Mohamed Benmimoun, ika, Functions, research-questions, hypothesis defined for the FOT

896 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
896
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mohamed Benmimoun, ika, Functions, research-questions, hypothesis defined for the FOT

  1. 1. 07/12/2010 Functions, research-questions, hypothesis defined for the FOT FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 Dipl.-Ing. Mohamed Benmimoun Institut für Kraftfahrzeuge (IKA) 2nd December 2010, Brussels www.eurofot-ip.eu Agenda Research questions Hypotheses Cost benefit analysis2 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu 1
  2. 2. 07/12/2010 Research questions Work distribution WP6100 Management WP6300 Analysis of all user related aspects and impacts on driver behaviour and performance, workload and user acceptance, social acceptance and usability of the selected systems. WP6400 Identification and quantification of impacts on traffic and driving safety, traffic efficiency and environment (economic/”green” driving). WP6500 Conduction of a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis for the selected systems. WP6200 Interactions with other SPs in euroFOT3 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu Research questions User related aspects User related aspects Change in terms of Driver User Driver workload behaviour acceptance4 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu 2
  3. 3. 07/12/2010 Research questions Impact assessment Traffic Safety Environment efficiency Reduction of Fuel Fatalities Congestion consumption Injuries CO2 Accidents5 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu Research questions Tested functions6 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu 3
  4. 4. 07/12/2010 Hypotheses Definition • Hypotheses are defined for each function • All research questions have been taken into account • Feasibility of testing hypotheses have been checked • Several hypotheses have been redefined and in some cases excluded, when need data is not available • Examples: • ACC increases situation awareness • Driver Alert warning leads to an appropriate driver reaction • ACC increases drivers focus on secondary tasks • ACC increase drowsy driving7 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu 1 ACC decreases incidents. 2 ACC decreases the time to reach the brake pedal. 3 ACC increases time to headway. 4 ACC decreases the variaibility of time to headway. 5 ACC improves LDW performance. Hypotheses 6 ACC decreases speed violations. 7 ACC makes safer the approaching phase. 8 ACC reduces occurence of strong decelerations. 9 ACC decreases average speed. 10 ACC increases following distance. 11 ACC leads to a greater minimum distance when initiating an overtaking manouver. 12 ACC decreases severe injuries and fatalities. Definition 13 ACC decreases occurrences of short time to headway (below 1s, below 1.5s?). 14 ACC reduces the occasions of travelling above 120 km/h. 15 ACC favours for the drivers will enter construction sites, curves and exit ramps at higher speeds. 16 ACC increases incidents on entrance ramps. 17 ACC decreases hard braking occasions. 18 ACC decreases the number of critical TTCs. 19 ACC increase the probability of other vehicles cutting-in manouvres • Hypotheses needs to be prioritized, in order 20 ACC makes the driver less prompt to intervene overriding the ACC in urban area 21 ACC speed will be set higher than the speed the driver would actually choose withouth ACC. 22 With FCW with assisted braking, some of the hard braking due to the ACC system is reduced (smoother transition to manual driving). 23 ACC decreases fuel consumption. to limit number of hypotheses 24 ACC increases fuel consumption in mountainous terrain. 25 ACC decreases emissions of CO2, NOx, PM. 26 ACC increases traffic flow performance. 27 ACC decreases use of residential roads. 28 ACC favours longer use of the fast lane. 29 ACC increases throughput (with higher penetration rates). 30 ACC prevents congestion through homogenisation of speeds (at higher penetration rates). • Altogether 236 hypotheses have been 31 ACC homogenisation effects are most pronounced on motorways. 32 ACC vehicles influences the speeds of other, following vehicles. 33 ACC decreases the number of lane changes. 34 ACC has no influence on the drivers steering behaviour. 35 ACC increases situation awareness. defined in in the beginning (for 8 functions) 36 ACC increases drivers focus on secondary tasks. 37 ACC favors drivers drowsiness. 38 ACC decreases visual monitoring of the speed indicator. 39 ACC is overridden before overtaking by pressing the accelerator (drivers would initiate the lane change earlier) depending on locus of control. 40 ACC is not overrridden while overtaking (consequently low difference in speed between vehicles) depending on locus of control. • 81 hypotheses just only for ACC 41 ACC makes drivers wait longer to adjust their speed to a lower speed limit. 42 ACC presence in the vehicle induces people to drive more kms. 43 ACC presence in the vehicleinduces people to drive more at night. 44 ACC presencein in the vehicle induces elderly drivers to drive more. 45 ACC makes lateral control worse (because drivers are less attentive). However, with LDW, this effect will be mitigated. 46 LDW m itigates the effect of ACC on later al contr ol. 47 ACC increases driver propensity to perform non-driving related tasks. 48 ACC increases secondary task performance. 49 ACC use changes over time. 50 ACC OFF-switch is mainly used to deactivate the system and not to override the system. 51 • Additional hypotheses have been defined, 52 ACC use increases over time. 53 ACC "safe distance" setting is mainly used by the driver. 54 55 ACC use depends on driver experience, drivers drowsiness, and weather conditions. in order to investigate several aspects 56 57 In case of un-expected ACC behaviour the driver can take over accordingly to the traffic situation. 58 59 ACC usage depend on traffic situation for experienced drivers. 60 61 relevant for the impact assessment and ACC use depends on type or road (highway, narrow roads, etc...) and traffic events (convoi traffic, high traffic, etc...). 62 63 ACC speed is set by the drivers slightly above the speed limit. 64 ACC minimum headway is always set by the drivers, except when a very high speed setting is chosen and in the case of elderly drivers. 65 ACC is used more often in bad weather than in good weather. CBA 66 ACC is used more often in darkness than during daylight, because car following is harder. 67 ACC selected headway increases in bad weather and in the dark (except when the road is lit). 68 ACC will not be turned off at construction sites, curves and on/off ramps (because the drivers forget). 69 ACC speed settings are used rather than the off-switch to increase or decrease speed. 70 ACC will be overridden earlier the more experienced are the user (the user can better anticipate the need to override the ACC). 71 ACC settings are not adjusted in adverse weather by the drivers. 72 ACC settings are not adjsuted by the drivers in dangerous curves. With CSW, this effect will be mitigated. 73 74 75 ACC increases driving perceived safety and comfort. 76 77 78 ACC annoys the driver by braking harder than the driver would when cutting in behind a vehicle. 79 ACC annoys the drivers in the following vehicles when the driver has to override the system by braking.8 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 80 81 ACC acceleration and deceleration dynamics annoy the driver ACC reduces driving pleasure, depending on driver personality. www.eurofot-ip.eu 4
  5. 5. 07/12/2010 Hypotheses Breakdown process Research questions: Breakdown of e.g. impact of ACC on safety, hypotheses environment, traffic efficiency etc. Hypotheses: Adaptation of e.g. ACC decreases number of Definition of data analysis incidents needed plan subjective data Performance indicators e.g. number of incidents Implementation Questionnaire Signals of analysis tools content e.g. vehicle speed, distance to forward vehicle, deceleration etc.9 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu Hypotheses Definition Hypothesis Reason Comparison Control Situational Event Performance factor variable indicator For trucks: Trailer load, baseline, weather, treatment ACC passengers, on, treatment trip type: trips road type,ACC reduces ACC brakes ACC+LDW on, longer than 5 Hard speed limits, number of hardnumber of hard earlier and For cars: minutes braking, system state, brakingbraking softer baseline, road type: non- Incident, traffic density, treatment ACC urban roads lighting, on, treatment curvature, day ACC off, of trial baseline 210 12/7/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu 5
  6. 6. 07/12/2010 Hypotheses User related aspects • User related aspects are mainly tested by means of questionnaire • User related aspects cover several functional related aspects Acceptance Abuse and misuse Change of user practices over time Trust Perceived comfort Perceived safety Usage11 12/7/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu Hypotheses Impact assessment • Hypotheses for safety, traffic efficiency and environment cover the following aspects: Incident events Hard braking events Hard acceleration events Number of trips Number of kilometres travelled Percentage of THW/TTC/TLC below x s Fuel consumption12 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu 6
  7. 7. 07/12/2010 Hypotheses Function related aspects • ACC: Usage of brake pedal Override behaviour Distance behaviour • LDW: Night driving Usage of turning indicator Lane change behaviour • IW: Driver reaction after driver alert Frequency of drowsy driving • CSW: Braking behaviour before entering a curve13 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu Cost-benefit analysis Approach • Socio economic cost-benefit analysis: The methodology is based on the approaches of previous national and European projects, like eIMPACT etc. Quantification of benefits of analysed functions (WP6400) Safety (reduction of Efficiency (reduction Environment (red. of fatalities, injuries, of congestions) fuel cons. and CO2 accidents etc.) emissions ) Translation of physical impacts into monetary benefits for society and customer (direct and indirect costs for reduced accidents, congestions etc. based on existing cost statements) Determination of installation and consequential costs (e.g. maintenance etc.) Consideration of additional influencing factors (e.g. expected penetration rates, incentives etc.) Determination of benefit-cost ratio14 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu 7
  8. 8. 07/12/2010 Thank you for your attention…15 07/12/2010 FOT-Net 4th Stakeholders Meeting, Brussels 2010 www.eurofot-ip.eu 8

×