AEBS 4th Meeting UK Position Paper December 18 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE

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

Module 11 Movement and change.
ETSC Best in Europe Conference 2006 Changing Human Machine Interfaces Towards the development of a testing regime Samantha Jamson University of Leeds.
CARS Speed and Acceleration. Speed To be able to: AllMostSome Define what speed is.. (MYP 2/3) Use the speed formula triangle to calculate speed (MYP.
Damage Mitigation Braking System
Overview of India’s concerns Presentation to GTR - BR members for the 6/MCGTR/Informal meeting 6 th - 7 th June 2006 NHTSA Office, Washington DC Presentation.
1 Challenge the future Longitudinal Driving Behavior in case of Emergency situations: An Empirically Underpinned Theoretical Framework Dr. R.(Raymond)
T TNO Human Factors Driving behaviour effects of the Chauffeur Assistant Jeroen Hogema.
Kinematic Equation Examples
REVISION What two parts make up the stopping distance of a vehicle?
Chapter 6 Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC)
1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
Working paper number WLTP-DHC Comparison of different European databases with respect to road category and time periods (on peak, off peak, weekend)
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Minimum Risk Manoeuvres (MRM)
Active Steering Project Andrew Odhams Richard Roebuck David Cebon 2 nd April 2009.
Safety Distances and Object Classifications for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
WLTP-12-17e Status report about the work of the gearshift issues task force.
Antilock Braking System Dr. Khisbullah Hudha
B1.7a Using formulas to calculate displacement Chapter B1.
5 th ACSF meeting French views Bonn January 2016 Informal Document - ACSF Submitted by the expert of France.
Safer Roads Unit Wet Weather VAS at Friction Deficient Sites.
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)
Hand-off Warning Time of LKA
Informal Document: ACSF-06-16
Lane Change Test for ACSF
Informal Working Group on ACSF
Submitted by the experts of Japan Informal Document: ACSF-06-25
NATURAL LAWS & DRIVING It doesn’t matter what kind of vehicle you own or how skilled a driver you are, these forces affect your driving. Learning to understand.
Mechanics: Motion in One Dimension x dx Notes by: Ted Vittitoe
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
NGUYEN DINH HUY 2018/05/09 Dept. of Eco-friendly Offshore plant FEED Engineering 1.
Industry views on GRVA priorities and organization
Speed can be calculated by Speed = Distance/Time
Dr. Patrick Seiniger, Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)
Industry views on GRVA priorities and organization
Comparison of different gearshift prescriptions
Industry Homework from AEB 02
on Transition for level 3 Automated Driving system
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Draft WLTP Phase 2 – carryover from 1b – Annex 4 Starting note on split runs in coast down testing WLTP-14-18e Within phase 1b, practically all tolerances.
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Safety Distance to the front
Safety Assessment of Automated Vehicles
Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW
Overview of Test Procedures, etc
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
New Assessment & Test Methods
EU Tyre Industry comments on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2019/6
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
AEB IWG 02 ISO Standard: FVCMS
Water Directors meeting Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011
White Label Truck Platooning specifications
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Definition of aysmax Interpretation 1
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
Maximum allowable Override Force
Emergency Steering Function
AEBS-08 – Industry Input.
One-Dimensional Kinematics
One-Dimensional Kinematics
Driver initiated transition demand and system reaction
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Deactivation of the ALKS system: Different cases
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Presentation transcript:

AEBS 4th Meeting UK Position Paper December 18 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE

Overview Latest AEBS discussions have focussed on the concepts of last-point-to-brake (LPB) and last-point-to-steer (LPS). Industry recommends delaying the brake application at higher speeds where the LPS occurs later than LPB. The UK accepts the principle agreed within the group, but has concerns about the assumptions being applied to the calculations. The UK understands the rationale for a longitudinal deceleration rate of 6.43m/s2 and the lateral offset of 2.5m for dry conditions. However, we believe it should be recognised the value for longitudinal deceleration is subject to weather and road conditions. Therefore, 6.43m/s2 will not always be achievable. We believe this value could be reasonable reduced in line with BASt studies on wet concrete roads. Furthermore, there is concern over the suggested lateral deceleration value of 10m/s2. The UK has conducted some recent testing in this area. UK Position Paper December 18

History AEBS-02-05 extract Industry presented the concept of LPB and LPS at the 2nd AEBS meeting as part of the paper AEBS-02-05. In this paper, a lateral deceleration value of 5m/s2 was applied. The latest industry paper (AEBS-03-08) used a value of 10m/s2 for lateral acceleration in the LPS / LPB calculation. The UK is unclear on the driver behind this change. AEBS-03-08 extract UK Position Paper December 18

Real World Testing To develop an understanding of lateral acceleration values experienced in the real world, the UK conducted a number of tests using a volume production vehicle piloted by an expert driver. These were conducted in dry conditions at the Horiba MIRA proving ground. Two lanes were marked out using cones as shown in the diagram below. The distance X was varied, which had the effect of changing the severity of the manoeuvre in order to understand the range of lateral accelerations experienced. X (variable distance in m) 2.5m UK Position Paper December 18

Adverse Weather Considerations The ACSF IWG recently concluded an appropriate deceleration value for wet concrete of 3.7m/s2. This equates to using all the available grip in one direction. In emergency manoeuvring situations, it is likely that the driver will apply both braking and steering inputs. Based on the adhesion ellipse below, the available grip will need to be distributed between longitudinal and lateral deceleration. Therefore, calculations for LPS & LPB in adverse weather conditions cannot both be based on the maximum value of 3.7m/s2. UK Position Paper December 18

Conclusions The UK is still analysing the results of its lateral acceleration tests and will be able to share these at the 5th AEBS meeting in London. Initial thoughts on the day were that the value of 10m/s2 proposed by industry represented a very severe manoeuvre. It was challenging to achieve this value even with an expert driver operating on a closed test track area in ideal (dry) conditions. Therefore, the UK does not believe that an average driver would achieve such a high lateral acceleration figure when manoeuvring. The UK will recommend an alternative and more appropriate figure at the 5th AEBS meeting following completion of its analysis. The UK recommends that the group consider AEBS operation in adverse weather by applying the maximum deceleration value of 3.7m/s2 agreed within the ACSF IWG whilst also being cognisant of the need to share traction between longitudinal and lateral forces. UK Position Paper December 18