ACSF-C2 2-actions system

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The necessity of New Regulations for New Technologies regarding R79 Japan September / 2012 Informal document GRRF (73rd GRRF, September 2012,
Advertisements

OICA/CLEPA Homework Part I HMI, Driver in/out of the Loop Submitted by the experts of OICA/CLEPA Tokyo, June 2015 Informal Document ACSF
Proposal of Automated Driving from Ad- hoc group on LKAS/RCP Submitted by the Chair of the Special Interest Group on Lane Keeping Assist Systems (LKAS)
ACSF Informal Group Industry proposals 1 st Meeting of ACSF informal group April 29 and 30, 2015 in Bonn 1 Informal Document ACSF
The Promotion of Active Safety Measures in Japan - collision damage mitigation brake - September 2007 Road Transport Bureau Road Transport Bureau MLIT.
3rd ACSF meeting Munich, September 2-3 Industry proposals for ACSF status definition and HMI Informal Document: ACSF Submitted by the experts from.
Outline of Definition of Automated Driving Technology Document No. ITS/AD (5th ITS/AD, 24 June 2015, agenda item 3-2) Submitted by Japan.
Presentation for Document ACSF-03-03_rev1 Oliver Kloeckner September rd meeting of the IG ASCF Munich, Airport Informal Document.
Damage Mitigation Braking System
The Promotion of Active Safety Measures in Japan - collision damage mitigation brake - February 2007 Road Transport Bureau Road Transport Bureau MLIT Japan.
Difference for "Automatically commanded steering function", "Corrective steering function" and " Autonomous Steering System " Informal Document: ACSF
1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
IHRA-ITS UN-ECE WP.29 ITS Informal Group Geneva, March, 2011 Design Principles for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: Keeping Drivers In-the-Loop Transmitted.
Remote Control Parking (RCP)
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Safety Distances and Object Classifications for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Objectives: Students will utilize critical thinking and problem solving skills to learn basic driving skills Topics covered:  Basic maneuvers to enter,
5 th ACSF meeting French views Bonn January 2016 Informal Document - ACSF Submitted by the expert of France.
CLEPA Position Special GRRF Session on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems Brainstorming Meeting 9 Dec UN Palais des.
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles Excerpts from the relevant sections of the ToR: II. Working items to be covered (details.
ACSF - Traffic Jam Assist on all roads OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
1 6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016 Requirements for “Sensor view” & Environment monitoring version 1.0 Transmitted by the Experts of OICA and CLEPA.
Transmitted by the Experts of TRL (EC)
Informal document GRRF-84-32
Informal Document: ACSF-06-16
Discussion paper – Major Issues
7th ACSF meeting London, June 28-30, 2016
Presentation of ACSF C tests
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles
Informal Working Group on ACSF
Submitted by the experts of Japan Informal Document: ACSF-06-25
Submitted by the expert form Japan Document No. ITS/AD-09-12
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)
Timing to be activated the hazard lights
Working Principle of Blind Spot Technology in Car
AEBS/LDW Proposed changes with regard to the implementation of technical specifications for Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) GRRF st.
GRSG-113 Agenda point 5 – Awareness of Vulnerable Road Users proximity
Informal document GRRF-86-36
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Industry Homework from AEB 02
Submitted by the Expert of Sweden
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
ACSF C tests Prepared by JAPAN 15 November, 2017
Quintessences Proposal for Category C of Germany and Japan
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
ACSF – Automated Driving Systems Taxonomy and Definitions - SAE J3016 Jean-Michel Roy Transport Canada.
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Questions/Comments on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/10
Safety concept for automated driving systems
Behaviour of M2 & M3 general construction in case of Fire Event
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Status of discussion about “Reversing Motion”
Maximum allowable Override Force
Emergency Steering Function
Status of discussion about “Reversing Motion” in VRU-Proxi
Proposed Definition of the Pause Function
ACSF-17 – Industry Preparation
GRSG/VRU-Proxi Informal Working Group Japan Proposals for Technical Requirements on Sonars November 21th 2017 Tokyo.
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
ACSF B2 and C2 Industry expectations from ACSF IG Tokyo meeting
6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Regulation ECE R79-03 ACSF C 2-Step HMI
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Informal document GRVA-04-34
Presentation transcript:

ACSF-C2 2-actions system Informal Document: ACSF-16-04 ACSF-C2 2-actions system Industry input to ACSF IG 16th meeting January 2018, Tokyo

Content Industry interest Description of ACSF-C2 Comparison of Concepts Philosophy of ACSF C2 Why only short range sensor is needed ? Blind zone detection Mode confusion issue Technical Proposal

Industry interest At GRRF-85 of December, the text of ACSF-C (former ACSF-C1) was adopted. Industry still have a strong interest for ACSF-C2, e.g. regarding: C2 is a more natural HMI, closer to manual lane change: the driver has full control on the timing of the 2 steps of a LC. This permits to increase the maximum time between the LCP and the LCM. Automatic deactivation of direction indicator causes unnecessary technical problems that can be corrected with ACSF-C2. Current ACSF-C requirements are design restrictive regarding HMI HCVs have a particular interest for ACSF-C2 Industry expectations from ACSF IG is to start the drafting phase to cover C2.

Description of ACSF C2 Lane Change Procedure Lane Change Maneuver < [ X ] secondes 5 4 3 1 1 2 1s Lane Change Maneuver (ACSF B1) 2nd Deliberate action by the driver 1st Deliberate action by the driver on the direction indicator

Comparison of concepts Manual driving ACSF C1 ACSF C2 1st action Activation of the direction indicator to inform the other users and initiate the lane change procedure 2nd action Action on the steering control to change lane Automatic start of the lane change manoeuver, 3 to 5s after the driver action. Second deliberate action to initiate the lane change manoeuver. Given the LCM starts automatically up to 5s (i.e. 180m at 130km/h) after the driver deliberate action… backward looking sensors have been judged necessary Given the LCM only starts after a 2nd deliberate action of the driver, no backward looking sensors are necessary… there are other ways to ensure same level of safety, see next slides

Philosophy of ACSF-C2 Safety measures ACSF C2 is Level-2 system: the driver is hands-on and drives, the system only assists The driver is expected to get quickly used to an HMI which is quite similar to that of the manual driving The driver masters the exact time when the vehicle starts moving towards the lane, and consequently when the manoeuver starts, depending the surrounding traffic, similarly to the manual driving The lane change assistance does not start automatically, thus “no surprise” Unintentional activation is prevented thanks to: ON/OFF switch 2-action activation The overriding force remains low (< 50 N) Blind zone detection sensors ensure safety regarding the area not covered by the mirrors (and minimize over-reliance risks)  see next slides

Philosophy of ACSF-C2 Why only short range sensors are needed ? From previous slide: The driver masters the exact time when the vehicle starts moving towards the lane. With two actions HMI, the system requires two decisions from the driver, which are assumed to be based on the monitoring of the rear traffic. The driver is aware of the vehicle environment thanks to direct Field Of Vision (FOV) and indirect FOV (R46 mirrors): The system must only monitor the zones out of mirror coverage: M1/N1: Class I and III FOV M2/M3 : Class II FOV N2/N3: Class II, IV and V FOV

Proposed blind zone detection example of N3 vehicles Driver‘s ocular points 3m Leading edge Rear edge (truck) 0.5m 3m Outside edges 1m 2m 5m 4.5m R 2000 2.75m UN R46 Class II Field of view 1.5m 15m 4m 3m UN R46 Class IV Field of view UN R46 Class V Field of view 10m ISO 17387 „shall warn area“ 25m 30m

Proposed blind zone detection M1/N1 Rear edge Ocular points 95%ile Leading edge 3m 3m 0.5m Outside edge 1m 4m 4m 20m UN R46 Class III Field of view Calculated at ground level ISO 17387 „shall warn“ area Improve safety compared to manual driving

Mode confusion issue A OK B What happens if the driver has wrong perception of the system installed in the vehicle? The driver believes to have C1 C2 OK B A C1 The vehicle is equipped with C2

Mode confusion issue Scenario A : The driver believes to be in a C1 while being in a C2 equipped vehicle. The driver uses the command to initiate the procedure and nothing happens (the system waits for a second action).  No safety issue Scenario B : The driver believes to be in a C2 while being in a C1 equipped vehicle. The driver uses the direction indicator to initiate the procedure and the system starts a manoeuver only if the situation is deemed not critical.

Technical Proposal “3m x 3m” blind spot detection area (ISO17387 – see sketches) for M1/N1 “3m x 3m” blind spot detection area inspired from ISO17387 – see sketches) for M2M3/N2N3 * If approaching vehicle detected in blind spot, then Warn the driver Lane change procedure suppressed automatically. * For vehicles fitted with class IV mirrors, no Blind Spot sensor is needed since mirrors cover the whole zone

ANNEX

Ultra-sonic sensor capabilities Radar sensor capabilities Radar vs. US sensors Ultra-sonic sensor capabilities Radar sensor capabilities Range: 0-5 m Sensor-to-target relative speed: < 10km/h Angle of detection: ~ 120° Target movement: stationary and moving Target nature: any solid, no distinction HMI: ON/OFF detection Sensitivity to wheather conditions: low Range: 55m (motorbikes) Sensor-to-target relative speed: 0-max speed Angle of detection: 150° Target movement: stationary and moving Target nature: any solid, no distinction HMI: can transmit distance and speed Sensitivity to weather conditions: low