Browse Topic: Level 5 (Full driving automation)
ABSTRACT The automotive and defense industries are going through a period of disruption with the advent of Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAV) driven primarily by innovations in affordable sensor technologies, drive-by-wire systems, and Artificial Intelligence-based decision support systems. One of the primary tools in the testing and validation of these systems is a comparison between virtual and physical-based simulations, which provides a low-cost, systems-approach testing of frequently occurring driving scenarios such as vehicle platooning and edge cases and sensor-spoofing in congested areas. Consequently, the project team developed a robotic vehicle platform—Scaled Testbed for Automated and Robotic Systems (STARS)—to be used for accelerated testing elements of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) including data acquisition through sensor-fusion practices typically observed in the field of robotics. This paper will highlight the implementation of STARS as a scaled testbed for rapid
Some challenges, such as reworking airbags to meet all seating scenarios, will be solved by the OEM as the final system integrator. Rearward-facing front seats have generally been limited to concept cars that explore a far-away world in which SAE Level 5 autonomous driving has been perfected. Magna has rewritten that playbook, winning a contract with a Chinese OEM for a reconfigurable seating system that includes fully rotating front seats on long rails, creating an unusually flexible cabin. Currently configured for vehicles with two rows of seating, the system features power-swivel seats along rails or tracks nearly two meters (6.6 ft) long. The front passenger and driver seats can rotate 270 degrees
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
Artificial intelligence (AI)-based solutions are slowly making their way into mobile devices and other parts of our lives on a daily basis. By integrating AI into vehicles, many manufacturers are looking forward to developing autonomous cars. However, as of today, no existing autonomous vehicles (AVs) that are consumer ready have reached SAE Level 5 automation. To develop a consumer-ready AV, numerous problems need to be addressed. In this chapter we present a few of these unaddressed issues related to human-machine interaction design. They include interface implementation, speech interaction, emotion regulation, emotion detection, and driver trust. For each of these aspects, we present the subject in detail—including the area’s current state of research and development, its current challenges, and proposed solutions worth exploring
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
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
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
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
In autonomous driving vehicles with an automation level greater than three, the autonomous system is responsible for safe driving, instead of the human driver. Hence, the driving safety of autonomous driving vehicles must be ensured before they are used on the road. Because it is not realistic to evaluate all test conditions in real traffic, computer simulation methods can be used. Since driving safety performance can be evaluated by simulating different driving scenarios and calculating the criticality metrics that represent dangerous collision risks, it is necessary to study and define the criticality metrics for the type of driving scenarios. This study focused on the risk of collisions in the confluence area because it was known that the accident rate in the confluence area is much higher than on the main roadway. There have been several experimental studies on safe driving behaviors in the confluence area; however, there has been little study logically exploring the merging
Although SAE level 5 autonomous vehicles are not yet commercially available, they will need to be the most intelligent, secure, and safe autonomous vehicles with the highest level of automation. The vehicle will be able to drive itself in all lighting and weather conditions, at all times of the day, on all types of roads and in any traffic scenario. The human intervention in level 5 vehicles will be limited to passenger voice commands, which means level 5 autonomous vehicles need to be safe and capable of recovering fail operational with no intervention from the driver to guarantee the maximum safety for the passengers. In this paper a LiDAR-based fail-safe emergency maneuver system is proposed to be implemented in the level 5 autonomous vehicle. This system is composed of an external redundant 3600 spinning LiDAR sensor and a redundant ECU that is running a single task to steer and fully stop the vehicle in emergency situations (e.g., vehicle crash, system failure, sensor failures
Simulation plays a central role in almost every aspect of automotive product development. And as this month's cover story explains, ‘sim’ is extending its reach in automated-driving R&D, bringing efficiency to human factors and critical but tedious component-verification work. Some argue that most AV development should - and thanks to contemporary sim technology, can - be conducted in the virtual world. It's hard for me to imagine getting to consumer-ready SAE Level 4 and 5 driving automation without eventual heavy reliance on simulation-based validation. That notion comes hard against what's played out with Tesla, however. The EV leader effectively has leveraged its customers' on-the-road experiences to incrementally “harden” its automated-driving software. It's not an entirely off-the-ranch idea; many AV developers have relied on some sort of crowdsourcing data acquisition to help their systems learn. The difference, however, is that Tesla consigned this role - and its genuine risks
Artificial intelligence (AI)-based solutions are slowly making their way into our daily lives, integrating with our processes to enhance our lifestyles. This is major a technological component regarding the development of autonomous vehicles (AVs). However, as of today, no existing, consumer ready AV design has reached SAE Level 5 automation or fully integrates with the driver. Unsettled Issues in Vehicle Autonomy, AI and Human-Machine Interaction discusses vital issues related to AV interface design, diving into speech interaction, emotion detection and regulation, and driver trust. For each of these aspects, the report presents the current state of research and development, challenges, and solutions worth exploring. Click here to access the full SAE EDGETM Research Report portfolio
This paper takes a realistic approach to develop a techno-economic analysis for fixed-route autonomous shuttles. To develop a model for analysis, the current state of technology was used to approximate three timelines for achieving SAE level 5 capabilities: progressive, realistic, and conservative. Within these timelines, there are four different increments for advancements in the technology laid out as follows: SAE Level 0 - human driver, SAE Level 4 - in-vehicle safety operator, SAE Level 4 - remote safety operator, and SAE Level 5 - no safety operator. These increments in the changes of the technology were chosen based on the trends in the industry. Various shuttle models were used based on different rider quantities and drive-train requirements (electric vs gas) in this analysis. This allows for further understanding of how these deployment plans will vary the cost for shuttles operating in high, mid, and low ridership demand environments. Additional drive-train comparison shows
This SAE Recommended Practice describes motor vehicle driving automation systems that perform part or all of the dynamic driving task (DDT) on a sustained basis. It provides a taxonomy with detailed definitions for six levels of driving automation, ranging from no driving automation (level 0) to full driving automation (level 5), in the context of motor vehicles (hereafter also referred to as “vehicle” or “vehicles”) and their operation on roadways. These level definitions, along with additional supporting terms and definitions provided herein, can be used to describe the full range of driving automation features equipped on motor vehicles in a functionally consistent and coherent manner. “On-road” refers to publicly accessible roadways (including parking areas and private campuses that permit public access) that collectively serve users of vehicles of all classes and driving automation levels (including no driving automation), as well as motorcyclists, pedal cyclists, and pedestrians
Future SAE Level 4 and Level 5 autonomous vehicles will require novel applications of localization, perception, control and artificial intelligence technology in order to offer innovative and disruptive solutions to current mobility problems. This paper concentrates on low speed autonomous shuttles that are transitioning from being tested in limited traffic, dedicated routes to being deployed as SAE Level 4 automated driving vehicles in urban environments like college campuses and outdoor shopping centers within smart cities. The Ohio State University has designated a small segment in an underserved area of campus as an initial autonomous vehicle (AV) pilot test route for the deployment of low speed autonomous shuttles. This paper presents initial results of ongoing work on developing solutions to the localization and perception challenges of this planned pilot deployment. The paper treats autonomous driving with real time kinematics GPS (Global Positioning Systems) with an inertial
Recently, development of vehicle control system targeting Full Driving Automation (autonomous driving level 5) has advanced. Some applications of autonomous driving systems like the Lane Keeping Assist system (LKA) and Auto Lane Change system (ALC) (autonomous driving level 1-3) have been put on the market. However, the conventional system using information from front camera, it is difficult to operate in some situations. For example the road that no line, large curvature and number of lane increases or decreases. We propose an autonomous driving system using high accuracy vehicle position estimation technology and a high definition map. An LKA system calculates the target steering wheel angle based on both vehicle position information from the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and the target lane of high the definition map, according to the method of front gaze driver model. Then, the system controls steering the wheel angle by Electric Power Steering (EPS). In the case of ALC
This Recommended Practice provides a taxonomy for motor vehicle driving automation systems that perform part or all of the dynamic driving task (DDT) on a sustained basis and that range in level from no driving automation (level 0) to full driving automation (level 5). It provides detailed definitions for these six levels of driving automation in the context of motor vehicles (hereafter also referred to as “vehicle” or “vehicles”) and their operation on roadways. These level definitions, along with additional supporting terms and definitions provided herein, can be used to describe the full range of driving automation features equipped on motor vehicles in a functionally consistent and coherent manner. “On-road” refers to publicly accessible roadways (including parking areas and private campuses that permit public access) that collectively serve users of vehicles of all classes and driving automation levels (including no driving automation), as well as motorcyclists, pedal cyclists
Items per page:
50
1 – 47 of 47