Maximum allowable Override Force

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

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
Presentation for Document ACSF-03-03_rev1 Oliver Kloeckner September rd meeting of the IG ASCF Munich, Airport Informal Document.
ECE Regulation No.79 Informal Document No. GRRF (61 st GRRF, 5-9 February 2007 agenda item 5.) Proposal for Amendments Presented by the Expert from.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Possible Example of Split of Regulation ~ Split of R79 and The New Regulation of Driving Assistance.
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
Remote Control Parking (RCP)
1 Effect of wheelbase and centre of gravity height variances on the control functions “Directional Control” and “Roll- over Control” within a vehicle stability.
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Minimum Risk Manoeuvres (MRM)
Results of the Study on ACSF Transition Time Informal Document: ACSF National Traffic Safety and Environment Laboratory, Japan 4th Meeting of ACSF.
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
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
Lane Change Test for ACSF
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
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Timing to be activated the hazard lights
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Informal document GRRF-86-36
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Industry Homework from AEB 02
ACSF Category B1 (LKAS) Concern with “Default-on” strategy
Submitted by the Expert of Sweden
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
AEBS 4th Meeting UK Position Paper December 18 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Informal document GRSG
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
ACSF C tests Prepared by JAPAN 15 November, 2017
GTR Corrections, Open Points, Expert Proposals and Confirmations in GTR 15 1/2/2019.
Quintessences Proposal for Category C of Germany and Japan
Safety Distance to the front
ACSF B1+C functional description
Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Industry input to ACSF 11th meeting March 2017, Berlin
Hands-off detection warning time for B1-systems
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Definition of aysmax Interpretation 1
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
Transmitted by the experts of IWG ASEP
ACSF B1+C functional description
Emergency Steering Function
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
ACSF B2 and C2 Industry expectations from ACSF IG Tokyo meeting
Software Updates Current situation
Hands-off detection versus Start of Lane Change Manoeuvre
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
AEBS-09 – Industry Input.
Presentation transcript:

Maximum allowable Override Force Submitted by the experts of OICA Informal Document: ACSF-15-09 Maximum allowable Override Force Industry input to ACSF IG 15th meeting 2017, October 22-24, Bonn v2

Content Question about the override Force Measurements Manual driving – Curve Manual driving - Lane change Comments to ROK Study (ACSF-13-06) Alternative to a fixed maximum allowable override force Conclusions

Question The following requirement is proposed to be carried over from series 02 to ACSF C1 and ESF amendments: A steering input by the driver shall override the steering action of the system. The steering control effort necessary to override the directional control provided by the system shall not exceed [30 or 50] N. Question for IWG: What is the appropriate value for the maximum allowable override force?

Measurement Manual driving - Curve Rural road Curve with radius ~160/110m Speed ~85km/h Measurement on vehicle A -4.3 Maximum value at Steering torque sensor = -4.3Nm Calculation of the steering forces based on steering wheel radius r = 0.15m Fmax = 28.6N

Measurement Manual driving - Lane change Rural road Straight Speed ~ 100km/h Measurement on Vehicle B Maximum value at Steering torque sensor = -3.2Nm Calculation of the steering forces based on steering wheel radius r = 0.15m Fmax = 21.3N

Comments to ROK Study (ACSF-13-06) ROK proposed that the maximum override force to not exceed 30N. This proposal is based on the steering wheel forces collected whilst driving at 10km/h around a 12m radius circle. The force values experienced where between 9N and 25N. Industry do not believe that this study is directly applicable for this debate as the test scenario does not represent the ACSF C use cases: At lower speeds the torque assistance through the EPS is at its highest. Unreal road condition (test track – flat and smooth surface) No dynamic effect (“quasi-static” steering wheel actuation)

Alternative to a fixed maximum allowable override force Industry was invited by GRRF chair to explore the possibility of defining the maximum override force as a percentage (e.g. 150%) of the actual force to be applied by the driver to turn the steering wheel. Industry does not see a good potential for this proposal: Several factors can influence the force: e.g. vehicle speed and load, a static or dynamic application of the steering force, the type of assistance. A varying override force during a manoeuver may be misleading for the driver. Complex control algorithm. Difficult to check at type approval. A fixed maximum value is more suitable.

Override Force - Conclusions A steering input by the driver shall override the steering action of the system. The steering control effort necessary to override the directional control provided by the system shall not exceed [30 or 50] N. Question for IWG: What is the appropriate value for the maximum allowable override force? Answer: 50N is appropriate. Rationale: Data shows in real driving conditions (Speeds applicable to ACSF C) steering forces are close to 30N. Manufacturers need to be allowed to use override forces higher than normal driving forces to prevent false detection of overriding. The requirement is a maximum override force - manufacturers may chose to go lower. The margin between normal driving conditions and maximum overriding force should be greater for emergency manoeuvres (ESF).