620 Ingenieurwissenschaften und zugeordnete Tätigkeiten
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Deutschland (4)
- Germany (4)
- Conference (3)
- Fußgänger (3)
- Konferenz (3)
- Pedestrian (3)
- Accident (2)
- Accident reconstruction (2)
- Active safety system (2)
- Aktives Sicherheitssystem (2)
Institut
- Sonstige (3)
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (2)
Millions of kilometers are driven and recorded by car manufacturers and researchers every year to gather information about realistic traffic situations. The focus of these studies is often the recording of critical situations to create test scenarios for the development of new systems before introducing them into the market. This paper shows a novel Analysis and Investigation Method for All Traffic Scenarios (AIMATS) based on real traffic scenes. It also shows how to get detailed information about speeds, trajectories and behavior of all participants without driving thousands of kilometers at the example of conflict situations with animals. Basis of the AIMATS is the identification of the most relevant locations as "Points of Interest" (POI), the recording of the critical situations and their "base lines" at these POI. This paper presents a new method to identify critical scenarios involving both vehicles and animals as well as preliminary results of a study done in Saxony using this new method.
This study aimed at comparing head Wrap Around Distance (WAD) of Vulnerable Road User (VRU) obtained from the German in-depth Accident Database (GIDAS), the China in-depth Accident Database (CIDAS) and the Japanese in-depth Accident Database (ITARDA micro). Cumulative distribution of WAD of pedestrian and cyclist were obtained for each database (AIS2+) showing that WAD of cyclists were larger than the ones of pedestrians. Comparing three regions, the 50%tile WAD of GIDAS was larger than that of both Asian accident databases. Using linear regression that might predict WAD of pedestrians and cyclists from Impact speed and VRU height, WADs were calculated to be 206cm/219cm (Pedestrian/Cyclist) for GIDAS, 170cm/192cm for CIDAS and 211cm/235cm for ITARDA. In addition, this study may be helpful for reconsideration of WAD measurement alignment between accident reconstruction and test procedures.
This study aimed at developing an injury estimation algorithm for AACN technologies for Germany and compared them to findings based on Japanese data. The data to build and to verify the algorithm was obtained from the German in-depth Accident Database (GIDAS) and split into a training and a validation dataset. Significant input variables and the generalized linear regression model to predict severe injuries (ISS>15) were selected to maximize area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Probit regression with the input parameter multiple impact, delta v, seatbelt use and impact direction gave the largest AUC of 0.91. Sensitivity of the algorithm was validated at 90% and specificity at 76% for an injury risk threshold of 2%. It appears that no major differences between Japan and Germany exist for injury estimation based on delta v and impact direction. However, far side impact and multiple crash events appear to be associated with a larger risk increase in the German data.
Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems for pedestrians have been predicted to offer substantial benefit. On this basis, consumer rating programmes, e.g. Euro NCAP, are developing rating schemes to encourage fitment of these systems. One of the questions that needs to be answered to do this fully, is to determine how the assessment of the speed reduction offered by the AEB is integrated with the current assessment of the passive safety for mitigation of pedestrian injury. Ideally, this should be done on a benefit related basis. The objective of this research was to develop a benefit based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with pre-crash braking and passive safety components. A methodology has been developed which calculates the cost of pedestrian injury expected, assuming all pedestrians in the target population (i.e. pedestrians impacted by the front of a passenger car) are impacted by the car being assessed, taking into account the impact speed reduction offered by the car’s AEB (if fitted) and the passive safety protection offered by the car’s frontal structure. For rating purposes, this cost can be normalised by comparing it to the cost calculated for selected cars. The methodology uses the speed reductions measured in AEB tests to determine the speed at which each casualty in the target population will be impacted. The injury to each casualty is then calculated using the results from standard Euro NCAP pedestrian impactor tests and injury risk curves. This injury is converted into cost using ‘Harm’ type costs for the body regions tested. These costs are weighted and summed. Weighting factors were determined using accident data from Germany and GB and the results of a benefit analysis performed by the EU FP7 AsPeCSS project. This resulted in German and GB versions of the methodology. The methodology was used to assess cars with good, average and poor Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings, with and without a current AEB system fitted. It was found that the decrease in casualty injury cost achieved by fitting an AEB system was approximately equivalent to that achieved by increasing the passive safety rating from poor to average. Also, it was found that the assessment was influenced strongly by the level of head protection offered in the scuttle and windscreen area because this is where head impact occurs for a large proportion of casualties. The major limitation within the methodology is the assumption used implicitly during weighting. This is that the cost of casualty injuries to body areas, such as the thorax, not assessed by the headform and legform impactors, and other casualty injuries such as those caused by ground impact, are related linearly to the cost of casualty injuries assessed by the impactors. A methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems was developed. This methodology is of interest to consumer rating programmes which wish to include assessment of these systems. It also raises the interesting issue if the head impact test area should be weighted to reflect better real-world benefit.
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.