• 专利附录
  • 专利说明
  • 权利要求
  • 类似技术
  • 同族专利
  • 引用文献
  • 法律状态
  • 优先权
    • 专利摘要:
    The invention relates to a method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle by a driver in a risk or problem situation. In order to carry out an assessment of the controllability of a vehicle in good time, the following steps are provided: a. Modeling the drivetrain and driving dynamics of the vehicle, b. Modeling Situational and Environmental Conditions, c. Selecting a risk or problem situation, d. Select a driver qualification type, e. Modeling the driver response depending on the selected driver capability type, f. Simulating dynamic vehicle behavior longitudinally and transversely to a planned trajectory based on the powertrain and dynamics model for the given situational and environmental conditions upon the occurrence of the selected risk or problem situation, g. Calculating the maximum lateral and longitudinal deviation from the planned trajectory between the occurrence of the risk or problem situation and the driver regaining full control, h. Evaluating the controllability of the vehicle by the driver in the risk or problem situation due to the maximum lateral and / or longitudinal deviation.
    公开号:AT513714A1
    申请号:T50584/2012
    申请日:2012-12-12
    公开日:2014-06-15
    发明作者:Mihai Dr Nica；Christian Dipl Ing Fh Miedl；Theodor Dr Sams；Franz Dipl Ing Zieher；Gerhard Dr Griessnig；Dirk Dipl Ing Geyer；Cheng Dr Caizhen；Thomas Dipl Ing Rosenberg；Stephen Dr Jones；Jürgen Dipl Ing Fh Braun；Kural Dipl Ing Emre；Johannes Dr Schauer；Rolf Dipl Ing Albrecht
    申请人:Avl List Gmbh；
    IPC主号:
    专利说明:

    1 56528
    The invention relates to a method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle, in particular an electric vehicle, by a driver in risk or problem situations.
    In order to be able to systematically assess the risk of dangerous faults in electrical and electronic systems in vehicles, ISO standard 26262 was introduced. The standard mentions prerequisites that must be met for the system to be developed to meet the requirements
    Safety requirements level ASIL (automotive safety integrity level) can meet. In doing so, requirements regarding the implementation of a hazard analysis and risk assessment are defined. First, the potential hazards of the system must be identified. This is done by considering the malfunctions of the investigated system in specific driving situations. Subsequently, each hazard is classified with a safety requirement level from A to D or classified as non-safety relevant. The risk analysis is done in ISO standard 26262 using a defined qualitative methodology. To this end, the severity (severity S) of the impact, the frequency (exposure E) of the driving situation and the controllability (C) of the malfunction in the respective driving situation must be estimated individually for each identified hazard, for example by the driver. As ASIL requirements increase, safety requirements also increase - so the safety requirements level has a major impact on development costs. While there are clear guidelines for assessing the severity of the effects and the frequency of the driving situation, the controllability of the driving situation has so far been difficult to estimate objectively. According to the ISO standard 26262, the controllability of the driving situation is classified in the classes CO (manageable) to C3 (uncontrollable). The problem that arises is that most controllability assumptions can only be verified at the end of a development cycle at the trainer in an appropriate investigation. This is particularly unpleasant when it turns out that the controllability was incorrectly adopted during the project and the safety requirement level of the system has to be redetermined, whereby parts of the development work must be repeated. 2/21 2
    The object of the invention is to avoid these disadvantages and to develop a method which makes it possible to carry out an early assessment of the controllability of a vehicle.
    According to the invention this is achieved by the following steps: a. Modeling the drivetrain and driving dynamics of the vehicle, b. Modeling Situational and Environmental Conditions, c. Selecting at least one risk or problem situation, d. Selecting at least one driver skill type, preferably from the group of inexperienced drivers, average driver, and advanced driver, e. Modeling the driver response depending on the selected driver capability type, f. Simulating dynamic vehicle behavior longitudinally and transversely to a planned trajectory on the basis of the powertrain and vehicle dynamics model for the given situation and environmental conditions when the selected risk or problem situation occurs, assuming a driver intervention with driver capability type dependent response time, g. Calculating the maximum lateral and longitudinal deviation from the planned trajectory between the occurrence of the risk or problem situation and the regaining of full control by the driver, h. Evaluating the controllability of the vehicle by the driver in the risk or problem situation due to the maximum lateral and / or longitudinal deviation of the vehicle from the planned trajectory.
    The present method allows early control of the vehicle by the driver in risk and problem situations in the risk and 3/21 3
    To be able to estimate problem analyzes, as well as to be able to make statements about the reaction time in case of a fault in the system. The great advantage is that the controllability of the vehicle can be taken into account at a very early stage of development. The method is based on simulations of the lateral and longitudinal driving dynamics of the vehicle for a variety of driving conditions (eg dry, wet or icy road, speeds, curves, etc.), whereby a variety of errors with respect to the viewing system can be considered (for example Fault of the electric machine in an electric vehicle). Based on the result of the simulation, the driver's responsiveness to problems can be examined.
    In addition, the results of the simulation can be used for safety investigations.
    The hazard analysis and risk assessment is carried out in accordance with ISO standard 26262. On the basis of this, relevant risky risk and problem situations are selected for carrying out the simulation, for example full torque release in a curve. For each of these situations, in addition to the error definition, a complete description of the situation conditions, such as the driving speed, the road conditions, the visibility, the weather conditions, etc.
    The powertrain of the vehicle is modeled using appropriate software tools (for example software "AVL CRUISE"). When analyzing a complex system such as a powertrain, other subcomponent modeling tools can also be used and integrated into the powertrain model.
    The modeling of the vehicle dynamics and the simulation of the situation conditions can be performed with a software tool, which allows a simulation of the lateral and longitudinal dynamics, for example with the driving dynamics simulation platform "CARMAKER". (IPG).
    Several types of drivers are modeled: inexperience (according to the controllability level CO of ISO 26262), average (according to the controllability level CI) and advanced (corresponding to the controllability level C2). This driver modeling is realized by 4/21 4 different response times for each driver model. In addition, the driver's current response is modeled based on driver skill type. This means, for example, that an advanced driver will take more vigorous action or apply more braking power than an inexperienced or average driver. For each of the three driver capability types, each situation is examined for controllability or intolerability. For risk or problem situations with lateral force on the vehicle, a risk or problem situation is considered to be unmanageable if, during the time the driver attempts to regain control of the vehicle, the vehicle is at least by a defined threshold - for example 0.5 meters, or more - laterally deviates from the desired route or the desired lane. By lateral deviation is meant the amount by which the lateral movement of the vehicle caused by the risk or problem situation deviates from the planned trajectory. The limit, up to which the situation is classified as manageable, can be flexibly defined depending on the road. On motorways, this limit can be greater, on narrow streets less than 0.5 meters. 0.5 meters can be taken as the average limit for most roads. For risk or problem situations with force acting on the vehicle along the direction of travel, the controllability in seconds (or meters) between two vehicles is measured. The reference values for the limit value are the legal regulations in the country in which or for which the vehicle is being developed. For example, in most European countries, a two-second distance between two vehicles (or equivalent distance in meters) is required. A risk or problem situation is considered manageable if the deviation in the longitudinal direction of the planned trajectory of the vehicle is not more than 1.5 seconds (0.5 seconds tolerance). The longitudinal deviation is understood to be the amount by which the longitudinal movement of the vehicle, caused by the risk or problem situation, deviates from the path point planned by the driver. The longitudinal deviation depends on the simulated situation, ie the safe distance (for example 2 seconds) between two consecutive vehicles, and may vary according to the situation. For standing or launching vehicles, the longitudinal deviation is assumed to be controllable within a risk or problematic situation of about 1 meter.
    If in any risk or problem situations with both lateral and longitudinal force components on the vehicle any of the lateral or longitudinal deviations are above the respective limits, then a risk or problem situation is considered manageable if during the period in which the driver tries in order to regain control of the vehicle, the lateral deviation does not exceed the lateral limit (eg, 0.5 meter) outside the limits of the roadway used by the vehicle or the longitudinal limit (eg, 1.5 seconds) from the driver's intended train point. For a stationary or take-off vehicle, 1 meter is assumed as the longitudinal limit.
    Depending on the driver qualification types, the following reaction times are expected:
    Inexperienced drivers (corresponding to controllability class CO): 2.3 to 2.8 seconds;
    Average drivers (according to controllability class CI): 1.8 to 2.1 seconds.
    Advanced rider (according to controllability class CO): 1.5 to 1.8 seconds.
    A risk or problem situation is then considered to be uncontrollable (controllability class C3) if none of the driver qualification types (corresponding to the controllability classes CO, CI, C2) is able to do so within the set limits for both the lateral deviation and the longitudinal deviation Regain control of the vehicle.
    A risk or problem situation is then considered to be generally manageable (controllability class CO) if each of the driver qualification types 6/21 6 (corresponding to the controllability classes CO, CI, C2) is capable of being within the set limits for lateral deviation as well for the longitudinal deviation to regain control of the vehicle.
    Averagely manageable (controllability class CI), a risk or problem situation is considered when both the average and the advanced driver capability type (corresponding to the controllability classes CI, C2) are capable of being within the set limits for both the lateral and longitudinal altitudes Deviation to regain control of the vehicle.
    A risk or problem situation is then considered to be manageable (controllability class C2) if only the advanced driver qualification type (corresponding to controllability classes C2) is able to control both the lateral deviation and the longitudinal deviation within the set limits to recover the vehicle.
    The lowest controllability class of all successfully simulated driver qualification types provides information about the controllability of the vehicle in the selected risk or problem situation. On the basis of this result, a hazard and risk assessment, for example according to ISO standard 26262, can be carried out.
    The invention will be explained in more detail with reference to FIGS.
    1 shows the method according to the invention in a flow chart, and FIG. 2 shows a device for carrying out the method according to the invention.
    Fig. 1 shows the inventive method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle, such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid vehicle, by a driver in risk or problem situations, with reference to a flowchart.
    After starting the method, a modeling of the drive train and the driving dynamics is performed in step a. The modeling of the 7/21 7
    Drivetrain and drivetrain components may be replaced with suitable known software tools such as " AVL CRUISE " or the like.
    In step b, the situation and environmental conditions are modeled, whereby situation and environmental conditions are completely defined. In this case, external factors such as road conditions, road surface roughness,
    Visibility, weather conditions, time of day, temperature, etc. are described.
    The modeling of the vehicle dynamics and the situation and environmental conditions can also be performed with a software tool that allows a simulation of the lateral and longitudinal dynamics, for example with the driving dynamics simulation platform "CARMAKER". (IPG).
    In step c, at least one risk or problem situation is selected from a library or a table of stored possible risk and problem situations, and corresponding information, parameters and routines for the simulation of the vehicle behavior are made available when the risk or problem situation occurs.
    In step d, the driver capability type is selected from the group of inexperienced, average and advanced drivers set up as a table, for example, and corresponding parameters, such as the driver's response time, are provided in a driver response modeling based on driver skill type in step e.
    With the data and information from the steps a, b and c, a simulation of the vehicle behavior is performed in the occurring risk or problem situation in the steps fl, f2 and f3 for all driver capability types.
    First, in step fl, the simulation is performed for an inexperienced driver. For this purpose, in step g1 the maximum lateral deviation is calculated and in step g2 the maximum longitudinal deviation of the vehicle from the planned trajectory between the occurrence of the risk or problem situation until the driver regains full control. Subsequently, in step h1 or h2, it is judged whether or not the driver controls the vehicle in this situation. This evaluation is made on the basis of a comparison of the maximum lateral or longitudinal deviation of the vehicle in the risk or problem situation from the planned path point on the trajectory without risk or problem situation with a defined limit value for this deviation. The limit value for the lateral deviation from the trajectory may be 0.5 meters, for example. The limit for the longitudinal deviation can - assuming the minimum allowed distance between two consecutive vehicles of about 2 seconds - be assumed to 1.5 seconds. However, the limit values can also deviate from these values, depending on the particular situation, the road width and the local legal situation. In particular, the limit value for the longitudinal deviation can also be defined by a distance.
    If the evaluation h1 and h2 of this simulation shows that the vehicle has the driving skill type " inexperienced driver " is controllable (" y "), the controllability class " CO " output.
    However, if either the lateral or longitudinal deviation is greater than the allowed limit, the vehicle is deemed uncontrollable for this driving skill type in the selected risk or problem situations (" n ") - the simulation will proceed with the next driving skill type " average driver "; continued in the same way.
    If the evaluation h1 and h2 of this simulation shows that the vehicle has the driving skill type " average driver " is controllable (" y "), the controllability class " CI " output.
    If the lateral or longitudinal deviation limits ("n") are not met, the vehicle will be deemed unmanageable for an average driver in these risk or problem situations. In this case, the simulation will still work for the last driving skill type " advanced driver " continued in the manner described.
    If in the continued simulation it turns out that the vehicle is driven by the driving skill type " advanced driver " is controllable (" y "), the controllability class " C2 " 9/21 9 output. Otherwise, the vehicle will be labeled " C3 " as uncontrollable in the treated risk or problem situation. For side-impact risk or problem situations on the vehicle, a risk or problem situation is deemed to be unmanageable if, during the time the driver attempts to regain control of the vehicle, the vehicle is at least a defined threshold of, for example 0.5 meters laterally deviates from the target route or the desired lane. By lateral deviation is meant the amount by which the lateral movement of the vehicle caused by the risk or problem situation deviates from the planned trajectory. The limit, up to which the situation is classified as manageable, can be flexibly defined depending on the road. On motorways, this limit can be greater, on narrow streets less than 0.5 meters. 0.5 meters can be taken as the average limit for most roads. For risk or problem situations with force acting on the vehicle along the direction of travel, the controllability in seconds (or meters) between two vehicles is measured. The reference values for the limit value are the legal regulations in the country in which the vehicle is being developed. For example, in most European countries, a two-second distance between two vehicles (or equivalent distance in meters) is required. A risk or problem situation is considered manageable if the deviation in the longitudinal direction of the planned trajectory of the vehicle is not more than 1.5 seconds (0.5 seconds tolerance). The longitudinal deviation is understood to be the amount by which the longitudinal movement of the vehicle, caused by the risk or problem situation, deviates from the path point planned by the driver. The longitudinal deviation thereby depends on the simulated situation, that is to say for the safe distance (for example 2 seconds) between two consecutive vehicles, and may vary according to the situation. For standing or launching vehicles, the longitudinal deviation is assumed to be controllable within a risk or problematic situation of about 1 meter. 10/21 10
    In situations of risk or problem with both lateral and longitudinal force components on the vehicle, if any of the lateral or longitudinal deviations are above the respective limits, then a risk or problem situation is considered manageable if during the period in which the driver is attempting in order to regain control of the vehicle, the lateral deviation does not exceed the lateral limit (eg, 0.5 meter) outside the limits of the roadway used by the vehicle or the longitudinal limit (eg, 1.5 seconds) from the driver's intended train point. For a stationary or take-off vehicle, 1 meter is assumed as the longitudinal limit.
    The modeling of the reaction time of the driver, which is composed of the decision time, the actuation time and the response time of the actuator, is carried out as follows:
    Because the driver is surprised by the risk or problem situation, worst-case scenarios are taken into account.
    The decision time includes the steps of perceiving, understanding, selecting the reaction action.
    The decision time can be between a minimum and a maximum decision time. However, the actual decision time may vary depending on the situation and the level of attention of the driver.
    Investigations have shown that for an inexperienced driver (corresponding to controllability class CO) the minimum decision time can be 1.5 seconds and the maximum decision time can be about 2 seconds.
    For an average driver (according to controllability class CI), the decision time may be between a minimum decision time of 1.2 seconds and a maximum decision time of about 1.5 seconds. 11/21 11
    The decision time for advanced driver drivers (corresponding to controllability class C2) is between a minimum decision time of 1.0 second and a maximum decision time of about 1.3 seconds.
    The actuation time is the time between the selection of the actuation action and the actuation of the actuation device.
    Here too, a distinction can be made between the three driver qualification types:
    In the inexperienced driver (according to the controllability class CO) - as investigations have shown - the actuation time is generally 0.5 seconds.
    For average drivers (according to the controllability class CI), the actuation time is 0.3 seconds in most cases
    Advanced drivers (according to controllability class C2) usually have actuation times of about 0.2 seconds.
    The response time of the actuator (eg brake actuator) is driver independent and depends, for example, on mechanical factors. It is about 0.3 seconds in most cases. Depending on the state of the actuator, a deviation up or down is also possible here.
    In summary, for example, depending on the driver qualification types, the following reaction times can be expected:
    Inexperienced drivers (corresponding to controllability class CO): 2.3 to 2.8 seconds;
    Average drivers (according to controllability class CI): 1.8 to 2.1 seconds.
    Advanced rider (according to controllability class CO): 1.5 to 1.8 seconds. 12/21 12
    The indicated times are average values, which are correct in most cases. However, the times - depending on the situation - may vary in individual cases from the specified values up or down.
    Example: • Ambient conditions: wet freewheeling road, vehicle speed 100 km / h, left turn; The vehicle has one electric motor per wheel. • Error: The electric motor of a front wheel suddenly delivers the maximum positive e torque. • Modeled reaction times (assumption: no lead time, driver is completely surprised by the defect): a) controllability class CO: 2.8 seconds - > An inexperienced driver can not control the vehicle (measures: walk away from the accelerator pedal, attempt to brake, countersteer - with longer delays) b) controllability class CI: 2.1 seconds - > An average driver can not control the vehicle (measures: walk away from the accelerator, attempt to brake, countersteer - with average delays) c) controllability class CI: 2.1 seconds - > An average driver can not control the vehicle (measures: walking away from the gas pedal, steering - with little delay) • Result: situation is unmanageable (C3)
    2 shows a device for carrying out the described method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle by a driver in at least one risk or problem situation, with an operating unit 10 with input and output device 11, 12, a computing unit 20 and a data unit 30 Control unit 10, the arithmetic unit 20 and / or the data unit 30 can be used in a 13/21 13
    Central unit integrated or spatially separated, in particular be designed as part of a decentralized computer network.
    The arithmetic unit 20 may consist of several program modules (software tools), for example a first program module 21 for modeling the drive train and powertrain components (for example software AVL CRUISE), a second program module 22 for modeling the vehicle dynamics, a third program module 23 for modeling situation and Environmental conditions, a fourth program module 24 for modeling the driver reactions depending on driver qualification type, a fifth program module 25 for simulating the dynamic behavior of the vehicle when the risk or problem situation occurs and a sixth program module 26 for assessing the controllability of the vehicle. At least two or more program modules can be combined in at least one program in a complex manner. For example, second and third program modules 22, 23 may be combined into a single program module for modeling vehicle dynamics and situation and environmental conditions. Such functionality combining the second and third program modules, for example, is provided by the commercially available " CARMAKER " (IPG).
    The individual program modules 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 of the arithmetic unit 20 can be arranged in a central unit or spatially separated from each other as part of a decentralized computer network.
    The data unit 30 may include one or more data modules, for example, a first data module 31 for information about risk and problem situations, a second data module 32 for information about the vehicle and the drive train, a third data module 33 information of situational and environmental conditions, a fourth data module 34 for Information about the driver type, a fifth data module 35 for driver type-related response times and a sixth data module 36 for defined limits for the lateral and longitudinal deviation of the vehicle. At least two or more data modules can be combined in at least one data complex. 14/21 14
    The individual data modules 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 of the data unit 30 can be arranged in a central device or can be formed spatially separate from one another as part of a decentralized computer network.
    In the data modules all necessary information and criteria are stored as characteristics, maps, tables or matrices and / or can be added or entered during the procedure. If necessary, the corresponding data and information can be called up via the arithmetic unit 20, in particular by the individual program modules 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
    Although the invention has been explained here by means of an abrupt torque increase in an electric drive motor for a wheel of a vehicle. Of course, however, the invention may also be applied to other risk or problem situations, such as abrupt torque decrease, torque reversal, stalling, oscillating torque on one or more wheels, steering system or brake system related problem situations, short circuits or failure of components in the electrical system, or the like.
    In addition to the simulation, the fault tolerance time can be determined for each risk or problem situation. The fault tolerance time based on the lateral and longitudinal deviations is the time that elapses before the risk or problem situation becomes unmanageable. The fault tolerance time is used to calculate the fault reaction time available to the security systems (monitoring software, ESP, ...) before the effect of the risk or problem situation becomes visible. The safety systems must be designed so that the safety measures take effect within the fault response time.
    The response of the three driver types (brake pedal force, steering angle, etc.) is modeled depending on the particular risk or problem situation, since each risk or problem situation requires different responses. In addition, for each driver capability type for the same risk or problem situation, the predicted driver response (eg, counter steering) is modeled differently. 15/21
    权利要求:
    Claims (10)
    [1]
    15 CLAIMS 1. A method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle, in particular an electric vehicle, by a driver in at least one risk or problem situation, characterized by the following steps: a. Modeling the drivetrain and driving dynamics of the vehicle, b. Modeling Situational and Environmental Conditions, c. Selecting at least one risk or problem situation, d. Selecting at least one driver skill type, preferably from the group of inexperienced drivers, average driver, and advanced driver, e. Modeling the driver response depending on the selected driver capability type, f. Simulating dynamic vehicle behavior longitudinally and transversely to a planned trajectory on the basis of the powertrain and vehicle dynamics model for the given situation and environmental conditions when the selected risk or problem situation occurs, assuming a driver intervention with driver capability type dependent response time, g. Calculating the maximum lateral and longitudinal deviation from the planned trajectory between the occurrence of the risk or problem situation and the regaining of full control by the driver, h. Evaluating the controllability of the vehicle by the driver in the risk or problem situation due to the maximum lateral and / or longitudinal deviation of the vehicle from the planned trajectory. 16/21 16
    [2]
    2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the vehicle is assessed as manageable for at least the driver driver type considered, if the maximum lateral and longitudinal deviations of the vehicle do not exceed defined limit values for the lateral or longitudinal deviation of the vehicle.
    [3]
    3. The method of claim 1 or 2, characterized in that the vehicle is assessed as generally manageable, if the maximum lateral and longitudinal deviations of the vehicle for all types of drivers do not exceed defined limits for the lateral or longitudinal deviation of the vehicle.
    [4]
    4. The method according to claim 2 or 3, characterized in that a lateral deviation of 0.5 meters outside the lane of the planned trajectory is defined as a lateral limit.
    [5]
    5. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 4, characterized in that as a longitudinal limit value, a deviation of 1.5 seconds in the longitudinal direction of the planned trajectory - is defined - with respect to a planned path point without occurring risk or problem situation
    [6]
    6. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 5, characterized in that for a driver inexperienced a reaction time of 2.3 to 2.8 seconds of the simulation of the dynamic vehicle behavior is based.
    [7]
    7. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 6, characterized in that for an average driver, a reaction time of 1.8 to 2.1 seconds of the simulation of the dynamic vehicle behavior is based.
    [8]
    8. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 7, characterized in that for an advanced driver, a reaction time of 1.5 to 1.8 seconds of the simulation of the dynamic vehicle behavior is based. 17/21 17
    [9]
    9. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 8, characterized in that each driver capability type a controllability class (CO, CI, C2) is assigned.
    [10]
    10. The method according to claim 9, characterized in that the lowest controllability class of all successfully simulated driver qualification types is used as a controllability class for a hazard and risk assessment. 2012 12 12 feet 18/21
    类似技术:
    公开号 | 公开日 | 专利标题
    EP2932227B1|2017-11-01|Method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle
    DE102014216574B4|2017-12-21|Limitation of torque requirements of steering assistance equipment
    DE102007053501A1|2009-01-02|Method for developing and / or testing at least one safety and / or driver assistance system for a motor vehicle and simulation environment
    DE102016109651A1|2016-12-29|Method for the validation of vehicle functions of a virtual autonomous vehicle
    DE102015218361A1|2017-03-30|Method and test unit for verifying a vehicle function
    AT521832B1|2020-10-15|Test terminal to support an executing person
    DE102011088805A1|2013-06-20|Method for developing and/or testing of driver assistance system for motor vehicle, involves determining several scenarios in modeling of prior collision phase by using Monte Carlo simulation based on driving situation
    EP3271841A1|2018-01-24|Method for computer-supported development of an overall system consisting of subsystems
    DE102013200116A1|2014-07-10|Method for developing and/or testing driver assistance system for motor vehicle, involves determining motor vehicle parameter, and transferring control function of vehicle between rider and corresponding driver assistance system
    DE102009013291A1|2010-09-16|Method for preparing control process for active vehicle component influencing driving dynamics of vehicle, involves simulating defined vehicle maneuver by vehicle-modeling system for vehicle components
    DE102019206908A1|2020-11-19|Method for training at least one algorithm for a control unit of a motor vehicle, computer program product, motor vehicle and system
    EP2261096B1|2012-09-26|Method for driver identification in a vehicle
    EP2707246A1|2014-03-19|Method for operating a motor car with a driver assistance system
    DE102019203712B4|2021-02-11|Method for training at least one algorithm for a control unit of a motor vehicle, computer program product, motor vehicle and system
    DE102017211022A1|2019-01-03|Control unit and method for increasing the safety of a vehicle
    DE102016205392A1|2017-10-05|Method and system for validating an obstacle detection system
    AT523850B1|2021-12-15|Computer-aided method and device for probability-based speed prediction for vehicles
    DE102018220865B4|2020-11-05|Method for training at least one algorithm for a control unit of a motor vehicle, computer program product and motor vehicle
    DE102018009556A1|2019-06-27|Method for functional testing of at least one driver assistance system of a motor vehicle
    DE102019207518A1|2020-11-26|Risk reduction in road traffic
    AT523834B1|2021-12-15|Method and system for testing a driver assistance system
    DE102019130040A1|2021-05-12|Method and system for testing an automated driving function by means of reinforcement learning
    DE102014221011A1|2015-10-08|Module for simulating a special purpose vehicle in a traffic flow simulation and method for performing a traffic flow simulation
    EP3783452A1|2021-02-24|Computer-implemented method and test unit for approximizing test results and method for providing a trained, artificial neural network
    DE102017006338A1|2019-01-03|Method for efficient validation and secure application of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles
    同族专利:
    公开号 | 公开日
    AT513714B1|2015-02-15|
    WO2014090631A3|2014-09-04|
    US20150310145A1|2015-10-29|
    EP2932227B1|2017-11-01|
    EP2932227A2|2015-10-21|
    US10540456B2|2020-01-21|
    WO2014090631A2|2014-06-19|
    引用文献:
    公开号 | 申请日 | 公开日 | 申请人 | 专利标题
    WO2010004410A1|2008-07-09|2010-01-14|Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha|Twin-clutch device|
    JP2010112504A|2008-11-07|2010-05-20|Toyota Motor Corp|Control system for continuously variable transmission|
    JP2011135765A|2009-11-27|2011-07-07|Denso Corp|Traveling motor controller of vehicle, motor control system for vehicle, and rotation detecting apparatus|CN104374582A|2014-07-10|2015-02-25|无锡商业职业技术学院|Simulation electric car experimental facility|US5880362A|1995-09-06|1999-03-09|Engineering Technology Associates, Inc.|Method and system for simulating vehicle and roadway interaction|
    EP2246686A1|2009-05-01|2010-11-03|Froude Hofmann Limited|Vehicle test apparatus and method|EP2778007A1|2013-03-12|2014-09-17|Inria Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique|Method and system to assess abnormal driving behaviour of vehicles travelling on road|
    DE102013226195A1|2013-12-17|2015-06-18|Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft|Method and system for determining parameters of a model for longitudinal guidance and for determining a longitudinal guidance for a vehicle|
    AT517836B1|2015-11-19|2017-05-15|Avl List Gmbh|Method and test bench for carrying out a test for a test object|
    JP2021516638A|2018-03-20|2021-07-08|モービルアイ ビジョン テクノロジーズ リミテッド|Systems and methods for navigating vehicles|
    KR20200046179A|2018-10-18|2020-05-07|주식회사 만도|Emergency controlling device for vehicle|
    法律状态:
    优先权:
    申请号 | 申请日 | 专利标题
    ATA50584/2012A|AT513714B1|2012-12-12|2012-12-12|Method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle|ATA50584/2012A| AT513714B1|2012-12-12|2012-12-12|Method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle|
    US14/651,079| US10540456B2|2012-12-12|2013-12-03|Method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle|
    EP13802319.7A| EP2932227B1|2012-12-12|2013-12-03|Method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle|
    PCT/EP2013/075354| WO2014090631A2|2012-12-12|2013-12-03|Method for assessing the controllability of a vehicle|
    [返回顶部]