The present invention relates to an apparatus for triggering restraint devices.
German Published Patent Application No. 101 38 764 describes an apparatus for triggering a restraint device featuring crash sensors inside and outside of the control unit. These crash sensors also generate, in addition to the crash signal, a plausibility signal for checking the crash signal.
By contrast, an apparatus according to an example embodiment of the present invention for triggering restraint devices may provide that vehicle sensors external to the system generate the plausibility signal. These are vehicle sensors located outside of the restraint system, that is, they are neither located within the control unit, nor are they crash sensors located outside of the control unit. This may lead to speed advantages, and may also lead to the complete elimination of the plausibility sensor.
Illustratingly, in the case of a side crash for instance, the plausibility may be assumed as given based on the information “vehicle is skidding” from a vehicle dynamics control system (ESP=electronic stability program). This may eliminate the waiting time prior to the acceleration reaching a central sensor in the control unit of the restraint system. This may represent a significant speed advantage and hence a faster triggering of restraint devices.
The apparatus may receive the plausibility signal from a knock control system. The engine control unit continuously analyzes the structure-borne sound signal at the engine block to detect engine knock and prevent it through control interventions. This signal may be checked for crash signatures for the purpose of deriving a plausibilization of conventional triggering decision from it. This may eliminate the installation of an additional plausibility sensor.
If conventional plausibility sensors are used in addition, an overall plausibility signal may be generated through an OR operation on the plausibility signal of the crash sensor and of the vehicle sensor, which may be drawn upon in the triggering decision.
Exemplary embodiments of the present invention are shown in the Figures and are explained in more detail in the following description.
Airbags have been part of the safety equipment of motor vehicles for years. For triggering the pyrotechnic system, an algorithm is processed in the software of the electrical control unit. The input variables for this algorithm may be sensor signals for detecting crash severity, for example, acceleration signals and pressure signals, as well as information regarding occupancy, the closing of seatbelt buckles, etc.
To guard against false triggerings due to defective sensors, a principle to be followed is that the triggering decision must be plausibilized. This may be done via an independent sensor.
Two problems may be encountered in the plausibility concepts that may currently be in use:
1. Additional Costs
If, for example, an additional X sensor is used for plausibilizing the acceleration signal in the X direction, i.e., in the direction of travel, costs may be incurred which may only support the safety concept, but which may provide no additional noticeable benefit to the customer.
2. Performance
If, for example, a peripheral sensor is used in the crash zone for detecting a side crash, this may allow for a rapid triggering decision, but subsequently the system may still have to wait for the plausibility of the safety sensor in the central unit. This is due to the fact that accelerations are measurable there only a few milliseconds afterwards.
An example embodiment of the present invention may exploit information quasi external to the system for plausibilizing the crash, instead of using a sensor of the restraint system for plausibilization. This may either lead to speed advantages or possibly even to the complete elimination of the plausibility sensor.
An example of such information external to the system is the signal of the ESP. Based on the information “vehicle skidding”, the plausibility may be deduced as given in a side crash, for example. This may eliminate the waiting time prior to the acceleration reaching the central sensor.
Another alternative is the structure-borne sound signal of the knock control system. This structure-borne sound signal, which is continuously recorded, may be checked for crash signatures to identify a crash or crash-related signals using pattern recognition. These may serve as plausibility signal.
Control unit 11 itself features a processor memory and its own sensors to process a triggering algorithm for restraint devices 17 from the crash signals of sensors 10, 12, 13 and 14. Restraint devices 17, to which control unit 11 is connected via a data output, are airbags, seatbelt tensioners, a rollover bar, etc. Sensors 10, 12, 13 and 14 are installed remotely so as to be closer to the crash location. This may allow for faster registration of crash signals. The algorithm running in the processor of control unit 11, however, may also require plausibility signals for detecting failures or errors of crash sensors 10, 12, 13 and 14. For this purpose, control unit 11 may either use signals of the crash sensors themselves, for example, the mutual plausibility of side-impact sensors 10 and 14, or also from sensors within control unit 11 itself, that is, from central sensors. Signals of ESP control unit 15 for controlling the vehicle dynamics and of knock control system 16 may also be used for plausibility. ESP control unit 15 indicates the state of the vehicle dynamics and thus makes it possible to infer a possible crash. Knock control system 16 continuously monitors a structure-borne sound signal at the engine block, and this structure-borne sound signal may also contain crash signatures allowing for the identification of such a crash. If both or one of these are used, then possibly a plausibility via crash sensors may even be eliminated.
Alternatively, it is possible to use only lower block 22, in which case OR gate 23 may be eliminated. In that case, only the triggering decision of block 20 and the plausibility check of block 22 are combined in an AND operation. If both are present, an instruction to fire is issued. If only one is missing, no instruction to fire is issued.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
103 12 105 | Mar 2003 | DE | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/DE03/03499 | 10/18/2003 | WO | 00 | 8/21/2006 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2004/083003 | 9/30/2004 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5826902 | Foo et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5899946 | Iyoda | May 1999 | A |
6052634 | Pathe et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6212456 | Stride | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226578 | Willerton et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6295495 | Morman et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6370461 | Pierce et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6390498 | Francis et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6421591 | Hackenberg | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6732566 | Roelleke et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6906622 | Kleinschmidt et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
7630805 | Lu et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
20020111729 | Hackenberg | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030060980 | Prakah-Asante et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030100983 | Bullinger et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030139866 | Frimberger et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20040039509 | Breed | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040117086 | Rao et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117091 | Prakah-Asante et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040158376 | Knueppel et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050192731 | Eisele et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20080109137 | Eberle et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
198 11 865 | Sep 1999 | DE |
198 27 557 | Dec 1999 | DE |
199 10 596 | Sep 2000 | DE |
101 38 764 | Oct 2002 | DE |
WO 02098708 | Dec 2002 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070271016 A1 | Nov 2007 | US |