Newsletter No 2 | Augsut 2012 Page 1

The AsPeCSS consortium proudly presents the sec-ond issue of the project’s newsletter. This second issue presents the Test event held at the BASt, in Bergisch Gladbach, June 26th and 27th 2012. The event was organised by ASPECSS and Harmonisation Platform 2; all relevant car manufacturers, sensor system suppliers and safety system suppliers were invited.

The objective of the AsPeCSS project is to contribute towards improving the protection of vulnerable road users, in particular pedestrians and cyclists by developing harmonized test and assessment proce-dures for forward looking integrated pedestrian safety systems.

The outcome of the project will be a suite of tests and assessment methods as input to future regula-tory procedures and consumer rating protocols. Implementation of such procedures / protocols will enforce widespread introduction of such systems in the vehicle fleet, resulting in a significant reduction

of fatalities and seriously injured among these vul-nerable road users.

AsPeCSS activities are di-rectly linked to regulatory and consumer rating. The results of the AsPeCSS to-gether with other projects findings will have an impact on the new generation of integrated (passive and active safety) of vulnerable road user protection. Through the creation of Harmonisation Platforms, the independent projects exchange information and align procedures. It is expected to propose new methods to Euro NCAP for consideration as the basis of new test procedures to be introduced by 2014. The Project website: www.aspecss-project.eu

Introduction The AsPeCSS project

has been made

possible by a financial

contribution by the

European Commission

under Framework

Programme 7.

Facts and Figures

Autonomous Emergency Brake Systems (AEBS) use remote exterior sensors like radar or camera to detect an imminent crash. Depending on the sys-tem a warning may be provided to the driver, brakes pre-charged and/or partial or full braking applied automatically to minimize the impact. These actions may be combined with activation of restraints like pre-tensioning of seat belts or raise of the bonnet (pedestrian safety).

Because of their potential in crash avoidance and injury mitigation Euro NCAP intends to include as-sessment of AEBS in future protocols. Procedures will be defined by the PNCAP group using informa-tion from a number of projects:

Advanced Forward-Looking Safety Systems (vFSS)

Autonomous Emergency Brake systems (AEB)

Assessment methods for Integrated Pedes-trian Safety Systems (AsPeCSS)

Assessment of Integrated Vehicle Safety Systems (ASSESS)

Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC)

To streamline input from the various projects to Euro NCAP so-called Harmonisation Platforms (HP’s) have been established. Goal is to exchange information on key subjects, thereby generating a

clear overview of similarities and differences on the approaches and results. The projects will run inde-pendently but via the HP’s they are well informed of mutual developments. Three HP’s have been established:

HP1 Test scenarios

HP2 Test targets

HP3 Effectiveness

HP2 became effective per April 2011 and has gener-ated documentation on test tools for car to car scenarios during 2011. In 2012 activities on tools for pedestrian scenarios are being considered. Main activity so far was the specification of a pedestrian dummy for testing AEB systems. Draft specifications were defined with input from each of the projects. Based on the outcome of the workshop these will be evaluated and further refined to come with a final set of specs by the end of 2012.

Harmonisation platforms

Assessment methodologies for forward looking Integrated Pedestrian and further extension to Cyclists Safety Systems

NEWSLETTER 2

Total budget 3.9 M€ EC Funding 2.4 M€ Duration 30 Months Coordinator Ms Monica Pla, IDIADA Start date 1 September 2011 Website www.aspecss-project.eu

Euro NCAP has recently released its updated roadmap that outlines, amongst other technologies, the implementation of AEB technologies within the rating scheme. Three types of AEB are included in the rating scheme.

From 2014 both low speed AEB “City” and high speed AEB “Inter-Urban” systems will be assessed as part of the rating. AEB City is included in the Adult Occupant Protection Box as this technology is closely related to Whiplash. The AEB Inter-Urban systems are included in the Safety Assist Box as they are not directly linked to any specific injury mechanism currently addressed by Euro NCAP’s tests.

The protocols for AEB City and AEB Inter-Urban are expected to be released after the January 2013 Euro NCAP Board of Directors meeting.

As a final step in the introduction of AEB technologies within Euro NCAP, AEB Pedestrian is included in the Pedestrian Protection Box from 2016 onwards. Cars that meet the 4-star requirement of 55% Pedes-trian Score are eligible for inclusion of AEB to raise the performance to a 5-star pedestrian performance threshold.

The AEB “Pedestrian” test procedures are currently under development within the Euro NCAP P-NCAP TWG. The group is considering two scenarios for evaluation of AEB technology to avoid pedestrian crashes. The first is a walking adult coming from the nearside without obstruction. A more challenging, second scenario is a running child coming from behind an obstruction at the nearside.

The pedestrian targets and exact test scenarios are under discussion and are considering the input from

various research groups, amongst which, the FP7-project ASPECSS. The group is aiming to release the

test- and assessment protocols for AEB Pedestrian in the beginning of 2014.

In May 2012 Euro NCAP released a fitment survey that looked at the availability of AEB on variants in a model range. The vehicle manufacturers indicated whether AEB is standard equipment, an option or is unavailable on each variant in a model range, for each country in the European Union. With the inclusion of AEB in it’s rating scheme, Euro NCAP is aiming for a faster penetration of AEB systems into the market.

The results of the fitment survey can be found on the Euro NCAP website: http://nl.euroncap.com/results/aeb/survey.aspx .

City system

City AEB can avoid low-speed impacts in city traffic up to 20km/h.

Typical city accidents occur at junctions and roundabouts. A driver is waiting behind other cars approaching a roundabout. He is concentrating on the traffic on the roundabout and sees a gap. He expects the car in front to move forward and accelerates, only to find that the driver in front has not moved. The impact that follows is typical of city driving: low speed, but with a high risk of a debilitating whiplash injury to the driver of the struck vehicle. While injury severities are usually low, these accidents are very frequent and represent 26% of all crashes.

For its fitment survey, Euro NCAP defines city systems as those which can avoid an impact by autonomous braking at speeds up to 20km/h where 80% of all whiplash injuries occur. These systems look for the reflectivity of a typical vehicle and so are not sensitive to pedestrians or roadside furniture.

Inter-Urban system

Inter-Urban systems operate over the speed range 50-80km/h but may also provide useful mitigation at lower speeds, typical of an urban environment.

Similar accident scenarios occur on the open road. A driver on a motorway or a dual carriageway might be distracted and fail to recognise that the traffic in front of him is coming to a stop. By the time he notices the danger, it is too late for him to apply the brakes and avoid the impact or he may misjudge the braking of the car infront and fail to apply sufficient braking force.

Systems fall into this category if they do more than simply warn the driver and operate over the speed range 50-80km/h. Some systems designed to operate primarily at Inter-Urban speeds may also provide benefit in city driving. For example, they may not be able to avoid accidents at low speeds but will be able to warn the driver and provide some mitigation effect.

Pedestrian system

Pedestrian systems can detect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users like cyclists. Instead of detecting other vehicles, some systems are designed to detect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. Images from a forward-looking camera are analysed to identify shapes and characteristics typical of humans. The way in which they are moving relative to the path of the vehicle is calculated to determine whether or not they are in danger of being struck. If so, the AEB system applies full braking to bring the car to a halt and, at the same time, it may issue a warning to the driver. The system must be able to react properly to a valid threat but must not apply the brakes where there is no danger e.g. where a pedestrian is walking to the edge of the pavement but then stops to allow the car to pass. These systems invariably employ a camera combined with a radar – something called sensor fusion. New technologies are appearing on the market that use infra-red and can also operate in very low light conditions.

EURO NCAP - AEB fitment survey 2012

Combining Active and Passive Safety

Newsletter No 2 | August 2012 Page 2

Dummy specifications by HP2

During the first months of 2012 the Harmonisation Platform on Test Targets came with a draft specification for pedestrian dummy targets. Specifications were developed in the vFSS, ASPECSS and AEB projects. It was decided to have two sizes of dummies, one representing adults and one representing children. In order to mimic pedestrians as close as possible for sensor systems like radar, camera and PMD initial specifications for all these sensors were defined. The workshop as held on 26 and 27 June at BASt was largely meant to verify and refine the draft specifications. The table below summarizes some of the specifications for the dummy and the test environment. A report with detailed results will be published later this year.

The aim of this workshop was to define the specifications for pedestrian dummies used in the evaluation of forward looking safety systems. Concretely, there are two sub goals:

To conduct a first objective-subjective evaluation of dummies. The engineers had to fill in questionnaires based on their objec-tive criteria; score from 1 (very well comparable) to 4 (not suitable).

To confirm these results / findings through objective data

During the two days event test runs were made by 16 cars from various OEM’s and suppliers, comparing 12 different dummies and various propulsion systems. The vehicles were equipped with state of art sensing systems including radars, PMD sensor, mono and stereo camera. In total, 70 people from the following institutions participated in the event: 4a Engineering, ADAC, AstaZero, Audi, autoliv, BASt, BMW, Bosch, Continental, Daimler, DSD, Euro NCAP, Honda, Humanetics, IDIADA, IFM, IKA, Magna, Opel, PSA, Thatcham, TNO, Toyota, TRL, TRW, Uniresearch, Volvo and Volkswagen.

During two days of testing various dummies and propulsion systems were analysed and evaluated for their appropriateness to mimic pe-destrians for different sensor systems. For the basic considerations on basic kinematics within car-pedestrian accidents a relatively easy yet representative scenario was chosen:

Cars should approach the test rig at constant velocity 30 km/h

The dummy crosses path at safe distance at constant velocity of 5 km/h

The trajectories are perpendicular to each other, and car and pedestrian will not collide

Triggering will be performed at least manually (with touch switch if possible);

Time to collision (TTC) should be in range 3 to 5 seconds walking dummy

No obstructed scenario was considered

After conducting all the tests there was an assessment session where all OEM’s gave their first impressions on the dummies tested. In the following months the test data will be analysed in detail and used to contribute and specify the representative dummy.

A follow-up workshop will be organized in October at IDIADA under the frame of AsPeCSS project. In this event overall set-ups consisting of dummies and propulsion systems will be evaluated on their capabilities to represent test scenarios defined by projects like vFSS, AEB and AsPeCSS.

Workshop objectives and description

Test event “Dummy detect-ability” 26-27 June 2012

Dummies # Dummy Type

2 NHTSA Adult + child 2 vFSS Adult + child 1 IDIADA Adult 2 Autoliv Adult + child 1 Thatcham Adult 2 4ª Adult + child 1 TRL Adult 2 Continental Adult + child

Selection of Dummies tested

Newsletter No 2 | August 2012 Page 3

Page 4

Consortium

IDIADA - Coordinator

www.idaida.com

AUTOLIV

www.autoliv.com

BAST

www.bast.de

BMW

www.bmw.de

BOSCH

www.bosch.com

HUMANETICS

www.humaneticsatd.com

PSA

www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com

TNO

www.tno.nl

TOYOTA

www.toyota.eu

TRL

www.trl.co.uk

TRW

www.trw.com

UNIRESEARCH

www.uniresearch.nl

IKA

ww.ika.rwth-aachen.de

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commu-nity's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 285106.

Every effort has been made to ensure complete and accurate information concerning the articles in this newsletter. However, the author(s) and members of the consortia cannot be held legaly responsible for any misstake in printing or faulty instructions. The authors and consortia members retreave the right not to be responsible for the top i ca l i t y, corr ec tn ess , completeness or quality of the information provided. This publication solely reflects the author’s views. The European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

Selection of test setups / propulsion systems

Continental Portal

Newsletter No 2 | June 2012

UFO / DSD platform

TRL platform 4a Engineering platform