Browse Topic: Level 3 (Conditional driving automation)
Safety Management Systems (SMSs) have been used in many safety-critical industries and are now being developed and deployed in the automated driving system (ADS)-equipped vehicle (AV) sector. Industries with decades of SMS deployment have established frameworks tailored to their specific context. Several frameworks for an AV industry SMS have been proposed or are currently under development. These frameworks borrow heavily from the aviation industry although the AV and aviation industries differ in many significant ways. In this context, there is a need to review the approach to develop an SMS that is tailored to the AV industry, building on generalized lessons learned from other safety-sensitive industries. A harmonized AV-industry SMS framework would establish a single set of SMS practices to address management of broad safety risks in an integrated manner and advance the establishment of a more mature regulatory framework. This paper outlines a proposed SMS framework for the AV
The rapid development of autonomous vehicles necessitates rigorous testing under diverse environmental conditions to ensure their reliability and safety. One of the most challenging scenarios for both human and machine vision is navigating through rain. This study introduces the Digitrans Rain Testbed, an innovative outdoor rain facility specifically designed to test and evaluate automotive sensors under realistic and controlled rain conditions. The rain plant features a wetted area of 600 square meters and a sprinkled rain volume of 600 cubic meters, providing a comprehensive environment to rigorously assess the performance of autonomous vehicle sensors. Rain poses a significant challenge due to the complex interaction of light with raindrops, leading to phenomena such as scattering, absorption, and reflection, which can severely impair sensor performance. Our facility replicates various rain intensities and conditions, enabling comprehensive testing of Radar, Lidar, and Camera
The rapid development of open-source Automated Driving System (ADS) stacks has created a pressing need for clear guidance on their evaluation and selection for specific use cases. This paper introduces a scenario-based evaluation framework combined with a modular simulation framework, offering a scalable methodology for assessing and benchmarking ADS solutions, including but not limited to off-the-shelf designs. The study highlights the lack of clear Operational Design Domain (ODD) descriptions in such systems. Without a common understanding, users must rely on subjective assumptions, which hinders the process of accurate system selection. To address this gap, the study proposes adopting a standardised ISO 34503 ODD description format within the ADS stacks. The application of the proposed framework is showcased through a case study evaluating two open-source systems, Autoware and Apollo. By first defining the assumed system’s ODD, then selecting a relevant scenario, and establishing
A look at who's doing what when it comes to sensors for an L3 world. SAE Level 3 automated driving marks a clear break from the lower levels of driving assistance since that is the dividing line where the driver can be freed to focus on other things. While the driver may sometimes be required to take control again, responsibility in an accident can be shifted from the driver to the automaker and suppliers. Only a few cars have met regulatory approval for Level 3 operation. Thus far, only Honda (in Japan), the Mercedes-Benz S-Class and EQS sedans with Drive Pilot and BMW's recently introduced 7 Series offer Level 3 autonomy. With more vehicles getting L3 technology and further automated driving skills being developed, we wanted to check in with some of the key players in this tech space and hear the latest industry thinking about best practices for ADAS and AV Sensors.
In the evolving landscape of automated driving systems, the critical role of vehicle localization within the autonomous driving stack is increasingly evident. Traditional reliance on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) proves to be inadequate, especially in urban areas where signal obstruction and multipath effects degrade accuracy. Addressing this challenge, this paper details the enhancement of a localization system for autonomous public transport vehicles, focusing on mitigating GNSS errors through the integration of a LiDAR sensor. The approach involves creating a 3D map using the factor graph-based LIO-SAM algorithm, which is further enhanced through the integration of wheel encoder and altitude data. Based on the generated map a LiDAR localization algorithm is used to determine the pose of the vehicle. The FAST-LIO based localization algorithm is enhanced by integrating relative LiDAR Odometry estimates and by using a simple yet effective delay compensation method to
On-road vehicles equipped with driving automation features are entering the mainstream public space. This category of vehicles is now extending to include those where a human might not be needed for operation on board. Several pilot programs are underway, and the first permits for commercial usage of vehicles without an onboard operator are being issued. However, questions like “How safe is safe enough?” and “What to do if the system fails?” persist. This is where remote operation comes in, which is an additional layer to the automated driving system where a human assists the so-called “driverless” vehicle in certain situations. Such remote-operation solutions introduce additional challenges and potential risks as the entire chain of “automated vehicle, communication network, and human operator” now needs to work together safely, effectively, and practically. And as much as there are technical questions regarding network latency, bandwidth, cybersecurity, etc., aspects like human
On-road vehicles equipped with driving automation features are entering the mainstream public space. This category of vehicles is now extending to include those where a human might not be needed for operation on board. Several pilot programs are underway, and the first permits for commercial usage of vehicles without an onboard operator are being issued. However, questions like “How safe is safe enough?” and “What to do if the system fails?” persist. This is where remote operation comes in, which is an additional layer to the automated driving system where a human assists the so-called “driverless” vehicle in certain situations. Such remote-operation solutions introduce additional challenges and potential risks as the entire chain of “automated vehicle, communication network, and human operator” now needs to work together safely, effectively, and practically. And as much as there are technical questions regarding network latency, bandwidth, cybersecurity, etc., aspects like human
The impending deployment of automated vehicles (AVs) represents a major shift in the traditional approach to ground transportation; its effects will inevitably be felt by parties directly involved with vehicle manufacturing and use (e.g., automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), public transportation systems, heavy goods transportation providers) and those that play roles in the mobility ecosystem (e.g., aftermarket and maintenance industries, infrastructure and planning organizations, automotive insurance providers, marketers, telecommunication companies). The focus of this chapter is to address a topic overlooked by many who choose to view automated driving systems and AVs from a “10,000-foot perspective:” the topic of how AVs will communicate with other road users such as conventional (human-driven) vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians while in operation. This unsettled issue requires assessing the spectrum of existing modes of communication—both implicit and explicit
This study assessed a driver’s ability to safely manage Super Cruise lane changes, both driver commanded (Lane Change on Demand, LCoD) and system triggered Automatic Lane Changes (ALC). Data was gathered under naturalistic conditions on public roads in the Washington, D.C. area with 12 drivers each of whom were provided with a Super Cruise equipped study vehicle over a 10-day exposure period. Drivers were shown how to operate Super Cruise (e.g., system displays, how to activate and disengage, etc.) and provided opportunities to initiate and experience commanded lane changes (LCoD), including how to override the system. Overall, drivers experienced 698 attempted Super Cruise lane changes, 510 Automatic and 188 commanded LCoD lane changes with drivers experiencing an average of 43 Automatic lane changes and 16 LCoD lane changes. Analyses characterized driver interactions during LCoD and ALC maneuvers exploring the extent to which drivers actively monitor the process and remain engaged
Advanced Autonomous Vehicles (AV) for SAE Level 3 and Level 4 functions will lead to a new understanding of the operation phase in the overall product lifecycle. Regulations such as the EU Implementing Act and the German L4 Act (AFGBV) request a continuous field surveillance, the handling of critical E/E faults and software updates during operation. This is required to enhance the Operational Design Domain (ODD) during operation, offering Functions on Demand (FoD), by increasing software features within these autonomous vehicle systems over the entire digital product lifecycle, and to avoid and reduce downtime by a malfunction of the Autonomous Driving (AD) software stack. Supported by implemented effective management systems for Cyber Security (R155), Software Update Management System (R156) and a Safety Management System (SMS) (in compliance to Automated Lane Keeping System (ALKS) (R157)), the organizations have to ensure safe and secure development, deployment and operation to
Letter from the Special Issue Editor
Recent rapid advancement in machine learning (ML) technologies have unlocked the potential for realizing advanced vehicle functions that were previously not feasible using traditional approaches to software development. One prominent example is the area of automated driving. However, there is much discussion regarding whether ML-based vehicle functions can be engineered to be acceptably safe, with concerns related to the inherent difficulty and ambiguity of the tasks to which the technology is applied. This leads to challenges in defining adequately safe responses for all possible situations and an acceptable level of residual risk, which is then compounded by the reliance on training data. The Path to Safe Machine Learning for Automotive Applications discusses the challenges involved in the application of ML to safety-critical vehicle functions and provides a set of recommendations within the context of current and upcoming safety standards. In summary, the potential of ML will only
Future vehicle systems will feature a reduced sensor array, but still will need a technology combination for safe performance. Despite the industrywide realization that SAE driving automation Levels 4 and 5 are not imminent and instead long-term goals, development continues on the sensors that power current and future ADAS systems and up to Level 3. Nothing made it more clear that lidar was the industry favorite than the 30-plus companies showing versions of the tech at the 2023 Consumer Electronics Show. That's an unstainable number, say industry experts. They see the next few years consisting of consolidation and many companies leaving the market.
“The future happened yesterday” is an appropriate description of the rapid pace of development in automated-driving technology. The expression may be most accurate in sensor tech where, for most OEMs (except Tesla thus far), radar and lidar increasingly are considered an essential duo for enhanced automated driving beyond SAE Level 2, and of course for full Level 4-5 automation. Current lidar is transitioning from electro-mechanical systems to solid-state devices. Considered by industry experts to be the technology's inevitable future, Lidar 2.0 is next-generation 3D sensing that is software-defined, solid-state and scalable. Engineers believe those capabilities will make lidar ubiquitous by reducing costs, speeding innovation and improving user experience.
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 70