Search Results

This paper describes a system-level view of a fully automated transit system comprising a fleet of automated vehicles (AVs) in driverless operation, each with an SAE level 4 Automated Driving System, along with its related safety infrastructure and other system equipment. This AV system-level control is compared to the automatic train control system used in automated guideway transit technology, particularly that of communications-based train control (CBTC). Drawing from the safety principles, analysis methods, and risk assessments of CBTC systems, comparable functional subsystem definitions are proposed for AV fleets in driverless operation. With the prospect of multiple AV fleets operating within a single automated mobility district, the criticality of protecting roadway junctions requires an approach like that of automated fixed-guideway transit systems, in which a guideway switch zone “interlocking” at each junction location deconflicts railway traffic, affirming safe passage.

Partially automated driving involves the relinquishment of longitudinal and/or latitudinal control to the vehicle. Partially automated systems, however, are fallible and require driver oversight to avoid all road hazards. Researchers have expressed concern that automation promotes extended eyes-off-road (EOR) behavior that may lead to a loss of situational awareness (SA), degrading a driver’s ability to detect hazards and make necessary overrides. A potential countermeasure to visual inattention is the orientation of the driver’s glances towards potential hazards via cuing. This method is based on the assumption that drivers are able to rapidly identify hazards once their attention is drawn to the area of interest regardless of preceding EOR duration. This work examined this assumption in a simulated automated driving context by projecting hazardous and nonhazardous road scenes to a participant while sitting in a stationary vehicle.

This paper presents multiple methods for predicting heavy/medium-duty vehicle fuel consumption based on driving cycle information. A polynomial model, a black box artificial neural net model, a polynomial neural network model, and a multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) model were developed and verified using data collected from chassis testing performed on a parcel delivery diesel truck operating over the Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck (HHDDT), City Suburban Heavy Vehicle Cycle (CSHVC), New York Composite Cycle (NYCC), and hydraulic hybrid vehicle (HHV) drive cycles. Each model was trained using one of four drive cycles as a training cycle and the other three as testing cycles. By comparing the training and testing results, a representative training cycle was chosen and used to further tune each method.

In the United States, intercity long-haul trucks idle approximately 1,800 hrs per year primarily for sleeper cab hotel loads, consuming 838 million gallons of diesel fuel [1]. The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is working on solutions to this challenge through the CoolCab project. The objective of the CoolCab project is to work closely with industry to design efficient thermal management systems for long-haul trucks that keep the cab comfortable with minimized engine idling. Truck engine idling is primarily done to heat or cool the cab/sleeper, keep the fuel warm in cold weather, and keep the engine warm for cold temperature startup. Reducing the thermal load on the cab/sleeper will decrease air conditioning system requirements, improve efficiency, and help reduce fuel use. To help assess and improve idle reduction solutions, the CoolCalc software tool was developed.