自动紧急制动系统控制模块的SOTIF量化评价

doi:10.19562/j.chinasae.qcgc.2023.09.014

Abstract

Abstract:

The establishment of Safety Of The Intended Functionality （SOTIF） evaluation system and SOTIF design are the only way for wide application of the intelligent vehicles. To improve the SOTIF theory and realize the SOTIF design of Autonomous Emergency Braking System （AEBS）， safety analysis of the control module of AEBS is conducted by using the method of System Theoretic Process Analysis （STPA） in this paper. Based on the results of the safety analysis， SOTIF evaluation indices of the control module of AEBS are proposed， which are then comprehensively quantified using the CRITIC method and TOPSIS method. In addition， the proposed evaluation methods are used to conduct a SOTIF evaluation of the AEBS control module in a prototype of intelligent vehicle based on real vehicle tests， and the rationality and practicability of the proposed SOTIF evaluation method for the control module of AEBS are verified by the evaluation results. Finally， the evaluation results are analyzed， and further the SOTIF improvement suggestion for the control module of AEBS is put forward according to the proposed SOTIF evaluation indices.

Key words: SOTIF, autonomous emergency braking system, STPA, evaluation index, quantitative evaluation

Xianxu Bai,Yu Zuo,Weihan Li,Qin Shi,Chuzhao Li,Shulian Zhao,Jiong Chen. Quantitative Evaluation of SOTIF for Control Module of AEBS[J].Automotive Engineering, 2023, 45(9): 1655-1665.

Figures/Tables 15

测试场景	序号	$a σ$ /（m·s^-2）	$? t$ /s	$? T$ /s	$? d$ /m
CCRm-40-20kph	1	0.13	0.03	0.07	0.38
CCRm-40-20kph	2	0.23	0.04	0.05	0.36
CCRm-50-20kph	1	0.37	0.05	0.06	0.52
CCRm-50-20kph	2	0.21	0.06	0.07	0.60
CCRm-60-20kph	1	0.25	0.06	0.07	1.03
CCRm-60-20kph	2	0.55	0.05	0.08	0.52

指标	指标对比强度	指标冲突性	信息量	权重
$a σ$ /（m·s^-2）	0.355 1	2.283 6	0.810 8	0.285 7
$? t$ /s	0.389 7	1.669 6	0.650 6	0.229 3
$? T$ /s	0.344 3	2.003 7	0.689 8	0.243 1
$? d$ /m	0.364 2	1.884 7	0.686 4	0.241 9

References 25

1	国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴［M］. 北京：中国统计出版社， 2021.
	National Bureau of Statistics of China. China statistical yearbook ［M］. Beijing： China Statistics Press， 2021.
2	金辉，李昊天. 基于驾驶风格的前撞预警系统报警策略［J］. 汽车工程， 2021， 43（3）： 405-413.
	JIN H， LI H T. Alarm strategy for frontal crash warning system based on driving style［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2021， 43（3）： 405-413.
3	XIANG X， QIN W， XIANG B. Research on a DSRC-based rear-end collision warning model［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2014， 15（3）：1054-1065.
4	SIDORENKO G， THUNBERG J， SJÖBERG K， et al. Safety of automatic emergency braking in platooning［J］. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology， 2021， 71（3）： 2319-2332.
5	LEE J， LEE H， NAH W. Minimizing the number of X/Y capacitors in an autonomous emergency brake system using the BPSO algorithm［J］. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics， 2021， 37（2）： 1630-1640.
6	郭祥靖，孙攀，邓杰，等. 基于BP神经网络算法预测的重型半挂汽车列车AEB控制策略研究［J］. 汽车工程， 2021， 43（9）： 1350-1359， 1366.
	GUO X J， SUN P， DENG J， et al. Research on AEB control strategy of a heavy tractor-semitrailer combination based on BP neural network algorithm prediction［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2021， 43（9）： 1350-1359， 1366.
7	SAM D， VELANGANNI C， EVANGELIN T E. A vehicle control system using a time synchronized hybrid VANET to reduce road accidents caused by human error［J］. Vehicular Communications， 2016， 6： 17-28.
8	CICCHINO J B. Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates［J］. Accident Analysis & Prevention， 2017， 99： 142-152.
9	ZHAO Y， TIAN W， CHENG H. Pyramid Bayesian method for model uncertainty evaluation of semantic segmentation in autonomous driving［J］. Automotive Innovation， 2022， 5（1）：70-78.
10	SABERI A K， HEGGE J， FRUEHLING T， et al. Beyond SOTIF： black swans and formal methods［C］. 2020 IEEE International Systems Conference （SysCon）. IEEE， 2020： 1-5.
11	ISO. ISO/FDIS 21448 road vehicles — safety of the intended functionality［S］. Geneva， Switzerland： ISO： 2022.
12	陈浩，王红，李维汉，等. 基于行车安全场理论的预期功能安全场景风险评估［J］. 汽车工程， 2022， 44（11）： 1636-1646.
	CHEN H， WANG H， LI W H， et al. Risk assessment of safety of the intended functionality scenes based on driving safety field theory［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2022， 44（11）： 1636-1646.
13	邵文博，李骏，张玉新，等. 智能汽车预期功能安全保障关键技术［J］. 汽车工程， 2022， 44（9）： 1289-1304.
	SHAO W B， LI J， ZHANG Y X， et al. Key technologies to ensure the safety of the intended functionality for intelligent vehicles［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2022，44（9）：1289-1304.
14	ALI N， HUSSAIN M， HONG J E. Analyzing safety of collaborative cyber-physical systems considering variability［J］. IEEE Access， 2020， 8： 162701-162713.
15	BECKER C， BREWER J C， YOUNT L. Safety of the intended functionality of lane-centering and lane-changing maneuvers of a generic level 3 highway chauffeur system［R］. United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Electronic System Safety Research Division， 2020.
16	SHARMA S. Considering safety and security in AV functions［D］. University of Waterloo， 2019.
17	DUAN J， ZHANG H. Model-based systemic hazard analysis approach for connected and autonomous vehicles and case study application in automatic emergency braking system［J］. SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles， 2021， 4（1）： 23-34.
18	PENG L， WANG H， LI J. Uncertainty evaluation of object detection algorithms for autonomous vehicles［J］. Automotive Innovation， 2021， 4（3）： 241-252.
19	Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Pedestrian autonomous emergency braking test protocol［EB/OL］. （2022-8-10）［2023-2-18］. https：//www.iihs.org/media/f6a24355-fe4b-4d71-bd19-0aab8b39aa7e/zQKIHQ/Ratings/Protocols/current/test _ protocol_
	pedestrian_aeb.pdf （2022）. Accessed 1 December 2022.
20	EURO NCAP. TEST PROTOCOL — AEB car-to-car systems version 3.0.3 ［EB/OL］. （2021-4-16）［2023-2-18］. https：//cdn.euroncap.com/media/62794/euro-ncap-aeb-c2c-test-protocol-v303.pdf.
21	JI Z， ZHOU J， YANG T， et al. Research on test and evaluation method of AEB system based on vehicle test［J］. Automotive Technology， 2020（5）： 13-20.
22	兰凤崇，余蒙，李诗成，等. 考虑预碰撞时间的自动紧急制动系统分层控制策略研究［J］. 汽车工程， 2020， 42（2）： 206-214.
	LAN F C， YU M， LI S C， et al. Research on hierarchical control strategy for automatic emergency braking system with consideration of time-to-collision ［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2020， 42（2）：206-214.
23	LIN Z， WEN F， WANG H， et al. CRITIC-based node importance evaluation in skeleton-network reconfiguration of power grids［J］. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II： Express Briefs， 2017， 65（2）： 206-210.
24	LING Z， YAN X， YEH C H， et al. Bi-TOPSIS： a new multicriteria decision making method for interrelated criteria with bipolar measurement［J］. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics Systems， 2017， 47（12）：3272-3283.
25	段顺昌，白先旭，石琴，等. 汽车自动紧急制动系统控制策略的预期功能安全设计［J］. 汽车工程， 2022， 44（9）： 1305-1317，1338.
	DUAN S C， BAI X X， SHI Q， et al. The safety of the intended functionality design of vehicle automatic emergency braking control strategies［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2022， 44（9）： 1305-1317，1338.

[1]	HAO Han, WANG Si-南, LI Xiao, LIU Zong-Wei, ZHAO Fu-Quan. [J]. , 2017, 39(1): 1 -8 .
[2]	XU Cheng-Shan, JIANG Fa-Chao, SONG Sen-Nan, TIAN Guang-Yu. [J]. , 2017, 39(1): 9 -14 .
[3]	JIANG Ting, DAI Bing. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1459 -1466 .
[4]	CHEN Wu-Wei, DENG Shu-Chao, HUANG He, XIE You-Hao. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1488 -1493 .
[5]	LI Ling, MA Li, MOU Yu, XU Chao, LI Wen-Ru, SHI Shu-Ming. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1508 -1514 .
[6]	GAO Ji-Dong, GAO Bo-Lin, XIE Shu-Gang. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1515 -1520 .
[7]	DONG Zhu-Rong, ZHANG Xin, HU Song-Hua, QIU Hao. [J]. , 2017, 39(1): 79 -85 .
[8]	SHEN Deng-Feng, WANG Chen, YU Hai-Sheng, ZHANG Tong, YI Xian-Ke. [J]. , 2017, 39(1): 15 -22 .
[9]	YUAN Zhi-Qun, GU Zheng-Qi, YANG Ming-Zhi, PENG Qian, LIU Xian-Gui. [J]. , 2017, 39(1): 28 -34 .
[10]	ZHANG Guan-Jun, ZHAO Xin-Feng, CAO Li-Bo. [J]. , 2017, 39(2): 150 -158 .

编号	损失
L-1	人员伤害与生命损失
L-2	车辆碰撞受损
L-3	车外其他物品的损坏

编号	危害事件	相关损失
H-1	未与前方车辆或行人保持安全距离	L-1， L-2
H-2	与后方跟随车辆距离过近	L-1， L-2
H-3	未与前方其他障碍物保持安全距离	L-1， L-2， L-3

编号	不安全控制行为	相关危害
UCA-1	需要提供制动减速度，未提供	H-1， H-3
UCA-2	不需要提供制动减速度，提供	H-2
UCA-3	提供制动减速度时刻比预期早	H-2
UCA-4	提供制动减速度时刻比预期晚	H-1， H-3
UCA-5	提供制动减速度持续时间比预期时间长	H-2
UCA-6	提供制动减速度持续时间比预期时间短	H-1， H-3
UCA-7	提供制动减速度比预期减速度大	H-2
UCA-8	提供制动减速度比预期减速度小	H-1， H-3

场景	序号	正距离D⁺	负距离D^-	SOTIF评价得分
CCRm-40-20kph	1	0.955 8	0.561 4	74.80
CCRm-40-20kph	2	0.820 7	0.568 7	76.37
CCRm-50-20kph	1	1.022 9	0.365 9	70.54
CCRm-50-20kph	2	1.172 3	0.327 8	68.74
CCRm-60-20kph	1	1.221 5	0.254 9	66.91
CCRm-60-20kph	2	1.250 3	0.234 9	66.33

Quantitative Evaluation of SOTIF for Control Module of AEBS

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 15

References 25

Related Articles 3

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10

[1]	Shunchang Duan,Xianxu Bai,Qin Shi,Weihan Li,Guannan He. The Design of the Safety of the Intended Functionality of the Control Strategies for Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking System [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2022, 44(9): 1305-1317.
[2]	Dongkui Tan,Gangjun Hu,Bo Zhu,Lai Jin,Jie Zhang. Intelligent Vehicle Autonomous Emergency Braking System Considering Safety of the Intended Functionality [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2022, 44(6): 799-808.
[3]	Hao Chen,Hong Wang,Weihan Li,Xianxu Bai,Jiong Chen,Chuzhao Li,Qin Shi,Jun Sun. Risk Assessment of Safety of the Intended Functionality Scenes Based on Driving Safety Field Theory [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2022, 44(11): 1636-1646.