Assessment methodologies for forward-looking integrated pedestrian safety systems the AsPeCSS project. 1 st July 2014

Transcription

1 Assessment methodologies for forward-looking integrated pedestrian safety systems the AsPeCSS project 1 st July 2014

2 Workshop Agenda Welcome and Opening Presentation of final AsPeCSS results 12:00 Lunch and Demonstration of integrated pedestrian protection safety systems 14:00 Keynote Presentations Prof. Dir. Andre Seeck (President of Euro NCAP) Euro NCAP s Road Map 2020 The next steps for Vulnerable Road User AEB assessment. Prof. Klaus Kompass (Industry) Vehicle Safety Systems and Evaluation: Status Quo and Future Approach Mr. Kenichi Ando (NTSEL, Japan) Current accident analysis and AEB evaluation method for pedestrians in Japan Coffee break / refreshments Panel discussion: Test Procedures and Assessment Methods for Advanced Vehicle Safety Systems for Pedestrians and Cyclists - Harmonisation of test tools and procedures World-Wide, - Identifying open issues to current test proposals for future updates, - Addressing other road users like cyclists, - Linking active safety testing to passive safety procedures, etc Closure of meeting 2

3 Content Content Background Project Objectives, position and consortium Integrated Safety Approach and Euro NCAP Accident and Test Scenarios Test tools, test procedures and test results Passive safety: simulation and testing Injury criteria and risk curves Cyclists studies Methodology and benefit estimation Conclusions 3

4 Background Pedestrians ~20% of road fatalities in Europe VRU still remains as a pending issue Most accidents caused by the driver being in-alert or misinterpreting the situation New and upcoming active and passive safety systems have potential to reduce these numbers 4

5 Background Euro NCAP assessment pedestrian protection since 1997 EC Directive 2003/102/EC Euro NCAP overall rating was introduced 2009 Good performance in passive safety technologies 5

6 Background First market generation of Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems that prevent and mitigate Vulnerable Road Users Causations Several technologies developed: RADAR, mono/stereo cameras, etc. Euro NCAP will include assessment of AEB-VRU systems in

7 Background Fatalities addressed* * Data from Erik Rosén and Ulrich Sander, 2009 Passive safety coverage Active safety coverage Active safety converting additional cases addressable by passive safety Both active and passive safety systems together cover a wider range of casualties 7

8 Project Objectives and Results AsPeCSS develop harmonised test procedures Methodology balancing passive and active safety Methods for active safety testing Results Test scenarios Test set-up and related tools for AEB-P systems Test and assessment method benefit based Simulation and physical passive safety test results 8

9 9 AsPeCSS Position

10 Project Consortium 10 10

11 Integrated Safety Approach Accident studies Preventive Safety Test scenarios AEB-P testing Speed reduction Pedestrian Kinematics Passive Safety Impactor tests Risk curves Benefit based assessment for Integrated pedestrian Safety System Socio economics costs 11 11

12 ASPECSS input for Euro NCAP AEB-VRU Accident studies Preventive Safety Test scenarios AEB-P testing Speed reduction 12

13 Accident and Test Scenarios Accident Scenarios All Casualties Killed and seriously injured (KSI) National accident data from Germany and GB ( ) results have been averaged Accident scenarios 1, 2, 5 and 6 represent large proportion in all distributions Fatalities 13

14 Accident and Test scenarios German roads: randomlypickedgidas examplesfordarkness, glaring, reflections, rain and obstructions Man (32) crosses from near-side MAIS 4 Man (78) crosses from near-side MAIS 3 Man (89) crosses from far-side MAIS 2 Man (18) crosses from near-side MAIS 2 Woman (34) crosses from near-side MAIS 2 Man (22) along the road MAIS 2 14

15 Accident and Test Scenarios AsPeCSS Test Scenario Walking adult crosses from farside 50% Running adult crosses from farside 50% Walking adult crosses from near-side 25% Walking adult crosses from near-side 75% Walking child crosses from near-side behind obstruction Accident Scenario 1) Crossing straight road, nearside, no obstruction 2) Crossing straight road, farside, no obstruction 3 & 4) Crossing at junction, near-or far-side, vehicle turning or not across traffic 5) Crossing straight road, nearside, with obstruction 6) Crossing straight road, farside, with obstruction 7) Along carriageway on straight road, no obstruction 15

16 16 Test scenarios

17 Test tools, procedures and test results Pedestrian Speed Lateral offset obstruction Impact position 1 m 4.5 m Vehicle speed Pedestrian Child Target Small family car MPV 1 m Vehicle Under Test 17

18 Test tools, procedures and test results Specifications defined with experts Measurement campaigns Workshops test target BASt Workshop test scenario IDIADA Largely defined and evaluated 18

19 Test tools, procedures and test results Radar Cross Section BASt Radar Cross Section Workshop - BASt Seven different radar systems Measurement of pedestrian dummy RCS Comparison with human RCS values Measurements were done on static as well as dynamic dummies Measurements were done with several real humans (mainly static) On-site evaluation: RCS damping of dummy feet needed; used on the second day Dummy RCS Specification is detectable for all available radar systems 19

20 Test tools, procedures and test results Contrast Workshop at Thatcham Airfield Eight vehicles with mono and stereo systems Measurement of pedestrian dummy according contrast and background Different combination of colored clothes Influence of weather and lighting conditions adult dummy in front of a dark background Dummy with contrast specification is for all available video based systems detectable adult dummy in front of a bright background Black White Black Blue White Black Blue Black 20

21 RCS measurements under Laboratory Conditions GHz (7 GHz bandwidth) Pedestrian Cyclist dummy test 1 Cyclist dummy test 2 Cyclist human test 1 Cyclist human test GHz (5 GHz bandwidth) Pedestrian dummy test 1 Pedestrian dummy test 2 Pedestrian human test 1 Pedestrian human test R C S (db m 2 ) 0 RCS (dbm 2 ) a SBV Azimuth (deg.) 24 GHz (7 GHz bandwidth) Bicycle & cyclist Cyclist dummy test 1 Cyclist dummy test 2 Cyclist human test 1 Cyclist human test Azimuth (deg.) GHz (5 GHz bandwidth) Cyclist dummy test 1 Cyclist dummy test 2 Cyclist human test 1 Cyclist human test RCS (dbm 2 ) 0 RCS (dbm 2 ) a SBV2 & 4a BYV Azimuth (deg.) Azimuth (deg.) dummy human 21

22 Test Results Adult 75% To be shownduringthedemosession Mitigation 22

23 23 Test Results Adult 25%

24 24 Test Results Adult Running

25 25 Test Results Child obstructed

26 26 Test results

27 27 Derivation of Rating Method: Analogue to Euro NCAP AEB C2C

28 Evaluation of unjustified system responses Definition of TTC Zones for acceptable system reactions TTC yellow TTC green TTC driving corridor d PedSafety s PedBraking TTC Intervention <TTC green TTC green <TTC Intervention <TTC yellow TTC Intervention >TTC yellow pedestrian is not able to come to a complete stop before entering the driving corridor pedestrian is able to stop between the beginning of the driving corridor and an additional safety distance to the driving corridor Safety system is prematurely triggered and the unsure intervention is still unsubstantiated and typically not tolerated by the user ASPECSS approach for performance assessment and trade-off rating: 28 Areas are defined by using the time to collision(ttc) at the point of first system intervention. In these areas system reaction like a braking intervention can be still tolerated. Different TTC zones are introduced to assess the system design with respect to the desired behavior that can go from very conservative to highly pro-active, leaving space for future improvements and design.

29 Injury risk curves Accident Scenarios Pedestrian Kinematics Simulations Impact conditions Subsystem Simulations Head, upper & lower leg Injury Criteria/ Risk Curves Test boundaries Subsystem Tests Impact Speed, Angle, Location Impact conditions Head, upper & lower leg 29

30 Pedestrian Kinematics Simulations Simplified model Kinematics 6YO impacting LMC vehicle at 40 kph Detailed model 0 ms 10 ms 20 ms 30 ms 40 ms 50 ms 60 ms 30

31 Pedestrian Kinematics Simulations Sensitivity study Pareto chart to identify main effects Trend diagrams for the main effects Visualization on the vehicle Results example: WAD at 20km/h 40km/h 20km/h Term A C B D ACD AC AB AD ABC BC ABD BCD BD ABCD CD 0 33,8 Pareto Chart of the Effects for 20km/h (response is WAD, Alpha = 0,05) Effect Factor A B C D Name V braking V pitch Pposition Pposture No Yes Braking No Yes Pitch Center Corner Ped. Position LLF LLR Ped. Posture 31

32 32 Euro NCAP Literature Survey

33 Component Simulations & Tests head Upper leg Lower leg 33

34 Open Issues in Injury Evaluation of Head Impact on Windscreens Fractured windscreens after impact tests with adult head impactors Open issues Fracture initiation Deformation behaviour after the fracture Overview of Difficulties of hardware testing State of art numerical modelling of glass and its failure behaviour (FEM based) Results of Head ImpactorTests In Centre Windscreen Area [HAU13] Approaches for FE modelling of fracture initiation in laminated safety glass 34

35 Injury criteria Risk curves Output Parameters HEAD - HIC15 - Head res acc3ms & peak - Bottoming out - Displacement (z-& impact-direction) UPPER LEG - Max bending moment - Femur up bending moment - Femur (low/mid) bending moment - Max sum of forces - Force femur up - Force femur low - Bottoming out - Displacement (impact direction) Max. Bending Moment [Nm] y = x R² = y = 4.86x R² = y = x R² = Upper Leg: All Results -no bottoming out Velocity [km/h] Searson formula HIC: y=lm a v b, with a=-0.75; b=2.5 Formulas to be used in overall impact methodology Max Bending moment: y=3.5295x Sum of forces: y= 0.165x SFC Large MPV SM Linear (SFC) Linear (Large MPV) Linear (SM) LOWER LEG - Femur bending moment 1,2,3 - Tibia bending moment 1,2,3,4 - MCL elongation - ACL elongation - PCL elongation - Tibia acceleration MCL elongation: y=0,6023x+1,4846 ACL elongation: y=0,3043+0,22 PCL elongation: y=0,1983x-0,

36 Car-2-cyclist study: Accidentology Analysisof differences between cyclist and pedestrian accidents in terms of test scenarios and test conditions Datasources: STATS 19, BRON, SaveCAP No clear definition of system intervention and interaction yet Less detailed study, good first start toward protocol proposal Resulting in preliminary set of test scenarios 36

37 Car-2-Cyclist study: Recommendations Further investigation of cyclist accident scenarios for EU countries (other than UK and NL) Further investigation of accident & scenario parameters overlap, obstructions, road markings, test speeds, etc. Night testing and lighting conditions Development of bicyclist test target (based pedestrian target) (or adaptation of) test tools for cyclist testing Test protocol (based on pedestrian test protocol) Actual testing of proposed test scenarios and further refinement of procedure 37

38 38 Stages of benefit-based overall methodology (balancing active and passive safety)

39 Annual estimated benefit compared to no AEB system for GB System Sensor delay [s] System delay [s] Activation TTC [s] Brake ramp [s] Current generation Second generation Reference limit System (Baseline calculation) Fatal Serious Slight Avoided Value (million) Current generation Second generation Reference limit Saved lives (6.2%) (4.2%) (2.2%) (13-61) (97-441) ( ) (218-1,375) ( ) , (14.1%) (8.8%) (93.6%) (31-102) ( ) (319-1,550) (574-2,418) ( ) ,532 2, (19.9%) (13.6%) (7.3%) (45-123) ( ) (634-2,513) (1,019-3,616) ( ) 39

40 Annual estimated benefit compared to no AEB system for Germany System Sensor delay [s] System delay [s] Activation TTC [s] Brake ramp [s] Current generation Second generation Reference limit System (Baseline calculation) Fatal Serious Slight Avoided Value (million) Current generation Second generation Reference limit Saved lives ,034 1, (2.9%) (4.6%) (4.4%) (7-36) ( ) (331-2,381) (474-3,208) ( ) ,006 2, (6.7%) (9.7%) (8.6%) (16-60) (310-1,271) (681-3,191) (1,006-4,522) ( ) 57 1,281 3,455 4, (9.9%) (15.8%) (14.8%) (23-73) (497-1,673) (1,250-4,598) (1,771-6,344) ( ) 40

41 Conclusions AsPeCSShas contributed to boost pedestrian protection AsPeCSShas developed an effective integrated assessment for AEB-VRU Incoming legal and consumer requirements will benefit of AsPeCSS findings New initiatives and proposals are being launched to continue AsPeCSS work 41

42 Thank you For further information: Mònica Pla, Project Manager Applus IDIADA 42

43 43 Lunch / Demonstration Session

44 Keynote Speakers Prof. Dir. Andre Seeck (President of Euro NCAP) Euro NCAP s Road Map 2020 The next steps for Vulnerable Road User AEB assessment Prof. Klaus Kompass (Industry) Vehicle Safety Systems and Evaluation: Status Quo and Future Approach Mr. Kenichi Ando (NTSEL, Japan) Current accident analysis and AEB evaluation method for pedestrians in Japan 44

45 45 Coffee break

46 Panel Discussion Test Procedures and Assessment Methods for Advanced Vehicle Safety Systems for Pedestrians and Cyclists - Harmonisation of test tools and procedures World-Wide, - Identifying open issues to current test proposals for future updates, - Addressing other road users like cyclists, - Linking active safety testing to passive safety procedures, etc 46