Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (24)
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (11)
- Buch (Monographie) (8)
- Arbeitspapier (8)
Schlagworte
- Bewertung (51) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (51) (entfernen)
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.
A flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) has been evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Group (Flex-TEG) of the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE). It will be implemented within phase 2 of the global technical regulation (GTR 9) as well as within a new ECE regulation on pedestrian safety as a test tool for the assessment of lower extremity injuries in lateral vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents (UN-ECE 2010-1, 2010-2 and 2010-3). Due to its biofidelic properties in the knee and tibia section, the FlexPLI is found to having an improved knee and tibia injury assessment ability when being compared to the current legislative test tool, the lower legform impactor developed by the Pedestrian Safety Working Group of the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC WG 17). However, due to a lack of biofidelity in terms of kinematics and loadings in the femur part of the FlexPLI, an appropriate assessment of femur injuries is still outstanding. The study described in this paper is aimed to close this gap. Impactor tests with the FlexPLI at different impact heights on three vehicle frontends with Sedan, SUV and FFV shape are performed and compared to tests with a modified FlexPLI with upper body mass. Full scale validation tests using a modified crash test dummy with attached FlexPLI that are carried out for the first time prove the more humanlike responses of the femur section with applied upper body mass. Apart from that they also show that the impact conditions described in the current technical provisions for tests with the FlexPLI don"t necessarily compensate the missing torso mass in terms of knee and tibia loadings either. Therefore it can be concluded that an applied upper body mass will contribute to a more biofidelic overall behavior of the legform and subsequently an improved injury assessment ability of all lower extremity injuries addressed by the FlexPLI. Nevertheless, the validity of the original as well as the modified legform for tests against vehicles with extraordinary high bumpers as well as flat front vehicles still needs to be evaluated in detail. A first clue is given by the application of an additional accelerometer to the legform.
Das Ziel der Untersuchung war, die Grenzen der Belastbarkeit eines Rollstuhl- und Personenrückhaltesystems mit Kraftknoten nach DIN 75078-2 zu ermitteln. Dazu wurden dynamische Schlittenversuche durchgeführt, bei denen die Verzögerungspulse sowie das Gesamtgewicht von Rollstuhl und Prüfpuppe variiert wurden. Für die Untersuchungen kamen ein Prüfrollstuhl, definiert nach ISO 10542, und Rückhaltesysteme mit Kraftknoten gemäß DIN 75078-2 zum Einsatz. Das Rückhaltesystem bestand aus einem Rollstuhl- und einem Personenrückhaltesystem, wobei das Rollstuhlrückhaltesystem (RRS) mit vier bzw. sechs Gurten und entsprechenden Retraktoren an einem dynamischen Schlittenaufbau befestigt wurde. Das Personenrückhaltesystem (PRS) bestand aus einem am Rollstuhl integrierten Beckengurt sowie einem Schulterschräggurt, der am Beckengurt und am Schlittenaufbau befestigt wurde. Ferner wurden bei den Versuchen Prüfpuppen verschiedener Alters- und Gewichtsklassen (P6, HIII 5 %, HIII 50 % und HIII 95 %) eingesetzt Die Belastungsanforderungen für das Rückhaltesystem wurden sukzessiv erweitert, indem einerseits das Gesamtgewicht (Rollstuhl und Prüfpuppe) und andererseits auch die Verzögerungspulse bis zur Versagensgrenze erhöht wurden. Das Vier-Gurt-Rückhaltesystem konnte bei einem Verzögerungspuls von 10 g einem Gesamtgewicht von bis zu 221 kg standhalten. Bei einem Verzögerungspuls von 20 g und einem Gesamtgewicht von 134 kg wurde das Vier-Gurt-System bis über die Grenzen belastet. Das Sechs-Gurt-Rückhaltesystem hat Belastungen bis 221 kg standgehalten. Infolgedessen ist bei einer Erhöhung der Verzögerungspulse auf 20 g und einem Gesamtgewicht von mehr als 109 kg ein Sechs-Gurt-System zu empfehlen.
It is well known that most accidents with pedestrians are caused by the driver not being alert or misinterpreting the situation. For that reason advanced forward looking safety systems have a high potential to improve safety for this group of vulnerable road users. Active pedestrian protection systems combine reduction of impact speed by driver warning and/or autonomous braking with deployment of protective devices shortly before the imminent impact. According to the Euro NCAP roadmap the Autonomous Emergency Braking system tests for Pedestrians Protection will be set in force from 2016 onwards. Various projects and organisations in Europe are developing performance tests and assessment procedures as accompanying measures to the Euro NCAP initiative. To provide synthesised input to Euro NCAP so-called Harmonisation Platforms (HP-) have been established. Their main goal is to foster exchange of information on key subjects, thereby generating a clear overview of similarities and differences on the approaches chosen and, on that basis, recommend on future test procedures. In this paper activities of the Harmonisation Platform 2 on the development of Test Equipment are presented. For the testing targets that mimic humans different sensing technologies are required. A first set of specifications for pedestrian targets and the propulsion systems as collected by Harmonisation Platform 2 are presented together with a first evaluation for a number of available tools.
Since integrated safety systems combine active and passive safety elements in one safety system, it is necessary to define new procedures to evaluate vehicle safety from the overall system point of view. The main goal of the ASSESS project is to develop harmonized and standardized assessment procedures for collision mitigation and avoidance systems. Methods and Data Sources: In ASSESS, procedures are developed for: driver behaviour evaluation, pre-crash system performance evaluation, crash performance evaluation, socio-economic assessment. This paper will concentrate on the activities related to the crash evaluation. The objective is to perform simulations, sled tests and crash tests in order tounderstand the influence of the activation of the pre-crash systems on the occupants" injuries during the crash phase. When a traffic accident is unavoidable, pre-crash systems work on various safety devices in order to improve the vehicle occupants" protection. Braking assistance and adaptive restraint systems are the main pre-crash systems whose effect on the occupants" protection will be described in this paper. Results: The results will be a description of the effect of the activation of the pre-crash systems on the crash phase. Additionally, a set of recommendations for future methodology developments will be delivered. Furthermore, a first approach to the study of the effect of the pre-crash systems activation on the occupants" protection when the impact is unavoidable will be presented. This effect will be quantified using the biomechanical values obtained from the simulation and testing activities and their related injury risks. Simulation and testing activities will consider the following scenarios: - No activation of any pre-crash system, - Activation of one or a combination of several pre-crash systems. In this way, differences in the results obtained from different scenarios will show the effect of each pre-crash system separately during the crash phase. Discussion and Limitations: The set of activities developed in this research project is limited by the fact that with the given resources only a limited number of vehicle models could be investigated. In addition, there are also limitations related to the injury risk curves and the passive safety tools currently on the market. Conclusion and Relevance to session submitted: The paper will present a complete analysis of the effect of pre-crash systems during the crash phase when the impact is unavoidable. Details, limitations and first application experience based on a few examples will be discussed. Currently, there is not any regulation, assessment program, or other similar official procedure able to assess pre-crash systems during the crash phase. This project comprises phases of traffic accidents which have been historically analysed separately, and aims to evaluate them taking into account their interrelationship. ASSESS is one of the first European projects which deals in depth with the concept of integrated safety, defining methodologies to analyse vehicle safety from a global point of view.
A biofidelic flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) has been developed from the year 2000 onwards and evaluated by a technical evaluation group (Flex-TEG) of UN-ECE GRSP. A recently established UN-ECE GRSP Informal Group on GTR9 Phase 2 is aiming at introducing the FlexPLI within world-wide regulations on pedestrian safety (Phase 2 of GTR No. 9 as well as the new UN regulation 127 on pedestrian safety) as a test tool for the assessment of lower extremity injuries in lateral vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents. Besides, the FlexPLI has already been introduced within JNCAP and is on the Euro NCAP roadmap for 2014. Despite of the biofidelic properties in the knee and tibia sections, several open issues related to the FlexPLI, like the estimation of the cost benefit, the feasibility of vehicle compliance with the threshold values, the robustness of the impactor and of the test results, the comparability between prototype and production level and the finalization of certification corridors still needed to be solved. Furthermore, discussions with stakeholders about a harmonized lower legform to bumper test area are still going on. This paper describes several studies carried out by the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) regarding the benefit due to the introduction of the FlexPLI within legislation for type approval, the robustness of test results, the establishment of new assembly certification corridors and a proposal for a harmonized legform to bumper test area. Furthermore, a report on vehicle tests that previously had been carried out with three prototype legforms and were now being repeated using legforms with serial production status, is given. Finally, the paper gives a status report on the ongoing simulation and testing activities with respect to the development and evaluation of an improved test procedure with upper body mass for assessing pedestrian femur injuries.
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.
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.
Müdigkeit am Steuer ist eine bedeutsame Ursache von Straßenverkehrsunfällen. Es steht eine Fülle unterschiedlicher Methoden zur Verfügung, um Müdigkeit beim Fahrer zu erkennen. Ziel des vorliegenden Projekts war es, auf Basis einer mehrstufigen Befragung von zwölf Experten aus Industrie- und Hochschulforschung die Stärken und Schwächen der derzeit validesten objektiven Müdigkeitsmessverfahren vergleichend zu beschreiben. Als Basis der Bewertung diente ein eigens erarbeiteter Gütekriterienkatalog. Zu den validesten Müdigkeitsmessverfahren gehören aus Expertensicht Lenkverhalten und Spurhaltung, Indikatoren des Lidschlussverhaltens und des EEG, das videobasierte Expertenrating sowie der kontrovers diskutierte Pupillografische Schläfrigkeitstest. Die Güteprofile der sechs ausgewählten Messverfahren werden aufgeführt. Je nach Einsatzgebiet sind alle ausgewählten Messverfahren (Forschung und Entwicklung), nur einige (Müdigkeitswarnsystem im Fahrzeug), oder kein einziges (Verkehrskontrolle) geeignet. Dem Urteil der Experten nach bedarf eine valide Müdigkeitserfassung der Kombination von mindestens zwei Messverfahren unter Berücksichtigung der spezifischen Stärke-Schwächenprofile.
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.
This paper presents findings of a laboratory experiment which aimed at evaluating the sensitivity and intrusiveness of Tactile Detection Response Task (TDRT) methodology. Various single-task, dual-task and triple-task scenarios were compared. The task scenarios included a surrogate of driving (tracking task) and different secondary tasks (N-back, surrogate reference task (SuRT)). The results suggest that the TDRT is sensitive to load levels of secondary tasks which primarily demand for cognitive resources (N-back). Sensitivity to variations of visual"manual load could not be shown (SuRT). TDRT seems also to be able to differentiate between modes of primary task which varies in terms of cognitive load (visual against auditory tracking task). Results indicated intrusiveness of TDRT on primary task performance and secondary task performance depending on the type of underlying task scenario. As a conclusion, TDRT can be recommended as a method to assess attentional effects of cognitive load of a secondary task, but should be used with caution for secondary tasks with strong motor demands.
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.
Statischer und dynamischer Fahrsimulator im Vergleich: Wahrnehmung von Abstand und Geschwindigkeit
(2016)
Die Methodik der experimentellen Fahrsimulation gewährleistet sichere Anwendungsforschung unter hoher Kontrollierbarkeit. Obwohl gegenwärtig viele Forschungsfragen in virtuellen Umgebungen beantwortet werden, existieren weder systematische Validierungsszenarien für Fahrsimulatoren, noch wurde die Vergleichbarkeit der Aussagekraft von Befunden aus Fahrsimulatoren mit und ohne Bewegungssystem bislang angemessen hinterfragt. Daher sollen in der vorliegenden Studie ein statischer und ein dynamischer Fahrsimulator hinsichtlich ihrer Validität in verschieden Fahrsituationen verglichen werden, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf Abstands- und Geschwindigkeitswahrnehmung liegt. Es wird erwartet, dass ein zusätzliches Bewegungssystem nur bei Fahraufgaben mit dynamischer Involvierung einen Redundanzgewinn für die Wahrnehmung des Fahrers liefert. Werden hingegen konstante Abstände eingehalten, sollten entsprechend der Hypothese beide Prüfumgebungen äquivalente Resultate zeigen. Insgesamt durchfuhren 60 Probanden Fahrszenarien zur Abstandsherstellung und -einschätzung, teils mit Okklusion, sowie Folgefahrten mit Beschleunigung und Verzögerung. Die Querführung wurde mithilfe einer Gassendurchfahrt untersucht. Indem die virtuelle Umgebung nach Vorbild einer real existierenden Teststrecke konstruiert wurde, kann ebenfalls auf reale Referenzwerte Bezug genommen werden. Die Ergebnisse weisen auf eine vergleichbare relative Validität zwischen statischem und dynamischem Simulator hin, wenn keine Kinetik in der Fahraufgabe vorhanden ist. In Beschleunigungssituationen bewirkt simulierte Fahrdynamik signifikante Wahrnehmungseinbußen, wobei das Bewegungssystem in Bremssituationen die Wahrnehmung signifikant unterstützt. In dem Querführungsszenario ist die Fahrgeschwindigkeit im statischen Simulator zwar signifikant höher und damit näher an der realen Referenz, allerdings wird im statischen Simulator eine auffällig nach rechts versetzte Spur gehalten. Dennoch, so der vorrangige Befund, sollte auch ein statischer Fahrsimulator valide Evaluationen für die meisten Fahraufgaben gewährleisten.
Automated driving will provide many kinds of benefits - some direct and some indirect. The benefits originate at the individual level, from changes in the behaviour of drivers and travellers with regard to driving and mobility, ending up with benefits at the social level via changes in the whole transport system and society, where many of the current planning and operations paradigms are likely to be transformed by automated driving. There may also be disbenefits, particularly at a social level, for example in intensity of travel which could result in additional congestion and increased use of natural resources. There may also be unintended consequences. For example, we do not know the impacts on public transport: driverless vehicles could provide a means to a lower cost service provision, but the availability of automated cars could lead to more car travel at the expense of collective transport.