EUROPEAN COMMISSION. EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME HORIZON 2020 GA No

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME HORIZON 2020 GA No Deliverable No. Deliverable Title Dissemination level D7.4. Public 25/10/2016 Written by Seiniger, Patrick Bartels, Oliver Hellmann, Adrian Fritz, Martin BASt BASt BASt 4active Systems Checked by Petersson (VCC), Ranovona (TME), Stoll (AUDI) 27/10/2016 Approved by Sanz, Laura IDIADA 28/10/2016 Issue date 29/10/2016 The research leading to the results of this work has received funding from the European Community's Eighth Framework Program (Horizon2020) under grant agreement n

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Consumer test organizations such as Euro NCAP have a high impact on vehicle safety by introducing transparent safety requirements and accompanying test procedures. Consumer is considered to be an important part of vehicle safety, therefore PROSPECT will supply test procedure proposals to Euro NCAP (the dominant vehicle consumer organization in the EU-28). This deliverable D7.4 specifies test procedures for PROSPECT's functions based on the use cases and test cases as defined in D3.1. This includes specifications for lane markings, objects and their positions as well as general vehicle trajectories on test tracks, methods for selection of appropriate intersections in real city streets for realistic and a concept for a test tool that can be used as obstruction of view on the test track. PROSPECT partner 4a describes the self-propelled platform to be used for carrying bicycle and pedestrian dummy systems. A focus has been laid towards efficient. Deliverable D7.4 proposes an intersection geometry that allows the conduction of all intersection test cases with no need to manipulate the lane markings in-between tests: only tracks for Vehicle- Under-Test and VRU Dummy need to be reprogrammed, object positions need to be shifted and implemented. Straight-road test cases can be conducted on any regularly marked lane. Test cases involving turning maneuvers do require the specification of speed profiles and trajectories for the VUT in order to let the turn appear natural yet let it be repeatable by driving robots. A concept for the derivation of this data from PROSPECT Naturalistic Driving Studies (NDS) data is included, but since the deliverable D2.2 containing naturalistic driving data is delayed, these maneuvers will be defined at a later point. A nomenclature for naming PROSPECT test cases is proposed and a draft test protocol similar to current Euro NCAP active safety test protocols is proposed. To sum up, deliverable D7.4 serves as a guidance for the first stage of test activities within PROSPECT in 2017, when production vehicles will be tested against the first draft test program to a) generate baseline data and b) refine the test procedures. The aim is to have a verified test program ready by October 2017 for the upcoming demonstrator performance assessment in Page 1 out of 39

3 CONTENT Executive summary Introduction Preliminary Test Cases (Input from D3.1) Test Method Obstruction of View Behavior Intersection Geometry on closed Test Track Realistic Surroundings Example Intersection 1 - residential area Example Intersection 2 - priority road and traffic lights Example intersection 3 - priority road Next steps Test Tools Advanced articulated pedestrian Dummy 4activePA Advanced Bicyclist Dummy 4activeBS DGNSS controlled Propulsion system 4activeFB Test Cases and Test procedures for Consumer Testing Test case nomenclature Vehicle under Test - Instrumentation Measurement Accuracy Control Accuracy Vehicle under Test Preparation Intersection Test Cases Bicycle Intersection Pedestrian Intersection Straight Road Test Cases Bicycle Pedestrian Other Test speeds Time Planning References Acknowledgments Disclaimer Page 2 out of 39

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Preliminary test cases for cyclists...8 Table 2: PROSPECT pedestrian test cases as taken from ASPECSS FP7 project Table 3: Test cases for VUT bicycle intersection Table 4: Test cases for VUT pedestrian intersection Table 5: Test cases for VUT crossing bicycle scenarios, longitudinal bicycle and parked car Table 6: Test cases for VUT-longitudinal bicycle scenarios Table 7: Test cases for VUT pedestrian, longitudinal scenarios LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Principle structure of the mobile obstruction panel for the VRU in PROSPECT Figure 2: Versatile intersection to be implemented on test tracks...18 Figure 3: Example intersection 1 for residential area...21 Figure 4: Example intersection 2 with traffic lights...22 Figure 5: Example intersection 3, priority without traffic lights...23 Figure 6: Pedestrian Dummy...25 Figure 7: Bicycle Dummy...26 Figure 8: Self-driving platform...27 Figure 9: Control equipment in an Euro NCAP test vehicle: steering actuator, brake and accelerator actuators (Anthony Best Dynamics SR-15 and CBAR) Figure 10: Measurement equipment in an Euro NCAP test vehicle: position measurement (GeneSys ADMA-G, in blue box) Figure 11: PROSPECT intersection with tracks (repeated from section 3.3)...31 Figure 12: Time planning for work package 7 activities, with focus on task Page 3 out of 39

5 1 INTRODUCTION Considering the countries in the European Union (EU) and the latest year of data availability ( ) in the Community Road Accident Database CARE, the total annual number of road deaths involving pedestrian and cyclists amounts to 31% of all road fatalities in the EU. Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems have the potential to improve safety for this group of VRUs. PROSPECT aims to significantly improve the effectiveness of active VRU safety systems compared to those currently on the market. This will be achieved in two complementary ways: (a) by expanded scope of VRU scenarios addressed and (b) by improved overall system performance (earlier and more robust detection of VRUs, proactive situation analysis, and fast actuators combined with new intervention strategies for collision avoidance). Deliverable D7.4 provides a draft test protocol for consumer of PROSPECT s functions. Goal of all test activity is to determine whether a product, technical system or piece of software fulfils the requirements it was developed for. Requirements for such an entity are set either by the developer (for instance after market research) or by external parties (for instance in the case of mandatory technical regulations). Vehicle safety is an important topic, and as such, a large set of requirements is defined by official authorities in safety regulations for the type approval procedure of a vehicle. Safety regulations specify a minimum level of safety that all vehicles or vehicle subsystems need to fulfill, otherwise these vehicles or subsystems are not allowed for the use on public roads. A test result is always either pass or fail, so these tests do not allow a differentiation between quality levels, for instance for customers of vehicles that might want to choose a product based on vehicle safety criteria. This is where consumer steps in: Consumer test organizations such as the European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP) test several vehicles according to their own test methods, not only providing pass/fail assessments, but rather a comparison of the performance of different vehicles. This deliverable D7.4 will propose a draft test procedure for consumer, and it will focus on Euro NCAP ( since Euro NCAP is the dominant consumer test organization for vehicles in Europe (other organizations are for instance national automobile clubs under the roof of FIA ( Page 4 out of 39

6 As opposed to a type approval test result, a consumer test rating does not have any legal consequences for the vehicle being allowed on public roads or not, but depending on the credibility of the test organization, there might be an impact on potential consumers purchase decisions. Importance of consumer test organizations depends largely on their credibility. The credibility of a test organization is high if the test criteria are considered valid by potential vehicle buyers - for instance, if test procedures and criteria are derived from extensive scientific studies of the accident situation and are understandable by the general public. Euro NCAP has gained credibility in the last 20 years by transforming accidentology data into test procedures and criteria that consumers (=vehicle buyers) can understand. Since this credibility has been built up in the past, there is another effect for vehicle safety: vehicle manufacturers began to incorporate the Euro NCAP test criteria into their vehicle development specifications and aim for a specific assessment score (generally 3 to 5 stars). This effect allows Euro NCAP to directly influence vehicle design and engineering by setting appropriate test and assessment criteria. Euro NCAP s rating changes roughly every two years, and vehicle design cycles usually are five years or more, so there needs to be an ongoing discussion between vehicle manufacturers, their suppliers and Euro NCAP about upcoming test procedures, during which the vehicle industry also expresses their view on tests, helping Euro NCAP to improve their methods. This is why Euro NCAP test criteria and test procedures nowadays have such an importance with regard to vehicle safety, and why it is important to provide a test protocol for PROSPECT's functions to Euro NCAP. Euro NCAP and other consumer test organizations fund and perform the majority of tests by themselves, so a test procedure should be efficient. For example it should be possible to perform the actual tests in only one or two track days to limit test cost. To sum up, the requirements for a test procedure and assessment criteria for consumer are: 1. They should be based on accidentology. 2. They should be realistic for the vehicle considering state-of-the-art systems capability. 3. They should be understandable for the consumer. 4. It should be possible to perform the tests in a limited amount of track time and with limited resources. Page 5 out of 39

7 PROSPECT Work Package 3 derived use cases from accident data and transferred those use cases to test scenarios: requirement 1 is already fulfilled. But use cases are abstract rather than concrete, basically because accident databases usually do not contain detailed information about the time before the accident happened (the so-called pre-crash phase ). This data is in general not available from accident databases. Therefore, fulfilling requirement 2 requires the addition of typical behavioral schemes of traffic participants (vehicle drivers, bicyclists or pedestrians), in particular gained from naturalistic traffic / driving observations such as those conducted in PROSPECT Work Package 2. Other factors that go beyond the level of detail provided in PROSPECT s use cases are the surroundings during a test. Current consumer test protocols define tests on a clean test track, mostly even without any lane markings. It is clear that PROSPECT demonstrators will require lane markings and other contextual information (traffic signs, traffic lights), but it will certainly not be possible to include zebra crossings, trees, raised sidewalks and so on the test track. To check the influence of this limitation, PROSPECT will conduct realistic in real city streets (of course closed to regular traffic). If the influence of this additional contextual information to the demonstrator performance is high, this might as well become relevant for consumer in the future. So, Requirement 3 can be fulfilled by defining a straight-forward procedure with realistic tools and a non-complex assessment method (the assessment method is not part of this Deliverable D7.4), and requirement 4 can be fulfilled with intelligent combination of test scenarios on the track and modular test tools (portable traffic signs, traffic lights, panels obscuring the VRU) and the definition of lane marking layouts that can be used for a large variety of scenarios. Page 6 out of 39

8 2 PRELIMINARY TEST CASES (INPUT FROM D3.1) A set of test cases has been defined in Deliverable D3.1 as output of work package 3, Task 3.5. The test cases can be divided into bicycle test cases and pedestrian test cases, and all test cases were derived from detailed accident data. Initial speed ranges for the Vehicle-Under-Test (VUT) as well as for the bicycle are available for all use cases. Speed ranges for the VUT have been selected mostly based on the 25 to 75 percentile of these speed ranges. Bicycle speeds have been defined as single speeds only. Note that these speeds quantify the initial situation in a conflict. Generic behaviors for VUT (e.g. constant speed, turning from a non-priority street) are needed to depict the conflict situation more realistically. These behaviors cannot be taken from accidentology - input from naturalistic observations will be needed, as mentioned above. These observations are not available until PROSPECT Month 21 (updated version of Deliverable D2.2), which is after the delivery date of Deliverable D7.4. A fully detailed description of test cases including VRU behavior will be added at a later stage in the final test protocol (D7.5) and will be made available as an internal PROSPECT document by Month 23 (2 month after the updated version of D2.2). Note that bicycle longitudinal scenarios (e.g. bicycle travelling along a rural road) are taken from the CATS project s final test cases (Op den Camp, 2016). CATS test cases do not contain information about behavior other than constant speed and do not contain information about lanes, traffic signs and so on, but this is acceptable in this case because longitudinal accidents typically occur on rural roads, where the assumption of constant speeds is sufficient. PROSPECT also considered in WP3 longitudinal scenarios for urban roads (s. D3.1, Longitudinal, p. 56). But due to the low relevance in urban road these scenarios get a weighting of 18. So this UseCase is not in the first Top 16 UseCases. Deliverable D3.1 preliminary test cases are described in the following tables. Page 7 out of 39

9 Table 1: Preliminary test cases for cyclists Prospect-ID Pictogram sample Ranking Part I (PVERL 4&5) (1-15) Ranking Part II (PVERL 3&4&5) (1-15) Behaviour Vehicle Behaviou r VRU Speed Range Vehicle Speed Range VRU PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_A, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ Regular turning behaviour from a priority street: slight reduction of speed for the turn segment PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_R, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ Regular turning behaviour from a priority street: slight reduction of speed for the turn segment PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_E, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_6 3 3 Slow VUT speed due to obscuration situation and small streets PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_F, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ VUT slightly decelerates due to VUT not having priority and the typically small roads PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_G, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_8 7 6 VUT slightly decelerates due to VUT not having priority and the typically small roads 20-40m/h 15 Page 8 out of 39

10 PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_H 9 VUT fast and no deceleration PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_I, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ VUT slightly decelerates due to VUT not having priority and the typically small roads PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_J, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ VTU slows down, almost stops, then accelerates again PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_L, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ VUT slows down, almost stops, then accelerates again PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_M, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ VUT slows down, almost stops, then accelerates again PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_N, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ VUT fast, bicycle appears as a surprise PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_P, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ VUT fast, bicycle appears as a surprise Page 9 out of 39

11 PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_W, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ Regular turning behaviour from an unpriorized street - VUT starts slowly PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_X, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ VTU slows down, almost stops, then accelerates again PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_Y, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ Parking PROSPECT_UC_CY_T1_ AA, PROSPECT_UC_CY_T2_ Parking Page 10 out of 39

12 As already mentioned, PROSPECT pedestrian test cases were mostly derived from the ASPECSS FP7 project (Wisch, 2013) advanced test scenarios. Those test scenarios could not have been tested in ASPECSS due to technical limitations at that time. Table 2 shows the pedestrian use cases; only intersection cases and longitudinal test cases are new for PROSPECT. Table 2: PROSPECT pedestrian test cases as taken from ASPECSS FP7 project Prospect-ID Pictogram sample Distribution (%) Description Behaviour Vehicle Behaviour VRU Speed Range Vehicle Speed Range VRU PROSPECT_ UC_PD_1 23% Crossing a straight road from nearside; No obstruction Velocity Velocity PROSPECT_ UC_PD_2 22% Crossing a straight road from off-side; No obstruction Velocity Velocity PROSPECT_ UC_PD_3a 6% Crossing at a junction from the near-side; vehicle turning across traffic Typical Turning Velocity PROSPECT_ UC_PD_3b 6% Crossing at a junction from the off-side; vehicle turning across traffic Typical Turning Velocity PROSPECT_ UC_PD_4a 4% Crossing at a junction from the near-side; vehicle not turning across traffic Typical Turning Velocity Page 11 out of 39

13 PROSPECT_ UC_PD_4b Crossing at a junction from the off-side; vehicle not turning across traffic Typical Turning Velocity PROSPECT_ UC_PD_5 10% Crossing a straight road from nearside; With obstruction Velocity Velocity PROSPECT_ UC_PD_6 7% Crossing a straight road from off-side; With obstruction Velocity Velocity PROSPECT_ UC_PD_7a Along the carriageway on a straight road away from vehicle; No Obstruction Velocity Velocity % PROSPECT_ UC_PD_7b Along the carriageway on a straight road towards vehicle; No Obstruction Velocity Velocity PROSPECT_ UC_PD_8 No Pictogram 6% Driving Backwards Velocity Standing 10 0 Others - 14% Others Page 12 out of 39

14 3 TEST METHOD Active safety tests usually are conducted using the vehicle to be tested (Vehicleunder-Test, VUT). PROSPECT focuses on functions that avoid collisions with other traffic participants, so at least one other traffic participant will be part of the test as well. Active safety functions might or might not be able to avoid a collision, so the other traffic participant will need to be an impactable dummy, a surrogate either for a bicycle or a pedestrian. Both objects (VUT and possible impact partner) will initially be moved on a predefined track and with predefined speeds so that a critical situation develops. Active safety functions in the VUT might intervene and avoid the collision. It could in principle be possible that the collision partner (bicycle or pedestrian) reacts towards the active safety intervention in the VUT, but such a complex reaction would not allow comparing test results of different vehicles the main goal of consumer. Additional objects such as static or moving vehicles obstructing the pedestrian or bicycle dummy initially might be added to the test scene. Performance criteria in active safety tests are Speed reduction, in case the active safety function reduces the speed of the VUT. Boolean accident avoidance, in case the active safety function avoids the accident, either by braking or steering. Warning timing, given in the variable Time-To-Collision (TTC), for those systems and functions that depend on driver intervention to avoid the accident. A combination of speed reduction or accident avoidance with warning timing, for combined systems. In current active safety tests, the VUT speed (up to the time of automatic brake intervention) during a maneuver and also the speed of the opponent are held constant. Since PROSPECT goes beyond that in test cases where the VUT turns, this is not sufficient. In nearly all turning scenarios, the VUT will slow down while negotiating the turn and might accelerate again afterwards. At least the movement of the bicycle or pedestrian will be constant since there are no test cases where the opponent turns. A reproducible movement of the VUT is achieved by using driving robots that are able to follow a path with a lateral tolerance as low as 5 cm. The opponent (bicycle or Page 13 out of 39

15 pedestrian) on the other hand is controlled completely with a time-synchronized propulsion system. 3.1 OBSTRUCTION OF VIEW Some test cases will need an obstruction for the pedestrian or the bicycle. Besides a visual obstruction for the VRU, the obstruction should also represent for radar sensors a concrete wall or edge of a building and should not look like a parked vehicle. The obstruction should be mobile and easy to move to build up different test scenarios. A modular wall made of panels with wood, aluminum and supporting structure with small rollers underneath could achieve these goals. Depending of the test scenario several of these panels could be combined together. A sketch of the panel is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Principle structure of the mobile obstruction panel for the VRU in PROSPECT The panels could be made of a sandwich structure with a solid wooden plate to carry the structure followed by a curtain of rotatable aluminum elements (lamellae) in a Page 14 out of 39

16 wooden housing with total dimensions of 200 x 200 x 21 cm (s. Fig. 1). The complete structure stands on four small spherical rollers to allow an easy manual maneuvering on the test ground and has a foldable pillar to fix it on the ground with weights. The turnable lamellae can be adjusted in the vertical axis to reflect most of the radar signal away from the VUT to the side. Together with the wooden plate (and some absorption foam if necessary) a comparable radar cross section of a real concrete wall or building obscuring a VRU should be realizable. For visual sensors like cameras the outer wooden plate could be covered with an image fitting to the tested scenery. The obstruction object will be designed with assistance from and validated by RADAR experts from PROSPECT (e.g. Bosch, Continental ADC) during the development timeframe. Key validation criterion is whether it sufficiently blocks the RADAR sensor's view and whether it does not come with an unrealistically high RADAR reflectivity. 3.2 BEHAVIOR As mentioned above, the collision opponent (bicycle or pedestrian) will have a constant speed and will very likely be linear, but a large set of test cases will include a turning VUT. The exact turning geometry and speed of the VUT should be representative for those patterns found in traffic observations. Turning describes a combined translation and rotation of a vehicle. To avoid complex trigonometric operations, it should be described in polar coordinates, where the origin of the coordinate system is the center of the turn. A sufficient description of a turn would show the vehicle speed as function of the turn angle phi as well as the radius as function of the turn angle. In a non-corner cutting situation, radius over turn angle would be constant. In cutting, radius over turn angle would decrease and increase again, and for negative cutting (extensive swerving) the other way around. Speed over turn angle will very likely show a slight decrease until the mid of the turn and an increase thereafter. All this data will be available from PROSPECT NDS studies, in particular from the IDIADA data, which was generated by vehicles with the following minimum instrumentation: GPS position for general reference and triggering beginning / end of turn, Yaw rate from a yaw rate sensor, Page 15 out of 39

17 2m 3m Deliverable No. D7.4. GPS yaw angle (this needs to be fused with the integrated yaw rate to get a better yaw angle accuracy, Vehicle speed (odometer or GPS, both is fine), Steering wheel angle and/or turn signals for triggering and plausibilization. The following speed profiles will then be defined: 1. Turning left/right as function of initial speed. 2. Tight turn left/right as function of initial speed. 3. Slight deceleration as function of initial speed. Note that the data is needed as raw data as function of time since custom filtering and triggering algorithms will need to be written (part of Task 7.1 and done by BASt). 3.3 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY ON CLOSED TEST TRACK For the first PROSPECT tests on a closed test track the project has to define a standard intersection geometry for the defined test cases. The proposed intersection C 13m 3/3m A 0,5m 4m 3m B 16m 16m D 9m E 11m 2m 0,25m 3,5m 5,5m 2m 50m R=8m G R=8m H 4m 1m 150m Non dimensioned object are symmetric F (see 8m Figure 2) is in compliance with the German recommendations for road construction for urban intersections (see ERA, 2010 for bicycle lanes, EFA, 2002, for pedestrian crossing definition, and in General RASt, 2016 for street design in cities). Since there is a bicycle lane only on one side of the priority street, the intersection allows the Page 16 out of 39

18 conduction of test runs with or without additional bicycle lane. An additional spot for crossing bicyclists (without zebra crossing) is added to one of the two non-priority legs. Four referenced positions allow a reproducible placement of either traffic signs or traffic lights. The stopping lines shown on all for legs should be quickly removable, they are only needed if the intersection is configured to have traffic lights. On the proving ground it has to be possible to enter the intersection with the VUT at the desired speed from all directions (maximum speed for priority / large road: 60 from both directions, maximum speed for small / non-priority road: 40 ). From experience, at least 100 m acceleration length plus ca. 80 m of constant speed straight driving are required for tests at 60 (40 : ca. 50 m acceleration length plus ca. 50 m straight driving). The initial positions of the VUT and the VRU for the related test scenarios from D3.1 are labeled with A H. These tracks should be aligned at the center of the respective lane. Page 17 out of 39

19 C 13m 3/3m A 0,5m 4m 3m B 16m 16m D 9m E 11m 2m 0,25m 3,5m 5,5m 2m 50m R=8m G 2m 3m R=8m H 4m 1m 150m Non dimensioned object are symmetric F Figure 2: Versatile intersection to be implemented on test tracks As a next step, it will be the task of the test labs to implement and refine this type of intersection on their test tracks. If necessary, final test speeds at some tracks / locations / legs of the intersection may be limited by the available acceleration length and acceleration road geometry. 8m 3.4 REALISTIC SURROUNDINGS Active safety systems mostly depend on image processing. The image processing algorithms improve over the years and puts the algorithm developers into the position to take various optical and radar cross section cues into account, such as: the lane the VUT travelling in, and whether the VRU is already in that lane, the priority situation between the traffic participants, traffic lights traffic signs the presence of a zebra crossing, is the VUT on a sidewalk, and certainly a high number of others, where a single detail might be of a low importance in itself but could have a major influence in the evaluation of a critical Page 18 out of 39

20 situation. It is impossible to present all possible cues to the vehicle on a clean environment such as a test track. On the other hand, artificial tests on a clean test track are not representative for accident scenarios found in reality in the way that angles of intersections, lane width, road inclinations and obstructions do differ. A comparison between test results generated from tests in complex and realistic scenarios with clean test track scenarios will give an indication on how robust PROSPECT functions are and what the performance gain due to the contextual information is in actual use cases. Since the exact same test tools will be used on a test track and in realistic surroundings, all tests will be repeatable (test results measured in the same condition will be comparable) and test results from a test track will be reproducible (test results from different test tracks, but same vehicle and test setup are comparable). Test results on real city streets however are not reproducible (they cannot be reproduced on another intersection, in another city etc.). PROSPECT's aim is to test on two different real intersections, and then perform as much test cases as possible in that specific location. For instance, one intersection can be a non-sign priority-to-the-right intersection, and the other intersection will have priority signs and a bicycle lane. Testing in real intersections is possible under the following conditions: the intersection is closed to other traffic by own personnel, it is possible for residents to access their homes, e.g. by either momentary stopping or by declaring a deviation, the actual intersections are selected by local authorities from a larger number of candidate intersections, the will take a limited time, no danger is generated for parking traffic. The selected intersections had to meet following requirements to ensure repeatability and feasibility: The position measuring equipment needs best view to the open sky to capture GPS Data. That means an intersection with nearby trees, high buildings or tramway power lines have to be sidestepped. Specially for the crossing scenario a wireless data connection between the car and the test tool is established. Signal disturbing infrastructure or obstructions (power line switch box, GSM Antennas, Bus/Tramway signals) must be avoided as well. Page 19 out of 39

21 To reduce correction maneuvering or unintended vehicle or tool behavior the road surface friction coefficient should be steady in the way of travel of the VUT and the test tool: train rails, gravel, loose tarmac, jumps, and cracks are an absolute no go. For the same reason the intersection should be flat with a gradient variation less than 2%. Page 20 out of 39

22 Example intersections are as follows: Example Intersection 1 - residential area A non-sign priority-to-the-right intersection without bike lanes is mostly found in urban area. To avoid tramways, high-rise building and traffic lights suburban municipality is favorable. An exact rectangular crossing of the streets is not mandatory. The following example intersection is located at North, East, in the Cologne suburb of Porz-Urbach, at the intersection of Planckstraße and Siemensstraße. It is rather easy to establish a deviation for other traffic, so annoyance to residents can be held low. See Figure 3 for all four views of that particular intersection. Figure 3: Example intersection 1 for residential area Page 21 out of 39

23 3.4.2 Example Intersection 2 - priority road and traffic lights Roads with bicycle lanes are mostly found downtown. Railways and building cause an issue why very large roads should allow enough space to the sky. An intersection with priority signs and a bicycle lane. The following example intersection with traffic lights and priority signs is located at North, East, also in the Cologne suburb of Porz-Urbach, at the intersection between Siemensstraße and Humboldtstraße (priority road), see Figure 4. Deviations can be established, but the daily traffic at this intersection is relatively high, so annoyance to residents might be higher and an approval by the City of Cologne for using this intersection might not be possible or could be granted for instance at a Sunday. Figure 4: Example intersection 2 with traffic lights Page 22 out of 39

24 3.4.3 Example intersection 3 - priority road The following example intersection without traffic lights but with priority signs is located at North, East, in the Cologne suburb of Kalk (see Figure 5). Figure 5: Example intersection 3, priority without traffic lights Next steps The next step with regard to realistic will be to identify and propose appropriate intersection locations with the cities of Cologne and / or Bergisch Gladbach, based on the criteria as defined in this section. This will be done until Month 22. Page 23 out of 39

25 4 TEST TOOLS Today's dummies (test objects) mimicking pedestrians are limited to relatively simple trajectories, although dummy animation (i.e. articulated legs) was recently developed. For the new test protocol to evaluate the next generation ADAS (advanced driver assistant systems) 4activeSystem is providing advanced articulated Dummies Pedestrian and Bicyclist with higher degrees of freedom (head rotation, torso angle, pedaling, side leaning ) and an improved behavior during the acceleration- and stopping-phase. Furthermore, these advanced Dummies are moved with a DGPS controlled free driving platform to enable more complex trajectories. Page 24 out of 39

26 5 ADVANCED ARTICULATED PEDESTRIAN DUMMY 4ACTIVEPA 4a has developed a new test dummy in an effort to demonstrate the safety performance of vehicles by conducting tests under the most realistic conditions possible. This new model is able to simulate the characteristics of a pedestrian crossing the road and therefore provides a much better representation compared to previous non-articulated dummies. This upgrade was realized by adding two realistically moving legs to the dummy, which help to ensure that the vehicle s systems will be tested using real human attributes (see Figure 6). Figure 6: Pedestrian Dummy In an update to be developed within PROSPECT (for Month 24), the new dummy has a higher degree of freedom in motion and is able to rotate the head, control the torso angle and height and moves the arms. This will be needed for advanced visual sensors that can take the additional contextual information into account. Page 25 out of 39

27 5.1 ADVANCED BICYCLIST DUMMY 4ACTIVEBS A bicyclist target will represent a real bicyclist on a bike taking into account all different types of sensors used in AEB systems. Moreover, the new bicyclist dummy (see Figure 7: Bicycle Dummy) will have a higher degree of freedom in motion and is able to pedal, rotate the head, control the torso angle and move the arms. Figure 7: Bicycle Dummy 5.2 DGNSS CONTROLLED PROPULSION SYSTEM 4ACTIVEFB While the dummy object (bicyclist, pedestrian ) should response in a realistic manner, the equipment which moves this dummy object should be ideally invisible for all sensors. The 4activeFB is an extreme flat GNSS/IMU-controlled platform powered by three compact high performance driving units. The main region is just 45 mm in height. The special materials and the particular design are accountable for the very low radar cross section. The free driving platform 4activeFB has a RCS (radar cross section) of -50dBm² from a distance of 50 meters at 77GHz. 4activeFB is available in two different type series. The smaller type (4activeFB-Small 40 ) is designed for small road users like bicyclists, small motorcyclists and pedestrians; Both models are battery powered and equipped with fast exchangeable battery power pack. Up to five platforms can be controlled and synchronized with the control station for 4activeFB, in the case there is a need for multi-object (e.g. Car-Dummy as oncoming traffic and bicycle is crossing the lane). Page 26 out of 39

28 PROSPECT dummies will use the small version (see Figure 8). Figure 8: Self-driving platform Page 27 out of 39

29 6 TEST CASES AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR CONSUMER TESTING 6.1 TEST CASE NOMENCLATURE Previous documents (namely Deliverables D3.1 and D3.2) referred to the test cases with a relatively long identifier string. For, it is important to have a simple, understandable nomenclature that speaks for itself. Euro NCAP uses such a naming system with the scheme VUT - Opponent - Direction - Dummy/specific information - Speed, where VUT is always C, opponent is either C for car of V for vulnerable road user, direction is R for rear, N for nearside, F for far side, and dummy is A for Adult, C for child, B for bicycle. Examples for this naming scheme are CVNA75 (car-vurnearside adult 75% impact point), CCRm 50 (Car-car-rear moving, VUT initially at 50 ) BASt believes the difference between opponent and dummy is not so important that a letter is necessary. The coding is PROSPECT then allows additional details: VUT Dummy Settings/Direction Priority / Other - Number, where Dummy is either C for car, A for adult pedestrian, B for bicycle, or I for infant, setting is intersection or straight road (I or S), priority is R, G, P, N for red traffic lights, green traffic lights, priority or non-priority (relative to the VUT). Additional information will be added with a number. Non-intersection cases either omit the priority letter or use it for special (L for longitudinal, P for parking). Page 28 out of 39

30 6.2 VEHICLE UNDER TEST - INSTRUMENTATION The vehicle should be instrumented with driving robots and an accurate position measurement tool. See Figure 9 and Figure 10 for an example. Figure 9: Control equipment in an Euro NCAP test vehicle: steering actuator, brake and accelerator actuators (Anthony Best Dynamics SR-15 and CBAR) Figure 10: Measurement equipment in an Euro NCAP test vehicle: position measurement (GeneSys ADMA-G, in blue box) Page 29 out of 39

31 6.2.1 Measurement Accuracy The vehicle's instrumentation should be able to measure the following quantities with the given accuracies (similar to current Euro NCAP protocols): VUT and VRU speed to 0.1 VUT and VRU lateral and longitudinal position to 0.03m VUT and VRU yaw rate to 0.1 /s or yaw acceleration to 0.1 /s² VUT and VRU longitudinal acceleration to 0.1m/s² VUT Steering wheel velocity to 1.0 /s Sampling rate of 0.01 s Program the position measurement system in a way that the coordinates are given for the foremost center point of the VUT and use a right-hand coordinate system with z positive pointing upwards, x positive pointing in the direction of travel Control Accuracy Instrument the vehicle with control equipment (e.g. driving robots) to achieve the following accuracies (similar to current Euro NCAP protocols): Speed of VUT: desired speed (and - 0) Speed of VRU: desired speed ± 0.2 Lateral and longitudinal distance of VUT and VRU to desired position 0 ± 0.05 m Synchronization of VUT and VRU within 0.02 s (preferably use UTC time for both) 6.3 VEHICLE UNDER TEST PREPARATION The vehicle under test will be prepared and instrumented as follows: 1. Check the empty weight, full tank, of the VUT 2. Instrument the VUT and make sure that the VUT instrumented and with driver is maximum 200 kg heavier than the empty VUT. 3. Check the weight distribution between the wheels and make sure the distribution does not change more than 5 %-points as opposed to the empty distribution. 4. Check the chassis geometry to make sure the vehicle is within its allowed limits. 5. Check the tire pressure is as necessary for the load state. Page 30 out of 39

32 6.4 INTERSECTION TEST CASES A fully marked intersection as described in section 3.3 has to be used. Traffic signs and traffic lights will need to be put into place as desired for the test case, and program VRU track and speed and VUT initial track as defined in the following tables speeds as defined in the following tables. Use the appropriate VRU dummy (pedestrian or bicycle). Program the VUT speed and track (during turning, if necessary) according to Figure 11 (repeated from section 3.3 for better readability). C 13m 3/3m A 0,5m 4m 3m B 16m 16m D 9m E 11m 2m 0,25m 3,5m 5,5m 2m 50m R=8m G 2m 3m R=8m H 4m 1m 150m Non dimensioned object are symmetric F 8m Figure 11: PROSPECT intersection with tracks (repeated from section 3.3) Page 31 out of 39

33 6.4.1 Bicycle Intersection The test cases for VUT - bicycle intersection are as follows: Table 3: Test cases for VUT bicycle intersection ID No 1 No 2 VUT Track VUT Speed profile () VRU Track VRU Speed () Signs / Clutter Other Test cases where VUT has priority CBIP 01 A 1 CBIP 02 E 6 CBIP 03 H - CBIG R 20 Large road (Track E) Large road (Track E) Large road (Track A) Turning Left (30-60) (30-50) (40-60) Large road (opposite VRU), Track A Small road (from right), Track C Small road (from left), Track C Test cases where VUT has green light Large road, Track A Turning right (10-30) Large road (same VRU), Track A (being overtaken) Test cases where VUT does NOT have priority Priority signs on large road Priority on large road, yield on small road Priority on large road, yield on small road Green traffic lights on large road - Small road obscured Small road obscured - CBIN 01 F 7 Small road, Track F Slight deceleration (15-30) Large road (from left), Track A 20 Priority on large road, yield on small road - CBIN 02 G 8 Small road, Track C Slight deceleration (20-40) Large road (from right), Track A 15 No signs or priority from right - CBIN 03 I 9 Small road, Track C Slight deceleration (10-30) Large road (from right), Track A 20 Priority on large road, yield on small road - CBIN 04 J 11 CBIN 05 L 13 Small road, Track C Small road, Track C Tight turn right (10-25) Tight turn right (10-25) Large road (from left) on bicycle lane, Track D Large road (from right) on bicycle lane, Track B Priority on large road, yield on small road Priority on large road, yield on small road Bicycle lanes on large road Bicycle lanes on large road CBIN 06 W 27 Small road, Track F Tight turn left (10-25) Large road (from left),track A 20 Priority on large road, yield on small road - CBIN 07 X 29 Small road, Track F Tight turn right (10-30) Large road (from left), Track A 20 Priority on large road, yield on small road - Page 32 out of 39

34 6.4.2 Pedestrian Intersection There are four different pedestrian setups, designated with Car-Adult-Intersection CAI 1-4. No distinguishment for priority is needed. Table 4: Test cases for VUT pedestrian intersection ID No VUT Track VUT Speed profile () VRU Track VRU Speed () Signs / Clutter CAI01 3a Large road, Track E Turning left (20-30), Track G Crossing small road (from left, Track H) 5 10 Priority signs on large road CAI02 3b Large road, Track E Turning left (20-30), Track G Crossing small road (from right, Track G) 5 10 Priority signs on large road CAI03 4a Large road, Track A Turning right (15-30), Track G Crossing small road (from right, Track G) 5 10 Priority signs on large road CAI04 4b Large road, Track A Turning right (15-30), Track G Crossing small road (from left, Track H) 5 10 Priority signs on large road Page 33 out of 39

35 6.5 STRAIGHT ROAD TEST CASES A fully marked road (without intersection) as described in section 3.3 has to be used. Program VRU and VUT track and speed as defined in the following table. Use the appropriate VRU dummy (pedestrian or bicycle) Bicycle There are 6 bicycle test cases for the straight road. Some cases include a parked vehicle. Since priority is not important in non-intersection setups, a "P" refers to parking scenarios. Table 5: Test cases for VUT crossing bicycle scenarios, longitudinal bicycle and parked car CBS No 1 No 2 VUT Track VUT Speed profile () VRU Track VRU Speed () Signs / Clutter Other CBSN N 15 In lane (30-50) Crossing from nearside 15 Bicycle approaching from sidewalk Bicycle obstructed on sidewalk CBSF P 17 In lane (30-50) Crossing from far side 15 Bicycle approaching from sidewalk Bicycle obstructed on sidewalk CBSP 1 Y 30 In lane Parked Longitudinal, besides vehicle 15 Vehicle opening door CBSP 02 AA 32 In lane Parked Longitudinal, collinear with vehicle 20 - Additionally, the current Euro NCAP 2018 bicycle scenarios contain longitudinal scenarios and crossing as shown in Table 6. Table 6: Test cases for VUT-longitudinal bicycle scenarios ID No 1 No 2 VUT Track VUT Speed profile VRU Track VRU Speed Signs / Clutter Other CBSL 3 N 15 In lane (30-60) Longitudinal, 25% position of vehicle 15 Bicycle approaching from sidewalk Bicycle obstructed on sidewalk CBSL 4 P 17 In lane (50-80) Longitudinal, collinear with vehicle 15 Bicycle approaching from sidewalk Bicycle obstructed on sidewalk Page 34 out of 39

36 6.5.2 Pedestrian Euro NCAP has clearly defined longitudinal test cases for crossing pedestrians. These test cases will also be used for validation, but using the fully marked road as specified above. Two additional test cases for the longitudinal pedestrian as follows are similar to Euro NCAP 2018 scenarios (no reference available, publication in is expected for December 2016). Table 7: Test cases for VUT pedestrian, longitudinal scenarios ID No 1 VUT Track VUT Speed profile () VRU Track VRU Speed () Other CASL 1 7a (1) In lane (30-60) Longitudinal, 25% position of vehicle 5 Bicycle obstructed on sidewalk CASL 2 7a (2) In lane (50-65) Longitudinal, collinear with vehicle 5 Bicycle obstructed on sidewalk 6.6 OTHER One test case asks for a vehicle leaving a parking lot via the sidewalk. This scenario is similar to CBIN05, with the exception that a full marked intersection is not used, but a straight road with sidewalk is used. 6.7 TEST SPEEDS This Deliverable defines 23 different test cases. Given the fact that a full vehicle test should be doable in two track-days (6h) and assuming a time of 15 min per test run, only an average of two different speeds can be carried out. It will be part of the further development of the test method (month 22 to 30) to develop a list of speeds that should be carried out per test case. These speeds will be between the minimum and maximum speeds as defined in sections 6.4 and 0. The selection of the test speeds depends on the actual time needed for test conduction, including time needed for switch-over between test cases, re-setup of dummy after impact, etc. Page 35 out of 39

37 7 TIME PLANNING The time planning for activities is as follows: Experiments for development of obstruction (see section 3.1), reproduction of behavioral patterns (see section 3.2), general verification of feasibility of the intersection setup on the test track and of the realistic will be carried out from month 22 to approximately month 25. Baseline tests of current production vehicles and development tests will be carried out between month 24 and month 30 (after the bicycle dummy is ready for use), on test track and - if possible - in city streets. As of now, at least the Toyota vehicle will be available only from month 30. Refinement of test procedure and test specifications is done during this first test period and will be included in the final test procedure (Deliverable D7.5, to be submitted by month 30). Actual of PROSPECT demonstrators' performance on test track and in city streets will be tested from month 35 to month 38, as specified in Deliverable D7.5. Results from these tests will be included in D7.1 and D7.3 (both to be submitted in month 39). See Figure 12 for an overview of the time planning. 1st GA Göteborg 2nd GA Nottingham 3rd GA BASt Bicycle Dummy ready (April 17) Demonstrators ready (Feb 18) Task 7.1 Track Task 7.2 Sim Task Baseline/ Development Demonstrator D7.1, Report on Vehicle-based Functional Tests (IDIADA) Figure 12: Time planning for work package 7 activities, with focus on task 7.1. Page 36 out of 39

38 8 REFERENCES ERA, 2010: FGSV 284, Empfehlungen für Radverkehrsanlagen, 2010 EFA, 2002: Op den Camp, 2016: FGSV 288, Empfehlungen für Fußgängerverkehrsanlagen, 2002 Op den Camp, van Montfort, Uittenbogaard, Welten: CATS Final project summary report. Available for download at publication/ /jhjvil/tno-2016-r10921.pdf RASt, 2016: FGSV, Richtlinien für die Anlage von Stadtstraßen, 2016 Wisch, 2013: Wisch, Seiniger, Edwards, Schaller, Pal, Aparicio, Geronimi, Lubbe: European project AsPeCSS - interim result: Development of Test Scenarios based on identified Accident Scenarios. ESV Conference 2013, Paper Number Page 37 out of 39

39 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research leading to the results of this work has received funding from the European Community's Eighth Framework Program (Horizon2020) under grant agreement n Page 38 out of 39

40 DISCLAIMER This publication has been produced by the PROSPECT project, which is funded under the Horizon 2020 Programme of the European Commission. The present document is a draft and has not been approved. The content of this report does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors. Page 39 out of 39