate that the employed simulation models are reliable. This paper describes how the Verification and Validation (V&V) method defined by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers was adapted for pedestrian protection VT based assessment. or the certification of headform impactors an extensive study was performed at two laboratories to assess the variability in calibration tests and equivalent results from a set of simulation models. Based on these results a methodology is defined for certification of headform impactor simulation models. A similar study was also performed with one vehicle in the type approval test setup. Its bonnet was highly instrumented and subjected to 45 impacts in five different positions at two laboratories in order to obtain an estimation of the variability in the physical tests. An equivalent study was performed using stochastic simulation with a metamodel fed with observed variability in impact conditions of physical headforms. An estimation of the test method uncertainty was obtained and used in the definition of a validation corridor for simulation models. Validation metric and criteria were defined in cooperation with the ISO TC22 SC10 and SC12 WG4 "Virtual Testing". A complete validation procedure including different test setups, physical magnitudes and evaluation criteria is provided. A detailed procedural flowchart is developed for VT implementation in EC Regulation No 78/2009 based on a so called "Hybrid VT" approach, which combines real hardware based head impact tests and simulations. This detailed flowchart is shown and explained within this paper. Another important point within the virtual testing based procedures is the documentation of relevant information resulting from the verification and validation process of the numerical models used. For this purpose report templates were developed within the project. The proposed procedure fixes minimum V&V requirements for numerical models to be confidently used within the type-approval process. It is not intended to be a thorough guide on how to build such reliable models. Different modeling methodologies are therefore possible, according to particular OEM know-how. These requirements respond to a balance amongst the type-approval stakeholders interests. A cost-benefit analysis, which was also performed within the IMVITER project, supports this approach, showing the conditions in which VT implementation is beneficial. Based on the experience gained in the project and the background of the experts involved an outlook is given as a roadmap of VT implementation, identifying the most important milestones to be reached along the way to a future vehicle type approval procedure supported by VT. The results presented in this paper show an important step addressing open questions and fostering the future acceptance of virtual testing in pedestrian protection type approval procedures.
This report presents the results of a stakeholder analysis which has been performed by the EasyWay Cooperative Systems Task Force. The stakeholder analysis aims at identifying potential roles of the road operator in the operation process of selected cooperative services and describing expectations and aspirations related to the future roles and responsibilities from a European road operator- point of view. The following cooperative services have been considered in the stakeholder analysis: Hazardous location notification, Traffic jam ahead warning, Road works warning, Automatic access control and Parking management. The stakeholder analysis used findings from previous projects and performed own studies based on desk research and expert assessments which were carried out by the task partners. The approach includes the development of high-level descriptions showing functional schemes of the operational process chains and potential roles / responsibilities related to the road operator. A deepened analysis was performed by assessing the functional schemes / role profiles and collecting opportunities, concerns, and success factors from a road operator- perspective.
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.
Um die zukünftige Entwicklung von Fahrzeugen mit alternativem Antrieb, z.B. Hybrid-, Elektro- und Brennstoffzellenfahrzeuge, in Deutschland verfolgen und analysieren zu können, hatte die Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt) im Jahr 2010 die Einrichtung einer langfristigen Beobachtung des Fahrzeugmarktes und einer konzentrierten Beobachtung des Unfallgeschehens initiiert, mit den Zielen, die tatsächliche Umsetzung des technologischen Fortschritts in marktgängige Produkte zu verfolgen, frühzeitig genaue Kenntnis über die sich der technologischen Entwicklung anschließenden tatsächlichen Marktentwicklung zu gewinnen, und mögliche Fehlentwicklungen - insbesondere mit Blick auf die Verkehrssicherheit zeitnah zu identifizieren. Auf Basis der bisherigen Marktentwicklung ist die Analyse des Unfallgeschehens naturgemäß noch wenig aussagekräftig. Die deutliche Zunahme der Unfallbeteiligung von Hybridfahrzeugen um 95% von 2007 bis 2010 wird durch einen Bestandsanstieg von 117% in diesem Zeitraum relativiert und deutet daher eher auf ein unterdurchschnittliches Risiko, wobei keine Informationen über die durchschnittliche Fahrleistung in die Interpretationen einbezogen werden können. Der relativ hohe Anteil von Innerortsunfällen ist vor allem vor dem Hintergrund der Nutzung der Fahrzeuge zu interpretieren.