基于行车安全场理论的预期功能安全场景风险评估

doi:10.19562/j.chinasae.qcgc.2022.11.002

Abstract

Abstract:

Facing different test calibration requirements and emphases of the safety of the intended functionality （SOTIF） scene for autonomous vehicles （AVs）， a risk assessment method of SOTIF scene based on driving safety field （DSF） theory is proposed in this paper. Firstly， DSF is utilized to conduct risk quantification on each layer of scene elements， and hence to achieve integrated risk calculation. The definition， architecture of SOTIF scene， and the parameters of DSF model are analyzed to prove that DSF model meets the risk assessment requirements of SOTIF scene. Then， the method proposed is applied to divide the vehicle operation scenes into three types： known safe， known unsafe and unknown safe/unsafe. For realizing scene division， different driving states in DSF theory are matched with the operational scenes of vehicles in SOTIF. Finally， closed field tests and road tests are carried out. On one hand， the relative driving safety indicator （RDSI） is compared with time-to-collision （TTC） to verify that RDSI can more accurately and sensitively assess the driving risk. On the other hand， it is proved that the method proposed can effectively fulfill scene division.

Key words: SOTIF, scenes, risk assessment, driving safety field, parameter calibration

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.

Figures/Tables 24

References 30

1	Forbes. Tesla in Taiwan crashes directly into overturned truck， ignores pedestrian， with autopilot on ［EB/OL］. Forbes，（2020-1-2）［2022-2-18］.https：//www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/06/02/tesla-in-taiwan-crashes-directly-into-overturned-truck-ignores-pedestrian-with-autopilot-on/.
2	MENZEL T， BAGSCHIK G， MAURER M. Scenarios for development， test and validation of automated vehicles［C］. 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2018： 1821-1827.
3	WEBER H， BOCK J， KLIMKE J， et al. A framework for definition of logical scenarios for safety assurance of automated driving［J］. Traffic Injury Prevention， 2019， 20： S65-S70.
4	ZHAO D， GUO Y， JIA Y J. Trafficnet： an open naturalistic driving scenario library［C］. IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems （ITSC）. IEEE， 2017： 1-8.
5	ZHAO D， LAM H， PENG H， et al. Accelerated evaluation of automated vehicles safety in lane-change scenarios based on importance sampling techniques［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2016， 18（3）： 595-607.
6	ZHAO D， HUANG X， PENG H， et al. Accelerated evaluation of automated vehicles in car-following maneuvers［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2017， 19（3）： 733-744.
7	XU Y， ZOU Y， SUN J. Accelerated testing for automated vehicles safety evaluation in cut-in scenarios based on importance sampling， genetic algorithm and simulation applications［J］. Journal of Intelligent and Connected Vehicles， 2018.
8	FENG S， FENG Y， YU C， et al. Testing scenario library generation for connected and automated vehicles， part I： methodology［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2020， 22（3）： 1573-1582.
9	FENG S， FENG Y， YU C， et al. Testing scenario library generation for connected and automated vehicles， part II： case studies［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2020， 22（9）： 5635-5647.
10	FENG S， FENG Y， YAN X， et al. Safety assessment of highly automated driving systems in test tracks： a new framework［J］. Accident Analysis & Prevention， 2020， 144： 105664.
11	FENG S， FENG Y， SUN H， et al. Testing scenario library generation for connected and automated vehicles： an adaptive framework［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2020.
12	FENG S， YAN X， SUN H， et al. Intelligent driving intelligence test for autonomous vehicles with naturalistic and adversarial environment［J］. Nature Communications， 2021， 12（1）： 1-14.
13	ISO. Road vehicles safety of the intended functionality： ISO/PAS 21448： 2019［S］. Switzerland： ISO， 2018.
14	LI Y， LI K Q， ZHENG Y， et al. Threat assessment techniques in intelligent vehicles： a comparative survey［J］. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine， 2020， 13（4）： 71-91.
15	BOGENRIEDER R， FEHRING M， BACHMANN R. PRE-SAFE in rear-end collision situations［C］. Proceedings 21st International Technical Conferrence on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles， Stuttgart， 2009.
16	LI Y， ZHENG Y， WANG J Q， et al. Crash probability estimation via quantifying driver hazard perception［J］. Accident Analysis & Prevention， 2018， 116： 116-125.
17	WINSUM W V， HEINO A. Choice of time-headway in car-following and the role of time-to-collision information in braking［J］. Ergonomics， 1996， 39（4）： 579-592.
18	WANG J Q， WU J， LI Y. The driving safety field based on driver-vehicle-road interactions［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2015， 16（4）： 2203-2214.
19	WANG J Q， WU J， ZHENG X， et al. Driving safety field theory modeling and its application in pre-collision warning system ［J］. Transportation Research Part C： Emerging Technologies， 2016， 72： 306-324.
20	LI Y， WANG J Q， WU J. Model calibration concerning risk coefficients of driving safety field model［J］. Journal of Central South University， 2017， 24（6）： 1494-1502.
21	LI M J， SONG X L， CAO H T， et al. Shared control with a novel dynamic authority allocation strategy based on game theory and driving safety field［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2019， 124： 199-216.
22	WU R F， ZHENG X J， XU Y N， et al. Modified driving safety field based on trajectory prediction model for pedestrian–vehicle collision［J］. Sustainability， 2019， 11（22）： 6254.
23	GONZÁLEZ D， PÉREZ J， MILANÉS V， et al. A review of motion planning techniques for automated vehicles［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2015， 17（4）： 1135-1145.
24	RAKSINCHAROENSAK P， HASEGAWA T， NAGAI M. Motion planning and control of autonomous driving intelligence system based on risk potential optimization framework［J］. International Journal of Automotive Engineering， 2016， 7（AVEC14）： 53-60.
25	RASEKHIPOUR Y， KHAJEPOUR A， CHEN S K， et al. A potential field-based model predictive path-planning controller for autonomous road vehicles［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2016， 18（5）： 1255-1267.
26	BOUNINI F， GINGRAS D， POLLART H， et al. Modified artificial potential field method for online path planning applications［C］. 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2017： 180-185.
27	ULBRICH S， MENZEL T， RESCHKA A， et al. Defining and substantiating the terms scene， situation， and scenario for automated driving［C］. IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems （ITSC）. IEEE， 2015： 982-988.
28	WU S Y， WANG H， YU W H， et al. A new SOTIF scenario hierarchy and its critical test case generation based on potential risk assessment［C］. 2021 IEEE 1st International Conference on Digital Twins and Parallel Intelligence （DTPI）. IEEE， 2021： 399-409.
29	李林恒，甘婧，曲栩，等. 智能网联环境下基于安全势场理论的车辆换道模型［J］. 中国公路学报， 2021， 34（6）： 184-195.
	LI L H， GAN J， QU X， et al. Lane-changing model based on safety potential field theory under the connected and automated vehicles environment［J］. China Journal of Highway and Transport， 2021， 34（6）： 184-195.
30	中国公安部交通运输局. 2010-2016年中华人民共和国道路交通事故统计年报［G］. 北京， 2017.
	Transportation Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security of the PRC. 2010-2016 annals of road traffic accidents statistics of the People’s Republic of China［G］. Beijing， 2017.

[1]	SHEN Zhe, WANG Yi-Gang, YANG Zhi-Gang, LI Fang-Xu. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1440 -1445 .
[2]	ZENG Bi-Qiang, GAO Ji-Dong, PENG Wei, SUN Zhen-Dong. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1446 -1451 .
[3]	LIU Hui, WANG Xiao-Jie, XIANG Chang-Le. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1483 -1487 .
[4]	CHEN Wu-Wei, DENG Shu-Chao, HUANG He, XIE You-Hao. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1488 -1493 .
[5]	PENG Qian-Lei, GUI Liang-Jin, FAN Zi-Jie. [J]. , 2016, 38(12): 1500 -1507 .
[6]	DONG Zhu-Rong, ZHANG Xin, HU Song-Hua, QIU Hao. [J]. , 2017, 39(1): 79 -85 .
[7]	SHI Hai-Min, YU Xiao-Li, LU Guo-Dong, HUANG Yu-Qi, LIU Zhen-Tao, HUANG Rui. [J]. , 2017, 39(1): 102 -106 .
[8]	QIN Chao-Ju, YANG Zhen-Zhong, ZHANG Wei-Zheng, SONG Li-Ye, YUAN Yan-Peng. [J]. , 2017, 39(2): 133 -137 .
[9]	ZHANG Guan-Jun, ZHAO Xin-Feng, CAO Li-Bo. [J]. , 2017, 39(2): 150 -158 .
[10]	CAO Li-Bo, HU Yuan, YAN Ling-Bo, PENG Yu, SHI Xiang-南. [J]. , 2017, 39(2): 174 -180 .

场景层级	元素描述
层级1：道路结构	道路形状、车道类型、地标
层级2：交通设施	交通信号、路灯、树木
层级3：道路临时事件	道路工作、可逆车道
层级4：交通参与者	车辆、行人、障碍物
层级5：气候环境	天气、光照、风
层级6：通信状态	通信类型、计算边缘
层级7：自车信息	传感器、计算设备

SOTIF场景	RDSI范围	车辆运行状态
区域1：已知安全场景	RDSI < RDSI₁^*	安全
区域2：已知不安全场景	RDSI > RDSI₁^**	非常危险
区域3：未知不安全场景	RDSI₁^* < RDSI < RDSI₂^*	危险
区域4：未知安全场景	RDSI₁^* < RDSI < RDSI₂^*	危险

参数符号	物理意义	参数类型
T_i	物体类型	离散型
m_i	物体质量	连续型
v_i	物体速度	连续型
δ_i	能见度	离散型
μ_i	路面附着系数	连续型
ρ_i	道路曲率	离散型
τ_i	道路坡度	离散型
DR_i_{_}_p	身心状态	离散型
DR_i_{_}_c	认知水平	离散型
DR_i_{_}_s	驾驶技能	离散型
DR_i_{_}_v	违法行为	离散型

道路等级	平均速度/（km·h^-1）	单位事故损失/元
高速公路	100	38 666.0
一级公路	70	6 385.8
二级公路	50	4 477.9
三级公路	35	3 561.2
四级公路	30	3 090.7

编号i	物体类别T_i	单位事故损失/元	ψ（T_i ）
1	汽车	5 630	1.000
2	载货车	8 124	1.443
3	摩托车	1 887	0.335
4	非机动车	1 769	0.314
5	行人	6 393	1.136

Risk Assessment of Safety of the Intended Functionality Scenes Based on Driving Safety Field Theory

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 24

References 30

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10

编号i	能见度δ_i /m	单位事故损失/元	ψ（δ_i ）
1	< 50	4 274.0	1.000
2	50-100	4 392.4	1.028
3	100-200	4 711.6	1.102
4	> 200	6 225.3	1.457

道路曲率	道路坡度
道路曲率	τ₁	τ₂	τ₃	τ₄
ρ₁	1.000	1.613	1.374	4.161
ρ₂	1.177	1.410	1.570
ρ₃	1.277	1.276	1.409

路面状态	路面附着系数	单位事故损失/元
干燥	0.90	4 990.6
潮湿	0.60	6 677.3
积水	0.50	6 794.7
泥泞	0.55	4 458.7
漫水	0.30	6 472.6
冰雪	0.20	10 250.3

编号i	驾驶员年龄DR_i_{_}_p	ψ（DR_i_{_}_p ）
1	16-20岁	0.529
2	21-25岁	0.768
3	26-30岁	0.951
4	31-35岁	1.00
5	36-40岁	0.949
6	41-45岁	0.911
7	46-50岁	0.803
8	51-55岁	0.715
9	56-60岁	0.600
10	61-65岁	0.482
11	65岁以上	0.535

编号i	受教育水平DR_i_{_}_c	ψ（DR_i_{_}_c ）
1	无	0.691
2	小学	0.448
3	中学	0.370
4	本科	1.000
5	本科及以上	0.788

编号i	驾驶员驾龄DR_i_{_}_s	ψ（DR_i_{_}_s ）
1	1年以下	0.601
2	2年	0.611
3	3年	0.684
4	4年	0.674
5	5年	0.667
6	6-10年	0.796
7	11-15年	0.922
8	16-20年	0.948
9	20年以上	1.000

编号i	违法行为DR_i_{_}_v	ψ（DR_i_{_}_v ）
1	超速行驶	0.467
2	酒后驾驶	0.414
3	逆向行驶	0.431
4	疲劳驾驶	1.000
5	违法变道	0.416
6	违法超车	0.374
7	违法倒车	0.314
8	违法掉头	0.380
9	违法装载	0.528
10	违反交通信号	0.443
11	未按规定让行	0.374

场景编号	场景解释
①	目标车静止，自车速度50 km/h
②	目标车车速20 km/h，自车车速60 km/h，纵向偏置50%
③	行人横穿，行人速度5 km/h，自车车速50 km/h
④	自行车横穿，自行车速度5 km/h，自车车速50 km/h
⑤	跟车距离12 m，跟车车速50 km/h，前车减速度2g
⑥	目标车切入，目标车车速20 km/h，自车车速60 km/h

场景类别	场景编号	场景描述	风险值
已知安全	①、④、⑥
已知不安全
未知安全/不安全	②	主车换道，目标车道前方3 m存在静止车	0.12
	③	主车跟车距离1.5 m，跟车速度4 km/h	0.04
	⑤	主车换道2 s后，前方5 m目标车进行换道	0.05

[1]	Yanli Ma, Qin Qin, Fangqi Dong, Yining Lou. Takeover Risk Assessment Model Based on Risk Field Theory Under Different Cognitive Secondary Tasks [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2024, 46(1): 9-17.
[2]	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.
[3]	Zheng Zuo,Yunpeng Wang,Bin Ma,Bosong Zou,Yaoguang Cao,Shichun Yang. Quantitative Evaluation and Analysis of On-board Network Components Risk Rate Based on AFC-TARA [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2023, 45(9): 1553-1562.
[4]	Da Li,Junjun Deng,Zhaosheng Zhang,Peng Liu,Zhenpo Wang. Review on Power Battery Safety Warning Strategy in Electric Vehicles [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2023, 45(8): 1392-1407.
[5]	Xiang Gao,Long Chen,Xinye Wang,Xiaoxia Xiong,Yicheng Li,Yuexia Chen. Intelligent Vehicle Driving Risk Assessment Method Based on Trajectory Prediction [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2023, 45(4): 588-597.
[6]	Gege Cui,Lü Chao,Jinghang Li,Zheyu Zhang,Guangming Xiong,Jianwei Gong. Data-Driven Personalized Scenario Risk Map Construction for Intelligent Vehicles [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2023, 45(2): 231-242.
[7]	Fengchong Lan,Yingjie Liu,Jiqing Chen,Zhaolin Liu. Study on Motion Planning of Autonomous Vehicles in Cut-in Scenes Based on Dynamic Game Algorithm [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2023, 45(1): 9-19.
[8]	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.
[9]	Jiangkun Li,Weiwen Deng,Bingtao Ren,Wenqi Wang,Juan Ding. Automatic Driving Edge Scene Generation Method Based on Scene Dynamics and Reinforcement Learning [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2022, 44(7): 976-986.
[10]	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.
[11]	Yu Chen,Xiaogang Wu,Jiuyu Du,Jinlei Sun. Research on Energy Management of Microgrid with Consideration of Taxi Charging Behavior [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2022, 44(4): 525-534.
[12]	Yuande Jiang,Bing Zhu,Xiangmo Zhao,Jian Zhao,Bingbing Zheng. Modeling of Traffic Vehicle Interaction for Autonomous Vehicle Testing [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2022, 44(12): 1825-1833.
[13]	Shengjie Huang,Manjiang Hu,Yunshui Zhou,Zhouping Yin,Xiaohui Qin,Yougang Bian,Qianqian Jia. Vehicle Visual SLAM in Dynamic Scenes Based on Semantic Segmentation and Motion Consistency Constraints [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2022, 44(10): 1503-1510.
[14]	Naixuan Zhu,Zhenhai Gao,Hongyu Hu,Lü Ying,Weiguang Zhao. Research on Personalized Lane Change Triggering Based on Traffic Risk Assessment [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2021, 43(9): 1314-1321.
[15]	Xuesong Bai,Weiwen Deng,Bingtao Ren,Peng Liu,Jiangkun Li,Juan Ding. An Extraction Method of Scenario Elements for Autonomous Driving Simulation [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2021, 43(7): 1030-1036.