Testing of automated driving systems

Transcription

1 TÜV SÜD AG Slide 1 Testing of automated driving systems Ondřej Vaculín TÜV SÜD Czech

2 Outline TÜV SÜD AG 2016/09/21 IPG Apply and Innovate Slide 2 UN ECE Tests for ADAS Testing procedures for automated driving Generic approach Control center Proving ground tests Conclusion

3 LDWS General Specifications & Driving Test TÜV SÜD AG Slide 3 EC Regulations: Commission Reg. (EU) 351/2012 (April 2012) Vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 (acc. to 661/2009) [NEW : 11/13 ALL 11/15] UN-ECE Regulation: No Vehicles categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 / Valid since 9 th July 2013 Compliance with ECE 10 System must be active from 60 km/h Definition of visible lane marking in some EU countries (in appendix) Test performed only with one type of lane marking Simple driving test (verification) Failure and deactivation checking System only warns the driver (optic, accoustic, haptic: 2 kinds of signal or 1 kind of signal with special indication): No active intervention into brakes/steering Tested vehicle Driving speed 65 ± 3 km/h Side drift by a speed of 0,1 0,8 m/s into one and then other direction LDWS signal shall be activated latest when the front wheel is 0,3 m behind the lane marking (limit value)

4 AEBS General Specifications & Driving Test EC Regulation: Commission Reg. (EU) 347/2012 (April 2012) (amended by Commission Reg. (EU) 2015/562 April 2015) Vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 UN-ECE: Regulation Vehicle categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 3 types of driving tests 1) Target vehicle stationary; function: reduce severity of accident or expecting driver's intervention (lane change) Active Intervention 2) Target vehicle moving; function: avoid an accident Active Intervention 3) False Reaction Test: AEBS shall not be activated Vehicle must be equipped with ABS System must comply with ECE 10 System must fulfill the functional safety requirements as per Annex III (347/2012) or Annex 4 (ECE 131) Failure and deactivation checking System must be active from 15 km/h Warning / Braking phase may be interruptible by the driver 2 levels of warning: 1 st haptic / 2 nd acoustic (stage 2 also optical) Braking should not start before time to collision TTC > 3s Subject vehicle equipped with AEBS driving speed 80 ± 2 km/h Subject vehicle equipped by AEBS Driving speed 50 ± 2 km/h Target vehicle M1 (AA) or a soft target stationary driving speed 32 km/h driving speed 12 km/h (level 2 or ECE for M3, N3 and N2>8t) driving speed 67 km/h (level 2 or ECE for M2 and N2 8t) Target vehicles M1 (AA) or soft targets stationary, in distance of 4,5 m TÜV SÜD AG Slide 4

5 PEGASUS - Requirements and validation of HAD systems TÜV SÜD AG Slide 6 Pegasus core issues: What criteria have systems for highly automated driving to fulfil? What is necessary in order to assure, that systems fulfil those criteria, actually? Pegasus main features: 17 partners from R&D, 12 subcontractors, 42 month,150 man years Pegasus main focus: Autobahn Chauffeur - Highly automated driving (L4 gen.2)

6 PEGASUS - Requirements and validation of HAD systems TÜV SÜD AG Automobiles Fachgespräch Slide Folie 7 Focus: Autobahn Chauffeur - Highly automated driving (L4 gen.2) SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP 4 SCENARIO ANALYSIS & QUALITY MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES TESTING OUTPUT REFLECTION & EMBEDDING Application scenario Quality measures Extended application scenario Extended quality measures Process analysis Process methodology Process specification Test specification database Lab and simulation tests Proving ground tests Field tests Proof of concept Embedding in development processes Lead: Volkswagen Lead: Opel Lead: Daimler, BMW, Lead: Continental TÜV SÜD

7 Characteristics of test levels Problem: Additionally to to standard homologation: ADAS equipped vehicle has to do a drivers licence test Virtual tests Proving ground tests Field tests Palisade Corporation TÜV SÜD AG Slide

8 Challenges of simulation for future type approval of ADAS TÜV SÜD AG Slide 10 Criteria Real testing Simulation Critical test scenarios possible? All necessary scenarios possible? Proving ground / Public road Test vehicle How realistic are the results? Cheating possible? Complexity of test environment Regulative framework EC / UN-ECE Future perspective Difficult but possible No problem Very limited No problem No problem Very realistic Audi Difficult but possible Difficult but possible In discussion No problem No problem Fully param. veh. needed How realistic are veh. par.? Difficult to control No problem Not before nd step Difficult but possible Not before 2020 Difficult but necessary Part of type appr. process Continental

9 The concrete scenario consists of various test entities: Test entity A Test object B Basic road C Guidance infrastructure Active/Passive D Temporary adjustments E Stationary F Mobile Stat/Dyn G Environment EGO Road geometry Traffic signs Pylons Guardrails Vehicles Darkness (Infrastructure) Road topology Sign gantries Road works Bridges Pedestrians Glare Traffic lights Warning beacons Tunnels Animals Rain/fog I2C Communication Wind

10 Plausibility criteria Generic approach Test procedure control Overall test procedure Test derivation Test case with measurement definition and tolerances Test case assignmen t Test procedure A Test procedure B Test procedure C Test procedure D Test procedure E Test procedure F Test procedure G Result DB Test entity A Test entity B Test entity C Test entity D Test entity E Test entity F Test entity G Test object Localizatio n Conditions Measured data storage Basic route Control Guidance infrastruct ure External metrology External measured data storage Temporary adjustments Stationary objects Trajectorycontroller (longitudinal and lateral) Mobile objects External localization External metrology External measured data storage Control Environme nt External metrology External measured data storage Data plausibility check Pass/Fail Criteria Pre-Processing Post-Processing Entity Test equipment Evaluation

11 Control Center Low latency wireless connection of Control Center, TSV(s) and VUT Implementation example of the generic procedure Complete measurement equipment to perform tests of HAD Control Center Mobile design for flexible application on various proving grounds Control and monitoring of the test procedure Bidirectional data communication with all test entities Powerful computer with control station software Wireless communication network Autonomous operation TSV - Traffic Simulation Vehicle Movable Object Precise localization with Real Time Kinematic (RTK) satellite navigation and inertial platform Communication unit Position-based trajectory control Direct control of internal vehicle actuators for steering and throttle Indirect control of deceleration by a braking robot VUT - Vehicle Under Test Subject Vehicle Localization with RTK satellite navigation and inertial platform Communication unit Control Center Communication pole VUT Localization TSV Localization Trajectory control Vehicle Interface

12 Proving Ground Tests Verification of the implementation with selected test cases in real conditions of a proving ground VUT TSV SCT Vehicle Under Test Traffic Simulation Vehicle Soft Crash Target Basic parameters: TSV dynamic movable entity SCT static movable entity 3 lanes Test case A Traffic jam tail end: SCTs in lanes 1 and 3 with v = 0 km/h represent the tail end of a traffic jam. TSV, followed by VUT with ~2 s distance, drives with ~80 km/h in lane 2. TSV decelerates ~123 m in front of SCTs with ~2 m/s² and stops beside the SCTs. Test case B Lane change: SCTs in lanes 1 and 3 with v = 0 km/h represent the tail end of a traffic jam. TSV, followed by VUT with ~2 s distance, drives with ~80 km/h in lane 2. TSV changes lane into lane 1 behind the SCTs and stops. VUT accelerates in lane A B Traffic jam tail end SCT 2 0 km/h 80 km/h ~-2 m/s 2 0 km/h VUT TSV TSV VUT Δt ~2 s ~123 m Lane change SCT 2 0 km/h Δt ~2 s 80 km/h TSV SCT 1 0 km/h SCT 1 0 km/h 0 km/h TSV

13 Proving Ground Tests Measured data A traffic jam - TSV: SCT 2 TSV SCT 1 Measured data B lane change TSV:

14 Summary TÜV SÜD AG Slide 16 System under development New or revised international regulations necessary Technology development is faster than the regulatory development Proof of effectiveness and safety through simulation methods also for the type approval process must be possible in the near future

15 TÜV SÜD AG 2016/09/21 E/E im PKW 2016 ELIV-Marketplace Slide 17 Thanks for your attention!