A Gradual Takeover Strategy of the Active Safety System

A gradual takeover strategy is proposed, in which the dynamic driving privilege assignment in real-time and the driving privilege gradual handover are realized. Firstly, the driving privilege assignment based on the risk level is achieved. The naturalistic driving data is applied to study the driver behavior during danger. TTC (time to collision) is defined as an obvious risk measure, whereas the time before the host vehicle has to brake assuming that the target vehicle is braking is defined as the potential risk measure, i.e. the time margin (TM). A risk assessment algorithm is proposed based on the obvious risk and potential risk. Secondly, the driving privilege gradual handover is realized. The non-cooperative MPC (model predictive control) is employed to resolve the conflicts between the driver and active safety system. The naturalistic driving data are applied to verify the effectiveness of the risk assessment algorithm, and the risk assessment algorithm performs better than TTC in the ROC (receiver operating characteristic). It is identified that the Nash equilibrium of the non-cooperative MPC can be achieved by using a non-iterative method. The driving privilege gradual handover is realized by using the confidence matrixes updating. The simulation verification shows that the gradual takeover strategy can achieve the driving privilege gradual handover between the driver and active safety system.

[1]  Guangquan Lu,et al.  Quantitative indicator of homeostatic risk perception in car following , 2012 .

[2]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Ironies of automation , 1982, Autom..

[3]  Ding Zhao,et al.  Accelerated Evaluation of Automated Vehicles. , 2016 .

[4]  Bo Cheng,et al.  Effects of Human Adaptation and Trust on Shared Control for Driver-Automation Cooperative Driving , 2017, ICVS 2017.

[5]  Amir Khajepour,et al.  Development of a robust vehicle control with driver in the loop , 2014, 2014 American Control Conference.

[6]  Jacob Engwerda,et al.  LQ Dynamic Optimization and Differential Games , 2005 .

[7]  Takayuki Kondoh,et al.  Identification of Visual Cues and Quantification of Drivers' Perception of Proximity Risk to the Lead Vehicle in Car-Following Situations , 2008 .

[8]  Lars Petersson,et al.  Statistical Threat Assessment for General Road Scenes Using Monte Carlo Sampling , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[9]  Huei Peng,et al.  WORST-CASE VEHICLE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY : EXAMPLES ON TRUCK ROLLOVER/JACKKNIFING AND ACTIVE YAW CONTROL SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[10]  Raymond J Kiefer,et al.  Developing an inverse time-to-collision crash alert timing approach based on drivers' last-second braking and steering judgments. , 2005, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  René van Paassen,et al.  Design of a Haptic Gas Pedal for Active Car-Following Support , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[12]  David J. Cole,et al.  Linear quadratic game and non-cooperative predictive methods for potential application to modelling driver–AFS interactive steering control , 2013 .

[13]  Huei Peng,et al.  Evaluation of automotive forward collision warning and collision avoidance algorithms , 2005 .

[14]  Yasunori Yamamoto,et al.  Development of a rear-end collision avoidance system with automatic brake control , 1994 .

[15]  Krister Wolff,et al.  A Review of Near-Collision Driver Behavior Models , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Saied Taheri,et al.  Optimal preview game theory approach to vehicle stability controller design , 2011 .

[17]  Huei Peng,et al.  A Worst-case Evaluation Method for Dynamic Systems , 1999 .

[18]  Li Lin,et al.  Study of Causation Mechanism and Dynamic Feature for Typical Rear End Situations in China-FOT , 2016 .

[19]  Jonas Sjöberg,et al.  Model-Based Threat Assessment for Avoiding Arbitrary Vehicle Collisions , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[20]  Jan M. Maciejowski,et al.  Predictive control : with constraints , 2002 .

[21]  Han-Shue Tan,et al.  DGPS-Based Vehicle-to-Vehicle Cooperative Collision Warning: Engineering Feasibility Viewpoints , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[22]  T. Başar,et al.  Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory , 1982 .