Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (409)
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (37)
- Buch (Monographie) (18)
- Teil eines Buches (Kapitel) (9)
- Arbeitspapier (8)
- Bericht (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (482) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Conference (279)
- Konferenz (277)
- Germany (178)
- Deutschland (174)
- Unfall (163)
- Accident (162)
- Injury (116)
- Verletzung (116)
- Safety (102)
- Sicherheit (97)
Institut
- Sonstige (337)
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (126)
- Abteilung Verhalten und Sicherheit im Verkehr (23)
- Abteilung Brücken- und Ingenieurbau (22)
- Abteilung Straßenverkehrstechnik (22)
- Abteilung Straßenbautechnik (17)
- Präsident (9)
- Stabstelle Presse und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit (6)
- Stabstelle Forschungscontrolling, Qualitätsmanagement (1)
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.
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions compatibility (which consists of self and partner protection) between opponents is crucial. Although compatibility has been analysed worldwide for over 10 years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and the final report to the steering committee on frontal impact [Faerber 2007] and the FP5 VC-COMPAT[Edwards 2007] project activities, two test approaches were identified as the most promising candidates for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed of an off-set and a full overlap test procedure. In addition another procedure (a test with a moving deformable barrier) is getting more attention in current research programmes. The overall objective of the FIMCAR project is to complete the development of the candidate test procedures and propose a set of test procedures suitable for regulatory application to assess and control a vehicle- frontal impact and compatibility crash safety. In addition an associated cost benefit analysis will be performed. In the FIMCAR Deliverable D 3.1 [Adolph 2013] the development and assessment of criteria and associated performance limits for the full width test procedure were reported. In this Deliverable D3.2 analyses of the test data (full width tests, car-to-car tests and component tests), further development and validation of the full width assessment protocol and development of the load cell and load cell wall specification are reported. The FIMCAR full-width assessment procedure consists of a 50 km/h test against the Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB). The Load Cell Wall behind the deformable element assesses whether or not important Energy Absorbing Structures are within the Common Interaction Zone as defined based on the US part 581 zone. The metric evaluates the row forces and requires that the forces directly above and below the centre line of the Common Interaction Zone exceed a minimum threshold. Analysis of the load spreading showed that metrics that rely on sum forces of rows and columns are within acceptable tolerances. Furthermore it was concluded that the Repeatability and Reproducibility of the FWDB test is acceptable. The FWDB test was shown to be capable to detect lower load paths that are beneficial in car-to-car impacts.
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions compatibility (which consists of self and partner protection) between opponents is crucial. Although compatibility has been analysed worldwide for over 10 years, no final assessment approach has been defined to date. Taking into account the European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) compatibility and frontal impact working group (WG15) and the FP5 VC-COMPAT project activities, two test approaches have been identified as the most promising candidates for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed of an off-set and a full overlap test procedure. In addition another procedure (a test with a moving deformable barrier) is getting more attention in current research programmes. The overall objective of the FIMCAR project is to complete the development of the candidate test procedures and propose a set of test procedures suitable for regulatory application to assess and control a vehicle- frontal impact and compatibility crash safety. In addition an associated cost benefit analysis should be performed. The objectives of the work reported in this deliverable were to review existing full-width test procedures and their discussed compatibility metrics, to report recent activities and findings with respect to full-width assessment procedures and to assess test procedures and metrics. Starting with a review of previous work, candidate metrics and associated performance limits to assess a vehicle- structural interaction potential, in particular its structural alignment, have been developed for both the Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB) and Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB) tests. Initial work was performed to develop a concept to assess a vehicle- frontal force matching. However, based on the accident analyses performed within FIMCAR frontal force matching was not evaluated as a first priority and thus in line with FIMCAR strategy the focus was put on the development of metrics for the assessment of structural interaction which was evaluated as a first priority.
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.
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.
The BASt-project group "Legal consequences of an increase in vehicle automation" has identified, defined and consequently compiled different automation degrees beyond Driver Assistance Systems. These are partial-, high- and full automation. According to German regulatory law, i.e. the German Road Traffic Code, it has been identified that the distinctive feature of different degrees of automation is the permanent attention of the driver to the task of driving as well as the constant availability of control over the vehicle. Partial automation meets these requirements. The absence of the driver- concentration to the traffic situation and to execute control is in conflict with the use of higher degrees of vehicle automation (i.e. high and full automation). Their use is therefore presently not compatible with German law, as the human driver would violate his obligations stipulated in the Road Traffic Code when fully relying on the degree of automation these systems would offer. As far as higher degrees of automation imply free-hand driving, further research in terms of behavioural psychology is required to determine whether this hinders the driver in the execution of permanent caution as required by sec. 1 para. 1 StVO (German Road Traffic Code). As far as liabilities according to the StVG (German Road Traffic Act) are concerned, the presently reversed burden of proof on the driver within sec. 18 para. 1 S. 2 StVG might no longer be considered adequate in case of higher degrees of automation that allow the driver to draw attention from the task of driving (in case making such use of a system would be permitted by the German Road Traffic Code). The liability of the vehicle "keeper", according to the German Road Traffic Act, would remain applicable to all defined degrees of automation. In case of partial automation, the use of systems according to their limits is accentuated. The range of use that remains within the intended must be defined closely and unmistakeably. Affecting user expectations properly can immensely help to maintain safe use, in case design-measures that exclude overreliance are not available according to the current state of the art (otherwise such measures would have to be applied primarily). In case of the higher degrees of automation that no longer require the driver- permanent attention (under the presupposition their use would be permitted by the German Road Traffic Code), every accident potentially bears the risk to cause product liability on the side of the manufacturer. Liability of the manufacturer might only be excluded in case of a breach of traffic rules by a third party or in case of overriding/ oversteering by the driver. In so far aspects of German procedural law and the burden of proof are of great importance. The project group has identified the need for further continuative research not only to advance legal assessment but also to improve basic technical conditions for vehicle automation as well as product reliability.
Since its beginning in 1999, the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) evolved into the presumably leading representative road traffic accident investigation in Europe, based on the work started in Hanover in 1973. The detailed and comprehensive description of traffic accidents forms an essential basis for vehicle safety research. Due to the ongoing extension of demands of researchers, there is a continuous progress in the techniques and systematic of accident investigation within GIDAS. This paper presents some of the most important developments over the last years. Primary vehicle safety systems are expected to have a significant and increasing influence on reducing accidents. GIDAS therefore began to include and collect active safety parameters as new variables from the year 2005 onwards. This will facilitate to assess the impact of present and future active safety measures. A new system to analyse causation factors of traffic accidents, called ACASS, was implemented in GIDAS in the year 2008. The whole process of data handling was optimised. Since 2005 the on-scene data acquisition is completely conducted with mobile tablet PCs. Comprehensive plausibility checks assure a high data quality. Multi-language codebooks are automatically generated from the database structure itself and interfaces ensure the connection to various database management systems. Members of the consortium can download database and codebook, and synchronize half a terabyte of photographic documentation through a secured online access. With the introduction of the AIS 2005 in the year 2006, some medical categorizations have been revised. To ensure the correct assignment of AIS codes to specific injuries an application based on a diagnostic dictionary was developed. Furthermore a coding tool for the AO classification was introduced. All these enhancements enable GIDAS to be up to date for future research questions.
A flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) with biofidelic characteristics is aimed to be implemented within global legislation on pedestrian protection. Therefore, it is being evaluated by a technical evaluation group (Flex-TEG) of GRSP with respect to its biofidelity, robustness, durability, usability and protection level (Zander, 2008). Previous studies at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) and other laboratories already showed good progress concerning the general development, but also the need for further improvement and further research in various areas. An overview is provided of the different levels of development and all kinds of evaluation activities of the Flex-TEG, starting with the Polar II full scale pedestrian dummy as its origin and ending up with the latest legform impactor built level GTR that is expected to be finalized by the end of the year 2009. Using the latest built levels as a basis, gaps are revealed that should be closed by future developments, like the usage of an upper body mass (UBM), the validation of the femur loads, injury risk functions for the cruciate knee ligaments and an appropriate certification method. A recent study on an additional upper body mass being applied for the first time to the Flex-GT is used as means of validation of recently proposed modified impact conditions. Therefore, two test series on a modern vehicle front using an impactor with and without upper body mass are compared. A test series with the Flex-GTR will be used to study both the comparability of the impact behavior of the GT and GTR built level as well as the consistency of test results. Recommendations for implementation within legislation on pedestrian protection are made.