Regulation ECE R79-03 ACSF C 2-Step HMI

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)
GRSP / IWG-CRS Status report for the fifty-seventh session (18-22 May 2015) of GRSP 17/05/2015the fifty-seventh session (18-22 May 2015) of GRSP1 Submitted.
ACSF Informal Group Industry proposals 1 st Meeting of ACSF informal group April 29 and 30, 2015 in Bonn 1 Informal Document ACSF
AFS Main Beam (Driving Beam) Improvements Presentation to WP th Session November 2008 Informal document No. WP th WP.29, November.
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.
Difference for "Automatically commanded steering function", "Corrective steering function" and " Autonomous Steering System " Informal Document: ACSF
Traffic Accidents caused by Lane Departure in Japan  Data of Traffic Accidents around Japan Transmitted by the expert from Japan Informal document GRRF
Draft progress report of GRSG informal group on Accident Emergency Call System (AECS) Transmitted by chair of IWG AECS Informal document GRSG-106-ХХ 106.
5 th ACSF meeting French views Bonn January 2016 Informal Document - ACSF Submitted by the expert of France.
Emergency Stopping Signal 80th GRRF session Submitted by the experts from IMMA Informal document GRRF th GRRF, September 2015, Agenda item.
Autonomous Vehicle Submitted by ISO TC 22Document No. ITS/AD (8th ITS/AD, 9 March 2016, agenda item 4)
Informal document GRRF-84-32
Presentation of ACSF C tests
Informal Working Group on ACSF
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
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.
Status Report to GRB #68 Task Force on Reverse Warning issues
Industry views on GRVA priorities and organization
Report and explanation document of SBR-TF
Industry views on GRVA priorities and organization
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
ACSF-19, September 03-05, 2018, Paris
PN Levels in UN Regulation N°83.07
SUMMARY OF INITIAL AIMING AND LEVELLING TOLERANCE ISSUE
Submitted by the expert from Republic of Korea
Submitted by the expert from OICA
Submitted by the Expert of Sweden
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA)
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
ACSF C tests Prepared by JAPAN 15 November, 2017
Chair: Jin Seop Park, Republic of Korea Secretary: Thomas Kinsky, OICA
Comments on IWG R55 proposal to GRRF
Signalling of information and warnings
Quintessences Proposal for Category C of Germany and Japan
ACSF B1+C functional description
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
New Assessment & Test Methods
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
WP.29 and GRVA activities on Automated Vehicles
Discussion on the priorities
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Submitted by the expert from OICA
Definition of aysmax Interpretation 1
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2018/19e
Informal document GRPE-79-11
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
Highlights of the 177th WP.29 session and
Maximum allowable Override Force
ACSF B1+C functional description
Emergency Steering Function
Informal document GRRF-78-41
Interpretation of CSF warnings #2
Request of clarification on
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
ACSF B2 and C2 Industry expectations from ACSF IG Tokyo meeting
OICA Comments to GRE/2017/17 and GRE/2017/22
Hands-off detection versus Start of Lane Change Manoeuvre
Alternative Approach to UN R13 Type-IIA for Battery Electric Vehicles
6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016
UN R13 and Electro Mechanical Brakes
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Presentation transcript:

Regulation ECE R79-03 ACSF C 2-Step HMI Submitted by the experts from OICA Informal document GRVA-04-03 4th GRVA, 24-27 September 2019 Provisional agenda item 6(a) Regulation ECE R79-03 ACSF C 2-Step HMI Justification for the timing between First action and Lane Change Manoeuvre at 7 seconds

Context OICA presented amendment GRVA-02-24 in 2nd session of GRVA in January 2019, introducing an alternative to ACSF C with a 2-step HMI. This alternative will keep the same performance requirements as ACSF C 1-step HMI. Conclusion of GRVA-02: OICA shall present a formal document for GRVA session of September 2019 This document shall be based on GRVA-02-24 and include a requirement stating that a vehicle shall not be equipped ACSF C 1-step HMI and ACSF C 2-step HMI. OICA shall also justify the need for 7 seconds between the start of the lane change procedure until the start of the lane change manoeuvre.

Context March. 2019 / Karim YAHIA

Amendment proposal Paragraph 5.6.4.6.4., amend to read: "5.6.4.6.4. The lateral movement of the vehicle towards the intended lane shall not start earlier than 1 second after the start of the lane change procedure. Additionally, the lateral movement to approach the lane marking and the lateral movement necessary to complete the lane change manoeuvre shall be completed as one continuous movement. The lane change manoeuvre shall not be initiated before a period of 3.0 seconds and not later than 5.0 seconds after the deliberate action of the driver described in paragraph 5.6.4.6.2. above. The lane change manoeuvre shall be initiated either automatically or by a second deliberate action of the driver. A vehicle shall not be equipped with both these means of initiation.” 4

Justification for the 7 seconds

First Study – Time between 1st and 2nd action Measurement conditions : Lane Change Assist Prototype (2-step HMI) Number of users driving on highway: 11 Number of recordedassisted lane changes : 91 For each activation of the Lane Change Assist, we have measured the time between the 1st and the 2nd action of the driver Time between the first and the second deliberate action * 3 seconds is the maximum timing between the second deliberate action and the lane change manoeuvre March. 2019 / Karim YAHIA

Results with 5 seconds, ~25% of the LC abort !! 7 seconds are needed !! +3s Time between the First and the second deliberate action + 3 seconds* Time between the first and the second deliberate action * 3 seconds is the maximum timing between the second deliberate action and the lane change manoeuvre March. 2019 / Karim YAHIA

Conclusion The measures and tests we have performed for the ACSF C 2-step HMI show that : There will be a significant percentage (up to 23%) of lane change manoeuver aborted if the time between the 1st action and the line crossing is limited to 5 seconds A system designed to allow the lane change manoeuvre up to 7 seconds after the 1st action : results in a good controllability results in a good availability of the function OICA then propose limiting the timing between the first deliberate action and the Lane Change Manoeuvre to 7 Seconds March. 2019 / Karim YAHIA

Thank you for your attention March. 2019 / Karim YAHIA