Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Today, Euro NCAP is a well established rating system for passive car safety. The significance of the ratings must however be evaluated by comparison with national accident data. For this purpose accidents with involvement of two passenger cars have been taken from the German National Road Accident Register (record years 1998 to 2004) to evaluate the results of the NCAP frontal impact test configuration. Injury data from both drivers involved in frontal car to car collisions have been sampled and have been compared, using a "Bradley Terry Model" which is well established in the area of paired comparisons. Confounders " like mass ratio of the cars involved, gender of the driver, etc. " have been accounted for in the statistical model. Applying the Bradley Terry Model to the national accident data the safety ranking from Euro NCAP has been validated (safety level: 1star <2 star <3 star <4 star). Significant safety differences are found between cars of the 1 and 2 star category as compared to cars of the 3 and 4 star category. The impact of the mass ratio was highly significant and most influential. Changing the mass ratio by an amount of 10% will raise the chance for the driver of the heavier car to get better off by about 18%. The impact of driver gender was again highly significant, showing a nearly 2 times lower injury risk for male drivers. With regard to the NCAP rating drivers of a high rated car are more than 2 times more probable (70% chance) to get off less injured in a frontal collision as compared to the driver of a low rated car.
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.
Die zukünftige Entwicklung der Straßenverkehrssicherheit und damit auch der Fahrzeugsicherheit wird durch gesellschaftliche, wirtschaftliche, klimapolitische und verkehrspolitische Rand- und Rahmenbedingungen und die voranschreitende technische Entwicklung geprägt sein, die auch für den Gesetzgeber eine Herausforderung darstellen. So wird sich auch das Folgeprogramm des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) für das derzeitige aus dem Jahr 2001 stammende "Programm für mehr Sicherheit im Straßenverkehr" an den Schwerpunkten des "4th Road Safety Action Programme" ausrichten, das im Frühjahr 2010 durch die EU-Kommission veröffentlicht werden soll. Im Prozess zu einer weiteren Verbesserung der Straßenverkehrssicherheit werden unter anderem der demografische Wandel in unserer Gesellschaft, die durch eine erforderliche CO2-Reduktion bedingte Einführung alternativer Antriebe (Elektromobilität) verbunden mit Leichtbau sowie die gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingung (Wiener Abkommen) eine bedeutende Rolle spielen. Die Klärung der gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingungen ist unerlässlich, um die Vision vom unfallfreien Fahren Realität werden lassen zu können.
This paper describes the methodology for the assessment of the socio-economic impact of SAFESPOT applications. The applications selected for the assessment cover vehicle to vehicle (v2v) as well as vehicle to infrastructure (v2i) communication systems. The applications address main problem areas of road safety: accidents at intersections, accidents due to hazardous road and weather conditions and accidents due to over speeding and inappropriate distance. The assessment methodology relies in its core on cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as the most widespread tool to assess the profitability of applications form the society point of view. The assessment is however not limited to CBA but also considers the economic effects for particular stakeholder groups such as users, public authorities and the like. Their individual cost and benefits can be investigated in stakeholder analyses. Both elements, CBA and stakeholder analysis, form an integrated assessment approach which is applied here. The assessment makes use of the sound methodological base which was provided by projects such as SEiSS and eIMPACT. Some characteristics of co-operative systems however call for special attention within the assessment. Most prominently, the assessment will concentrate on a bundle of applications. The impact of this bundle will be assessed under the conditions of different business and service models. These issues will be addressed in the paper. Moreover, this paper also provides insight in likely patterns of results and first results of socio-economic impact assessment itself.
With the present brake signal pattern the traffic behind only receives the information that the brakes are applied, however, the drivers have no information about the intensity of the braking maneuver. In this report it is examined on the basis of a study of the literature, how the rear signal pattern could be optimized for a special representation of emergency braking maneuvers. In principle there are two suitable possibilities to reduce the driver reaction time: - An increase in the area and luminance of the brake lights intuitively provide the drivers following with an impression of approaching the vehicle in front , - Flashing lights are particularly suited to attract the attention of the driver following to the deceleration of the vehicle ahead , - The following advancement is recommended as an optimization of the rear signal pattern: When the brake assistant or ABS actuates or at a vehicle deceleration rate greater than 7 m/s-², the emergency braking maneuver is signaled by flashing of the third high-mounted brake light at a rate of 3-5 Hz. As an option, the area and luminance of the two lower brake lights could be increased in addition. These measures require changes to ECE Regulations No. 7 and No. 48 as well as to the Vienna Convention. The purpose of the described solution is to reduce the number or severity of rear-end accidents.