基于VRUs深度事故重建的AEB效能对头部损伤风险的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2021.04.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为保护道路弱势使用群体（VRUs,含行人和二轮车骑车人）的、主被动一体化的、汽车安全性设计提供理论参考依据,该文利用高精度事故再现和事故碰撞前场景重建方法,分析了VRU事故的汽车自动紧急制动系统（AEB）的传感器探测角（FOV）及制动减速度等参数的防护效能及VRUs头部损伤风险。结果表明：FOV为30°时事故规避率为45%;当FOV增加到40°、50°和90°时,较FOV为30°事故规避率又分别增加了5％、10％和20％;在FOV为90°,减速度为0.8 g时,即碰时间（TTC）为1 s工况下,车辆平均碰撞速度降低最为明显,高达84％;AEB介入能降低VRUs与车辆前部撞击造成的损伤,但在头部落地损伤存在不确定性。

关键词: 道路弱势使用者（VRUs）, 自动紧急制动系统（AEB）, 头部损伤, 事故重建, 多体分析, 传感器探测角（FOV）

Abstract:

In order to provide a theoretical reference for the active-passive integrated safety vehicle design for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs), which including pedestrians and two-wheelers, protection, this paper analyzed the protection effectiveness of some parameters such as the Field Of View in sensor detection (FOV), and the braking deceleration of automotive Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and the head injury risk for VRUs in accidents by using a high precision accident reproduction and some pre-crash scenario reconstruction methods. The results show that the accident avoidance rate is 45% when the FOV is 30°; The accident avoidance rate increases by 5%, 10% and 20% when the FOV is 40°, 50° and 90° respectively compared with the FOV of 30°; The average vehicle crash speed reduces significantly, up to 84%, for the Time To Collision (TTC) in 1 s, when the FOV reaches 90° at a deceleration of 0.8 g; There is uncertainty in the head landing damage although AEB intervention could reduce the damages caused by the impacts between VRUs and the vehicle front.

Key words: vulnerable road users (VRUs), automatic emergency braking (AEB) system, head injury, accident reconstruction, multi-body analysis, field of view in sensor detection (FOV)

中图分类号:

U461.99

韩勇, 李永强, 许永虹, 王丙雨, 高秀晶, 黄红武, 聂冰冰. 基于VRUs深度事故重建的AEB效能对头部损伤风险的影响[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2021, 12(4): 490-498.

HAN Yong, LI Yongqiang, XU Yonghong, WANG Bingyu, GAO Xiujing, HUANG Hongwu, NIE Bingbing. Effectiveness of AEB system for head injury risk based on VRUs in-depth accident reconstruction[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2021, 12(4): 490-498.

图/表 16

参考文献 28

[1]	World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2018: Summary [EB/OL]. *WHO, 2018*. (2020-08-01). https://www.who.int/violenceinjuryprevention/roadsafetystatus/2018/en/.
[2]	European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) — Test Protocol AEB VRU Systems. [EB/OL]. *Euro NCAP*, 2019. (2021-03-28). https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/53153/euro-ncap-aeb-vru-test-protocol-v302.pdf.
[3]	中国汽车技术研究中心(CATARC). 中国新车评价规程[S/OL]. (2021-03-28). http://www.c-ncap.org.cn/cms/picture/357380003076288512.pdf.
	China Automotive Technology and Research Center (CATARC). C-NCAP (China New Car Assessment Program) management regulation (2021 edition). [S/OL]. (2021-03-28). http://www.c-ncap.org.cn/cms/picture/357380003076288512.pdf. (in Chinese)
[4]	National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 10 automakers equipped most of their 2018 vehicles with automatic emergency braking[S/OL]. *NHTSA, Washington, DC*. (2019-05-13). https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/10-automakers-equipped-most-their-2018-vehicles-automatic-emergency-braking.
[5]	Anderson R, Doecke S, Mackenzie J, et al. Potential benefits of autonomous emergency braking based on in-depth crash reconstruction and simulation[C]// *Proc 23rd Int’l Conf Enha Safe Vehi, US NHTSA, Washington DC*. (13-0152). 2013.
[6]	CHEN Qiang, LIN Miao, DAI Bing, et al. Typical pedestrian accident scenarios in China and crash severity mitigation by autonomous emergency braking systems[R]. *SAE Tech Paper*, 2015-01-1464.
[7]	HUANG Sunan, YANG Jikuang, Eklund F. Evaluation of remote pedestrian sensor system based on the analysis of car-pedestrian accident scenarios[J]. *Safety Sci*, 2008, 46(9):1345-1355. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.08.004 URL
[8]	LIU Fuju, WANG Peng, CHEN Jiguang. Research on the AEB system parameters based on passenger car-pedestrian accidents in CIDAS[J]. *China Auto*, 2018(9):26-29.
[9]	Rosen E, Kaellhammer J E, Eriksson D, et al. Pedestrian injury mitigation by autonomous braking[J]. *Accid Ana Prevention*, 2010, 42(6):1949-1957.
[10]	ZHAO Yuqing, Daisuke I, Koji M. AEB effectiveness evaluation based on car-to-cyclist accident reconstructions using video of drive recorder[J]. *Traf Injury Prevention*, 2019, 20(1):100-106.
[11]	吴贺, 韩勇, 石亮亮, 等. 基于视频信息的高精度事故重建方法研究[J]. 汽车工程, 2020, 42(6):778-783+792.
	WU He, HAN Yong, SHI Liangliang, et al. Research on high precision accident reconstruction method based on video information[J]. Auto Engi, 2020, 42(6):778-783+792. (in Chinese)
[12]	石亮亮, 韩勇, 王丙雨, 等. 基于行人落地碰撞的车辆前部结构参数分析[J]. 湖南大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 46(2):19-27.
	SHI Liangliang, HAN Yong, WANG Bingyu, et al. Analysis of vehicle front-end structure parameters based on pedestrian landing impacts[J]. J Hunan Univ (Nat Sci), 2019, 46(2):19-27. (in Chinese)
[13]	聂进, 李桂兵, 杨济匡. 车辆-行人/自行车骑车人事故死亡风险和头部动力学响应对比研究[J]. 湖南大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 41(2):64-72.
	NIE Jin, LI Guibing, YANG Jikuang, et al. A comparative study of head dynamic response and fatality risk of pedestrian and bicyclist in vehicle collisions[J]. J Hunan Univ (Natu Sci), 2014, 41(2):64-72. (in Chinese)
[14]	Maki T, Kajzer J, Mizuno K, et al. Comparative analysis of vehicle-bicyclist and vehicle-pedestrian accidents in Japan[J]. *Acci Anal Prevention*, 2003, 35(6):927-940.
[15]	HAN Yong, LI Quan, QIAN Yubin, et al. Comparison of the landing kinematics of pedestrians and cyclists during ground impact determined from vehicle collision video records[J]. *Int’l J Vehi Safe*, 2018, 10(3-4):212-234.
[16]	Maritinez L, Guerra L J, Ferichola G, et al. Stiffness corridors of the European fleet for pedestrian simulations[C]// 20th Int’l Tech Conf Enha Safe Vehi (ESV), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (07-0267). 2007.
[17]	YANG Jikuang, Lovsund P, Cavallero C, et al. A human-body 3D mathematical model for simulation of car-pedestrian impacts[J]. *J Crash Prev Inju Contr*, 2000, 2(2):131-149.
[18]	Maki T, Kajzer J. The behavior of bicyclists in frontal and rear crash accidents with cars[J]. *JSAE Rev*. 2001, 22:357-363. doi: 10.1016/S0389-4304(01)00112-6 URL
[19]	Mclundie W M. Investigation of two-wheeled road traffic accidents using explicit FE techniques[D]. *Bedford (UK): Cranfield University*, 2007.
[20]	林洋, 上山勝. 大慈弥雅弘. 机动车事故鉴定方法[M]. 北京: 群众出版社, 1988: 117-132.
	LIN Yang, SHANG Shansheng, Daizi Miyahiro. Motor Vehicle Accident Identification Methods[M]. BeiJing: Masses Publishing Press, 1988: 117-132. (in Chinese)
[21]	韩学源, 金先龙, 张晓云, 等. 基于视频图像与直接线性变换理论的车辆运动信息重构[J]. 汽车工程, 2012(12):1145-1149.
	HAN Xueyuan, JIN Xianlong, ZHANG Xiaoyun, et al. Vehicle movement information reconstruction based on video images and DLT theory[J]. Auto Engi, 2012(12):1145-1149. (in Chinese)
[22]	NIE Jin, YANG Jikuang. A study of bicyclist kinematics and injuries based on reconstruction of passenger car-bicycle accident in China[J]. *Accid Anal Prevention*, 2014, 71:50-59. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.04.021 URL
[23]	WENG Yiliu, JIN Xiaolong, ZHAO Zhijie, et al. Car-to-pedestrian collision reconstruction with injury as an evaluation index[J]. *Accid Anal Prevention*, 2010, 42(4):1320-1325. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.012 URL
[24]	YAO Jianfeng, YANG Jikuang, Fedriksson R. Reconstruction of head-to-hood impact in an automobile-to-child-pedestrian collision[J]. *Int’l J Crashworthiness*, 2006, 11(4):387-395.
[25]	王方, 蔡加欣, 王丙雨, 等. 基于行人碰撞事故重建的颅脑损伤准则效能研究[J]. 中国公路学报, 2018, 31(4):231-240.
	WANG Fang, CAI Jiaxin, WANG Bingyu, et al. Investigation of prediction effectiveness of brain injury criteria on injury risk through reconstruction of pedestrian impact accidents[J]. Chin J Highway Transp, 2018, 31(4):231-240. (in Chinese)
[26]	SHI Liangliang, HAN Yong, HUANG Hongwu, et al. Evaluation of injury thresholds for predicting severe head injuries in vulnerable road users resulting from ground impact via detailed accident reconstructions[J]. *Biomech Modeling Mechanobiology*, 2020, 19(5):1845-1863. doi: 10.1007/s10237-020-01312-9 URL
[27]	胡远志, 吕章洁, 刘西. 基于PreScan的AEB系统纵向避撞算法及仿真验证[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2017, 8(2):136-142.
	HU Yuanzhi, LV Zhangjie, LIU Xi. Algorithm and simulation verification of longitudinal collision avoidance for autonomous emergency break (AEB) system based on PreScan[J]. J Auto Safe Energy. 2017, 8(2):136-142. (in Chinese)
[28]	Hamdane H, Serre T, Masson C, et al. Issues and challenges for pedestrian active safety systems based on real world accidents[J]. *Accid Anal Prevention*, 2015, 82:53-60. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.05.014 URL

编号	v km·h^-1	VRUs类型	VRUs 信息
编号	v km·h^-1	VRUs类型	性别	身高/ cm	年龄	MAIS
C1	48.0	行人	男	165	74	1
C2	28.0	行人	女	142	72	6
C3	30.0	行人	男	168	69	5
C4	28.6	行人	女	158	79	5
C5	55.0	行人	男	165	79	1
C6	41.8	行人	男	157	53	4
C7	32.4	自行车	男	164	90	3
C8	51.1	自行车	男	170	67	6
C9	25.2	电动二轮车	男	168	80	5
C10	75.0	电动二轮车	男	169	50	5
C11	45.0	电动二轮车	女	160	66	5
C12	32.4	电动二轮车	男	170	37	2
C13	72.0	电动二轮车	男	174	78	5
C14	21.0	电动二轮车	女	150	50	5
C15	33.0	电动二轮车	男	164	59	3
C16	34.2	电动二轮车	女	160	60	0
C17	32.4	电动二轮车	男	171	69	3
C18	45.1	电动二轮车	男	176	50	4
C19	23.4	自行车	女	156	73	5
C20	46.8	电动二轮车	女	170	34	5

编号	v km·h^-1	VRUs类型	VRUs 信息
编号	v km·h^-1	VRUs类型	性别	身高/ cm	年龄	MAIS
C1	48.0	行人	男	165	74	1
C2	28.0	行人	女	142	72	6
C3	30.0	行人	男	168	69	5
C4	28.6	行人	女	158	79	5
C5	55.0	行人	男	165	79	1
C6	41.8	行人	男	157	53	4
C7	32.4	自行车	男	164	90	3
C8	51.1	自行车	男	170	67	6
C9	25.2	电动二轮车	男	168	80	5
C10	75.0	电动二轮车	男	169	50	5
C11	45.0	电动二轮车	女	160	66	5
C12	32.4	电动二轮车	男	170	37	2
C13	72.0	电动二轮车	男	174	78	5
C14	21.0	电动二轮车	女	150	50	5
C15	33.0	电动二轮车	男	164	59	3
C16	34.2	电动二轮车	女	160	60	0
C17	32.4	电动二轮车	男	171	69	3
C18	45.1	电动二轮车	男	176	50	4
C19	23.4	自行车	女	156	73	5
C20	46.8	电动二轮车	女	170	34	5

案例编号	v / （km·h^-1）	TTC_b	S₁ / m	S₂ / m	（S₁-S₂） / m
5	55.0	0.88	13.44	14.87	-1.42
10	75.0	1.01	21.05	27.65	-6.60
12	32.4	0.39	3.47	5.16	-1.69
15	35.0	1.00	9.77	6.02	3.75
16	62.7	1.00	17.43	19..36	-1.92
20	72.0	1.00	20.00	25.48	-5.47

案例编号	v / （km·h^-1）	TTC_b	S₁ / m	S₂ / m	（S₁-S₂） / m
5	55.0	0.88	13.44	14.87	-1.42
10	75.0	1.01	21.05	27.65	-6.60
12	32.4	0.39	3.47	5.16	-1.69
15	35.0	1.00	9.77	6.02	3.75
16	62.7	1.00	17.43	19..36	-1.92
20	72.0	1.00	20.00	25.48	-5.47

	评价指标	人车碰撞				人地碰撞
	评价指标	HIC	HIP / kW	ω / （rad·s^-1）	ω' /（krad·s^-2）	HIC	HIP / kW	ω / （rad·s^-1）	ω' /（krad·s^-2）
无AEB	C5	1 039.9	53.6	71.9	22.3	107.4	45.1	28.3	17.5
	C10	1 808.2	45.2	96.5	34.7	1 597.4	47.5	5.9	14.1
	C12	0.0	6.7	16.9	17.2	90.6	8.6	23.8	74.7
	C15	1 461.5	21.6	45.8	8.9	1 168.3	20.6	16.1	76.9
	C20	24.8	1.1	25.6	6.0	8 961.8	25.1	62.0	128.7
有AEB	C5	77.3	1.6	29.4	6.6	985.3	11.8	35.7	27.8
	C10	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	814.9	66.0	62.8	14.6
	C12	14.7	4.2	20.2	2.9	639.5	22.1	32.1	70.7
	C15	46.9	5.5	21.3	44.9	1 518.8	22.7	23.7	69.2
	C20	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	255.4	16.0	27.2	19.6