Dissemination of Performance Testing Methods for Active ...€¦ · 1 Introduction The general...

Dissemination of Performance Testing Methods for

Active Safety Functions in Road Vehicles

Support Action

Grant Agreement Number 269904

Deliverable D2.3

Third workshop summary

Confidentiality level: Public

Status: FINAL

Executive Summary

The ActiveTest initiative has the objective to disseminate performance testing methods for

ICT-based safety functions in road vehicles.

Among other actions, this objective shall be fulfilled by the implementation of workshops

where entities and other initiatives can present their approaches and results related to active

safety. When the ActiveTest initiative was set up, these workshops were defined as three

two-day workshops held in Spain, Germany and Sweden with technical sessions, test

demonstrations and small group meetings.

This deliverable summarizes the third workshop held by the ActiveTest initiative. The

workshop was held by SP in Sweden on 25 and 26 September 2012. The document includes

a description of the implementation of the workshop, mainly based in the agenda of the

event, a summary of the presentations and discussions, mainly based on the contribution of

the attendants, and a summary of conclusions.

Deliverable D2.3

ActiveTest 2 ICT-2007-269904 ActiveTest-121031-D23-V03-FINAL

Document Name

ActiveTest-121031-D23-V03-FINAL.doc

Version Chart

Version Date Comment

0.1 27.09.2012 Skeleton document

0.2 25.10.2012 First draft version

0.3 19.11.2012 Final version

Authors

The following participants contributed to this deliverable:

Name Company Chapters

M. Lesemann, D. Raudszus, F. Nuss IKA all

J. Jacobson, H. Eriksson SP all

A. Aparicio IDIADA all

Coordinator

Jan Jacobson

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

Brinellgatan 4, 501 15 Borås, Sweden

Phone: +46 105 565697

E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright

© ActiveTest Consortium 2012

mailto:[email protected]

Deliverable D2.3


Summary

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5

2 Implementation of the workshop .................................................................................... 6

2.1 Motivation of the workshop ...................................................................................... 6

2.2 Structure of the workshop ........................................................................................ 6

2.3 Agenda of the workshop .......................................................................................... 8

2.4 Implementation of the workshop .............................................................................. 9

3 Technical contents of the second workshop ................................................................ 10

3.1 Session I – Introduction ......................................................................................... 10

3.2 Session II - Accident statistics ............................................................................... 10

3.2.1 Predicting future impact of vehicle and VRU safety technology in Sweden ......... 10

3.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accident Data ................................................................ 11

3.3 Session III – Challenges for protection of vulnerable road users ............................ 11

3.3.1 Cyclist safety ...................................................................................................... 11

3.3.2 Potentials, Benefits and Challenges for ADAS in Pedestrian accidents .............. 12

3.3.3 Pedestrian accident scenarios in Japan ............................................................. 12

3.4 Session IV – Research to enhance safety for vulnerable road users...................... 12

3.4.1 Brief intro to the ASSESS project ....................................................................... 12

3.4.2 Driver reaction model ......................................................................................... 13

3.4.3 Overview of test facilities realized and R&R ....................................................... 13

3.4.4 Findings / issues when combining active and passive safety testing .................. 14

3.4.5 Assessment methodology .................................................................................. 14

3.4.6 Benefit estimation methodology ......................................................................... 15

3.5 Session V – Solutions for active safety testing ....................................................... 16

3.5.1 Active pedestrian safety – development of a harmonized test procedure ........... 16

3.5.2 ISO Standardization for Active Safety ................................................................ 16

3.5.3 AstaZero - a novel test facility for active safety ................................................... 17

3.5.4 UFO – Ultraflat Overrunable Platform ................................................................. 17

3.5.5 Test platform ...................................................................................................... 18

3.5.6 Evaluation of Video Based Driver Assistance Systems ...................................... 19

3.6 Session VI – Demonstrations ................................................................................. 19

Deliverable D2.3


3.6.1 Demonstrations at the test track (including the DSD and the AED platforms) ..... 19

3.6.2 Presentation of operation mode and production of pedestrian safety airbag ....... 20

3.7 Session VII – Research to enhance safety for vulnerable road users..................... 20

3.7.1 Brief introduction to the AsPeCSS project .......................................................... 20

3.7.2 Results from AsPeCSS dummy testing workshop .............................................. 20

3.7.3 Overview of AsPeCSS project, accident and test scenarios ............................... 21

3.8 Session VIII – Summary ........................................................................................ 22

3.8.1 The ActiveTest plan for future research .............................................................. 22

3.8.2 Round table discussion on vulnerable road users .............................................. 22

3.8.3 Summary and closing of the workshop ............................................................... 24

4 Conclusions and future workshops .............................................................................. 25

4.1 Technical conclusions ............................................................................................ 25

4.2 Conclusion about the workshop ............................................................................. 26

Annex 1. Flyer of the workshop ............................................................................................ 27

Annex 2. List of participants ................................................................................................. 31

Annex 3. Photos from the workshop .................................................................................... 33

Deliverable D2.3


1 Introduction

The general objective of ActiveTest is to increase road safety by supporting the introduction

of ICT-based safety functions ("active safety") which allow mitigation or even avoidance of

accidents.

Performance testing methods are necessary to improve the safety performance of the new

safety functions in road vehicles. Performance testing will also increase the awareness of the

users that ICT-based safety functions are beneficial for all road users. Several testing

methods have been presented by standardization, industry and research projects. Tools are

being developed to support performance testing. A forum is needed for exchange of

experiences and to compare principles from in-house testing at manufacturers with the

results of research initiatives in Europe and overseas. ActiveTest provides a forum

independent from industry, and thus neutral ground to allow for informal discussions. The

intention is to focus on testing methods and rating approaches, not to address if the safety

level of a vehicle is “good” or “bad”.

At the end of the support action, there will be an established network for performance testing

and a report presented on the need for future work in the area.

The ActiveTest initiative has the objective to disseminate performance testing methods for

ICT-based safety functions in road vehicles by:

- demonstrating performance testing of ICT-based safety functions

- disseminating the test programme developed in the eVALUE research project

- establishing an active dialogue with key stakeholder groups

- compiling an outlook for future research need

- contacting standardisation organisations for road vehicles with research results

- creating awareness of the need of standardised performance testing of ICT-based

safety functions

Among other actions, these objectives shall be fulfilled by the implementation of workshops

where entities and other initiatives can present their approaches and results related active

safety. When the ActiveTest initiative was set up, these workshops were defined: three two-

day workshops held in Spain, Germany and Sweden with technical sessions, test

demonstrations and small group meetings.

This deliverable summarizes the third workshop hold by the ActiveTest initiative. The

workshop was hold by SP in Sweden on 25th and 26th September 2012. The document

includes a description of the implementation of the workshop, mainly based in the agenda of

the event, a summary of the presentations and discussions, mainly based on the contribution

of the attendants, and a summary of conclusions.

Deliverable D2.3


2 Implementation of the workshop

This third workshop of the ActiveTest initiative has been dedicated to test procedures for

evaluate active systems for improving the safety of vulnerable road users.

2.1 Motivation of the workshop

The first workshop of the ActiveTest initiative was dedicated to autonomous emergency

braking and collision warning systems, because these systems have been identified as the

priority of active safety for the automotive industry, consumer organisations and regulatory

bodies.

The second workshop of the ActiveTest initiative was dedicated to Stability and Handling test

procedures since at that time, the possibilities of performance testing for ESC systems was

under the scope of Euro NCAP. Additionally, related issues in the homologation via

simulation of ESC systems had appeared during the last year.

So, according to the eVALUE classification of the different ADAS functionalities, first

workshop was dedicated to longitudinal assistance and the second workshop to stability

assistance. In the beginning, it was proposed to dedicate the next workshop to lateral

assistance, which involves lane change assistance and lane departure warning systems.

However, this idea changed with the evolution of the project and it was decided to dedicate

the third ActiveTest workshop to vulnerable road users.

Main reasons for this change are:

- LDW and BSD systems are already standard in some vehicles and do not require

a special validation plan, only simple verification tests are requested

- VRUs are a target collective in road safety

- AEBs for VRUs have started to be included in some of the vehicles

- Test protocols for AEBs for VRUs are being drafter

So, the objectives of this third workshop were:

- To bring together relevant stakeholders in the fields of active safety and VURs

- To discuss the potential scenarios for assessing the performance of pedestrian

detection systems

- To compare different alternatives for the implementation of performance testing

- To identify future needs in this field

2.2 Structure of the workshop

The workshop was been divided into eight sessions, implemented into two separated days:

Session I – Introduction

Introduction of the ActiveTest support action to the participants, with the objective of creating

/ maintaining awareness of the project.

Deliverable D2.3


Session II – Accident statistics

The objective of this session was to define the real world problem that pedestrian detection

systems should address by the provision of representative accident statistics. Both road

administrations and private companies presented different studies.

Session III – Challenges for protection of vulnerable road users

As there are already some entities working in the field of active safety for vulnerable road

users, it was considered suitable to invite them to present their views on future steps and real

challenges.

Session IV – Research and solutions to enhance safety for vulnerable road users

This session was entirely participated by partners of the ASSESS project. This project

addresses the potential of AEB in car-to-car scenarios and is almost finished. Despite

strategies for the detection of pedestrians differ from vehicles, it was considered that there

are strong relations in the procedures for the tests definition and the benefit analysis. The

idea of their presentations was to introduce the lessons learnt during their activities.

Session V – Solutions for active safety testing

This session was allocated for the free presentation of test tools for the implementation of

performance testing for pedestrian detection systems. Different suppliers showed their

products and commented their capabilities. Limitations and future needs were also

discussed.

Session VI – Demonstrations

A special session at Autoliv’s Carson City facility, in Vårgårda, was arranged. This was a

demonstration session where different car-to-pedestrian scenarios with different test tools

were showed. Additionally, and very related to VRUs protection, the facilities designated to

the production of the first pedestrian protection airbag where visited.

Session VII – Research to enhance safety for vulnerable road users

This session was dedicated to the current research activities done in the AsPeCSS project.

This project is an FP7 CP project with the objective of defining test and assessment methods

for VRUs from an integrated safety point of view, including the active and passive safety

domain. Benefit estimation methods, test tools and how to integrate active and passive

safety were presented.

Session VIII – Summary

Conclusions on the previous sessions were derived. Additionally, the ActiveTest research

plan was presented to the audience. The objective was to create awareness of this

document and request additional input for the definition of new topics.

Deliverable D2.3


2.3 Agenda of the workshop

This chapter describes the agenda of the 2 days workshop, according to the structure

defined in the previous chapter. Sessions and presentations with speakers and companies

are detailed.

Day 1

Date: 25 September 2012

Topic Presenter

9:15 Shuttle bus leaving Grand Hotel for SP

9:30 10:00 Coffees served

Session I

10:00 10:05 Welcome by the host of the workshop Prof. Per-Erik Petersson, SP

10:05 10:20 ActiveTest welcome and introduction Mr. Jan Jacobson, SP

Session II

10:20 10:45 Predicting future impact of vehicle safety technology in Sweden – Challenges with VRU

Mr. Johan Strandroth, Swedish Road Administration

10:45 11:10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accident Data Ms. Irene Isaksson-Hellman, If Insurance Company P&C Ltd.

11:10 11:15 Coffee break

Session III

11:15 11:40 Cyclist safety Ms. Margriet van Schijndel, TNO

11:40 12:05 Potentials, Benefits and Challenges for ADAS in Pedestrian accidents

Ms. Magdalena Lindman, Volvo Cars Corporation

12:05 12:30 The pedestrian accident scenarios analyses based on police records and Driving Recorder records in Japan

Mr. Hiroyuki Asada, Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association

12:30 13:10 Lunch

Session IV

13:10 13:30 Brief intro to the ASSESS project Mr. Paul Lemmen, Humanetics

13:30 14:00 Driver reaction model Mr. Thomas Unselt, Daimler

14:00 14:30 Findings / issues when combining active and passive safety testing

Mr. Eduard Infantes / Mr. Andres Aparicio, IDIADA

14:30 15:00 Assessment methodology Mr. András Bálint, Chalmers University of Technology

15:00 15:30 Benefit estimation methodology Mr. Jan-Andre Bühne, BASt

15:30 16:00 Coffee break

Session V

16:00 16:30 Active pedestrian safety – development of a harmonized test procedure

Dr. Thomas Schaller, BMW

16:30 16:45 ISO Standardization for Active Safety Mr. Stig-Håkan Nilsson, SIS Swedish Standards Institute

16:45 17:00 AstaZero - a novel test facility for active safety Mr. Stig-Håkan Nilsson, AstaZero

17:00 17:15 UFO – Ultraflat Overrunable Platform for 2-D Driver Assistance Systems. Testing

Dr Jurgen Gugler, DSD / TU Graz

17:15 17:30 Test platform Mr. Zaafir Waheed, AEDesign GmbH

17:30 17:45 Evaluation of Video Based Driver Assistance Systems. with Sensor Data Fusion by Using Virtual Test Driving

Mr. Edo Drenth, Modelon

17:45 18:00 Closure of first day Mr. Jan Jacobson, SP

18:00 Shuttle bus from SP to Grand Hotel

19:30 Reception and dinner hosted by the City of Borås

Deliverable D2.3


Day 2

Date: 26 September 2012

8:00 Shuttle bus leaving SP to Grand Hotel

8:10 Shuttle bus leaving Grand Hotel for Carson City, Autoliv, Vårgårda

Session VI

9:00 11:00 Visit to Carson City, Autoliv, Vårgårda - Demonstrations at the test track (including the DSD and the AED platforms) - Presentation of pedestrian safety airbag and hood lifter - Presentation of sensor testing

Mr. John Lang, Mr. Christian Svensson, Autoliv

11:00 Shuttle bus leaving Carson City for SP

12:00 12:45 Lunch at SP

Session VII

12:45 13:00 Brief introduction to the AsPeCSS project Ms. Monica Pla, IDIADA

13:00 13:30 Results from AsPeCSS dummy testing workshop, requirements for pedestrian dummies and test rigs

Mr. Paul Lemmen, Humanetics

13:30 14:15 Overview of AsPeCSS project, accident and test scenarios, methodology for combining of active and passive safety

Mr. Marcus Wisch, BASt

14:15 14:30 Coffee Break

Session VIII

14:30 14:45 The ActiveTest plan for future research Mr. Jan Jacobson, SP

14:45 15:15 Round table discussion on vulnerable road users Mr. Micha Lesemann, ika

15:15 15:30 Summary of the workshop Mr. Jan Jacobson, SP

15:30 15:35 Closing of the workshop Mr. Jan Jacobson, SP

15:35 16:10 Shuttle bus for Landvetter Airport

2.4 Implementation of the workshop

This workshop represents the third of the three two-day workshops which will be

implemented inside the ActiveTest initiative. It was organized by SP, with support of the other

partners IDIADA and ika.

The workshop was defined with the collaboration of the three partners. The scope of the

workshop, the sessions, content of the sessions and the agenda was agreed among all the

partners. Possible attendants and speakers were proposed by the three partners as well.

SP took the responsibility of implementing this third workshop at its facilities in Borås. All the

logistics, including hotels proposal, catering services, bus services, rooms and proving

ground reservations were arranged by SP.

The workshop was implemented successfully, with the attendance of more than 80 people.

The agenda was fulfilled according to the schedule defined. All the speakers made their

presentations and gave the audience relevant content. Interesting discussions were arisen,

always with the objective of having success in the development of new test and assessment

methods for handling and stability test procedures.

Deliverable D2.3


3 Technical contents of the second workshop

As was described in the previous chapter, there were eight different technical sessions

during the workshop, implemented in two separate days.

3.1 Session I – Introduction

The objective of the workshop was to present an overview of the current state of knowledge

and discussion with regard to detection and protection of vulnerable road users. Furthermore

latest results of research projects and initiatives should be presented and exchanged,

leading to a discussion and conclusion about the current state and remaining research

issues. This is in line with the core objectives of the ActiveTest support action that were

presented by Mr. Jan Jacobson of SP, the coordinator of ActiveTest.

3.2 Session II - Accident statistics

3.2.1 Predicting future impact of vehicle and VRU safety technology in Sweden

Mr. Johan Strandroth, from the Swedish Road Administration, presented current accident

statistics from Sweden. His main goal was to give a broader picture of the current situation

and of possible trends compared to the other speakers that will mainly focus on vulnerable

road users and their specific accident kinematics.

Within the last ten years a substantial reduction of fatalities within traffic accidents of all road

user groups can be observed. For vulnerable road users the greatest reduction was achieved

in urban areas, mainly as a result of the increased efforts of the municipalities focusing on

infrastructure measures like speed bumps to reduce the velocities of vehicles in urban areas.

Considering not only fatalities, but also severe injuries (or risk of medical impairment), the

percentage of vulnerable road users is increasing.

In order to investigate the effect of the introduction of different safety systems on the accident

statistics, it is essential not only to consider the percentage of new vehicles being equipped

with this system, but to consider the percentage of the mileage of these vehicles. As an

example the proportion of new vehicles equipped with ESC was 98 % in 2011, while the

proportion of vehicle mileage in 2011 was only 60 %. As a consequence of this, Mr.

Strandroth presented a new approach consisting of three steps. First reasonable

assumptions on some SPI (Safety Performance Indicator) by 2020 have to be made. In a

second step, crashes in 2010 have to be analysed based on these assumptions. Finally the

residual (crashes left by 2020) and potential of other intervention areas can be assessed.

With this approach, he and his colleagues analysed the effect of the introduction of several

safety systems, such as Lane Departure Assistance, Autonomous Emergency Braking for

pedestrians or Whiplash protection. According to this, 37 % of fatal accidents can be

addressed by 2020. The influence of these new safety systems on fatal pedestrian accidents

is way less compared to the reduction in passenger cars, mainly due to the later introduction

of active safety systems addressing vulnerable road users. The effect will probably increase

in 2030 or 2040.

Deliverable D2.3


3.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accident Data

Ms. Irene Isaksson-Hellman, from the If Insurance Company P&C Ltd., presented pedestrian

accident data in Sweden based on insurance claims. Since injured vulnerable road users are

often underreported in official statistics, these statistics often lead to a different picture. For

example, passenger cars have the highest proportion in police reported accidents, while in

hospital reported accidents more cyclist than passenger car accidents occur.

Based on the accident database of If Insurance, around 600 pedestrian and passenger car

collisions are compared to around 700 bicyclist and passenger car collisions. According to

this analysis, most bicycle collisions occur in summer between 7-8 a.m. and between 4 to

5 p.m., while pedestrian accidents are most frequent in winter around 4-5 p.m. More than

50 % of pedestrian accidents and more than 70 % of bicyclist accidents happen in daylight at

clear weather conditions. Ms. Isaksson-Hellman stated, that even if most accidents happens

in daylight, good weather and where the speed limits are low, factors as darkness, bad

weather, age and impact speed are factors increasing the risk of more serious injuries. More

than 75 % of the bicyclist accidents happen in intersection scenarios compared to only 40 %

pedestrian crossing accidents respectively.

3.3 Session III – Challenges for protection of vulnerable road users

3.3.1 Cyclist safety

Ms. Margriet van Schijndel, from TNO, presented a Dutch perspective of bicyclist safety.

Bicyclist safety is a very important issue in the Netherlands, since this country has the

highest number of bicyclist accidents in Europe. In order to address this issue, the Dutch

government decided to increase their efforts in infrastructure, training and behaviour, cyclist

visibility, detectability and personal protection and VRU friendliness of the vehicle.

With regard to the infrastructure general design rules were defined in order to meet road

users’ expectancy by consistent marking of bicycle paths and colour use. Suitable trainings

are very important, since especially children have to learn not only how to drive a bike, but to

be in the traffic with a bike. In order to learn more about the driving behaviour and accident

cause, TNO conducted an observation study on cycle paths. Within this study, the most

frequent accident causes were rapid changes of way of direction and a lack of traffic

observation. The bicyclist visibility, just as light and reflection strips on the bike, is regularly

monitored by police campaigns for bicycle lights. Besides, campaigns for increasing the

currently very low usage of helmets were started. For addressing the VRU friendliness of the

vehicle TNO is partner in several projects, like SaveCAP or VRUITS. As a result of an

accident analysis study from TNO based on accident data from the Netherlands enriched

with data from GIDAS, only in 8 % of fatal pedestrian and bicyclist accidents the VUR is not

hitting the windscreen.

Further results of the SaveCAP projects will be presented within the SaveCAP demo event at

8th November 2012 as well as during the International Cycling Safety Conference at 7th and

8th November 2012.

Deliverable D2.3


3.3.2 Potentials, Benefits and Challenges for ADAS in Pedestrian accidents

Ms. Magdalena Lindman, from Volvo Cars Safety Centre, presented accident data from real

world traffic in order to show what is behind the bars and dots in these accident data

diagrams. Within this presentation Ms. Lindman is considering around 50 % of all pedestrian

accidents in Sweden focusing on accidents where the collision partner is a vehicle and where

the vehicle is moving forward.

The most frequent accident scenario is with 48 % the pedestrian being hit by the vehicle front

while the pedestrian is crossing the street from right. The impact speed is in 70 % of these

accidents below 30 km/h. The impact area varies along the complete hood and windscreen.

Main injuries could be observed in the lower and the upper extremities as well as in the head.

Ms. Lindman referred to a publication from ESAR (Expert Symposium on Accident Research)

in 2010, in which Ms. Lindman revealed a benefit estimation model for pedestrian auto brake

functionality. According to this all pedestrian accidents available from GIDAS were modelled.

With an introduction of pedestrian detection and autonomous braking systems, 30 % of the

accidents could be avoided and 31 % mitigated. This results in a reduction of pedestrian

fatalities of 24 %.

3.3.3 Pedestrian accident scenarios in Japan

Mr. Hiroyuki Asada, from Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA), presented

results of an analysis of pedestrian accident scenarios in Japan. In Japan there is an

increased need for addressing pedestrian accidents, as since 1991 pedestrian fatalities were

less rapidly reduced compared to fatalities in passenger cars. Since 2009, there are even

more fatalities in pedestrian accidents than in passenger cars. The typical age group for fatal

pedestrian accidents are elderly, while children play a crucial role in pedestrian accidents

with minor injuries.

In order to collect more detailed information about possible accidents, taxi companies were

equipped with driving recorders. According to this, elderly tend to ignore traffic signals or

cross the streets outside crosswalks and children tend to run on the street from behind other

vehicles. Thus, JAMA suggests three accident scenarios to cover 50 % of all fatalities.

3.4 Session IV – Research to enhance safety for vulnerable road users

3.4.1 Brief intro to the ASSESS project

Mr. Paul Lemmen, from Humanetics, gave an introduction to the ASSESS project. ASSESS

is a FP7 project, which is aiming at developing harmonised assessment procedures and

related tools for integrated safety systems. The particular work packages are dealing with

driver behaviour evaluation, pre-crash system performance evaluation, crash performance

evaluation and socio-economic assessment.

The defined test scenarios only cover car to car crashes and have been developed based on

Deliverable D2.3


accident databases, considering data from both good and bad performing countries.

The results of ASSESS have been fed into the harmonisation platforms, that provide input to

Euro NCAP. In 2014 some of the scenarios developed in ASSESS will be implemented in

Euro NCAP’s assessment procedure. Before handing over to the presenters from the

different work packages, Mr. Lemmen mentioned that the deliverables are available on the

project website.

3.4.2 Driver reaction model

Mr. Thomas Unselt, from Daimler, presented the results from the ASSESS work package 3,

which has been dealing with behavioural aspects. Goal of this work package was to develop

a model of the driver’s braking behaviour that can be applied to a brake robot to be used in

active safety testing. For this purpose subject tests have been performed at three different

test facilities: At the IDIADA test track in Spain and in the Daimler driving simulator, using the

Mercedes-Benz PRE-SAFE system, as well as in the Toyota driving simulator, using the

Toyota Pre-Crash Safety System.

A general approach for developing the experimental design, called “storybook”, has been

developed and is available as a public deliverable on the project website. This story book

defines scenarios and secondary tasks to distract the driver as well as key performance

indicators, questionnaires and requirements for the subject collective. It is independent from

the type of study, i.e. the storybook can be applied to both test track and driving simulator

studies.

After presenting the experimental design and the technical equipment, Mr. Unselt showed

some results of the subject tests. Especially the driver’s reaction time from start of lead

vehicle deceleration has been investigated. However, the mean value of 1.67 seconds for

brake reaction time is higher than in other studies. This is caused by the high level of

distraction during the tests performed in ASSESS. By setting the results in the context of

other studies it turned out that the reaction time of 1.67 seconds is only valid for fully

distracted drivers. For “normal” distracted drivers a reaction time of 1.2 seconds is suitable.

In conclusion, Mr. Unselt noted that, with regards to vulnerable road users, follow-up projects

can use the storybook to design their experiments but of course have to adapt the scenarios

to different boundary conditions.

In the following discussion it turned out that hitting a pedestrian might stress the subject,

which has to be considered by other projects like AsPeCSS.

3.4.3 Overview of test facilities realized and R&R

Ms. Carmen Rodarius, from TNO, presented the results of work package 4 dealing with pre-

crash evaluation. The work is finished and all public deliverables are available on their

website. The goal of this work package was to define test and assessment methods for pre-

crash tests including the preparation of possible testing laboratories.

Deliverable D2.3


Four test laboratories were integrated in this work, each representing different quality and

experience levels. The test lab from IDIADA using the rabbit vehicle represents the state of

art, while the kart-based target called MARVIN from BAST is a newcomer. The test facility at

TNO uses the principle of relative motions in their so called VEHIL-test facility, representing a

unique solution. Furthermore, test in the test lab from Daimler could be conducted. In all test

labs the target vehicle ASSESSOR, which was developed in ASSESS, was used.

The work conducted within the work package showed that multiple test solutions work

equally well. Radar cross section could be measured in different ways, while different

sensors require different characteristics. The current developed test program is limited to

rear-end collisions, since the state-of-the-art-sensors are not ready for intersections.

3.4.4 Findings / issues when combining active and passive safety testing

Mr. Eduard Infantes, from IDIADA, presented the results of work package 5 of the ASSESS

project. The aim of this work package was to define a methodology in order to evaluate the

effect of the pre-crash systems activation during the crash phase when the impact is not

avoided.

The consortium would have liked to develop an injury risk curve estimating the injury risk

reduction of a vehicle occupant resulting from a reduced impact speed. However, first

simulation results showed that almost all biomechanical values are below 1 % of injury risk in

a Euro NCAP frontal crash test configuration with 64 km/h. Thus, no methodology could be

defined with existing dummy models.

At the end of his presentation, Mr. Infantes gave an outlook on the adaptation of his

methodology on the safety of vulnerable road users within the AsPeCSS project, which

seems more feasible due to the higher injury risk in the involved accidents.

3.4.5 Assessment methodology

Mr. András Bálint, from Chalmers, presented the assessment methodology developed in

ASSESS and discussed possible implications for the assessment of vulnerable road user

protection. In ASSESS, the consortium defined relevant accident scenarios measured by a

combination of casualty severity and casualty frequency. Based on these relevant accident

scenarios, typical test scenarios are defined.

Within the analysis, seven accident types are analysed in four databases (Germany, France,

Austria and Sweden). For considering the severity, weighting factors for slightly, seriously

and fatally injured road users are introduced. The results are included in a dose-response

model. According to this, a velocity reduction of 10 km/h leads to lower number of injuries.

The overall assessment methodology, shown in Figure 3-1, corresponds to the percentage of

injuries (whiplash, MAIS2+F) prevented by the system (in both target and subject vehicle).

Deliverable D2.3


Scored points at 35 km/h in A3 - example

17

System autonomous: 29 km/h

Impact speeds in test

Without system: 35 km/h

System + driver: 26 km/h

System autonomous: 69%

Relevant whiplash injuries*

Without system: 100%

System + driver: 58%

Scored points = available points × injury reduction = 7 × 0.4 = 2.8

Whiplash injuries balanced for HMI:

0.8 × 58% + 0.2 × 69% = 60%, which is a 40% reduction

Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) : Simulator studies indicate: ≈80% of

drivers react to warning

* These are whiplash injuries in the target & subject vehicle that would have occurred in the speed range 32.5-37.5 km/h

without a safety system. The decreased numbers are computed using the dose-response model.

ActiveTest Workshop on VRU 25 September 2012 – Borås

Figure 3-1: Example for developed assessment methodologies in ASSESS

3.4.6 Benefit estimation methodology

Mr Jan-Andre Bühne, from BASt, presented the results of the benefit estimation conducted

within ASSESS. The methodology consists of four steps. First the consortium considered

accident data forecasts and the share of equipped cars transferred to share of mileage

driven by equipped cars, in order to assume penetration rates for 2020 and 2030. In a

second step, the dose-response model described in chapter 3.4.5 and the penetration rates

were combined to assess the safety impact. Within the third step, several break-even

analyses were conducted to oppose the calculated impacts with the critical system costs. As

a result critical safety system costs were calculated indicating the maximum cost of the

system that would still provide societal benefits. For purely autonomous systems, the critical

safety cost in 2020 would be 82 € and in 2030 56 €. The fourth step describes the sensitivity

analysis according to which 109 fatalities could be avoided in 2020 and 118 in 2030.

In order to adjust this analysis for the assessment of vulnerable road protections, a forecast

of accidents with VRU on EU level for target year would be needed. Furthermore, the

accident frequency and injury risk functions within the dose-response model should be

adjusted.

Deliverable D2.3


3.5 Session V – Solutions for active safety testing

3.5.1 Active pedestrian safety – development of a harmonized test procedure

Mr. Thomas Schaller from BMW presented results from the vFSS group, which has been

developing a harmonised test procedure for active pedestrian safety systems. vFSS is a

consortium of German and Japanese OEMs and insurance industry as well as BASt, Dekra

and KTI. It is aiming at developing test procedures for ADAS based on accident analysis

independent from technology. The focus, however, is on rear-end collisions and pedestrian

collisions.

After giving a brief introduction to the vFSS project, Mr. Schaller presented results from

accident data analysis. Regarding different databases, the most common accident scenario

is the crossing scenario on a straight road both with and without obstruction. The distribution

of pedestrian fatalities between day and night shows a high number of fatalities during night

time (397) compared to day time (256), although the number of injured pedestrians at night is

only half as high as during day time. According to these information test scenarios have been

parameterized, as shown in Table 3-1. By varying different parameters, such as pedestrian

size, pedestrian speed or time to collision of first visibility, different test cases can be defined

for each scenario.

S1

car moving ahead, speed of the car from 45 to 50kph; adult pedestrian; height* ø172cm, pedestrian crossing from the right and walking at normal speed (5kph), driver reaction with a braking manoeuvre

S2

car moving ahead, speed of the car from 55 to 60kph child, height* ø120cm pedestrian crossing from the left and running (8-10kph), driver reaction with a braking manoeuvre, noticeable frequent at darkness or dusk/dawn

Table 3-1: Exemplary test scenarios

The defined test cases will be conducted with a moving pedestrian dummy. Mr. Schaller

presented suitable test set-ups both with crashable and non-crashable dummies.

Furthermore he indicated that test conditions and target definition are still discussed in

several European initiatives and projects.

3.5.2 ISO Standardization for Active Safety

Mr. Stig-Hakan Nilsson on behalf of the Swedish Standards Institute gave a presentation on

active safety and ADAS standardisation. Since different aspects of active safety were

handled by several groups within ISO, a new tentative working group dealing with active

safety has been established.

Deliverable D2.3


Mr. Nilsson presented a road map in order to give an outlook towards future standardisation

activities. In addition to the vehicle scenarios, which are currently covered by industrial

standards, driving scenarios and driver scenarios will become more and more important.

During the following discussion it was asked what companies or research organisations have

to do, if they would like to be involved in the standardisation process. Mr. Nilsson answered,

that one should contact the national standardisation organisation.

3.5.3 AstaZero - a novel test facility for active safety

Mr. Stig-Hakan Nilsson from AstaZero presented the active safety test area AstaZero, which

is a project of Chalmers University of Technology and SP Technical Research Institute of

Sweden in cooperation with the Swedish automotive industry, the Swedish state and local

government. The test site is located north of Boras with a size of approximately 1 by 2.5 km.

It is planned to be inaugurated in 2014. A plan view of the area is shown in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2: Plan view of AstaZero test area

Since the focus is on active safety testing the test site will consist of a rural road of

monotonous driving with suddenly emerging obstacles, ~7 m wide for 70 to 90 km/h, an

urban environment with vehicle and pedestrian dummies, a vehicle dynamic area, a multilane

road with vehicle dummies in the four lanes as well as a competence centre for research and

development.

3.5.4 UFO – Ultraflat Overrunable Platform

Jürgen Gugler from DSD presented the Ultraflat Overrunable Platform (UfO) for ADAS

testing. This platform can be used for carrying either balloon cars or pedestrian dummies. It

can be controlled via remote control or using a dGPS module, which enables the platform to

Deliverable D2.3


follow a predefined path. Mr. Gugler presented different possible applications, e.g. equipping

the platform with a car side or a pedestrian dummy. Figure 3-3 shows a CAD model of the

UfO platform.

Figure 3-3: CAD model of UfO platform

In order to reduce the influence of the platform on target detectability by reducing the radar

reflectivity, radar absorbing mats are available.

3.5.5 Test platform

Mr. Zaafir Waheed from aedesign presented the AVCASS test platform, which is an acronym

for Autonomous Vehicle for Certification of Active Safety Systems. The motion platform is

designed to carry both pedestrian dummies and balloon cars (in its larger version) for active

safety testing. When the vehicle runs over the platform, the drive train is protected by routing

the vehicle loads through the chassis and thus relieving the drivetrain. The motion control

can be performed either manually by means of a remote control or automatically using Wifi

communication. A CAD model of the AVCASS test platform is shown in Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-4: CAD model of AVCASS platform

Deliverable D2.3


3.5.6 Evaluation of Video Based Driver Assistance Systems

Mr. Edo Drenth from IPG Automotive presented a simulation environment, which is able to

fully simulate camera sensors, in order to develop and assess camera-based driver

assistance systems. This has the advantage to avoid the necessity of time-consuming data

collection on the road.

A Software-in-the-Loop/ Model-in-the-Loop simulation technology was developed to integrate

virtual cameras beside the well known environment sensors (radar, lidar, ultrasonic) in the

open integration and test platform CarMaker. For this purpose, the real time animation was

extended by a camera model which is called “VideoDataStream” (VDS) to generate

simultaneous video data such as grey scale, colour or stereo pictures as well as deepness

maps (e.g. PMD, photonic mixer device) for 3D images. Furthermore, it is possible to

configure the resolution, frame rate, optic, sensor properties as well as the position and

direction of the camera. The video data is transferred via the TCP/IP network interface to the

controller or image processing algorithm under test.

Mr. Drenth pointed out, that, instead of using a HIL platform, there is no problem of

synchronisation between the display showing the simulated environment and the camera,

just as there is no asynchronism between different types of sensors.

3.6 Session VI – Demonstrations

Day two of the workshop started with a demonstration session hosted by Autoliv taking place

at Autoliv Research and Production Centre in Vårgårda. At the beginning Mr. Jan Olsson, the

research director of Autoliv, gave an introduction in the safety vision from Autoliv and

presented the agenda for the demonstration session.

3.6.1 Demonstrations at the test track (including the DSD and the AED platforms)

Several autonomous braking scenarios were demonstrated at Carson City, which is an

outside test track intended for tests and evaluations of various pre-crash systems to avoid

crashes and active safety systems in a city environment. The test facility is equipped with a

remote control system to manoeuvre vehicles and dummies. In this way dangerous real

world traffic scenarios can be simulated. Main difference to other existing test tracks is the

city environment, which ensures realistic urban driving conditions considering radar

reflections and crossing scenarios.

Mr. Jan-Erik Källhammer, from Autoliv, explained the challenges to develop a dummy giving

human-like responses to all kind of active systems including radar, optical and thermal

sensors. For reproducing thermal footprints, Autoliv equipped their dummies with heating

coils.

Within the demonstration event, pedestrians being fixed and moved with Autoliv’s rope way.

Additionally, the platforms from DSD and AED were demonstrated. All moving devices and

dummies could be investigated in detail by each workshop participant. The braking events

Deliverable D2.3


were conducted with a variable vehicle speed from 20 to 60 km/h.

3.6.2 Presentation of operation mode and production of pedestrian safety airbag

The second part of the demonstration session was dealing with the development of the

pedestrian safety airbag being implemented in the current version of the Volvo V40. After

explaining the operation mode and basic parameters of the airbag, the production site was

visited. Here, especially the folding of the airbag and the assembly of the airbag module were

observed.

3.7 Session VII – Research to enhance safety for vulnerable road users

3.7.1 Brief introduction to the AsPeCSS project

Mrs. Monica Pla from IDIADA gave an introduction to the AsPeCSS project by presenting the

objectives and the structure of the project. The acronym AsPeCSS stands for “Assessment

methodologies for forward looking integrated Pedestrian and further extension to Cyclists

Safety Systems” and indicates the project’s main objective: development of an assessment

procedure, which allows for evaluating both active and passive safety of a vehicle with regard

to vulnerable road users. Since Euro NCAP is planning on incorporating such assessment

procedures in the future, AsPeCSS is going to provide input to consumer tests in order to

support the introduction of integrated pedestrian safety systems, and thus improve road

safety.

Three technical work packages are dealing with methodology for balancing active and

passive safety, test procedures for preventive pedestrian safety systems and injury

assessment. Mrs. Pla presented the current progress of the project. Preliminary test

scenarios as well as a draft methodology for balancing active and passive safety are

available. In the second work package test target specification and a test set-up have been

defined. Furthermore a first series of simulations on pedestrian kinematics with Human Body

Models has been performed.

3.7.2 Results from AsPeCSS dummy testing workshop

Mr. Paul Lemmen from Humanetics presented requirements for pedestrian targets, which

have been developed in the AsPeCSS project. The target development started from

requirements definition in cooperation with other projects and initiatives, such as vFSS,

ADAC, AEB and ASSESS, in order to share expert knowledge on dimensions and sensor

requirements. In a second step a dummy workshop was held to evaluate available dummies

and propulsion systems with regard to detectability with different types of sensors. Another

workshop is planned to evaluate some selected targets in more detail.

As a basic requirement the test target has to be detectable by radar, camera and infrared

sensors and therefore have to be designed adequately with respect to optical characteristics,

radar reflectivity as well as temperature. For camera sensors it is crucial that the dummy is in

a walking posture.

Deliverable D2.3


During the dummy workshop 12 dummies and five propulsion systems have been evaluated,

using 16 test vehicles equipped with different sensor types. All dummies and propulsion

systems have been rated by the drivers according to the system response. Based on the

results of this workshop a number of dummies and propulsion systems have been selected,

which will be further evaluated in the next workshop in October.

3.7.3 Overview of AsPeCSS project, accident and test scenarios

Mr. Marcus Wisch from the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) presented

accident scenarios and test scenarios, which have been developed within the AsPeCSS

project. This scenario definition is part of the development of a methodology for balancing

active and passive safety measures.

Table 3-2: National accident data, KSI (killed and seriously injured) in percent

After giving a brief introduction into the overall methodology, describing how socio-economic

costs are determined based on active and passive safety testing. Mr. Wish introduced the

methodology for test scenario definition. Starting from accident databases and accident data

from familiar projects, such as APROSYS, vFSS or AEB, the most common accident

scenarios have been determined. From these accident scenarios test scenarios have been

derived, which will be used for active safety testing.

Considering the accident statistics it turns out, that a high number of accidents with killed or

seriously injured pedestrians happens during darkness or twilight. In these situations the

Deliverable D2.3


driver’s perception is often affected by glaring and reflections. Mr. Wisch presented some

exemplary photos showing scenes of accidents.

Since every country has particular accident scenarios, common accident scenarios are to be

found for the AsPeCSS project. Table 3-2 shows a comparison of accident statistics in the

UK, Germany and France. In spite of differences in the percentage of the accident scenarios,

it is seen that some scenarios are common in all three countries. Following Mr. Wisch

presented some more detailed information on scenario configurations, showing

dependencies between vehicle speed, pedestrian speed and pedestrian starting point and

presenting some statistics about vehicle and pedestrian speeds.

3.8 Session VIII – Summary

3.8.1 The ActiveTest plan for future research

At the end of the workshop topics for future research were discussed. As one result of the

ActiveTest support action, a road map for future activities in this field will be drawn. Therefore

the ActiveTest partner organisations have drafted a first version that covers road maps and

forecasts of other organisations, followed by a number of research topics they feel are

becoming most relevant in the near future.

This research plan and its objective was introduced by Mr. Jan Jacobson, who issued an

invitation to all participants for sharing their comments and additions to the draft document,

which will serve amongst others the European Commission to prioritise topics of future calls

for proposals.

The document was handed out as a hard copy and is also offered for download in a Word or

PDF version from the ActiveTest website (www.activetest.eu). Every interested person

and/or organisation was asked to provide feedback by 16 November 2012.

3.8.2 Round table discussion on vulnerable road users

Mr. Micha Lesemann of ika chaired the round table, with the aim of discussing previous

presentations, additional questions from the audience addressing active safety testing of

vulnerable road users as well as open issues and needs for future workshops.

Some of the relevant questions and open issues where:

Q: The definition of vulnerable road users within the workshop mainly addresses

pedestrian and cyclists. Shall, as suggested by the definition of vulnerable road users

of the world road association, powered two-wheelers also be included and what effect

would this have on today’s development?

A: Looking to the future, active safety systems might mainly count on cooperative sensors,

whose transmitters can also be included in powered two-wheelers. This would be no

problem. But in the radar point of view, motorcycles are very difficult to detect.

A: All systems considered within the workshop are trained systems. Thus, the signal of a

http://www.activetest.eu/

Deliverable D2.3


powered two-wheeler should look similar, or there should be at least no fundamental

difference. But of course further development work is needed.

A: In Barcelona, the motorbike is the favourite transport system, which can also be seen in

the high percentage of fatalities in this transport mode. Thus, including them would be

very beneficial. Especially since they often do not behave like expected, which can only

be addressed with fast acting active systems.

A: Motorbikes should be included in a certain group being addressed in the active safety

development based on the statistics, but maybe not in the vulnerable road user group.

Motorbikes drive e.g. on the same road, while cyclists often use a separate lane.

Q: At the moment, we only discuss that we should brake for relevant pedestrians, e.g.

60 % of all accident scenarios. What is a perfect detection and can this be achieved?

A: False positive events, being events or scenarios which are correctly identified as a non

critical scenario and thus no autonomous braking is assigned, are very important for

this kind of question. A critical cyclist is not necessarily a critical pedestrian and vice

versa. A perfect detection is too complex and not manageable. But the driver

expectations are different to the regulation requirements, which is very challenging for

the manufacturers and suppliers.

Q: Can trucks also be equipped with active safety systems?

A: Yes, but implementing active safety systems in trucks results in the same problems,

which are even more challenging compared to cars.

Q: Does the accident statistics show significant differences between Japan and Europe?

A: No, the basic scenarios are similar, but in Japan more elderly people are involved,

while the vehicle speed is slower.

Q: The accident statistics reveal that especially elderly and young children are involved in

vehicle-pedestrian collisions. Is this addressed within the development of pedestrian

airbags?

A: If elderly are impacted by a vehicle, they show a higher percentage of chest injuries,

which is currently not considered.

Q: Does any kind of benefit analysis showing the benefit of active safety systems exist? If

yes what kind of effects should be analysed within such a benefit analysis?

A: No feedback from Jaguar considering the benefits of the active deployable bonnet is

known to the participants.

A: The benefit analysis should definitely consider the time after market introduction.

A: A retrospective analysis is very important in order to receive information on the system

performance.

A: Volvo continuously follows up and evaluates their systems. At the Association for the

Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), Volvo presented an evaluation of injury

criteria. Since a lot of systems are optional, their benefit cannot be assessed that

easily. But the city safety system is standard since 2009. The results of an analysis of

the city safety were presented at IRCOBI. According to this city safety was able to

Deliverable D2.3


reduce rear end collisions by 23 %, while 19 % were predicted before.

Q: What lessons have we learned from ASSESS?

A: Better occupant models are needed to consider the benefit with regard to minor injuries

as well. Passive safety is still a very important issue and should not stop. Pedestrian

safety is a very complex issue, while good models are even more important.

Q: Should active testing focus on virtual testing methods?

A: ESC can already be tested completely virtual and for passive safety systems this is

already implemented as can be seen in the EuroNCAP pedestrian safety assessment.

A: Virtual testing procedure will be the future, if the models are good enough.

3.8.3 Summary and closing of the workshop

Jan Jacobson rounded up the workshop 3 with thanking all participants and especially the

presenters and organisers of the demo session at Autoliv.

Presentations of this workshop are available on the ActiveTest website, and a participants list

was distributed among the attendants by e-mail.

Deliverable D2.3


4 Conclusions and future workshops

4.1 Technical conclusions

Accident statistics

Within the last ten years a substantial reduction of fatalities within traffic accidents of all road user groups can be observed.

For vulnerable road users, the greatest reduction was achieved in urban areas, mainly as a result of the increased efforts of the municipalities focusing on infrastructure measures like speed bumps to reduce the velocities of vehicles in urban areas.

Considering not only fatalities, but also severe injuries (or risk of medical impairment), the percentage of vulnerable road users is increasing.

Challenges for the protection of VRUs

Bicyclist safety is a very important issue, especially in the Netherlands, since this country has the highest number of bicyclist accidents in Europe. In order to address this issue, the Dutch government decided to increase their efforts in infrastructure, training and behaviour, cyclist visibility, detectability and personal protection and VRU friendliness of the vehicle.

For pedestrian accidents, the most frequent accident scenario is with 48 % the pedestrian being hit by the vehicle front while the pedestrian is crossing the street from right. The impact speed is in 70 % of these accidents below 30 km/h.

With an introduction of pedestrian detection and autonomous braking systems, 30 % of the accidents could be avoided and 31 % mitigated. This results in a reduction of pedestrian fatalities of 24 %.

Inputs from the ASSESS project

With regards to vulnerable road users, not many projects have addressed driver-vehicle interaction. New projects can take the work done by ASSESS in design of experiments but of course have to adapt the scenarios to different boundary conditions.

Regarding testing facilities, the work conducted within ASSESS showed that multiple test solutions work equally well, it is only a matter of requirements definition.

ASSESS has tried to develop an injury risk curve estimating the injury risk reduction of a vehicle occupant resulting from a reduced impact speed. This is key for relating benefits of active and passive safety. However, results showed that almost all biomechanical values are below 1 % of injury risk in a Euro NCAP frontal crash test configuration with 64 km/h. Thus, no methodology could be defined with existing dummy models.

The adaptation of the ASSESS methodology for injury risk curves seems more feasible for pedestrian detection systems, due to the higher injury risk in the involved accidents.

A potential benefit assessment procedure was developed by ASSESS, considering the risk exposure, which includes injury risk and frequency within every accident scenario

Research to enhance safety of VRUs

Since different aspects of active safety were handled by several groups within ISO, a new tentative working group dealing with active safety has been established.

Since Euro NCAP is planning on incorporating such assessment procedures in the future, AsPeCSS is going to provide input to consumer tests in order to support the introduction of integrated pedestrian safety systems, and thus improve road safety.

AsPeCSS presented requirements for pedestrian targets. The target development

Deliverable D2.3


started from requirements definition in cooperation with other projects and initiatives, such as vFSS, ADAC, AEB and ASSESS, in order to share expert knowledge on dimensions and sensor requirements.

As a basic requirement the test target has to be detectable by radar, camera and infrared sensors and therefore have to be designed adequately with respect to optical characteristics, radar reflectivity as well as temperature. For camera sensors it is crucial that the dummy is in a walking posture.

At the end of the workshop topics for future research were discussed. A road map for future activities in this field will be drawn.

4.2 Conclusion about the workshop

- This workshop represented the third of the three two-day workshops which will be

implemented inside the ActiveTest initiative.

- The workshop was implemented successfully, with the attendance of more than 80

people.

Deliverable D2.3


Annex 1. Flyer of the workshop

Deliverable D2.3


Deliverable D2.3


Deliverable D2.3


Deliverable D2.3


Annex 2. List of participants

id Last name First name Organisation Country Email

1 Abe Yoshihiro DENSO SALES SWEDEN AB Sweden [email protected]

2 Andersson Håkan VTI Sweden [email protected]

3 Ando Kenichi National Traffic safety and Environmental Laboratory

Japan [email protected]

4 Aparicio Andrés Applus IDIADA Group Spain [email protected]

5 Asada Hiroyuki MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION Japan [email protected]

6 Axelsson Anders Volvo Car Corp Sweden [email protected]

7 Bartels Oliver Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen Germany [email protected]

8 Bálint András Chalmers University of Technology Sweden [email protected]

9 Björnsson Carina Volvo Car Corporation Sweden [email protected]

10 Boissou Jean Francois PSA Peugeot Citroën France [email protected]

11 Bouwmeester Willem TASS Netherlands [email protected]

12 Bruzelius Fredrik VTI Sweden [email protected]

13 Bühne Jan-André Federal Highway Research Institute Germany [email protected]

14 Drenth Edo Modelon [email protected]

15 Eriksson Henrik SP Sweden [email protected]

16 Fagerlind Helen Chalmers University of Technology Sweden [email protected]

17 Fredriksson Rikard Autoliv Development Sweden [email protected]

18 Garcia Aurélien UTAC Frannce [email protected]

19 Gerhold Oliver MAZDA Motor Europe GmbH Germany [email protected]

20 Gugler Jürgen DSD - Dr Steffen Datentechnik Austria [email protected]

21 Hartmann Andreas Continental Germany [email protected]

22 Hérard Jacques SP Sweden [email protected]

23 Hillerborn Magnus SPGA Sweden [email protected]

24 Hirose Toshiya National Traffic safety and Environmental Laboratory

Japan [email protected]

25 Hunold Heiner Continental Germany [email protected]

26 Infantes Eduard Applus IDIADA Group Spain [email protected]

27 Isaksson-Hellman Irene If Sweden [email protected]

28 Jacobson Jan SP Sweden [email protected]

29 Jirovsky Vaclav Czech Technical University in Prague Czech rep. [email protected]

30 Kasaoki Seisuke Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. Japan [email protected]

31 Kerschbaumer Andreas Virtual Vehicle Austria [email protected]

32 Källhammer Jan-Erik Autoliv Development Sweden [email protected]

33 Lang John Autoliv Development AB Sweden [email protected]

34 Laxing Robert Volvo Technology Corporation Sweden [email protected]

35 Leanderson Susanna Volvo Group Trucks Technology Sweden [email protected]

36 Leitgeb Werner Kompetenzzentrum Austria [email protected]

37 Leiscal Dominique UTAC France [email protected]

38 Lemmen Paul Humanetics Netherlands [email protected]

39 Lesemann Micha Institut für Kraftfahrzeuge (ika) Germany [email protected]

40 Lindman Magdalena VCC Safety Centre Sweden [email protected]

41 Lubbe Nils Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA Belgium [email protected]

42 McCarthy Mike TRL UK [email protected]

43 Mugnai Alexandre TASS Netherlands [email protected]

44 Natterjee Vivetha Volvo Group Trucks Technology Sweden [email protected]

45 Nilsson Josef SP Sweden [email protected]

46 Nilsson Stig-Håkan iCess Sweden [email protected]

47 Nuss Frederic Institut für Kraftfahrzeuge (ika) Germany [email protected]

48 Okawa Tatsuhiro Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA Belgium [email protected]

49 Olsson Ulf Borås stad Sweden [email protected]

50 Petersson Mats Volvo Car Corp Sweden [email protected]

51 Petersson Per-Erik SP Sweden [email protected]

52 Pla Mònica Applus IDIADA Group Spain [email protected]

53 Raudszus Dominik Institut für Kraftfahrzeuge Germany [email protected]

54 Ranovona Maminirina Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA Belgium [email protected]

55 Rice Jonathan Chalmers University of Technology Sweden [email protected]

56 Rodarius Carmen TNO Netherlands [email protected]

57 Rosén Erik Autoliv Research Sweden [email protected]

58 Saleh Peter AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH Austria [email protected]

59 Schafmann Uwe AEDesign GmbH Germany [email protected]

60 Schaller Thomas BMW Group Germany [email protected]

61 Schaub Swen TRW Automotive GmbH Germany [email protected]

62 Schijndel-de Nooij, van

Margriet TNO Innovation for life Netherlands [email protected]

Deliverable D2.3


id Last name First name Organisation Country Email

63 Schäfer Jochen Bosch Germany [email protected]

64 Skogsmo Ingrid AstaZero Sweden [email protected]

65 Stoll Johann AUDI AG Germany [email protected]

66 Strandroth Johan Trafikverket Sweden [email protected]

67 Ström Magnus Volvo 3P Sweden [email protected]

68 Sultan Eleonore Volvo Car Corporation Sweden [email protected]

69 Suzuki Takashi DENSO Japan [email protected]

70 Svensson Christian Autoliv Research Sweden [email protected]

71 Unselt Thomas Daimler Germany [email protected]

72 Waheed Zaafir AEDesign GmbH Germany [email protected]

73 Wells Peter Volvo Technology Corporation Sweden [email protected]

74 Wisch Marcus Federal Highway Research Institute Germany [email protected]

75 Yokoya Yasushi Japan Automobile Research Institute Japan [email protected]

76 Zweep, van der Cor Uniresearch B.V. Netherlands [email protected]

Deliverable D2.3


Annex 3. Photos from the workshop

Deliverable D2.3


Deliverable D2.3


Deliverable D2.3


Deliverable D2.3


Deliverable D2.3


Deliverable D2.3


Date post:	21-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Dissemination of Performance Testing Methods for Active ...€¦ · 1 Introduction The general...

Documents