SAE J 2829-2011 Pedestrian Visibility Low Beam Optimization to Reduce Night-time Fatalities《减少夜间事故发生的步行者可见度车头灯短焦距光的最优化》.pdf

《SAE J 2829-2011 Pedestrian Visibility Low Beam Optimization to Reduce Night-time Fatalities《减少夜间事故发生的步行者可见度车头灯短焦距光的最优化》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SAE J 2829-2011 Pedestrian Visibility Low Beam Optimization to Reduce Night-time Fatalities《减少夜间事故发生的步行者可见度车头灯短焦距光的最优化》.pdf（40页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、_ SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising there

2、from, is the sole responsibility of the user.” SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions. Copyright 2011 SAE International All rights reserved. No part of this publication m

3、ay be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: +1 724-776-4970 (outside U

4、SA) Fax: 724-776-0790 Email: CustomerServicesae.org SAE WEB ADDRESS: http:/www.sae.orgSAE values your input. To provide feedbackon this Technical Report, please visit http:/www.sae.org/technical/standards/J2829_201102SURFACEVEHICLEINFORMATIONREPORTJ2829 FEB2011 Issued 2009-02 Stabilized 2011-02 Supe

5、rseding J2829 FEB2009 Pedestrian Visibility - Low Beam Optimization to Reduce Night-time Fatalities RATIONALE The technical report covers technology, products, or processes which are mature and not likely to change in the foreseeable future. STABILIZED NOTICE This document has been declared “Stabili

6、zed“ by the SAE Road Illumination Devices Standards Committee and will no longer be subjected to periodic reviews for currency. Users are responsible for verifying references and continued suitability of technical requirements. Newer technology may exist. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS

7、under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE J2829 Stabilized FEB2011 Page 2 of 40 INTRODUCTION The performance of low beam headlights has improved dramatically with the development of higher efficiency light sources and computer genera

8、ted optical systems. At the same time, there is increasing debate concerning to the age old dilemma relating to the balance and compromise between providing adequate forward illumination and avoiding glare complaints from oncoming drivers. Governmental agencies throughout the word are increasingly c

9、oncerned about reducing the number of pedestrian fatalities at nighttime and much research in the US, Europe and Japan is underway. It is clear that vehicle headlighting plays a significant role in the effort to reduce the pedestrian fatality rate but current legislation only addresses the minimum p

10、erformance requirements of an individual headlamp (or a system in the case of the Adaptive Front-lighting System (AFS) introduced into ECE regulations). Other factors such as installation height, separation, aim and operating voltage actually influence the effectiveness of the headlamp performance i

11、n the real-world driving context. The SAE Pedestrian Visibility taskforce was established to review the recent research concerning pedestrian fatalities and to investigate possible approaches to define the minimum requirements, both in terms of visibility and glare, of a headlighting system operatin

12、g under actual vehicle conditions. Although differences exist between the US and ECE approach to headlighting design, the taskforce has attempted to take a global view and the conclusions and recommendations are based upon global best practice. Opportunity has also been taken to work closely with th

13、e CIE TC4-45 committee that is working to define a standard method of headlighting performance assessment as the definition improved headlighting systems and their performance appraisal are closely allied. It should be emphasized that this report does not attempt to provide precise requirements for

14、minimum performance levels relating to glare or visibility and any comparisons of the performance of headlamp systems are presented solely as examples to illustrate the conclusions reached by the taskforce. In particular, attention is drawn to statements relating to the limiting value for the accept

15、ability of opposing glare. These are based upon experience of the taskforce members and research is required to determine a validated value. Further, no account has been taken of the effects of opposing glare upon the minimum visibility requirements. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under

16、 license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE J2829 Stabilized FEB2011 Page 3 of 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SCOPE 3 1.1 Purpose . 3 2. REFERENCES 4 2.1 Applicable Publications . 4 3. AREAS OF THE ROAD SCENE HAVING THE HIGHEST RISK OF COLLISION W

17、ITH PEDESTRIANS . 5 4. CALCULATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR DETECTION DISTANCE AND ILLUMINANCE . 6 4.1 Illuminance Requirements 6 4.2 Exactly Where Do We Direct the Light? 7 4.3 Ways to Achieve the Required Obstacle Illuminance . 8 5. THE EFFECTS OF GLARE AND THE NEED FOR ADEQUATE ILLUMINATION 9 6. LIGHT

18、ING SYSTEM EVALUATION . 9 6.1 Evaluation of Illuminance The Uniform Detection Characteristic (UDC) Locus . 9 6.2 Evaluation of Glare Effects The CIE TC4-45 Method 11 6.3 Effects of Mounting Height and Low-Beam Aim . 13 7. EVALUATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF EXISTING HEADLAMP SYSTEMS 18 7.1 Illuminance o

19、n the LH and RH Road Edges . 18 7.2 Calculation of the Uniform Detection Characteristic (UDC) Locus . 19 7.3 Luminous Flux in the Glare Zone 19 7.4 Analysis of the Evaluation Results 19 7.5 Conclusions Derived from the Ranking Formulae Adopted by the Taskforce 24 8. AN APPROACH TOWARD A REVISED PHOT

20、OMETRIC SPECIFICATION 25 9. CONCLUSIONS 25 10. RECOMMENDATIONS . 26 11. NOTES 27 11.1 Marginal Indicia . 27 APPENDIX A EVALUATION OF EXISTING HEADLAMP SYSTEMS - ILLUMINANCE AND GLARE . 28 Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking pe

21、rmitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE J2829 Stabilized FEB2011 Page 4 of 40 1. SCOPE The primary purpose of vehicle forward lighting is not to see the world but to see the road! In their simplest form, headlights help drivers negotiate a safe path on the road. They do this by lighting the roadway

22、 according to (a multitude of) specific standards. For decades, discussions concerning the niceties of illuminating potential obstacles in the roadway were little more than an academic pursuit as there simply were not sufficient lumens available from filament light sources to achieve all of the desi

23、red tasks no matter how worthy they might be. Not unexpectedly, the technology has evolved with the introduction of high output metal-halide sources, multi-task standards combined with multilevel lighting devices and discrete LED sources offering high luminous efficiencies and the means to deliver t

24、he light where it can be most useful. The question now becomes one of determining where the available light should be directed. Every standard advisory group, industry, manufacturer and every driver might have their particular favorite approach to the question of how best to illuminate the road, but

25、 few would disagree that a single, vulnerable set of candidates to benefit from improved forward lighting exist. These are pedestrians walking in the roadway and unfortunately, they can exist literally anywhere in the road scene. Some regions of the road are clearly more perilous than others, specif

26、ically those located where the light is weaker on the side of the beam directed toward the opposing lane (the left side in the majority of countries). Work by Sullivan and Flannagan (2001), Kosmatka (2003) and Sullivan (2007) has demonstrated the fatality rate (2300 fatalities) and vulnerability (tw

27、ice as many left-crossing than right-crossing) of pedestrians in the roadway. This could lead to the conclusion that it is necessary to put more lumens in the opposing lane (left) side of the roadway. However, this is the simple answer; the hard questions are how much light, where on the left and ho

28、w can this be achieved? The low beam pattern, by its nature, is a compromise between the need to provide adequate illumination of the road ahead of the vehicle while minimizing the effects of glare to oncoming road users. This means that any study to identify improvements in the low beam to achieve

29、better pedestrian visibility must respect the balance between the needs of the vehicle driver and the other road users. While various approaches to reduce pedestrian fatalities are being pursued it is clear that the effectiveness of headlighting can play an important role. As noted earlier, the perf

30、ormance of the low beam light distribution has improved with the introduction of new headlamp technologies and more efficient light sources. However, the compromise between providing adequate forward illumination while minimizing the effects of glare to the other road users remains a constraint. Wit

31、h research findings providing a clearer indication of the nature of the collisions with pedestrians and identifying critical areas in the road scene it is now appropriate to review the requirements of the low beam headlamp system with a focus upon mitigating the pedestrian fatalities. 1.1 Purpose Th

32、e SAE Pedestrian Visibility taskforce was established in 2005 with the following objectives: Identify the critical areas of the road scene from the pedestrian collision perspective using results of recent research based upon real accident data. Review the effectiveness of current low beam headlamp s

33、ystems and identify areas of improvement. Identify opportunities to improve the low beam that could be introduced across a wide range of headlamp systems including low cost solutions applicable to the developing world. This report documents the work of the SAE Pedestrian Visibility taskforce. The re

34、commendations are available for further development by appropriate committees for upgrading lighting standards. Additionally, these recommendations are suitable for incorporation into New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP) where the relative performance of headlighting systems are evaluated against clea

35、rly defined criteria. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE J2829 Stabilized FEB2011 Page 5 of 40 2. REFERENCES 2.1 Applicable Publications The following publications form a part of thi

36、s specification to the extent specified herein. Flannagan, M.J., Sivak, M., Sullivan, J.M., Kosmatka, W.J., Moore D.W., Rumar, K. (2002), Specification of a Headlighting rating system, (Report, November 2002), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Kosmatka, W.J., (2003)

37、 Differences in Detection of Moving Pedestrians Attributable to Beam Patterns and Speeds, Progress in Automotive Lighting 8thInternational Symposium, p549-564, Darmstadt Germany; Darmstadt University of Technology, September 2003 Kosmatka, W.J, Rattunde, R, (2005) Application of the Uniform Detectio

38、n Characteristic (UDC), 6thInternational Symposium on Automotive Lighting (ISAL), p544-558, Darmstadt Technical University, September 27, 28, 2005 Kosmatka, W.J., (2006) SAE Pedestrian Visibility Task Force Minutes, 9 December 2004, Southfield MI Kosmatka, WJ. (2006), UDC The Uniform Detection Chara

39、cteristic Locus for Detection of Roadway Obstacles with Vehicle Lighting, (SAE Technical Paper 2006-04-0948), March 2006 Kosmatka, WJ, (2006) Vehicle Lighting Improvements to Enhance Nighttime Visibility of Pedestrians, (SAE Technical Paper 2006-04-0949), March 2006 Kosmatka, WJ, (2007) Improved Ped

40、estrian Visibility Potential With Modified Headlamp Left-side Light Distribution, 7th International Symposium on Automotive Lighting, Darmstadt Germany; Darmstadt University of Technology, September 25,26, 2007 Rice, LM (2003) Headlamp Passing Beams and Pedestrian Safety, 5th International Symposium

41、 on Automotive Lighting, Darmstadt Germany; Darmstadt University of Technology, September 23,24, 2003 Sivak, Flannagan, Koima, Traube (1997) A MARKET WEIGHTED DESCRIPTION OF LOW-BEAM HEADLIGHTING PATTERNS IN THE U.S., (Technical Report No. UMTRI-97-37), Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Transpor

42、tation Institute Sivak, Flannagan, Schoettle (2000) A MARKET WEIGHTED DESCRIPTION OF LOW-BEAM HEADLIGHTING PATTERNS IN EUROPE, (Technical Report No. UMTRI-2000-36), Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Transportation Institute Sivak, Flannagan, Schoettle, Nakata (2002) PERFORMANCE OF THE FIRST GENE

43、RATION OF HID HEADLAMPS IN THE U.S. (Technical Report UMTRI-2002-14), Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Transportation Institute Sullivan, J.M. and Flannagan, M.J. (2001), Characteristics of pedestrian benefit of adaptive headlighting using crash databases, (Technical Report UMTRI-2001-33) Ann A

44、rbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. GRE Informal Documents from the AFS Group: TRANS-WP29-GRE-48-inf28e and TRANS-WP29-GRE-48-inf30e (http:/www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gre/infpape_48.html) Sullivan, J.M. and Flannagan, M.J. (1999), Assessing the Potential Be

45、nefit of Adaptive Headlighting Using Crash Databases (Technical Report UMTRI-99-21) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Sullivan, J.M. and Flannagan, M.J. (2001), Characteristics of Pedestrian Risk in Darkness, (Technical Report UMTRI-2001-33) Ann Arbor: University of

46、 Michigan Transportation Research Institute Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE J2829 Stabilized FEB2011 Page 6 of 40 Rumar, K (2001) A Worldwide Perspective on Future Automobile Ligh

47、ting (Technical Report UMTRI-2001-35) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Sullivan, J.M. and Flannagan, M.J. (2006), Implications of Fatal and Nonfatal Crashes for Adaptive Headlighting (Technical Report UMTRI-2006-1) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation R

48、esearch Institute Sullivan, J.M. and Flannagan, M.J. (2007), Characteristics of Nighttime Pedestrian Crashes: Implications for Headlighting (Technical Report No. UMTRI-2007-3) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Damasky, J (1995) Anforderungen an Kraftfahrzeugscheinwerfer, Thesis D17, TU Darmstadt, 1995 Hendrik Schbe, Dr. Frank Schierge,(2007) ISAL Symposium 2007 Paper A1.1 D. Investigation on the influence of car lighting on night-time accidents in Germany NHTSA Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance (2007), Congressional Report 3. AREAS OF THE ROA