1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June 16-17 Informal Document ACSF-02-07.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evaluation of ACSF during periodic technical inspection Informal group ACSF # / 17 in Tokyo Informal Document ACSF
Advertisements

PROPOSALS THE REVIEW OF THE 1958 AGREEMENT AND THE INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL WHOLE VEHICLE TYPE APPROVAL (IWVTA) IWVTA Informal Group WP th Session.
The IPDE Method.
Definition of a Vehicle Type for IWVTA + Extension of Approvals SGR Transmitted by OICA.
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
Difference for "Automatically commanded steering function", "Corrective steering function" and " Autonomous Steering System " Informal Document: ACSF
1 Effect of wheelbase and centre of gravity height variances on the control functions “Directional Control” and “Roll- over Control” within a vehicle stability.
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)
5 th ACSF meeting French views Bonn January 2016 Informal Document - ACSF Submitted by the expert of France.
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
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.
Transmitted by the Experts of TRL (EC)
OICA „Certification of automated Vehicles“
generic approach electronic braking ECE-R 13
Informal document GRRF-84-32
Informal Document: ACSF-06-16
Introduction TRL’s study was performed in the context of ACSF updates to UN Regulation No 79. Focus: Ensure safe system function in all real-world driving.
Transmitted by the expert from CLEPA Informal document GRSP-57-25
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 expert form Japan Document No. ITS/AD-09-12
Initial project results: Annex 6 – 20 Sept 2016
Industry proposal Driver availability recognition system
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Lane change driver reaction times
Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)
Timing to be activated the hazard lights
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
AEBS/LDW Proposed changes with regard to the implementation of technical specifications for Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) GRRF st.
Informal Document: ACSF-11-08
Informal document GRRF-86-36
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Industry Homework from AEB 02
Submitted by OICA Document No. ITS/AD-14-07
Submitted by the Expert of Sweden
Submitted by the experts of OICA
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Attachment 1: Procedures for Evaluating Automatic Braking (for Vehicles) under Japan’s New Car Assessment Program (JNCAP) ○ Test vehicles (mainly ordinary/compact/light.
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
AEBS 4th Meeting UK Position Paper December 18 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Submitted by the experts of OICA
Submitted by the experts of OICA
Submitted by OICA Document No. ITS/AD Rev1
Safety Distance to the front
Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW
New Assessment & Test Methods
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Report on Automated Vehicle activities
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Definition of aysmax Interpretation 1
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
Maximum allowable Override Force
Emergency Steering Function
Informal document GRRF-78-41
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
SIGHT DISTANCE Spring 2019.
Software Updates Current situation
VMAD Describe in a few sentences what should be the outcome of the ‘audit/virtual testing/in-use data reporting Audit Confirmation that the manufacturers.
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Presentation transcript:

1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF-02-07

The objective is to present potential test scenario for the ACSF approval, for discussion. The detailed test conditions, criterias will be defined once the principle of the tests will be agreed. It should also be considered the influence of different types of vehicles to be approved, e.g. passenger cars, LCVs and HCVs. Objectives of this document 2

ACSF Test Scenario – General Principles Define few key test scenario, with specific test procedure and pass/fail criteria Since these test scenarii cannot cover all potential situations in an exhaustive manner, the paragraph 4 « verification and test » of the CEL Annex shall be used. The informal group on ACSF deals with the steering aspects of ACSF 3

The basic tests focus on three major capabilities of the system: Lane Change under multiple lane traffic conditions – respecting a safe distance Curve Travel – ability of the vehicle to follow a curve Transition in case of missing lane markings – testing the specified transition time During these tests, additional basic capabilities are verified, e.g.: Detection of objects/lanes Keeping the lane Keeping the safe distance ACSF Test Scenario – General Principles 4

ACSF Test Scenario – General Principles Safe Distance Parameters Safety Distance Shall not be entered by ACSF vehicle R R Safety Distance shall not be entered by ACSF vehicle at any time. Distances are based on the rules Safe travelling distance = [2s] at travelling speed Typical driver reaction time [1.0s] Safe uncritical deceleration [3m/s²] The lane change maneuver may be simplifyed into two segments of constant lateral acceleration (1m/s²) For all speed indications, a tolerance of +- 5,0km/h may be applied Safety Distance Shall not be entered by ACSF vehicle Maneuvering Distance Covered by ACSF vehicle Safety Distance Shall not be entered by ACSF vehicle 5

Scenarios of higher complexity may be assesed according to the methodology prescribed by the Annex 6, Complex Electronic Systems, including: Safety concept, (to address system integrity and thereby ensure safe operation even in the event of an electrical failure) § 2.1 Boundary of functional operation, § 2.8 Safety Analysis “ The documentation shall be supported, by an analysis which shows, in overall terms, how the system will behave on the occurrence of any one of those specified faults which will have a bearing on vehicle control performance or safety. This may be based on a Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), a Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) or any similar process appropriate to system safety considerations. The chosen analytical approach(es) shall be established and maintained by the Manufacturer” Limits defining the boundaries of functional operation (paragraph 2.8.) shall be stated where appropriate to system performance These potential extra-test shall be conducted following CEL Annex paragraph 4 requirements on “Verification and testing” ACSF Test Scenario – General Principles 6

› ACSF Complex Test Scenario – Lane Change e.g. 80 km/h e.g. 130 km/h e.g. 120 km/h Safety distances have to be respected Vehicles on the adjacent lane shall not be forced to brake stronger than 3m/s² Test condition: e.g. [V back = 130 km/h], [V ego = 120 km/h], [V front = 80 km/h] Problem: It is very difficult to synchronize three or more vehicles with respect to speed and distance on a test track 7

ACSF Test Scenario – Approaching a Vehicle Test 1: Recognize solid marking 8 e.g. 130 km/he.g. 100 km/h Safety Distance Pass/fail criteria: Cat 2: the ACSF does not change lane even under driver’s request Cat 3: the ACSF does not change lane and shall not propose lane change Cat 4: the ACSF does not change lane Note: For ACSF with only LK capability, the ACSF shall keep lane Initial test conditions: all vehicle speeds are constant

ACSF Simplified Test Scenario – Lane Change Test 2: Recognize occupied lanes in congestion conditions  lane change should not be performed 9 V 2 = [60 km/h] [60 km/h] Vehicle to be recognized by the system V 1 = [80 km/h] Safe travelling distance d t = (v 2 -v 1 ) t [t= 2s]  as required in traffic regulation A short (t <[0,5] s) diving-in into this area is acceptable Need for specific values for heavy vehicles Safety Distance Initial test conditions: all vehicle speeds are constant

ACSF Simplified Test Scenario – Lane Change Test 3: Keep safety distance of car behind on adjacent lane  lane change should not be performed 10 [80 km/h] if d < d safe d Test conditions: all vehicle speeds are constant Pass/fail criteria: Cat 2: the ACSF does not change lane even under driver’s request Cat 3: the ACSF does not change lane and shall not propose lane change Cat 4: the ACSF does not change lane Note: For ACSF with only LK capability, the ACSF shall keep lane

ACSF Test Scenario – Following a Curve 11 R=150m e.g. 60 km/h Test conditions: vehicle speed is constant Pass/fail criterion: the vehicle follows the curve Question: possible additional test assessing the maximum lateral acceleration permitted for the system?

ACSF Test Scenario – Missing Lane Markings 12 d trans = v * t trans Warning Test conditions: vehicle speed is constant