Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Warning Timing for AEBS AEBS/LDWS Proposal of Warning Timing 1) Warning has two functions; to induce the driver to take an avoiding maneuver.
Advertisements

66th ECE Commission Geneva, April 2015 Connectivity and Competitiveness for Sustainable Lives Sustainable Connectivity Includes Safe Mobility Which.
General Safety Regulation ACEA discussion paper Renzo Cicilloni Director Safety Paris, June 2009 AEBS/LDWS
1 Vehicle Stability Function ● Directional Control ● Roll-over Control A functional overview with regard to commercial vehicles AMEVSC-03-04e August 2010.
Hans-Martin Gerhard28. April 2010 Seite 1Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG Pedestrian Safety - Quiet Cars Hans-Martin Gerhard Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG Quiet.
Presentation for Document ACSF-03-03_rev1 Oliver Kloeckner September rd meeting of the IG ASCF Munich, Airport Informal Document.
Damage Mitigation Braking System
1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
Motion Equations. Derived Equations Some useful equations can be derived from the definitions of velocity and acceleration.
Working paper number WLTP-DHC Comparison of different European databases with respect to road category and time periods (on peak, off peak, weekend)
Identification of regulatory needs for ACSF Oliver Kloeckner 16-17th June nd meeting of the IG ASCF Tokyo – Jasic Office Informal Document.
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Minimum Risk Manoeuvres (MRM)
Safety Distances and Object Classifications for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
B1.7a Using formulas to calculate displacement Chapter B1.
OICA IWG AECSAPRIL 2016 AECS REGULATION POST-CRASH CHECK WITH HMI TEST METHOD SUMMARY -ASIL determination – ISO Pre-requirements for HMI test method.
1 6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016 Requirements for “Sensor view” & Environment monitoring version 1.0 Transmitted by the Experts of OICA and CLEPA.
GRRF Ad-Hoc Working Group
Informal Document: ACSF-06-16
India’s Comments on EPPR (Part-B2)
ASEP IWG Report to GRB 66th
Informal Working Group on ACSF
ASEP IWG Report to GRB 65th
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
Dr. Patrick Seiniger, Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)
Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)
Timing to be activated the hazard lights
ASEP IWG Report to GRB 65th
The specified maximum speed of ACSF system
Proposal for UN Regulation on AEBS for M1/N1
Confirmation on application to EVs unique cycle
Dr. Patrick Seiniger, Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)
Informal document GRRF-86-36
ASEP IWG Report to GRB 66th
Industry Homework from AEB 02
WLTP-21-04e Revision 1 Amendment proposals for annex 2 of GTR #15 from the cycle gearshift issues task force Heinz Steven
ASEP IWG Report to GRB 65th
Submitted by the experts of OICA
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
AEBS 4th Meeting UK Position Paper December 18 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
GTR Corrections, Open Points, Expert Proposals and Confirmations in GTR 15 1/2/2019.
ETRTO proposal for UN R30 & 64 amendments Extended Mobility Tyres
ASEP IWG Report to GRB 65th
Average Deceleration and Peak Deceleration
AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input
ASEP, from 2005 to 2019 Background informations and future works
A car is decelerated to 20 m/s in 6 seconds
Safety Distance to the front
Overview of Test Procedures, etc
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
AEB IWG 02-XX Industry Position
Suggestions on development of UN Regulation No. 51
AEB IWG 02 ISO Standard: FVCMS
AEB 07 – Industry Input.
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Terms of Reference (AEBS Rev.1)
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
ASEP IWG Report to GRB 66th
Maximum allowable Override Force
Emergency Steering Function
AEBS-08 – Industry Input.
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
CLEPA comments on OBD II GTR 18 Draft
AEB Pedestrian and Cyclist - minimum velocities Sensor opening angles
General Safety Regulation 5: AEBS – Proportion of M1 vehicles likely to pass the vehicle to pedestrian test of proposed draft regulation June 2019.
Introduction: Modifications to UN R131 AEBS for Heavy Vehicles
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
AEBS-09 – Industry Input.
Presentation transcript:

Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) Change in performance requirements for laden vehicles: Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW LVW has better deceleration performance than GVW.

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) Change in performance requirements for laden vehicles:

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) Change in performance requirements for laden vehicles: For M1 Category vehicles LVW : 9m/s² + 0,6s 42km/h avoidance GVW : 9m/s² + 0,66s 40km/h avoidance For N1 Category vehicles LVW : 9m/s² + 0,6s 42km/h avoidance GVW : 9m/s² + 0,73s 38km/h avoidance Industry will seek clarification for AEBS 07 for values used to calculate N1 revised performance

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) Lateral offset of the subject vehicle Test procedure should define a tolerance for lateral offset of +/- 0.1m. 0.5m proposed by CPs equals approximate lateral offset of 75%. Such a test has only recently been prescribed in EuroNCAP 2018 test protocol for Car to Car AEB. And should therefore not be defined in regulation yet as real world experience is too low. Combined Test tolerances in CCRm test at +/-0.1m for subject vehicle and target vehicle. This can lead to a lateral offset of 0.2m, this should be sufficient to cover those cases that fall outside of the tolerance defined in the CCRs of +/-0.1m

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) address the topic “change of the situation” This could help us with regard to latency, object movement modelling, because it makes it clear: the system is free to react as fast as possible to a de-escalated situation in the real world. 5.1.1.             Any vehicle fitted with an AEBS complying with the definition of Paragraph 2.1. above shall meet the performance requirements contained in Paragraphs 5.1. to 5.6.2. of this Regulation and shall be equipped with an anti-lock braking function in accordance with the performance requirements of Annex 6 to Regulation No.13-H 01 Series of amendments for vehicles of Category M1 and N1 or of Annex 13 to Regulation No. 13 11 Series of amendments for vehicles  Category N1. „ Collision warning and emergency braking may be aborted on decision of the system, if it detects a very low probability of a collision. e.g. the situation de-escalates caused by changed movements of the other road user (“target”) like vehicle starts accelerating or a crossing pedestrian stops, etc.)”

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) Self Check 5.1.4.1.2. Any non-electrical failure conditions  (e.g. sensor misalignment) shall be detected before after a driving time of [300] seconds of driving in a normal urban environment.    Related to distance travelled and the object/environment. Under normal driving conditions. Counter does not necessarily start directly after the ignition cycle. Difficult / impossible to detect failure conditions if driving off road or without other road users. e.g. Australian outback. Should be under ‘general’ not ‘warning’ requirements

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) Self Check

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) Performance requirements 5.2.1.4. Systems should not deactivate or drastically change the control strategy in other road  conditions. Systems shall meet the performance requirements contained in 5.2.1.1. and 5.2.1.3 of this Regulation over a wide range of road and typical environmental conditions encountered within the territory of the Contacting Parties. Replaced by Inspired by UNECE R140 5.1.1 5.2.1.3. Speed   The system shall be active at least within the vehicle speed range between 10 km/h and 60 km/h and at all vehicle load conditions, unless manually deactivated as per Paragraph 5.4. And to amend

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) Test Procedure tolerances Speed of subject vehicle (GPS-speed) Test speed + 1.0 km/h Speed of target vehicle (GPS-speed) Test speed ± 1.0 km/h Lateral deviation from test path for subject vehicle 0 ± 0.10 m Lateral deviation from test path for target vehicle 0 ± 0.10 m Yaw velocity of subject vehicle 0 ± 1.0 °/s Yaw velocity of target vehicle 0 ± [1.0] °/s

CCRm-Scenarios: today in the market, not convenient AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) CCRm-Scenarios: today in the market, not convenient Average Braking Demand 30 kmph  20 kmph peak decel. 4.7 mps² average decel. 2.4 mps² Motoring Fine area (German Bußgeldkatalog) „Ego“ Avg. decel.: 2.5 mps² Peak decel.: 4.7 mps² „Target“ 10.0 m 2.4 m 6.7 m 0.7 m Begin comfort braking (keeping 1.2 s safety distance) Begin Emergency Braking Collision avoided Motoring Fine area (German Bußgeldkatalog) „Ego“ Avg. decel.: 3.1 mps² Peak decel.: 5.0 mps² „Target“ 40 kmph  20 kmph peak decel. 5.0 mps² average decel. 3.1 mps² 6.7 m 13.3 m 6.7 m 1.3 m Nevertheless those AEB are not considered convenient – not only because of the level of the deceleration, but because of starting and ending distance of the braking phase itself. In order to reach the demanded deceleration values the AEBS has to brake later (= loss of safety in case of wet street, changing conditions e.g. braking target, …) or will stop the vehicle in greater distance to the target (=no acceptance of the customer)

CCRm-Scenarios: today in the market, not convenient AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) CCRm-Scenarios: today in the market, not convenient Average Braking Demand Impact of demanded average deceleration (-3.8 m/s²) on emergency braking in lower speed range. Keeping todays begin of emergency braking phase Passing todays emergency braking point in order to keep todays final distance to target „Ego“ 30 km/h Avg. decel.: 2.5 mps² Peak decel.: 4.7 mps² „Target“ 20 km/h New braking point according to 2. Final distance according to 1. 2.4 m 1.7 m 1.4 m 0.7 m 1. Emergency Braking 2. Emergency Braking Original Emergency Braking increased hazard for following vehicle = 0.7 m Loss of safety = 0.7 m

CCRm-Scenarios: today in the market, not convenient AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) CCRm-Scenarios: today in the market, not convenient Average Braking Demand Impact of demanded average deceleration (-3.8 m/s²) on emergency braking in lower speed range. Keeping todays begin of emergency braking phase Passing todays emergency braking point in order to keep todays final distance to target „Ego“ 40 km/h Avg. decel.: 3.1 mps² Peak decel.: 5.0 mps² „Target“ 20 km/h Final distance according to 1. New braking point according to 2. 6.7 m 5.4 m 2.6 m 1.3 m 1. Emergency Braking 2. Emergency Braking Original Emergency Braking increased hazard for following vehicle = 1.3 m Loss of safety = 1.3 m

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input (Day 2) No Pedestrian impact without reducing subject vehicle speed to zero. 5.2.1.4 ….. Due to the nature of the test scenario, a vehicle may avoid a collision with a crossing target without reaching the minimum speed reduction defined in the tables above.