170425 Testers day FINAL short - Test Site Sweden · DENSO will join IDIADA Junction Assist project...
Transcript of 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
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
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…
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
� 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
� Host speed: 80 [km/h]
� 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
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
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
Challenges from test point of view:
Fig 8, CBNA scenario
Fig 9, CBLA scenario
3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – VRU Cyclist
#No Area Challenges from test point of view Possible Impact
1 Test-cases Number of new tests, 26 Increased test time
2
Target
New test equipment, EBT Education/Training
3Requalification towards
specificationProcedure (Inc. version control)
5Edge
condition
� Scenario: CBLA-25%
� Function: FCW
� Host speed: 80 [km/h]
� TTC: 1.7 [s]
⇒Lateral control EBT, esp windy
condition
⇒Tolerance vehicle heading
1. Dificult to control 25% hitpoint
2. If EBT is leaving vehicle coridor, then
correct measure can be no FCW
eventhough test itself expect FCW
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
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
Challenges from test point of view:
3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – SAS
#No Area Challenges from test point of view Possible Impact
1 No challenges from rating testing point of view
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
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
Challenges from test point of view:
Fig 11, Assessed scenarios with region of interest highlighted in red
3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – LSS
#No Area Challenges from test point of view Possible Impact
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:
� Host speed: 72 [km/h]
� 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
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
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
Challenges from test point of view:
CCRm
SA AEB Interurban 2018 - 2019, 3p3. Technical challenges 2018 rating – AEB Interurban
CCRs CCRb
#No Area Challenges from test point of view Possible Impact
1 Test-cases Number of new tests (x5) Increased test time
2
Target
New test equipment, GVT Education/Training
3Requalification towards
specificationProcedure (Inc. version control)
5Edge
condition
� Scenario: CCRm-25%
� Function: FCW
� Host speed: 80 [km/h]
� TTC: 1.7 [s]
⇒Lateral control GVT
⇒Tolerance vehicle heading
1. Dificult to control 25% hitpoint
2. If GVT is leaving vehicle coridor, then
correct measure can be no FCW
eventhough test itself expect FCW
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
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:
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
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
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
End