Search Results

Testing vision-based advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) in a Camera-in-the-Loop (CiL) bench setup, where external visual inputs are used to stimulate the system, provides an opportunity to experiment with a wide variety of test scenarios, different types of vehicle actors, vulnerable road users, and weather conditions that may be difficult to replicate in the real world. In addition, once the CiL bench is setup and operating, experiments can be performed in less time when compared to track testing alternatives. In order to better quantify normal operating zones, track testing results were used to identify behavior corridors via a statistical methodology. After determining normal operational variability via track testing of baseline stationary surrogate vehicle and pedestrian scenarios, these operating zones were applied to screen-based testing in a CiL test setup to determine particularly challenging scenarios which might benefit from replication in a track testing environment.

In order to validate the operation of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), tests must be performed that assess the performance of the system in response to different scenarios. Some of these systems are designed for crash-imminent situations, and safely testing them requires large stretches of controlled pavement, expensive surrogate targets, and a fully functional vehicle. As a possible more-manageable alternative to testing the full vehicle in these situations, this study sought to explore whether these systems could be isolated, and tests could be performed on a bench via a hardware-in-the-loop methodology. For camera systems, these benches are called Camera-in-the-Loop (CiL) systems and involve presenting visual stimuli to the device via an external input.

Automated driving systems (ADS) are one of the key modern technologies that are changing the way we perceive mobility and transportation. In addition to providing significant access to mobility, they can also be useful in decreasing the number of road accidents. For these benefits to be realized, candidate ADS need to be proven as safe, robust, and reliable; both by design and in the performance of navigating their operational design domain (ODD). This paper proposes a multi-pronged approach to evaluate the safety performance of a hypothetical candidate system. Safety performance is assessed through using a set of test cases/scenarios that provide substantial coverage of those potentially encountered in an ODD. This systematic process is used to create a library of scenarios, specific to a defined domain. Beginning with a system-specific ODD definition, a set of core competencies are identified.

This paper presents National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 2017 and 2018 test track research results with heavy vehicles equipped with forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems. Newly developed objective test procedures were used to perform and collect performance data with three single-unit trucks equipped with the crash avoidance systems. The results of this research show that the test procedures are applicable to many heavy vehicles and indicate that performance improvements in heavy vehicles equipped with these safety systems can be objectively measured.

The rapid innovation underway with vehicle brake safety systems leads to extensive evaluation and testing by system developers and regulatory agencies. The ability to evaluate complex heavy truck braking systems is potentially more rapid and economical through hardware-in-the-loop (HiL) simulation which employs the actual electronics and vehicle hardware. Though the initial HiL system development is time consuming and expensive, tests conducted on the completed system do not require track time, fuel, vehicle maintenance, or technician labor for driving or truck configuration changes. Truck and trailer configuration and loading as well as test scenarios can be rapidly adjusted within the vehicle dynamics simulation software to evaluate the performance of automated safety interventions (such as ESC) over a wide range of conditions.

In ISO Technical Report 9790 (1999) normalized lateral and oblique thoracic force-time responses of PMHS subjected to blunt pendulum impacts at 4.3 m/s were deemed sufficiently similar to be grouped together in a single biomechanical response corridor. Shaw et al., (2006) presented results of paired oblique and lateral thoracic pneumatic ram impact tests to opposite sides of seven PMHS at sub-injurious speed (2.5 m/s). Normalized responses showed that oblique impacts resulted in more deflection and less force, whereas lateral impacts resulted in less deflection and more force. This study presents results of oblique and lateral thoracic impacts to PMHS at higher speeds (4.5 and 5.5 m/s) to assess whether lateral relative to oblique responses are different as observed by Shaw et al., or similar as observed by ISO.

Lab-to-lab differences are an important consideration in the verification testing of Hybrid III dummy necks in user labs. The authors, the Anthropomorphic test device Certification Research group (ACR), conducted and presented two previous studies investigating lab to lab differences in Hybrid III 5th female dummy neck certification results [1, 2]. The results of both studies underscored the need to have better controls on the test procedure. The complex procedure for dummy neck certification has many setup factors that can contribute to test variation and unacceptable precision. Two steps within this protocol - two aspects of the neck's physical setup - were identified by the ACR group as potential sources for variation: 1) setting the pre-test D-plane angle by neck bracket adjustment, and 2) setting the torque on the neck cable. Fifth female neck flexion tests were conducted with variations in these factors to determine their effect on neck test results.

Lab-to-lab differences have become a very important consideration in the verification testing of Hybrid III 5th Female necks in user labs. It has been observed that a neck certified by one laboratory does not always pass the same certification test in a different lab. This has led the Anthropomorphic test device Certification Research group (ACR) to investigate the precision of the test procedure in relation to the test specification corridors. This study adapts an industry recognized ASTM procedure to measure the precision of the SAE neck calibration laboratory test procedure in Engineering Aid 25 [1]. The ASTM procedure is ASTM E 691-99 “Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method” [2]. This paper details how the ASTM procedure was adapted and presents the results of the ASTM E 691 statistical analysis procedures.

A test procedure that rates brake performance must control variability so that measured differences between vehicles are real. Tests were conducted using standard brake test procedures with three drivers in three cars on wet and dry asphalt with the ABS working and disabled. The differences between vehicles were greater than differences due to ABS condition, surface condition, and drivers. The procedure measured differences between all the vehicles with statistical certainty but used many replications and drivers. If only large differences in performance need to be distinguished, fewer replications and drivers will be needed.

The objective of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) Heavy Truck Brake Tire Test was to evaluate how different tires might effect a vehicle's performance when tested per the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE) J1626 “Braking, Stability, and Control Performance Test Procedures for Air-Brake-Equipped Truck Tractors.” During the summer of 1991, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association (MVMA), now known as the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association (AAMA), contracted Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) to perform a Heavy Truck Round Robin Brake Test to evaluate the practicality and repeatability of the ABS test procedure developed for the Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee of NHTSA (SAE Paper 922484). One of the conclusions derived from that test program was that tires seem to play a more significant role than expected in vehicle braking performance.