Average Deceleration and Peak Deceleration

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Advanced Emergency Braking System / Lane Departure Warning System OICA POSITION 1 Informal document No. GRRF-S08-10 Special GRRF brainstorming session.
Advertisements

Warning Timing for AEBS AEBS/LDWS Proposal of Warning Timing 1) Warning has two functions; to induce the driver to take an avoiding maneuver.
Opening Activity Compare and contrast the following:
Future Assessment of VRU Safety Features
Speed and Stopping Distances
2014 KNCAP Updated Status Korea Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Submitted by the expert from Republic of Korea Informal document GRSP
Field evaluation of an advanced brake warning system David Shinar Human Factors 1995 Presented by: Derrick Smets.
Field Evaluation of an Advance Brake Warning System Presented by Adhit Dhar and Cortlon Snyder.
CoastdownVH&C Onboard Anemometry Ford Motor Company North America WLTP-11-14e.
Transportation Tuesday TRANSPORTATION TUESDAY DRIVE AT THE RIGHT SPEED FOR THE CONDITIONS HIGHWAY, TOWN, RESIDENTIAL THIS IS A LIMIT NOT A TARGET 120 KPH.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Information on mandatory fitting of advanced safety systems in Japan Engineering Policy Division.
PROPOSED WMTC CYCLE DEVELOPMENT
The Promotion of Active Safety Measures in Japan - collision damage mitigation brake - September 2007 Road Transport Bureau Road Transport Bureau MLIT.
General Safety Regulation ACEA discussion paper Renzo Cicilloni Director Safety Paris, June 2009 AEBS/LDWS
Driving a car down Anzac Parade on a rainy night Risk Assessment.
Do Now for 5/20/13 Take out E84 Report HW: Quiz on E81 through 84 tomorrow. E83#6 due tomorrow.
The future of road safety Michael Meyer Robert Bosch GmbH.
1 Consideration of Issues Japan Presentation Informal document No. GRRF-S08-13 Special GRRF brainstorming session 9 December 2008 Agenda item 5.
-1/17-. September. 2 5 th GRSG-AECD Informal Meeting Korea Transportation Safety Authority Korea Automobile Testing and Research Institute Chief Researcher.
Outline of Definition of Automated Driving Technology Document No. ITS/AD (5th ITS/AD, 24 June 2015, agenda item 3-2) Submitted by Japan.
Damage Mitigation Braking System
Eco-Friendly School of Motoring Fleet Driver Training.
Artificial Intelligence Solutions Within the Automotive Industry Francisco Illanes, Iain Letourneau Nathan Hupman& Max Jackman.
Drivers’ attitudes towards driver assistance systems presented by Juliane Haupt.
Traffic Accidents caused by Lane Departure in Japan  Data of Traffic Accidents around Japan Transmitted by the expert from Japan Informal document GRRF
Artificial Intelligence Solutions Within the Automotive Industry Francisco Illanes, Iain Letourneau Nathan Hupman& Max Jackman.
Korea Pedestrian Working Group The Korea Transport Institute Economic Appraisal for Technical Regulation on Pedestrian Protection (I): focused on head.
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Chapter 6 Momentum and Collisions. 6.1 Momentum and Impulse Linear Momentum After a bowling ball strikes the pins, its speed and direction change. So.
Safety Distances and Object Classifications for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
1 ISO TC204/WG14 FVCMS Operation Performance, and Verification Requirements 9, December 2008 WG14 Expert Member of Japan Informal document No. GRRF-S08-08.
AirBags topic (6-10) BY: Cesar Nestor Bianca Arcelia Walter.
1 6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016 Requirements for “Sensor view” & Environment monitoring version 1.0 Transmitted by the Experts of OICA and CLEPA.
Submitted by the expert from Japan the secretariat
‘Adaptive Cruise Control’
Tomotaro Kawata East Japan Railway Company
Comments and Questions on Proposal for new Class VIII close-proximity and close rear-view devices UN R46 Devices for indirect vision GRSG (Japan)
Dr. Patrick Seiniger, Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)
Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)
Timing to be activated the hazard lights
AUTOMOBILE PARTS.
China Automotive Technology and Research Center Co., Ltd
John Lenkeit, Terry Smith
Industry Homework from AEB 02
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
AEBS 4th Meeting UK Position Paper December 18 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
ETRTO proposal for UN R30 & 64 amendments Extended Mobility Tyres
AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input
A car is decelerated to 20 m/s in 6 seconds
Rear-end accidents with the front vehicle being stationary
Safety Distance to the front
Reaction time & Safety time gap
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY BRAKE SYSTEMS.
Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW
Overview of Test Procedures, etc
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
AEB 07 – Euro NCAP Summary Overview
WP.29 and GRVA activities on Automated Vehicles
AEB IWG 02-XX Industry Position
Chapter 6 Momentum and Collisions
AEB IWG 02 ISO Standard: FVCMS
IWG-DPPS/4/04 Proposal for System Information Requirement with regard to Deployable Pedestrian Protection Systems 4th meeting, March 2019 OICA, Paris.
AEB 07 – Industry Input.
Terms of Reference (AEBS Rev.1)
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
AEBS-08 – Industry Input.
AEB Pedestrian and Cyclist - minimum velocities Sensor opening angles
Criteria for deeming Driver availability
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
AEBS-09 – Industry Input.
Presentation transcript:

Average Deceleration and Peak Deceleration AEBS Car to Car(CCRm) Average Deceleration and Peak Deceleration AEBS IG 7th meeting Nov. 2018, Geneva Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute Automated Driving Research Office

Introduction KNCAP AEBS Test Protocol C2C(CCRm) Test result Implementation of KNCAP AEB C2C(CCRs - City) C2C(CCRm, CCRb - Interurban) C2P(Adult, Child) KNCAP AEB Plan GST/ C2B C2C(CCRm) Test result Average Deceleration 3.8m/s2 Data Peak Deceleration 6.4m/s2 Data Conclusion(Proposal) Deceleration requirement

KNCAP AEBS Test Protocol Implementation of KCNAP AEB Since 2017, AEBS testing was carried out as a test item for KNCAP Annually more than 9 test car(~2018, Total of 18 tested) Every year, KNCAP select this year’s safety car based on test results(www.kncap.org)

KNCAP AEBS Test Protocol AEBS Test mode Car to Car(city) Car to Car(Interurban) Car to Pedestrian(Adult, Child) CCRs CCRm, CCRb C2P - Adult C2P - Child

KNCAP AEBS Test Protocol KNCAP AEB Plan Car to Bicycle(Cyclist, 2020~) Automated Vehicle test protocol(AEBS+ESF) Car to ??(night and obscure lighting, R&D) BCNU BCNO BTLCN BTRCF BLD Vehicle Speed 10~60kph 20~40kph 20kph 10kph 20~60kph Cyclist Speed 15kph Obstruction X O Hit Point 50% 20, 50%

C2C(CCRm) Test Result Average Deceleration 3.8m/s2 Regarding the deceleration requirement mentioned in the last 6th meeting Vehicles that do not meet the average deceleration value of 3.8m/s2 only occurred below D Seg. only at low speed(30km/h) However, Not all the test vehicles collide ※ The above test results are calculated by averaging test vehicles.

C2C(CCRm) Test Result Average Deceleration 3.8m/s2 Vehicle with Vision sensor only had lower average deceleration than vehicles with other sensors And the average deceleration in the entire speed range However, Not all the test vehicles collide Although the average deceleration may be low depending on the brake capacity, it is expected to be independent of the AEBS requirements

C2C(CCRm) Test Result Reduction rate by test speed As the test speed increases, Subject Vehicle shall begin braking in advance and shall not collide with the Target Vehicle. However cars equipped with only vision experienced a deceleration of more than 70% in all speed zones 78.6% 74.1% 80.0% 77.8% Vision Sensor vehicle data 77.0% Average vehicle data

C2C Test Result Peak deceleration 6.43m/s2 All test vehicles met the peak deceleration value of 6.43m/s2 However, if 6.43m/s2 is not satisfied, a collision has occurred

Conclusion Average deceleration 3.80m/s2 Peak deceleration 6.43m/s2 When KNCAP test results are analyzed, the average deceleration occurred above 3.8m/s2 overall, but some vehicles were not satisfied at low speeds The requirement value of the average deceleration shall be specified (Because Test results that average deceleration value was low had collision with target car) Average deceleration 3.8m/s2(AEBS IWG) or 3.7m/s2(ACSF IWG – EM requirement) Peak deceleration 6.43m/s2 Peak deceleration can be satisfied if the service brake requirement of UN R13-H is met If the peak deceleration value is less than 6.43m/s2, it is dangerous to collide