170425 Testers day FINAL short - Test Site Sweden · DENSO will join IDIADA Junction Assist project...

This information is the exclusive property of DENSO CORPORATION. Without their consent, it may not be reproduced or given to third parties.DENSO INTERNATIONAL EUROPE

Testers' Day:- Experiences and challenges in Active Safety Testing

Jan-Olov Axelsson

Info & Safety System Engineering April 25th, 2017


Experience and challenges in Active Safety Testing

� The 2018 Euro NCAP protocols are not in force yet

� Due to this, extensive test experiences does not exist

� Many conclusions are drawn based on “paper work” and needs to be re-

assessed at later stage based on actual testing

Before we start…


Agenda

1. Introduction DENSO:� Corporate profile

� Global network

� Automotive fields

� Current NCAP related activities

2. Development process:� Protocols

� Test target

3. Technical challenges 2018 rating:� Test Equipment

� Protocol:� AEB City

� AEB Pedestrian

� AEB Cyclist

� SAS

� LSS

� AEB Interurban

� Number of tests and cost test equipment

4. Conclusion


DENSO will join IDIADA Junction Assist project and considers joining UTAC Powered Two Wheeler project

ADAC, Autoliv, Bosch, Continental, DENSO,

Thatcham, ZF-TRW, Towards zero foundation

Member

Autoliv, BOSCH, Conti, DENSO

Member AD*

* Advisory Board

1. Introduction DENSO – Current NCAP related activities


- Global knowledge of requirement base

- Accidentology research

- Expert of sensor technology

Euro NCAP meetings

CATS Project

CLEPA

ACEA/CLEPA

- BoD meeting [Quarterly]: 151023, 160217, 160616

- ILM Meeting [2/year]: 160226, 161124

- VRU WG: 150603, 150903, 151203, 160316, 160602, 161012, 161201, …

- D1.2 CATS car to cyclist accident scenarios: 150902

- CATS test matrix: 160113

- TF NCAP preparation meeting: 150401, 151021, 160224, 160627, …

- VRU WG: 150409, 150429, 150625, 151009, 151106, 160128, 160225, …

- TF NCAP meetings: 150701, 151022, 160225, 160628, 161115

Activity schedule*

Supplier input

- Set development target based

on industry consultation and

accident/insurance/automated

drive future requirement [2020

roadmap and rating document]

- Negotiate test and assessment

protocol content based on

members position

- Ensure development of test

equipment in order to meet

protocol need

� DENSO activity to support Euro NCAP with AEB VRU protocol development

- Call for meeting, maintain issues

- Collect supplier input

- Understand Euro NCAP target

- Lead discussion to reach aligned

position

DENSO:

CLEPA activityDENSO: AEB VRU Chairman

ACEA/CLEPA activity

Euro NCAP activity

- Share understanding of issues

- Align position (if possible)

Feedback R&D and products development

� Remaining activity: Development of test target in time to support protocol

* DENSO joined PROSPECT as member of Advisory Board by March 2016

DENSO: AEB VRU Member

Cyclist AEB Test System

Protocol development process ensures information sharing between Euro NCAP and industry

Protocol development process ensures information sharing between Euro NCAP and industry

2. Development process – Protocols


� Euro NCAP activity: Development of test targets in time to support protocol

� Nesessity of targets: To support assessment of ADAS functions

DENSO activity to support Euro NCAP with development of targets:

Supplier inputDENSO:

Euro NCAP activity

- Expert of sensor technology

- Expert of sensor testing

- Test vehicles/test engineers

- Engineering manpower

- Ensure development of test

equipment in order to meet

protocol need

CLEPA activityDENSO: Member of Articulated dummy WG

Consortium activityDENSO: Member of CATS project

DRI Fiesta target & ABD platform

Articulated dummy

Cyclist dummy

3D target

- Measurement WS from 140624 to 150813 [5]

- Spec review [v0.2.2, v0.3.3, v0.5.0, v0.6.0, v1.0.0]

- Finalization WS Sindelfingen 150813

- Development inside CATS project 140501 till today

- Measurement WS from 141010 to 160530 [5]

- Thatcham 150728, 160427, - Target: Smart & Fiesta (DRI), Mercedes (DSD)- Platform : ABD , ABD Chamfer & DSD

- US ~150808, 160713, 160809-12- Target: Smart for two & Fiesta (DRI)- Platform: LPRV

- AstaZero, 161108-11- Target: Fiesta (DRI)- Platform : ABD w. chamfer

- 4a Fohnsdorf/Idiada: 151130, 160524, 160920

Activity schedule

4a Platform

4a Target

Cyclist V5

Feedback for products development

Target development process ensures information sharing between Euro NCAP and industry

Target development process ensures information sharing between Euro NCAP and industry

2. Development process – Test targets


A B DA B

C

E

F

G H I

A. EPTa Euro NCAP Pedestrian Target, adult from 4a, http://www.4activesystems.at/en/

B. EPTc Euro NCAP Child Target, child, http://www.4activesystems.at/en/

C. ”Car” Euro NCAP target, http://www.messring.de/test-facilities-and-components/aeb-test-systems/euro-ncap-vehicle-target/

D. EBT Euro NCAP Bicyclist Target, http://www.4activesystems.at/en/

E. 4a 3D target, http://www.4activesystems.at/en/

F. DRI 3D target, http://www.dynres.com/

G. 4a platform, , http://www.4activesystems.at/en/

H. DSD UFO (UltraFlat Overrunable) platform, http://www.dsd.at/

I. ABD 3D platform, http://www.abd.uk.com/

3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – Test equipment (1/2)

2016 Euro NCAP

Need of advanced test equipment and thus complexity significantly increased in 2018 protocol

Need of advanced test equipment and thus complexity significantly increased in 2018 protocol

2018 Euro NCAP


Real Vehicle Issues:A) Wrinkles due to assembly of targetB) The alignment of sheets (~4 mm)

Comment: Rreflectivity of 3D target AND PLATFORM has to be similar to real world vehicle with respect to:a) Radar Cross Section [dB]b) The internal reflectionc) Range dependency of power (fading phenomena due to multi-pass radar reflection)

3D Target

Real Vehicle 3D Target

Camera characteristics:

Radar characteristics:

3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – Test equipment (2/2)

A

Each test engineer need strong sensor understanding to predict issues in test setup. Procedure needed to re-qualify all targets after use. Version control needed.

Each test engineer need strong sensor understanding to predict issues in test setup. Procedure needed to re-qualify all targets after use. Version control needed.

Real Vehicle 3D Target


80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30.4

26.6

22.8

19

15.2

Rating

Max score (1)

Normalized score (2)

Weighting (3)

Weighting score (4)

Minimum normalized (2) / actual score by box for the respective star rating

Head Impact

Leg Impact

Upper Leg Impact

24

6

6

Seat Belt Reminder

SAS

3

3

38 49 48 13

40% 20% 20% 20%

(2)x(3) (2)x(3) (2)x(3) (2)x(3)

Actual score / (1) Actual score / (1) Actual score / (1) Actual score / (1)

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

39.2

34.3

29.4

24.5

19.6

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

28.8

24

19.2

14.4

9.6

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

9.1

7.8

6.5

5.2

3.9

Overall Score (5)

Min overall Score (5)

74%

64%

54%

44%

34%

Adult Occupant

Protection (AOP)

Child Occupant

Protection (COP)

Pedestrian

Protection (PP)

Safety Assist

(SA)

AEB Interurban

4

3AEB VRU-Pedestrian 6

Offset Frontal Impact

Side Impact (MDB)

Offset Frontal (Pole)

8

8

8

Full-width Frontal Impact 8

Dyn. Tests Frontal

Dyn. Tests Side

Installation of CRS

Vehicle

16

8

12

13

AEB VRU-Cyclist 6Whiplash Front 1.5

Whiplash Rear

AEB City

0.5

4

Dual Rating Policy:

For each publication year,

a dual rating may be

requested for vehicles that

offer at least one of the

listed technologies as part

of an optional safety pack,

available on all Variants

(See Tab.1 below).

-25% fitment first 3 years

sales

-55% fitment second 3

years sales

LSS22p

need

ed

for

AE

B V

RU

1

2

3

5

Not focus of presentation. Order of presentation

4

3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – Summary sheet 2018-2019

6


Scenario:� AEB function is assessed using a stationary Global

Vehicle Target in a speed range of 10 to 50 |5| [km/h]

combined with an overlap range of -50 to 50 |25| [%]

Prerequisites scoring:� The AEB system needs to be default ON at the start of

every journey and de-activation of the AEB system

should not be possible with a single push on a button

� Full avoidance needs to be achieved for test speeds up

to and including 20 km/h for all overlap situations, which

is verified by one randomly selected test point

Scoring:� The total score for all five grid points per test speed is

calculated as a percentage of the maximum achievable

score per test speed multiplied by the points available

for test speed given that 100% overlap score is double

counted

Challenges from test point of view:

AOP 2018 - , 4p

Fig 1, Car-to-Car Rear stationary

(CCRs) scenario overview

Green 1.000 pointYellow 0.750 pointsOrange 0.500 pointsBrown 0.250 pointsRed 0.000 points

Fig 2, Global Vehicle Target (GVT)

Fig 3, Scoring interval as function of test speed, No of

points and multiplication factor

3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – City AEB

#No Area Challenges from test point of view Possible Impact

1 Test-cases Expanded from 9 to 45 Increased test time

2

Target

New test equipment, GVT Education/Training

3 Rebuild after crash Increased test time

4 Requalification towards specification Procedure (Inc. version control)

5 Edge condition

� GVT: Stationary

� Host speed: 50 [km/h]

� Overlap 50 [%]

N/A


PP 2018 - 2021, 6p

Scenarios:� Assess the following 4 scenario groups; CPFA-50, CPNA-25/75, CPNC-50 and CPLA-25/50

Prerequisites scoring:� The AEB system must be default ON at the start of every journey

� The system needs to operate (warn or brake) from speeds of 10 [km/h] in the CPNA-75

scenario. In addition, the system must be able to detect pedestrians walking as slow as 3

[km/h] and reduce speed in the CPNA-75 scenario at 20 [km/h]

� The system may also not automatically switch off at a speed below 80 [km/h]

3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – VRU Pedestrian

CPFA-50

CP

NC

-50

CP

NA

-25

CP

NA

-75

CP

LA

-50

CP

LA

-25

Scoring:� FCW needs to be given at TTC 1.7 [s] or earlier in order to be allegeable for

scoring

� A maximum of 6 points is available for AEB Pedestrian, 3 points for daytime (all scenarios) and 3 points for night conditions (CPNA-25,

CPNA-75, CPLA-25 and CPLA-50)

Challenges from test point of view:#No Area Challenges from test point of view Possible Impact

1 Test-cases Expanded from 36 to 76 Increased test time

2

Target

New test equipment (night, long) Education/Training

3Requalification towards

specificationProcedure (Inc. version control)

4Edge

condition

� Scenario: CPLA-25%

� Function: FCW


� TTC: 1.7 [s]

⇒Lateral control EPTa

⇒Tolerance vehicle heading

1. Dificult to contrll 25% hitpoint

2. If EPTa is leaving vehicle coridor, then

correct measure can be no FCW

eventhough test itself expect FCW


PP 2018 - 2021, 6p

Scenario:� The performance of the system is assessed in different scenarios called CBNA and

CBLA (Fig 8-9)

Prerequisites scoring:� The AEB system must be default ON at the start of every journey

� The system may also not automatically switch off at a speed below 80 [km/h]

Scoring:� All tests will be performed with 5 [km/h] incremental steps within the speed ranges

as summarized in the tables below:

� FCW needs to be given at TTC 1.7 [s] or earlier in order to be allegeable for scoring

� A maximum of 6 points is available for AEB Cyclist


Fig 8, CBNA scenario

Fig 9, CBLA scenario

3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – VRU Cyclist


1 Test-cases Number of new tests, 26 Increased test time

2

Target

New test equipment, EBT Education/Training



5Edge

condition

� Scenario: CBLA-25%

� Function: FCW


� TTC: 1.7 [s]

⇒Lateral control EBT, esp windy

condition


1. Dificult to control 25% hitpoint

2. If EBT is leaving vehicle coridor, then




3p

Scenario updates:� The speed limit shall be used using traffic sign in the direct field of view of driver

(basic SLIF)

� Prerequisite: Default on

� Advanced SLIF rewarded if 12/20 points reached, score calculated as points x

0.025 (max 0,5p)

� System accuracy rewarded:

� Map based systems: Frequent map updates

� Camera based systems: Automatically if Advanced SLIF points rewarded


3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – SAS


1 No challenges from rating testing point of view


SA LSS 2018 - 2019, 4p

Scenario:� In LSS, Emergence Lane Keep (ELK), Lane Keep Assist

(LKA) is assessed (Fig 11, assessed scenarios)� Lane Departure Warning and Blind Spot Monitoring (BSM) is

not assessed, but awarded if fitted

Prerequisites scoring:� The vehicle must be equipped with an ESC system that

complies with UNECE Regulation 13H

Scoring:� Any LDW system that issues an audible and/or haptic

warning before a DTLC of -0.2m is awarded 0.25 points� The vehicle is additionally equipped with a Blind Spot

Monitoring system to warn the driver of other vehicles present in the blind spot is awarded 0.25 points


Fig 11, Assessed scenarios with region of interest highlighted in red

3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – LSS


1 Test-cases Number of new tests pending system capability Increased test time

2

Target

New test equipment:- GVT (Oncoming, Overtaking)- Setup & Calibration of steering robot

Education/Training

Requalification towards specification Procedure (Inc. version control)3

4 Real road edge of gras or gravel Different performance for different road edges

5

Edge

condition

Emergency Lane leep:


� Max lateral velocity = 0.6 [m/s]

Assessment criteria: DTLE = -0.1 [m]

Assessment will use real road edge of gras or

gravel. Different performace for different road

edges possible

Oncoming:

� Host speed = 72 [km/h]

� GVT speed = 72 [km/h]

� Max lateral velocity = 0.6 [m/s]

Assessment criteria: No impact

Relative speed GVT/VUT = 144 [km/h]

Wear and tear test equipment (and possible VUT)6


Scenario:� Three different scenarios assessed; CCRs, CCRm and CCRb:

� Three areas of assessment rewarded:� The Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) function; gives 1.5 points out of 3.0

� Forward Collision Warning (FCW) function; gives 1.0 points out of 3.0

� Human Machine Interface (HMI); gives 0.5 points out of 3.0

� The AEB function is assessed in two different types of scenarios, while the FCW function is scored separately and assessed

in three different types of scenarios.

� TTC FCW = 1.2 [s] + time for brake system to reach complete stop

Prerequisites scoring:� The AEB and/or FCW system must operate up to speeds of at least 80 [km/h] and needs to be default ON at the start of

every journey

� The audible component of the FCW system (if applicable) needs to be loud & clear


CCRm

SA AEB Interurban 2018 - 2019, 3p3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – AEB Interurban

CCRs CCRb


1 Test-cases Number of new tests (x5) Increased test time

2

Target

New test equipment, GVT Education/Training



5Edge

condition

� Scenario: CCRm-25%

� Function: FCW


� TTC: 1.7 [s]

⇒Lateral control GVT


1. Dificult to control 25% hitpoint

2. If GVT is leaving vehicle coridor, then




3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – Number of tests and cost test equpment

Number of tests are increasing, complexity of scenarios are increasing which in turn drives time spent at track as well as cost of test equipment

Number of tests are increasing, complexity of scenarios are increasing which in turn drives time spent at track as well as cost of test equipment

Number of test: Cost test equpment:


4. Conclusion

Development process:� Development of new NCAP protocols and targets ensures information sharing

between Euro NCAP and industry. This works well today, and should be maintained

Technical challenges 2018 rating:� Need of additional, advanced test equipment to perform 2018 protocol

⇒ Please do not forget education/training of manning

� Each test engineer need strong sensor understanding to predict issues in test setup

� Procedure to re-qualify targets towards specification after wear and tear needed

⇒ Will reduce scrapping of test results as well as quality of testing significantly

� Number of tests are increasing, complexity of scenarios are increasing which in turn

drives the cost of test equipment

⇒ Please consider above as future budgets are made

� Please harmonize with other regions, when possible


End

Date post:	24-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

170425 Testers day FINAL short - Test Site Sweden · DENSO will join IDIADA Junction Assist project...

Documents