Assessment of Integrated Pedestrian Protection Systems with Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and Passive Safety Components

Objective: Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems fitted to cars for pedestrians have been predicted to offer substantial benefit. On this basis, consumer rating programs—for example, the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP)—are developing rating schemes to encourage fitment of these systems. One of the questions that needs to be answered to do this fully is how the assessment of the speed reduction offered by the AEB is integrated with the current assessment of the passive safety for mitigation of pedestrian injury. Ideally, this should be done on a benefit-related basis.

The objective of this research was to develop a benefit-based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with AEB and passive safety components. The method should include weighting procedures to ensure that it represents injury patterns from accident data and replicates an independently estimated benefit of AEB.

Methods: A methodology has been developed to calculate the expected societal cost of pedestrian injuries, assuming that all pedestrians in the target population (i.e., pedestrians impacted by the front of a passenger car) are impacted by the car being assessed, taking into account the impact speed reduction offered by the car's AEB (if fitted) and the passive safety protection offered by the car's frontal structure. For rating purposes, the cost for the assessed car is normalized by comparing it to the cost calculated for a reference car.

The speed reductions measured in AEB tests are used to determine the speed at which each pedestrian in the target population will be impacted. Injury probabilities for each impact are then calculated using the results from Euro NCAP pedestrian impactor tests and injury risk curves. These injury probabilities are converted into cost using “harm”-type costs for the body regions tested. These costs are weighted and summed. Weighting factors were determined using accident data from Germany and Great Britain and an independently estimated AEB benefit. German and Great Britain versions of the methodology are available. The methodology was used to assess cars with good, average, and poor Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings, in combination with a current AEB system. The fitment of a hypothetical A-pillar airbag was also investigated.

Results: It was found that the decrease in casualty injury cost achieved by fitting an AEB system was approximately equivalent to that achieved by increasing the passive safety rating from poor to average. Because the assessment was influenced strongly by the level of head protection offered in the scuttle and windscreen area, a hypothetical A-pillar airbag showed high potential to reduce overall casualty cost.

Conclusions: A benefit-based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with AEB has been developed and tested. It uses input from AEB tests and Euro NCAP passive safety tests to give an integrated assessment of the system performance, which includes consideration of effects such as the change in head impact location caused by the impact speed reduction given by the AEB.     

Climate change,adaptation and Eco-Art in Singapore

Eco-Art has recently emerged as a potential means to place emphasis on environmental issues such as climate change, recycling and the metabolism of the city experienced both materially and conceptually within local, regional and global contexts. Such art presents the possibility of shaping civic practices in arenas beyond those of traditional planning domains. Adopting a pragmatic approach, which recognises the contextual pluralism that exists in debates regarding climate change, this paper is interested in how Eco-Art projects encourage the re-imagining of urban spaces within the context of sustainability, and flows of materials and the recycling of plastic in art specifically.     

Comparison between lab- and full-scale applications of in situ aeration of an old landfill and assessment of long-term emission development after completion

Sustainable landfilling has become a fundamental objective in many modern waste management concepts. In this context, the in situ aeration of landfills has been recognised for its potential to convert conventional anaerobic landfills into biological stabilised state, whereby both current and potential (long-term) emissions of the landfilled waste are mitigated. In recent years, different in situ aeration concepts have been successfully applied in Europe, North America and Asia, all pursuing different objectives and strategies.In Austria, the first full-scale application of in situ landfill aeration by means of low pressure air injection and simultaneous off-gas collection and treatment was implemented on an old, small municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill (2.6 ha) in autumn 2007. Complementary laboratory investigations were conducted with waste samples taken from the landfill site in order to provide more information on the transferability of the results from lab- to full-scale aeration measures. In addition, long-term emission development of the stabilised waste after aeration completion was assessed in an ongoing laboratory experiment. Although the initial waste material was described as mostly stable in terms of the biological parameters gas generation potential over 21 days (GP₂₁) and respiration activity over 4 days (RA₄), the lab-scale experiments indicated that aeration, which led to a significant improvement of leachate quality, was accompanied by further measurable changes in the solid waste material under optimised conditions. Even 75 weeks after aeration completion the leachate, as well as gaseous emissions from the stabilised waste material, remained low and stayed below the authorised Austrian discharge limits. However, the application of in situ aeration at the investigated landfill is a factor 10 behind the lab-based predictions after 3 years of operation, mainly due to technical limitations in the full-scale operation (e.g. high air flow resistivity due to high water content of waste and temporarily high water levels within the landfill; limited efficiency of the aeration wells). In addition, material preparation (e.g. sieving, sorting and homogenisation) prior to the emplacement in Landfill Simulation Reactors (LSRs) must be considered when transferring results from lab- to full-scale application.