Read AEB Test Development text version

AEB Test Development

Autonomous Emergency Braking

AEB Test Procedures

Rationale for Group

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) now present on most new upper segment vehicles:

­ Audi, BMW, Citroen, Ford, Honda, Lexus, Mercedes, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo... ­ ESC, LDW, Lane Keeping, Blind spot warning, Night vision, Driver alert, Front & Side view cameras, Speed limit information...

Insurance and consumer groups need for market information RCAR P-SAFE work has highlighted accident types most common for insurers and has identified technologies most appropriate to address

2

AEB Test Procedures

Rationale for Group

AEB (Autonomous Emergency Braking) systems apply braking autonomously in critical situations AEB systems becoming more widely available:

­ Audi, BMW, Honda, Lexus, Mercedes, Toyota, Volvo

Even examples of AEB standard fitment AEB might help to address frontal whiplash injuries AEB can contribute to repair cost mitigation Pedestrian protection significant issue ­ technology available to address pedestrian casualties Definition of standardised test procedures required to encourage and control such systems

­ to cover all aspects of societal impact: repair and material damage costs, injury and fatality costs

3

AEB Test Group

Terms of reference

International group that includes insurer and consumer perspective Two year initial project to look at detailed accident data and look at pre-crash situation relevant for current AEB technology Focus on injury reduction ­ including whiplash and pedestrian collisions Also looking at material damage cost reduction and appropriate positioning and mounting requirements of sensors to prevent increase in insurer costs following minor crash damage

4

AEB Test Group

Terms of reference

Inclusion of industry partners to allow knowledge transfer and better understanding of system limitations Support from industry (1 OEM, 1 Tier 1 supplier) initially to keep group dynamic and not slowed down by many members Once proof of concept is agreed it will be circulated for consultation and feedback throughout industry and other stakeholders prior to implementation British national and in-depth accident data analysed by Loughborough University to aid definition of pre-crash situation ­ funded partner Analysis of German insurance data by UDV to support definition of pre-crash situation

5

AEB Test Group

Scope and aims

"To design and implement test procedures reflecting real world data that can encourage the development of autonomous braking technology that can help prevent or mitigate the effects of car-to-pedestrian and car-to-car crashes"

6

Phase 1 Project Partners

Thatcham Folksam IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) German Insurers Accident Research (UDV) Supported by:

­ Loughborough University (Vehicle Safety Research Centre) ­ 1 x OEM ­ 1 x Tier 1 supplier

7

Accidentology Study

Definition of test scenarios

Using GB accident data, Loughborough University will author a report outlining the most common collisions:

­ car to car ­ car to pedestrian

Data analysis from the German Insurers (UDV) and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Examples of factors under investigation:

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Frequency of collisions Typical pre-accident causation factors Road layouts Speeds Sight lines Mitigating factors (parked cars, complex intersections etc)

8

Test Procedures

Development and Implementation of Procedures

Incorporate provisional results from real world accident data to define test conditions Define and spec test measurement equipment Define test metrics Define rating process Author test procedures Publish initial results/ratings to inform consumers/stakeholders of technology capability Integrate into existing Consumer Test Programs (RCAR) Offer to Euro NCAP P-NCAP for consideration for future test program

9

AEB Tests

CP, CCR, CCH

3 generic test conditions relating to crash types where AEB technologies may be relevant are:

­ Car to Pedestrian (CP) ­ Car to Car Rear (CCR) ­ Car to Car Head-on (CCH)

Initial focus of group on CP and CCR since technologies to address these collision types are commercially available Possible test metrics:

­ ­ ­ ­ Whether or not the collision was avoided The speed reduction prior to collision When (if present) a warning is given Whether an appropriate driver braking response at the time of warning (if present) could have prevented the collision

10

AEB Tests

Provisional CP Car to Pedestrian ­ CP:

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Pedestrian walks from nearside pavement into path of car travelling along road Pedestrian walks from nearside pavement from behind an obstruction into path of car travelling along road Pedestrian runs from far side pavement into path of car travelling along road Pedestrian walking along near side of carriageway in path of car travelling along road Pedestrian walks across junction from near side pavement into path of car turning towards far side into junction

Pedestrian could be adult or child Tests conducted with test vehicle approaching at range of speeds Group will consider range of lighting conditions and weather

Provisional/DRAFT only

11

AEB Tests

Provisional CCR

Car to Car Rear ­ CCR:

­ Car drives longitudinally toward rear of proceeding car

Tests conducted with test vehicle approaching at range of speeds Group will consider range of lighting conditions and weather

Provisional/DRAFT only

12

AEB Test Concepts

Car to Pedestrian (CP) Pedestrian walks from nearside pavement into path of car travelling along road

Pedestrian walks from nearside pavement from behind an obstruction into path of car travelling along road

Provisional/DRAFT only

13

AEB Test Concepts

Car to Pedestrian (CP)

Pedestrian runs from far side pavement into path of car travelling along road

Pedestrian walking along near side of carriageway in path of car travelling along road

Provisional/DRAFT only

14

AEB Test Concepts

Car to Pedestrian (CP)

Pedestrian walks across junction from near side pavement into path of car turning towards far side into junction

Provisional/DRAFT only

15

AEB Test Concepts

Car to Car Rear (CCR)

Car drives longitudinally toward rear of proceeding car which is stationary

Car drives longitudinally toward rear of proceeding car which brakes

Provisional/DRAFT only

16

AEB Group ­ Output

Milestones & Publications

Milestones:

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Draft scenarios agreed by AEB group ­ August 2010 Send draft test concepts to industry for comment ­ October 2010 Publish initial test concept end 2010 Validate with physical testing 2010-2011 Finalise test procedures and equipment end 2011 Aim of undertaking full tests by 2012

Publications:

­ Test procedures ­ Current status updates at technical conferences and industry meetings ­ Supporting materials will include presentations, test documentation, test videos and others ­ www.thatcham.org/AEB

17

AEB Group ­ Output

Milestones & Publications

2010/2011 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Accidentology study Develop pedestrian target simulator Draft CP test procedure Perform initial CP testing Analyse CP results Finalise CP test & rating procedure Test & rate 3 CP AEB systems Publish CP test & rating procedure Publish AEB CP results & ratings Develop car target simulator Draft CCR test procedure Perform initial CCR testing Analyse CCR results Finalise CCR test & rating procedure Test & rate 3 CCR AEB systems Publish CCR test & rating procedure Publish AEB CCR results & ratings 18

Information

AEB Test Development

18 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

798490


Notice: fwrite(): send of 199 bytes failed with errno=104 Connection reset by peer in /home/readbag.com/web/sphinxapi.php on line 531