参数扰动对一种先前的车辆制动控制和防护方法的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2024.04.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探究了作者早先提出的一种车辆制动控制防护方法在参数扰动下的防护效果。用MADYMO虚拟仿真软件，对4种形状的典型车头开展了仿真，分析了以下参数：人体头部与车体首次接触时间、制动系统协调时间、路面附着因数：扰动时，对该制动控制防护方法的影响。结果显示：在人体头部与车体首次接触时间时为80~100 ms时，对加权伤害费用（WIC）降幅的影响最显著，但不同车型下的参数敏感性排序存在差异。在路面附着因数扰动为0.45~0.80时，人车碰撞损伤未增加；但地面所致WIC降幅均大于零，可有效降低人地碰撞损伤。在制动系统协调时间参数扰动区间为80~350 ms时，该车辆制动控制防护方法仍然保持有效。

关键词: 人车碰撞事故, 人地碰撞损伤, 车辆制动控制, 参数扰动, 路面附着因数, 制动系统协调时间

Abstract:

Investigated the effectiveness of vehicle brake control protection methods proposed earlier by the author under parametric perturbations. MADYMO virtual simulation software was used to simulate 4 types of typical locomotive, and 3 parameters for analyzing the influence of disturbance on the braking control and protection method; The 3 parameters including the first contact time between human head and vehicle body, the braking system coordination time, and the road adhesion factor. The results show that the first contact time between the human head and the car body is 80~100 ms, which has the most significant impact on the reduction of weighted injury cost (WIC), but the parameter sensitivity ranking is different in different vehicle types. When the disturbance of road adhesion factor is 0.45~0.80, the damage of human-vehicle collision does not increase, but the decrease of WIC caused by ground is greater than zero, which can effectively reduce the damage of human-ground collision. When the disturbance interval of the coordination time parameter of the braking system is 80~350 ms, the braking control and protection method is still effective.

Key words: pedestrian-vehicle collisions, pedestrian ground contact injury, vehicle brake control, parameter perturbation, coefficient of road adhesion, coordination time of the braking system

中图分类号:

U461.91

邹铁方, 江碟, 周靖, 袁湘婷. 参数扰动对一种先前的车辆制动控制和防护方法的影响[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(4): 477-483.

ZOU Tiefang, JIANG Die, ZHOU Jing, YUAN Xiangting. Effect of the parameter disturbance on a vehicle brake control and protection method proposed earlier[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2024, 15(4): 477-483.

图/表 13

参考文献 22

[1]	Badea-Romero A, Lenard J. Source of head injury for pedestrians and pedal cyclists: Striking vehicle or road?[J]. Accid Ana Preve, 2013, 50: 1140-1150.
[2]	邹铁方, 肖璟, 胡林, 等. 轿车-行人事故中人体损伤来源与相关性分析[J]. 汽车工程, 2017, 39(7): 748-753.
	ZOU Tiefang, XIAO Jing, HU Lin, et al. Source and correlation analysis of human injury in passenger-pedestrian accidents[J]. Automotive Engineering, 2017, 39(7): 748-753. (in Chinese)
[3]	Tamura A, Duma S. A study on the potential risk of traumatic brain injury due to ground impact in a vehicle-pedestrian collision using full-scale finite element models[J]. Int’l J Vehi Safe, 2011, 5(2): 117-136.
[4]	邹铁方, 刘志旗, 王丹琦. 人车碰撞事故中人地碰撞损伤研究进展[J/OL]. 长沙理工大学学报(自然科学版), (2024-01-21). https://doi.org/10.19951/j.cnki.
	ZOU Tiefang, LIU Zhiqi, WANG Danqi. Research progress of human-ground collision damage in human-vehicle collision accidents[J/OL]. J Changsha Univ Sci Tech (Nat Sci Ed), (2024-01-21). https://doi.org/10.19951/j.cnki. (in Chinese)
[5]	LI Guibing, YANG Jikuang, Simms C. Safer passenger car front shapes for pedestrians: A computational approach to reduce overall pedestrian injury risk in realistic impact scenarios[J]. Accid Anal Prev, 2017, 100: 97-110. doi: S0001-4575(17)30031-3 pmid: 28129577
[6]	SHANG Shi, Otte Dietmar, LI Guibing, et al. Detailed assessment of pedestrian ground contact injuries observed from in-depth accident data[J]. Accid Anal Prev, 2018, 110: 9-17. doi: S0001-4575(17)30367-6 pmid: 29078073
[7]	SHANG Shi, Masson C, Teeling D, et al. Kinematics and dynamics of pedestrian head ground contact: A cadaver study[J]. Safety Sci, 2020, 127: 104684.
[8]	ZOU Tiefang, SHANG Shi, Simms C. Potential benefits of controlled vehicle braking to reduce pedestrian ground contact injuries[J]. Accid Anal Preven, 2019, 129: 94-107.
[9]	ZOU Tiefang, LIU Qi, ZHA Aiming, et al. New observations from real-world vehicle-pedestrian collisions in reducing ground related injury by controlling vehicle braking[J]. Int’l J Crashworthiness, 2022, 27(2): 614-631.
[10]	邹铁方, 刘期, 刘朱紫, 等. 真实事故中通过制动控制降低人地碰撞损伤的潜在效益及时空约束[J]. 机械工程学报, 2021, 57(22): 266-276. doi: 10.3901/JME.2021.22.266
	ZOU Tiefang, LIU Qi, LIU Zhuzi, et al. The potential benefits and spatiotemporal constraints of reducing human-ground collision damage by braking control in real accidents[J]. J Mech Eng, 2021, 57(22): 266-276. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3901/JME.2021.22.266
[11]	ZOU Tiefang, LIU Zhuzi, WANG Dangqi, et al. Methods, upper limit and reason for reducing pedestrian ground contact injury by controlling vehicle braking[J]. Int’l J Crashworthiness, 2022, 27(4): 1140-1151.
[12]	邹铁方, 刘朱紫, 肖璟, 等. 一种降低人-地撞击损伤的车辆制动控制防护方法[J]. 汽车工程, 2021, 43(1): 105-112.
	ZOU Tiefang, LIU Zhuzi, XIAO Jing, et al. The invention relates to a vehicle brake control and protection method for reducing human-ground impact damage[J]. Automotive Engineering, 2021, 43(1): 105-112. (in Chinese)
[13]	LIAO Zeng Cheng, BAI Xianxu, LI Yang, et al. Design, modeling, and verification of a test bench for braking simulation of 1/4 vehicle[J]. J Auto Engineering, 2019, 234(5): 1425-1441.
[14]	ZHAO Yibing, XIANG Xiumei, ZHANG Ronghui, et al. Longitudinal control strategy of collision avoidance warning system for intelligent vehicle considering drivers and environmental factors[J]. J Auto Engineering, 2018, 235(2): 498-512
[15]	张韡, 哈敏捷, 白琛琛. 基于多因素的公路弯道停车视距计算模型研究[J]. 公路与汽运, 2023 (01): 10-16.
	ZHANG Wei, HA Mingjie, BAI Chenchen. Research on the calculation model of stopping sight distance on highway curves based on multiple factors[J]. Road Motor Transp, 2023 (01): 10-16. (in Chinese)
[16]	高伟嘉, 束海波. 基于人-车-路协同的山区道路符合性仿真研究[J]. 公路与汽运, 2021(5): 20-24.
	GAO Weijia, SU Haibo. Simulation of road compliance in mountainous areas based on human-vehicle-road collaboration[J]. Road Motor Transp, 2021(5): 20-24. (in Chinese)
[17]	郎召伟, 李屹, 金江波, 等. 电磁制动器设计及制动特性分析[J]. 机械工程与自动化, 2021, (3): 67-69+72.
	LANG Zhaowei, LI Yi, JING Jiangbo, et al. Electromagnetic brake design and braking characteristics analysis[J]. Mech Eng Automation, 2021, (3): 67-69+72. (in Chinese)
[18]	何仁, 胡东海, 张端军. 汽车电磁制动技术的研究与进展[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2013, 4(3): 202-214.
	HE Ren, HU Donghai, ZHANG Duanjun. Research and progress of automobile electromagnetic braking technology[J]. J Auto Safe Energy, 2013, 4(3): 202-214. (in Chinese)
[19]	LI Guibing, YANG Jikuang, SIMMS Ciaran. A virtual test system representing the distribution of pedestrian impact configurations for future vehicle front-end optimization[J]. Traff Injury Prev, 2016, 17(5): 515-523.
[20]	许建民, 龚晓岩, 宋雷, 等. 基于形态仿生学的厢式货车复合气动减阻方案[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2023, 14(2): 224-231.
	XU Jianmin, GON Xiaoyan, SONG Lei, et al. Composite aerodynamic drag reduction scheme of van based on morphological bionics[J]. J Auto Safe Energy, 2023, 14(2): 224-231. (in Chinese)
[21]	LI Guibing, YANG Jikuang, SIMMS Ciaran. Safer passenger car front shapes for pedestrians: A computational approach to reduce overall pedestrian injury risk in realistic impact scenarios[J]. Accid Anal Prev, 2017, 100: 97-110. doi: S0001-4575(17)30031-3 pmid: 28129577
[22]	邹铁方, 周靖. 参数扰动下基于制动控制的人地碰撞损伤防护风险[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(2): 313-323.
	ZOU Tiefang, ZHOU Jing. Protection risk of human-ground collision damage based on braking control under parameter disturbance[J]. Automotive Engineering, 2023, 45(2): 313-323. (in Chinese)

编号	t₁ / ms	μ	t_x / ms
1	-80	0.45	80
2	-80	0.57	170
3	-80	0.69	260
4	-80	0.81	350
5	-20	0.45	170
6	-20	0.57	80
7	-20	0.69	350
8	-20	0.81	260
9	40	0.45	260
10	40	0.57	350
11	40	0.69	80
12	40	0.81	170
13	100	0.45	350
14	100	0.57	260
15	100	0.69	170
16	100	0.81	80

编号	t₁ / ms	μ	t_x / ms
1	-80	0.45	80
2	-80	0.57	170
3	-80	0.69	260
4	-80	0.81	350
5	-20	0.45	170
6	-20	0.57	80
7	-20	0.69	350
8	-20	0.81	260
9	40	0.45	260
10	40	0.57	350
11	40	0.69	80
12	40	0.81	170
13	100	0.45	350
14	100	0.57	260
15	100	0.69	170
16	100	0.81	80

试验编号	ΔWIC				WIC降幅 / %				总WIC 降幅 / %
试验编号	大轿车	大型SUV	小轿车	小型SUV	大轿车	大型SUV	小轿车	小型SUV	总WIC 降幅 / %
1	-1 887	-640	41 255	16 182	-18.92	-5.68	84.11	66.27	57.98
2	3 884	18 437	26 030	-7 400	38.49	88.72	71.35	-64.74	51.98
3	1 197	6 638	32 794	2 510	17.20	43.67	91.60	20.02	61.19
4	6 238	9 856	13 876	5 677	54.01	64.80	87.44	59.83	68.40
5	4 401	2 300	45 257	18 423	44.13	20.43	92.27	75.44	74.32
6	1 839	18 080	33 162	8 385	18.23	87.01	90.90	73.36	78.02
7	3 769	9 864	26 621	-7 170	54.16	64.89	74.36	-57.18	46.93
8	8 742	5 495	9 365	837	75.69	36.13	59.01	8.82	46.89
9	4 988	520	45 704	8 460	50.02	4.62	93.18	34.64	63.01
10	-1 060	13 539	27 786	-2 360	-10.51	65.15	76.17	-20.65	48.12
11	915	12 190	31 805	7 136	13.15	80.20	88.84	56.91	73.83
12	6 970	10 752	11 940	101	60.35	70.69	75.24	1.06	57.11
13	2 655	6 325	46 287	3 680	26.62	56.17	94.37	15.07	62.24
14	-21 670	12 512	26 010	-1 420	-214.77	60.21	71.30	-12.42	19.59
15	-5 751	9 146	25 560	-12 750	-82.64	60.17	71.40	-101.67	22.99
16	6 552	3 850	12 278	512	56.73	25.31	77.37	5.40	44.50

试验编号	ΔWIC				WIC降幅 / %				总WIC 降幅 / %
试验编号	大轿车	大型SUV	小轿车	小型SUV	大轿车	大型SUV	小轿车	小型SUV	总WIC 降幅 / %
1	-1 887	-640	41 255	16 182	-18.92	-5.68	84.11	66.27	57.98
2	3 884	18 437	26 030	-7 400	38.49	88.72	71.35	-64.74	51.98
3	1 197	6 638	32 794	2 510	17.20	43.67	91.60	20.02	61.19
4	6 238	9 856	13 876	5 677	54.01	64.80	87.44	59.83	68.40
5	4 401	2 300	45 257	18 423	44.13	20.43	92.27	75.44	74.32
6	1 839	18 080	33 162	8 385	18.23	87.01	90.90	73.36	78.02
7	3 769	9 864	26 621	-7 170	54.16	64.89	74.36	-57.18	46.93
8	8 742	5 495	9 365	837	75.69	36.13	59.01	8.82	46.89
9	4 988	520	45 704	8 460	50.02	4.62	93.18	34.64	63.01
10	-1 060	13 539	27 786	-2 360	-10.51	65.15	76.17	-20.65	48.12
11	915	12 190	31 805	7 136	13.15	80.20	88.84	56.91	73.83
12	6 970	10 752	11 940	101	60.35	70.69	75.24	1.06	57.11
13	2 655	6 325	46 287	3 680	26.62	56.17	94.37	15.07	62.24
14	-21 670	12 512	26 010	-1 420	-214.77	60.21	71.30	-12.42	19.59
15	-5 751	9 146	25 560	-12 750	-82.64	60.17	71.40	-101.67	22.99
16	6 552	3 850	12 278	512	56.73	25.31	77.37	5.40	44.50

车型	极差 / %			影响最大的因子
车型	t₁	t_x	μ	影响最大的因子
大轿车	1.015 7	0.490 4	1.038 3	μ
大型SUV	0.072 9	0.266	0.563 9	μ
小轿车	0.050 2	0.077 4	0.162 2	μ
小型SUV	0.485 2	0.729 6	0.683 4	t_x
不分车型	0.242 1	0.159 1	0.149 6	t₁