AEB IWG 02. ISO Standard: FVCMS. I received the following explanation from the FVCMS author:

Similar documents
DRAFT REPORT 2nd meeting of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) for light vehicles

Procedure for assessing the performance of Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems in front-to-rear collisions

State of the art ISA, LKAS & AEB. Yoni Epstein ADAS Program Manager Advanced Development

Our Market and Sales Outlook

DRAFT REPORT. 3 rd meeting of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) for light vehicles

Using Virtualization to Accelerate the Development of ADAS & Automated Driving Functions

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Euro NCAP Safety Assist

AEB IWG 04. Industry Position Summary. Vehicle detection. Static target

Adaptive cruise control (ACC)

ACTIVE SAFETY 3.0. Prof. Kompaß, VP Fahrzeugsicherheit, 14. April 2016

WHITE PAPER Autonomous Driving A Bird s Eye View

Pre-Collision Braking System

Pre-Collision Braking System

Automated Driving. Definition for Levels of Automation OICA,

Truck Safety Applications for Cost- Efficient Laser Scanner Sensors Grant Grubb, Volvo Trucks, Sweden

18th ICTCT Workshop, Helsinki, October Technical feasibility of safety related driving assistance systems

Advanced emergency braking systems for commercial vehicles

VOLVO XC40 APRIL ONWARDS ALL-WHEEL-DRIVE (AWD) VARIANTS

Regulatory Impacts of Advanced Lighting Systems. Stephan Berlitz, AUDI AG

Pedestrian Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version II) February 2019

DRIVING. Honda Sensing *

EMERGING TRENDS IN AUTOMOTIVE ACTIVE-SAFETY APPLICATIONS

Pedestrian Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1) December 2018

Volvo XC40 87% 97% 71% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

FORD FOCUS DECEMBER ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

On the road to automated vehicles Sensors pave the way!

AEB System for a Curved Road Considering V2Vbased Road Surface Conditions

Automated Driving - Object Perception at 120 KPH Chris Mansley

CONNECTED AUTOMATION HOW ABOUT SAFETY?

LiDAR Teach-In OSRAM Licht AG June 20, 2018 Munich Light is OSRAM

Adaptive cruise control (ACC)

Adaptive cruise control (ACC)

HEAVY VEHICLE HARDWARE-IN-THE-LOOP CRASH AVOIDANCE SAFETY SYSTEM SIMULATION WITH EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION

Machine Learning & Active Safety Using Autonomous Driving and NVIDIA DRIVE PX. Dr. Jost Bernasch Virtual Vehicle Research Center Graz, Austria

HYUNDAI SANTA FE JULY ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

VOLKSWAGEN T-ROC OCTOBER ONWARDS NEW ZEALAND VARIANTS

Intelligent Drive next LEVEL

ALFA ROMEO STELVIO MARCH ONWARDS 2.0L PETROL & 2.2L DIESEL VARIANTS

HOLDEN ACADIA NOVEMBER ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE. CEM U. SARAYDAR Director, Electrical and Controls Systems Research Lab GM Global Research & Development

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) TEST PROTOCOL Lane Support Systems

Preliminary Study of the Response of Forward Collision Warning Systems to Motorcycles

Love. It s what makes a Subaru, a Subaru.

Ford Focus 85% 87% 75% 72% SPECIFICATION TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Safety Assist. Vulnerable Road Users

Love. It s what makes a Subaru, a Subaru. Quick Guide IMPREZA

2015 The MathWorks, Inc. 1

VOLKSWAGEN POLO FEBRUARY ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

Kia Stinger 81% 93% 78% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Advanced testing technologies for active safety systems to reduce road fatalities

In 04/2000, active cruise control (system supplier: BOSCH) was installed for the first time in a BMW as special equipment for the E38.

Love. It s what makes a Subaru, a Subaru.

What is the potential of driver assistance technologies to reduce the number of road accidents?

MAZDA CX-8 JULY ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

Pass-by noise, from the Real to the Simulated. The Analysis and Development for the ECE Certification MOTORCYCLES

Safe, superior and comfortable driving - Market needs and solutions

BMW GROUP TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOPS AUTOMATED DRIVING-DIGITALIZATION MOBILITY SERVICES. December 2016

ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD

NISSAN MICRA DECEMBER ONWARDS NEW ZEALAND VARIANTS WITH 0.9 LITRE ENGINE

YOUR GUIDE TO SAFE MOTORING IN WINTER CONDITIONS

FORD MUSTANG (FN) DECEMBER ONWARDS V8 & ECOBOOST FASTBACK (COUPE) VARIANTS

APPLICATION OF STAR RATINGS

Honda Civic (reassessment)

Hyundai Santa Fe 88% 94% 67% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

ANCAP Test Protocol. Lane Support Systems v2.0.2

Study on V2V-based AEB System Performance Analysis in Various Road Conditions at an Intersection

MERCEDES-BENZ X-CLASS APRIL ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

AUTONOMOUS EMERGENCY BRAKING TEST RESULTS Wesley Hulshof Iain Knight Alix Edwards Matthew Avery Colin Grover Thatcham Research UK Paper Number

Modifications to UN R131 AEBS for Heavy Vehicles

1. Describe the best hand position on the steering wheel. 2. Discuss the importance of scanning intersections before entry.

FORD ENDURA DECEMBER ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

Audi Q2 86% 93% 70% 70% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Harmonisation Platform 2 Test Targets. Part A: Car Targets

Volvo XC60 87% 98% 76% 95% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Dynamic Laser Cruise Control Operation

Quick Reference Guide Love. It s what makes a Subaru, a Subaru.

ANCAP Test Protocol. AEB Car-to-Car Systems v2.0.1

ANCAP Application of Star Ratings Protocol. v1.5

A Simulation Environment for Developing Intelligent Headlight Systems

Subaru Levorg 83% 92% 75% 68% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Seat Ibiza 77% 95% 76% 60% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Ford Edge 76% 85% 67% 89% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Zone Control Co-Driver e-coaching Actions for Sets 1 to 16

ADVANCED HIGH-STRENGTH STEEL FRONT RAIL SYSTEM PHASE II

D.J.Kulkarni, Deputy Director, ARAI

Euro NCAP: Saving Lives with Safer Cars

Braking Performance Improvement Method for V2V Communication-Based Autonomous Emergency Braking at Intersections

Audi Q3 86% 95% 76% 85% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Cooperative brake technology

Mercedes-Benz A-Class

With SensePlanAct towards Vision Zero

Jaguar I-Pace 81% 91% 73% 81% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

THE HIGHWAY-CHAUFFEUR

Lexus RX 82% 91% 77% 79% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Off-Road. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

EU Work priorities for for UNECE activities. 1. Working Group on Automated and connected vehicles (GRVA)

Road Safety Factsheet

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Stereo-vision for Active Safety

Mercedes-Benz X-Class

Transcription:

ISO Standard: FVCMS I received the following explanation from the FVCMS author: The intent behind SRB was to potentially draw the driver s attention to hazards ahead of the SV before MB was enacted but in a more active way than CW. Some manufacturers wanted to be able to achieve the same speed reduction (or greater) by starting earlier in the process so as possibly not to have to decelerate as quickly. End result from a minimum requirements standpoint was the same, how an OEM decided to get there was given more flexibility. We are talking about TTCs between 3 and 4 seconds. For light vehicles, MB shall not initiate above 3s and SRB not above 4s. If you look at the permissible system configurations, a type 1 system is SRB and CW (no MB), a type 2 system is MB and CW (no SRB), and a type 3 system is MB, SRB, and CW. Aims to provide flexibility for the manufacturers when developing their system.

Sensor: LIDAR fixed beam Used primarily for proximity detection Shorter range, which may prevent using this technology with a design speed greater than 30km/h. Range significantly reduced range in heavy rain, snow, fog. Sensor blockage possible by e.g. mud/snow, but self-diagnosed by the sensor. + windscreen swept area Detection range depends on IR reflectability (i.e. brightness) of the object surface. Able to detect moving and static vehicle targets as well as pedestrians.

Sensor: RADAR Used primarily for proximity detection Range significantly reduced range in heavy rain, snow, fog. Most robust for adverse weather conditions. Sensor blockage possible by e.g. mud/snow, but self-diagnosed by the sensor. Detection range depends on radar reflectivity (i.e. RCS) Able to detect moving and static vehicle targets, some state of the art systems can also pedestrians (moving legs required). Limited by RADAR frequency regulations. Can measure relative speed directly. (Doppler effect). Unable to measure the width of the object, but good a measuring longitudinal distance. Opposite with mono camera systems).

Sensor: Camera Used primarily for target classification. However Stereo camera can be used for proximity detection as well as target classification. Maximum detection range can be limited by hardware resolution and/or software capabilities. Significantly reduced range in heavy rain, snow, fog, ambient light levels and direction of light (natural/artificial). Sensor blockage possible by e.g. mud/snow, but self-diagnosed by the sensor. Wiper area. Detection range depends on background contrast and brightness of the object surface Able to detect moving and static vehicle targets as well as pedestrians.

Sensor: Choice In addition to the technical justifications for the VMs choice in sensor: Vehicle manufacturers experience and subjective opinion Synergies with other technologies LKA. Historic link with suppliers, who may specialise in certain sensor technology. (Economical approach.) Depending on the scope set by the VM, performance in the same scenario may differ. If suppliers are ask to cover inter urban and city scenarios (+ ACC), then the city performance may be better because RADAR technology is implemented. Compared to a manufacturer who asks for just city environment so a fixed beam LIDAR System is installed and the maximum performance capabilities may be reduced.

Scenario: Low speed manoeuvring Limitations based on use cases rather technology. False positives in: Parking scenarios / Low speed manoeuvring / Car wash / Car park barriers etc. Little benefit for regulating AEB for low speed scenarios. (<10km/h)

Scenario: City 10-50km/h Above approx. above 30km/h LPS vs LPB comes into consideration. So manufacturers may not activate. More appropriate for partial overlaps scenarios. Where, when the LPS = LPB is closer to the target. Scenario: Inter Urban (30-80km/h) Higher the speeds, the more dangerous it would be for a false activation.

Scenario: VRU detection Situation is very dynamic. Pedestrian may take 1 step and is now in the path of the vehicle within very short period of time. Therefore the system needs to be able to detect, classify and intervene in a very short period of time. The lateral offset required by the vehicle to avoid a collision with a pedestrian may be very small e.g. < 30cm. With such low lateral offset required, the velocity at which LPS = LPB becomes significantly lower. So manufacturers may be more reluctant to provide a system that works at higher speeds as it will cause greater possibilities of false activation. System needs to be robust and confident. Wider FOV for VRU detection require greater processing power from ECU. Night scenarios require night vision technology.

NCAP vs Type approval Performance determination vs minimum safety standard. Designed performance needs to take in account for different conditions in the real world when compared to the test track. Design with safety margin to cover variation in results. NCAP selection of vehicle is based on the most common variants available on the market, type approval vehicle selection is based on the worst case vehicle. Performance based on Ideal conditions e.g. pre prepared brakes (hot.), weather conditions. Level of braking required for type approval should based on UNECE Regulation R13H. (6.4m/s²) for regulatory consistency. Consideration should be given to the possibility of false positives: Off road scenarios / Steel trench plates / Parked cars at entry and exit of corner / Motorway Gantries / Railway tracks / Overhead cables / Damaged windscreen before re calibration.