Emergency Steering Function

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

The necessity of New Regulations for New Technologies regarding R79 Japan September / 2012 Informal document GRRF (73rd GRRF, September 2012,
Managing Risk with the IPDE Process
ACSF Informal Group Industry proposals 1 st Meeting of ACSF informal group April 29 and 30, 2015 in Bonn 1 Informal Document ACSF
1 Different use cases for ACSF Prepared from the experts of OICA and CLEPA Informal Document ACSF
3rd ACSF meeting Munich, September 2-3 Industry proposals for ACSF status definition and HMI Informal Document: ACSF Submitted by the experts from.
1 Consideration of Issues Japan Presentation Informal document No. GRRF-S08-13 Special GRRF brainstorming session 9 December 2008 Agenda item 5.
Welcome to  Bicycling In Kids Education  Kids II Class  Second “Inside Class” Session.
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
Traffic Accidents caused by Lane Departure in Japan  Data of Traffic Accidents around Japan Transmitted by the expert from Japan Informal document GRRF
Vehicle Safety - (R)Evolution of Driving Assist Systems Jochen Schäfer Heiner Hunold Submitted by the experts from Informal document GRRF th GRRF,
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)
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Minimum Risk Manoeuvres (MRM)
Brief Review up to Now 1 March 11, 2011, Geneva UNECE/WP29/ITS Informal Group 19th Meeting T. Onoda & K. Hiramatsu, Japan Transmitted by expert from JAPANInformal.
The SIPDE and Smith System “Defensive Driving Techniques”
1 ISO TC204/WG14 FVCMS Operation Performance, and Verification Requirements 9, December 2008 WG14 Expert Member of Japan Informal document No. GRRF-S08-08.
CLEPA Position Special GRRF Session on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems Brainstorming Meeting 9 Dec UN Palais des.
V9 Vehicle Manoeuvering. Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) FORS is important to our company because.
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles Excerpts from the relevant sections of the ToR: II. Working items to be covered (details.
Sample Workbook for Crash Avoidance Technologies Focus Groups.
1 6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016 Requirements for “Sensor view” & Environment monitoring version 1.0 Transmitted by the Experts of OICA and CLEPA.
Sample Workbook for Crash Avoidance Technologies Focus Groups.
Informal Document: ACSF-06-16
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
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
The Safety Technologies to Consider While Buying a New Car.
AEBS/LDW Proposed changes with regard to the implementation of technical specifications for Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) GRRF st.
Informal document GRRF-86-36
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
TUGS Jason Higuchi && Julia Yefimenko && Raudel mayorga
Industry Homework from AEB 02
ACSF-19, September 03-05, 2018, Paris
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
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Quintessences Proposal for Category C of Germany and Japan
Traffic Safety.
ACSF B1+C functional description
Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Definition of aysmax Interpretation 1
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
Maximum allowable Override Force
ACSF B1+C functional description
Interpretation of CSF warnings #2
Status of discussion about “Reversing Motion” in VRU-Proxi
ACSF-17 – Industry Preparation
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
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
Presentation transcript:

Emergency Steering Function Informal document GRRF-85-08 85th GRRF, 11 December 2017 Agenda item 2 Submitted by the experts of OICA and CLEPA Emergency Steering Function Content ESF definition Description of use cases Main requirements Tests description

ESF Definition 2.3.4.3. "Emergency Steering Function (ESF)" means a control function which can automatically detect a potential collision and automatically activate the vehicle steering system for a limited duration, to steer the vehicle with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a collision, with: (a) another vehicle driving* in an adjacent lane, (i) drifting towards the path of the subject vehicle and/or, (ii) into which path the subject vehicle is drifting and/or, (iii) into which lane the driver initiates a lane change manoeuver. an obstacle obstructing the path of the subject vehicle or when the obstruction of the subject vehicle’s path is deemed imminent. ESF shall cover one or more use cases from the list above. * the vehicle may be driving in the same or the opposite direction as the subject vehicle.

Function is expected to intervene around this point Use Cases i.a Function is expected to intervene around this point i.b i.c ii.

Use Case i.a “Another vehicle drifts towards the subject vehicle” No lane crossing caused by ESF. If no marking: Don’t leave the road. Lateral movement not more than 75cm. No intervention Intervention

No lane crossing caused by ESF. Use Case i.b “The subject vehicle drifts towards the adjacent lane” No risk of collision  No intervention No lane crossing caused by ESF. However, ESF may cross a marking to steer the vehicle back into its original lane of travel (in case a risk of a collision is detected and the original crossing was done by the driver). No intervention Intervention

No lane crossing caused by ESF. Use Case i.c “The driver of the subject vehicle performs a lane change” No risk of collision  No intervention No lane crossing caused by ESF. However, ESF may cross a marking to steer the vehicle back into its original lane of travel (in case a risk of a collision is detected and the original crossing was done by the driver). No intervention Intervention

No lane crossing caused by ESF. Use Case ii. “An obstacle obstructs the path” “Obstruction of the path is imminent” No lane crossing caused by ESF. No intervention Intervention

Main requirements ESF is subject to Annex 6 (CEL) ESF shall have means to monitor driving environment ESF can only intervene if there is a risk of a collision detected ESF cannot lead the vehicle: To leave the road To cross a marking To have a lateral movement of more than 75cm in case there is no lane making to collide with another road user ESF may cross a marking to steer the vehicle back into its original lane of travel (in case a risk of a collision is detected and the original crossing was done by the driver). ESF intervention must be indicated to driver with a optical and an acoustic or haptic signal System failure shall be indicated to the driver Overriding force not more than 50N

Tests /1 Generals: 3.3.1 Test of ESF type ia and ib with lane markings Activated ESF Vehicle speed within operating range The manufacturer shall demonstrate ESF works in the whole range of operation 3.3.1 Test of ESF type ia and ib with lane markings A target vehicle minimize lateral distance until ESF intervenes The test is passed if ESF intervention is indicated and the vehicle does not leave its lane 3.3.2 Test of ESF type ic with lane markings The tested vehicle drifts towards another vehicle to cause a collision The test is passed if ESF intervention starts and is indicated to driver, and the vehicle does not leave its lane

Tests /2 3.3.3 Test of ESF type ii with lane markings The tested vehicle approaches an obstacle in the lane The test is passed if ESF intervention avoids or mitigate the collision and is indicated to driver, and the vehicle does not leave the lane 3.3.4 tests of systems able to operate without lane markings Repeat tests 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 on a track without lane markings The test is passed if: ESF intervention starts and is indicated to driver The lateral movement (offset) is not more than 75cm The vehicle has not left the road Fale reaction test for ESF type ii Place a plastic sheet on the lane (colour contrast to road surface…) The test is passed if no ESF intervention starts