Method and device for testing vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function

Abstract

The application provides a method and device for testing a vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function, the method comprising: determining a test case for testing the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted equipment based on a plurality of preset train control speed limit change scenarios, a principle that a speed limit point representing speed increase in the train control speed limit change scenario needs to reserve a vehicle tail maintaining distance and a principle that a speed limit point representing speed decrease needs to reserve a safety reserve distance, wherein the train control speed limit change scenario comprises at least two speed limit points; and testing the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted equipment based on the test case, wherein when the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted equipment contains the vehicle tail maintaining distance and the safety reserve distance, it is determined that the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted equipment passes the test, and when the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted equipment does not contain the vehicle tail maintaining distance and the safety reserve distance, it is determined that the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted equipment fails the test. The efficiency and accuracy of the test of the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted equipment can be effectively improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of train operation control technology, and in particular to a test method for the MRSP curve generation function of on-board equipment, a test device for the MRSP curve generation function of on-board equipment, electronic equipment, and a computer-readable storage medium. Background Technology

[0002] The China Train Control System (CTCS) is an indispensable and crucial component for safe train operation. CTCS comprises onboard equipment and ground-based equipment. The onboard equipment acquires train parameters, track parameters, traffic permits, temporary speed limits, and other relevant information from other modules on the train and from ground-based equipment. Based on this information, it generates a dynamic speed control curve, compares the actual train speed with the dynamic speed control curve, and applies necessary braking when the actual train speed exceeds the corresponding speed specified in the curve, ensuring safe train operation.

[0003] As one of the core functions of onboard equipment, dynamic speed control requires the onboard equipment to first calculate the Most Restrictive Speed ​​Profile (MRSP) curve. The MRSP curve is the set of the lowest speed values ​​among all speed limiting factors. Then, by combining information such as braking setup time, braking deceleration, and the positions of the End of Movement Authority (EOA) and Limit of Authority (LOA), the dynamic speed control curve is generated.

[0004] Currently, the functional testing of MRSP curve generation by in-vehicle equipment involves testers designing test cases, inputting the test cases into the in-vehicle equipment, and then checking whether the MRSP curve output by the in-vehicle equipment is reasonable to determine whether the function of the in-vehicle equipment in generating MRSP curves is normal.

[0005] However, different testers have different knowledge and testing experience, so the test cases they design also vary greatly. They may even design redundant or incomplete test cases. Furthermore, they are prone to making many individual errors in judging whether the MRSP curve is reasonable, which reduces the efficiency and accuracy of the MRSP curve generation function test of the vehicle equipment. Summary of the Invention

[0006] The purpose of this application is to provide a method, apparatus, electronic device, and computer-readable storage medium for testing the MRSP curve generation function of in-vehicle devices, so as to improve the efficiency and accuracy of testing the MRSP curve generation function of in-vehicle devices.

[0007] To address the aforementioned technical problems, this application provides the following technical solutions:

[0008] The first aspect of this application provides a method for testing the MRSP curve generation function of an on-board device. The method includes: determining test cases for testing the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device at the maximum speed limit based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, and the principle that the speed limit points representing acceleration in the train control speed limit change scenarios need to reserve a rear-end keeping distance and the speed limit points representing deceleration need to reserve a safety reserve distance. The train control speed limit change scenarios include at least two speed limit points. The MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is tested based on the test cases. When the MRSP curve output by the on-board device includes both the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is determined to have passed the test. When the MRSP curve output by the on-board device does not include both the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is determined to have failed the test.

[0009] Compared to existing technologies, the MRSP curve generation function testing method for vehicle-mounted equipment provided in the first aspect of this application constructs test cases based on preset train control speed limit change scenarios, the principle that speed limit points representing acceleration in these scenarios require a rear-end keeping distance, and speed limit points representing deceleration require a safety reserve distance. This provides testers with a standard to refer to when constructing test cases, thereby ensuring greater consistency in the accuracy of test cases generated by different testers and preventing redundant, incomplete, or even erroneous test cases generated by testers due to insufficient knowledge or testing experience. Furthermore, the preset multiple train control speed limit change scenarios include at least two speed limit points, enabling streamlined and comprehensive coverage of the MRSP curve generation function testing for vehicle-mounted equipment. Additionally, during test execution, the method quickly tests the MRSP curve generation function of vehicle-mounted equipment by only considering whether the rear-end keeping distance and safety reserve distance are considered during MRSP curve generation. Therefore, the MRSP curve generation function testing method for vehicle-mounted equipment provided in this application can effectively improve the efficiency and accuracy of MRSP curve generation function testing for vehicle-mounted equipment.

[0010] In some modified embodiments of the first aspect of this application, test cases for the function test of generating the maximum speed limit curve (MRSP) of the on-board equipment are determined based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, the principle that the speed limit points representing acceleration in the train control speed limit change scenarios need to reserve a rear-end keeping distance, and the speed limit points representing deceleration need to reserve a safety reserve distance. These test cases include: determining a first test case based on a first train control speed limit change scenario and principle, wherein the first train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points representing acceleration; determining a second test case based on a second train control speed limit change scenario and principle, wherein the second train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points representing deceleration; determining a third test case based on a third train control speed limit change scenario and principle, wherein the third train control speed limit change scenario includes one speed limit point representing acceleration followed by deceleration and one speed limit point representing deceleration; and determining a fourth test case based on a fourth train control speed limit change scenario and principle, wherein the fourth train control speed limit change scenario includes one speed limit point representing deceleration followed by acceleration and one speed limit point representing acceleration.

[0011] In each train control speed limit change scenario, only two points in the acceleration and deceleration are used to achieve a comprehensive representation of all speed change situations in actual train operation. This enables simple, fast, and comprehensive generation of test cases, further improving the efficiency and accuracy of the on-board equipment MRSP curve generation function test.

[0012] In some modified embodiments of the first aspect of this application, a third test case is determined based on the third train control speed limit change scenario and principle, including: determining third test case A based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A and principle, wherein the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A is equal to the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration; determining third test case B based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B and principle, wherein the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B is less than the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration; determining third test case C based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C and principle, wherein the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario C is greater than the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration; based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C... Based on the four speed limit change scenarios and principles, a fourth test case was determined. The fourth speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points: one decreasing and one increasing. Specifically: Test case A is determined based on scenario A and its principles, where the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration is equal to the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration; Test case B is determined based on scenario B and its principles, where the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration is greater than the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration; and Test case C is determined based on scenario C and its principles, where the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration is less than the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration.

[0013] For scenarios where the train control speed limit first increases and then decreases, or first decreases and then increases, the relationship between the increase and decrease can be further subdivided to generate more detailed test cases, thereby further improving the efficiency and accuracy of the MRSP curve generation function test of the on-board equipment.

[0014] In some modified embodiments of the first aspect of this application, determining the third test case A based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A and the aforementioned principle includes: determining the third test case A1 based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A1 and the aforementioned principle, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance; determining the third test case A2 based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A2 and the aforementioned principle, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance; determining the third test case B based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B1 and the aforementioned principle includes: determining the third test case B1 based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B1 and the aforementioned principle, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance; The distance between speed limit points is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance; based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B2 and the aforementioned principle, a third test case B2 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance; the determination of the third test case C based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C1 and the aforementioned principle includes: determining the third test case C1 based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C1 and the aforementioned principle, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario C1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance; determining the third test case C2 based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C2 and the aforementioned principle, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario C2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance.

[0015] When generating test cases, the case of "bad points" is also taken into account. That is, the situation where the distance between the rear of the vehicle and the safety reserve distance intersects is introduced into the train control speed limit change scenario, making the generated test cases more comprehensive and further improving the accuracy of the MRSP curve generation function test of the on-board equipment.

[0016] In some modified embodiments of the first aspect of this application, a first test case is determined based on the first train control speed limit change scenario and principle, including: determining the first test case based on the first train control speed limit change scenario, principle, and the updated speed limit at the rear-end distance in the first train control speed limit change scenario, wherein the updated speed limit is greater than the speed limit before the update at the rear-end distance; testing the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device based on the test case, including: inputting the first test case into the on-board device; if the speed limit increases after the rear-end distance ends in the MRSP curve output by the on-board device, then the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is determined to have passed the test; if the speed limit increases at the rear-end distance in the MRSP curve output by the on-board device, then the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is determined to have failed the test.

[0017] In the test cases, a larger speed limit is added at the rear-end distance to test whether the speed limit in the MRSP curve generated by the on-board device will only be raised after the rear-end distance has been maintained. This further tests the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device and improves the accuracy of the MRSP curve generation function test.

[0018] In some modified embodiments of the first aspect of this application, based on the second train control speed limit change scenario and principle, a second test case is determined, including: determining second test case A based on the second train control speed limit change scenario, principle, and the fact that the speed limit point representing speed reduction based on the braking curve in the second train control speed limit change scenario cannot achieve speed reduction; determining second test case B based on the second train control speed limit change scenario, principle, and the fact that the speed limit before speed reduction corresponding to the speed limit point representing speed reduction that cannot achieve speed reduction has been updated, the updated speed limit is less than the updated speed limit, and the updated speed limit can achieve speed reduction at the speed limit point representing speed reduction; and testing the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board equipment based on the test cases, including... Input the second test case A into the vehicle-mounted device; if the speed limit before deceleration corresponding to the speed limit point representing deceleration in the first MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device is obscured, then input the second test case B into the vehicle-mounted device; if the speed limit before deceleration corresponding to the speed limit point representing deceleration in the second MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device reappears, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test; if the speed limit before deceleration corresponding to the speed limit point representing deceleration in the first MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device exists, or the speed limit before deceleration corresponding to the speed limit point representing deceleration in the second MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device does not appear, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have failed the test.

[0019] In the test cases, under the scenario of continuous deceleration, a further case is added where deceleration cannot be achieved based on the braking curve, and it is checked whether the speed limit before deceleration in the MRSP curve output by the on-board equipment is treated as a bad point. Then, a case is added where the speed limit before deceleration is reduced and deceleration is achieved, to check whether the speed limit previously treated as a bad point reappears in the MRSP curve output by the on-board equipment. This further tests the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board equipment, and further improves the accuracy of the MRSP curve generation function test of the on-board equipment.

[0020] In some modified embodiments of the first aspect of this application, testing the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device based on test cases includes: generating a standard MRSP curve based on test cases; inputting the test cases into the vehicle-mounted device to obtain the actual MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device; matching the actual MRSP curve with the standard MRSP curve, and determining whether the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device passes the test based on the matching result, wherein when the matching result indicates successful matching, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test, and when the matching result indicates failed matching, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have failed the test.

[0021] During testing, the MRSP curves output by the in-vehicle device are compared with those generated manually based on the same test cases. Compared to manually analyzing the MRSP curves output by the in-vehicle device, the curve comparison is simple and direct, further improving the efficiency of the in-vehicle device MRSP curve generation function test.

[0022] The second aspect of this application provides a testing device for the MRSP curve generation function of an on-board device. The device includes: a test case determination module, used to determine test cases for testing the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device at the maximum speed limit based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, the principle that the speed limit points representing acceleration in the train control speed limit change scenarios need to reserve a rear-end keeping distance, and the speed limit points representing deceleration need to reserve a safety reserve distance; wherein the train control speed limit change scenarios include at least two speed limit points; and a testing module, used to test the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device based on the test cases, wherein when the MRSP curve output by the on-board device includes a rear-end keeping distance and a safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is determined to have passed the test; when the MRSP curve output by the on-board device does not include a rear-end keeping distance and a safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is determined to have failed the test.

[0023] A third aspect of this application provides an electronic device, which includes a processor, a memory, and a bus; wherein the processor and the memory communicate with each other via the bus; the processor is used to call program instructions in the memory to execute the method in the first aspect.

[0024] A fourth aspect of this application provides a computer-readable storage medium, the storage medium comprising: a stored program; wherein, when the program is running, it controls the device where the storage medium is located to execute the method of the first aspect.

[0025] The vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function test apparatus provided in the second aspect of this application, the electronic device provided in the third aspect, and the computer-readable storage medium provided in the fourth aspect have the same or similar beneficial effects as the vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function test method provided in the first aspect. Attached Figure Description

[0026] The above and other objects, features, and advantages of exemplary embodiments of this application will become readily understood by reading the following detailed description with reference to the accompanying drawings. In the drawings, several embodiments of this application are illustrated by way of example and not limitation, with the same or corresponding reference numerals denoteing the same or corresponding parts, wherein:

[0027] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the MRSP curve generation function test method for vehicle-mounted equipment in this application embodiment. Figure 1 ;

[0028] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a test case in an embodiment of this application;

[0029] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the MRSP curve fitting process in an embodiment of this application;

[0030] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of dead pixels in an embodiment of this application;

[0031] Figure 5 This is a flowchart illustrating the MRSP curve generation function test method for vehicle-mounted equipment in this application embodiment. Figure 2 ;

[0032] Figure 6 This is a schematic diagram of the continuously increasing speed limit scenario and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in the embodiments of this application;

[0033] Figure 7 This is a schematic diagram of the continuously decreasing speed limit scenario and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in the embodiments of this application;

[0034] Figure 8This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit first increases and then decreases, the same before and after, and there are no bad pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment;

[0035] Figure 9 This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit first increases and then decreases, the same before and after, and there are dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment;

[0036] Figure 10 This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit first increases and then decreases, the speed is higher at the beginning and lower at the end, and there are no dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment.

[0037] Figure 11 This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit first increases and then decreases, the speed is higher at the beginning and lower at the end, and there are dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment.

[0038] Figure 12 This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit first increases and then decreases, and the speed limit is lower at the beginning and higher at the end, with no dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment.

[0039] Figure 13 This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit first increases and then decreases, the speed is low at the beginning and high at the end, and there are dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment.

[0040] Figure 14 This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit is first reduced and then increased, the same before and after, and there are no bad pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment;

[0041] Figure 15 This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit first decreases and then increases, the speed is high at the beginning and low at the end, and there are no dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment.

[0042] Figure 16 This is a schematic diagram of the scenario in this application where the speed limit first decreases and then increases, and the speed limit is low at the beginning and high at the end, with no dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment.

[0043] Figure 17 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the speed limit update at the rear-end keeping distance and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in an embodiment of this application.

[0044] Figure 18 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the speed limit update for the deceleration range and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in an embodiment of this application.

[0045] Figure 19 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the on-board equipment MRSP curve generation function test device in the embodiments of this application. Figure 1 ;

[0046] Figure 20This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the on-board equipment MRSP curve generation function test device in the embodiments of this application. Figure 2 ;

[0047] Figure 21 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the electronic device in the embodiments of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0048] Exemplary embodiments of this application will now be described in more detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. While exemplary embodiments of this application are shown in the drawings, it should be understood that this application may be implemented in various forms and should not be limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these embodiments are provided to enable a more thorough understanding of this application and to fully convey the scope of this application to those skilled in the art.

[0049] It should be noted that, unless otherwise stated, the technical or scientific terms used in this application shall have the ordinary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this application pertains.

[0050] Currently, in the functional testing of MRSP curve generation by in-vehicle devices, test cases designed by testers are mainly input into the device. Testers then analyze the MRSP curves output by the device to determine if its MRSP curve generation function is normal. However, different testers have varying knowledge and testing experience, leading to redundancy and incompleteness in the generated test cases. Furthermore, testers may make individualized errors in judging the reasonableness of the MRSP curves, thus reducing the efficiency and accuracy of MRSP curve generation function testing for in-vehicle devices.

[0051] In view of this, embodiments of this application provide a method, apparatus, electronic device, and computer-readable storage medium for testing the MRSP curve generation function of on-board equipment. When generating test cases, the method follows a standard based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, where speed limit points representing acceleration require a rear-end holding distance, and speed limit points representing deceleration require a safety reserve distance. This makes the test cases used for testing the MRSP curve generation function of on-board equipment more standardized and regulated. Furthermore, each preset train control speed limit change scenario includes at least two speed limit points. Such scenarios can cover various speed limit changes during train operation, ensuring comprehensive test case generation. Moreover, when testing the MRSP curve generation function of on-board equipment, only the rear-end holding distance and safety reserve distance are considered, simplifying testing steps and improving testing efficiency while achieving accurate testing. Ultimately, this improves the efficiency and accuracy of testing the MRSP curve generation function of on-board equipment.

[0052] First, the test method for generating MRSP curves of vehicle-mounted equipment provided in the embodiments of this application will be described in detail.

[0053] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the MRSP curve generation function test method for vehicle-mounted equipment in this application embodiment. Figure 1 See Figure 1 As shown, the method may include:

[0054] S11: Based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, the principle that the speed limit point representing acceleration in the train control speed limit change scenario needs to reserve a rear-end distance, and the speed limit point representing deceleration needs to reserve a safety reserve distance, determine the test cases for the function test of generating the MRSP curve of the maximum limiting speed of the on-board equipment.

[0055] Among them, the train control speed limit change scenario includes at least two speed limit points. At least two speed limit points can refer to at least two speed limit points that represent acceleration, at least two speed limit points that represent deceleration, or at least one speed limit point that represents acceleration and at least one speed limit point that represents deceleration.

[0056] The speed limit points here, representing acceleration and deceleration, can refer to the corresponding travel distances at which the train speed limit increases or decreases, and their corresponding speed limits. For example, a train travels from 0km to 50km at a speed of 60km / h. The train then travels from 50km to 100km at a speed of 80km / h. The 50km mark is a speed limit point representing acceleration.

[0057] In different train control speed limit change scenarios, the specific speed limit points representing acceleration and deceleration are different. In other words, the specific details of speed limit increases and decreases differ in different train control speed limit change scenarios.

[0058] The requirement to reserve a tail-keeping distance at the speed limit point representing the speed increase in the train control speed limit change scenario means that when crossing from a lower speed limit area to a higher speed limit area, the tail-keeping distance is increased at the end of the lower speed limit area, which is the train length. In other words, the lower speed limit is extended to the higher speed limit area by the length of a tail-keeping distance.

[0059] The so-called "safety reserve distance" for speed limit points representing speed reduction in train control speed limit change scenarios refers to adding a safety reserve distance at the end of the higher speed limit area when crossing from a higher speed limit area to a lower speed limit area. The specific distance can be determined according to actual needs. That is, at the end of the higher speed limit area, the higher speed limit of the safety reserve distance is adjusted to the lower speed limit.

[0060] Based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, and the principle that speed limit points representing acceleration need to reserve a rear-end distance and speed limit points representing deceleration need to reserve a safety reserve distance, test cases are generated. That is, based on the speed limit change situation in each train control speed limit change scenario, combined with the requirement to reserve a rear-end distance for acceleration and the requirement to reserve a safety reserve distance for deceleration, test cases containing relevant information such as train parameters, track parameters, train operation permits, and temporary speed limit information are generated.

[0061] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a test case in an embodiment of this application. See also... Figure 2 As shown, the test cases include: static speed curves, temporary speed limits, maximum train speed (i.e., train design speed), mode-dependent speed limits, and signal speed limits. This speed limit information serves as input to the onboard equipment, which then fits and generates the MRSP curve.

[0062] S12: Test the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device based on test cases.

[0063] Specifically, if the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device includes the rear-end keeping distance and the safety allowance distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test. If the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device does not include the rear-end keeping distance and the safety allowance distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have failed the test.

[0064] Once the test cases are prepared, the testing of the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device can begin to detect whether the vehicle-mounted device can accurately generate MRSP curves that can be used in practice.

[0065] In specific testing, test cases can be input into the in-vehicle device to monitor the entire process of generating the MRSP curve. Throughout the process, it can be observed whether the MRSP curve is adjusted based on the rear-keeping distance and safety allowance. If it is determined that the MRSP curve is adjusted based on the rear-keeping distance and safety allowance, then the MRSP curve generation function of the in-vehicle device is normal. If it is determined that the MRSP curve is not adjusted based on the rear-keeping distance and safety allowance, then the MRSP curve generation function of the in-vehicle device is abnormal.

[0066] In specific testing, MRSP curves can be pre-generated manually based on test cases. Then, the test cases are input into the in-vehicle device to obtain the MRSP curves output by the device. Finally, the two MRSP curves are matched. If the match is successful, it indicates that the in-vehicle device's MRSP curve generation function is normal; if the match fails, it indicates that the in-vehicle device's MRSP curve generation function is abnormal.

[0067] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the MRSP curve fitting process in an embodiment of this application. See [link / reference] Figure 3 As shown, the MRSP curve is obtained by fitting the speed limits of categories A, B, and C, and taking into account the train length and safety margin.

[0068] As described above, the vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function testing method provided in this application constructs test cases based on preset train control speed limit change scenarios, the principle that speed limit points representing acceleration in these scenarios require a rear-end keeping distance, and speed limit points representing deceleration require a safety reserve distance. This provides testers with a standard to refer to when constructing test cases, thereby ensuring greater consistency in the accuracy of test cases generated by different testers and preventing redundant, incomplete, or even incorrect test cases generated by testers due to insufficient knowledge or testing experience. Furthermore, the preset multiple train control speed limit change scenarios include at least two speed limit points, enabling streamlined and comprehensive coverage of the vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function testing. Additionally, during test execution, the method quickly tests the vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function by only considering whether the rear-end keeping distance and safety reserve distance are considered during MRSP curve generation. Therefore, the vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function testing method provided in this application can effectively improve the efficiency and accuracy of vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function testing.

[0069] Furthermore, as a response to Figure 1 In a refinement and extension of the method shown, this application embodiment also provides a method for testing the MRSP curve generation function of in-vehicle equipment.

[0070] In train control speed limit change scenarios, besides using more speed limit points representing acceleration and deceleration, using two speed limit points representing acceleration, two speed limit points representing deceleration, or one speed limit point representing acceleration and one deceleration point can cover various speed limit changes during train operation while avoiding excessive complexity due to too many speed limit points representing acceleration and deceleration. This improves test case generation efficiency while ensuring comprehensive test case generation.

[0071] In train control speed limit change scenarios, which include two speed limit points representing acceleration, two speed limit points representing deceleration, or one speed limit point representing acceleration and one deceleration point, the train speed limit change can be categorized as: continuous increase, continuous decrease, increase followed by decrease, and decrease followed by increase.

[0072] When the speed limit is increased and then decreased, in addition to arbitrary increases and decreases, to ensure that the test can fully cover all situations, the increase-then-decrease scenario can be further divided into: the same increase and decrease, the increase being less than the decrease, and the increase being greater than the decrease. The specific values ​​for "greater than" or "less than" can be any values ​​and are not limited here.

[0073] Similarly, when the speed limit is first reduced and then increased, in addition to arbitrary reduction and arbitrary increase, to ensure that the test can fully cover all situations, the reduction-then-increase scenario can be further subdivided into: the reduction and increase are the same, the reduction is greater than the increase, and the reduction is less than the increase. As for the specific values ​​of "greater than" or "less than", they can be any values ​​and are not limited here.

[0074] To further improve the accuracy of the test, "dead pixels" can be introduced to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the MRSP curve generated by the onboard equipment by checking whether dead pixels are taken into account. A dead pixel can refer to a point in the MRSP curve that has no practical effect.

[0075] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of dead pixels in an embodiment of this application. See also... Figure 4 As shown, the original MRSP curve fitted by the onboard equipment based on the Last Relevant Balise Group (LRBG) consists of A, B, C, and D. When generating the final MRSP curve, considering the rear-end keeping distance and safety margin, the onboard equipment finds that the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety margin equals the distance between B and C. Therefore, the speed limits at points B and C have no practical effect, and B and C are considered "bad points." Subsequently, the onboard equipment needs to remove B and C from the original MRSP curve. The final MRSP curve output by the onboard equipment consists of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composed of D.

[0076] Generally, defective speed limits only exist when the speed limit increases and then decreases. To introduce defective speed limits, the distance corresponding to the high-speed section can be configured in two ways when the speed limit increases and then decreases. One is a distance greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance (no defective speed limit). The other is a distance less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance (defective speed limit present). That is, the speed increase and decrease are the same (no defective speed limit and defective speed limit present), the speed increase is less than the speed decrease (no defective speed limit and defective speed limit present), and the speed increase is greater than the speed decrease (no defective speed limit and defective speed limit present).

[0077] Figure 5 This is a flowchart illustrating the MRSP curve generation function test method for vehicle-mounted equipment in this application embodiment. Figure 2 See Figure 5 As shown, the method may include:

[0078] S51: Based on the first train control speed limit change scenario and principle, determine the first test case. The first train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points that represent acceleration.

[0079] In scenarios where the speed limit increases twice consecutively, at the rear-end distance maintenance point, a new speed limit with a larger value can be updated after the train reaches that point. This allows verification that the train only increases its speed after the rear-end distance maintenance period has ended, thus confirming the proper functioning of the onboard equipment's MRSP curve generation function. In such scenarios, more accurate test cases can be generated quickly and easily, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of testing the onboard equipment's MRSP curve generation function.

[0080] Specifically, S51 may include:

[0081] S511: Based on the first train control speed limit change scenario, principle, and the updated speed limit at the rear-keeping distance in the first train control speed limit change scenario, determine the first test case, where the updated speed limit is greater than the speed limit before the update at the rear-keeping distance.

[0082] S52: Based on the second train control speed limit change scenario and principle, determine the second test case. The second train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points that represent deceleration.

[0083] In scenarios where the speed limit is reduced twice consecutively, an additional condition can be added to the speed reduction process where the speed reduction cannot be met. This allows us to check whether bad pixels have been removed from the MRSP curve generated by the onboard equipment, thereby determining whether the MRSP curve generation function of the onboard equipment is normal.

[0084] Next, at the position before the speed reduction, a smaller speed limit is updated. The smaller speed limit is sufficient to meet the speed reduction requirements. By checking whether the previously removed bad points reappear in the MRSP curve generated by the on-board equipment (with a smaller speed limit), it can be determined whether the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board equipment is normal.

[0085] In such scenarios, it is also possible to generate more accurate test cases quickly and easily, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of MRSP curve generation function testing for in-vehicle equipment.

[0086] Specifically, S52 may include:

[0087] S521: Based on the second train control speed limit change scenario and principle, and the fact that the speed limit point represented by the braking curve in the second train control speed limit change scenario cannot achieve speed reduction, determine the second test case A.

[0088] S522: Based on the second train control speed limit change scenario, principle, and the speed limit before the speed reduction corresponding to the speed limit point that cannot achieve the speed reduction, the updated speed limit is less than the speed limit before the update, and the updated speed limit can achieve the speed reduction of the speed limit point that represents the speed reduction, determine the second test case B.

[0089] S53: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario and principle, determine the third test case. The third train control speed limit change scenario includes a speed limit point that represents acceleration and a speed limit point that represents deceleration.

[0090] Specifically, S53 may include:

[0091] S531: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A and the principle, determine the third test case A. In the third train control speed limit change scenario A, the increase of the speed limit point representing acceleration is equal to the decrease of the speed limit point representing deceleration.

[0092] Specifically, S531 may include:

[0093] S5311: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A1 and the principle, determine the third test case A1. In the third train control speed limit change scenario A1, the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance.

[0094] S5312: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A2 and the principle, determine the third test case A2. In the third train control speed limit change scenario A2, the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance.

[0095] S532: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B and the principle, determine the third test case B. In the third train control speed limit change scenario B, the increase of the speed limit point representing acceleration is less than the decrease of the speed limit point representing deceleration.

[0096] Specifically, S532 may include:

[0097] S5321: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B1 and the principle, determine the third test case B1. In the third train control speed limit change scenario B1, the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance.

[0098] S5322: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B2 and the principle, determine the third test case B2. In the third train control speed limit change scenario B2, the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance.

[0099] S533: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C and the principle, determine the third test case C. In the third train control speed limit change scenario C, the increase of the speed limit point representing acceleration is greater than the decrease of the speed limit point representing deceleration.

[0100] Specifically, S533 may include:

[0101] S5331: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C1 and the principle, determine the third test case C1. In the third train control speed limit change scenario C1, the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance.

[0102] S5332: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C2 and the principle, determine the third test case C2. In the third train control speed limit change scenario C2, the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance.

[0103] S54: Based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario and principle, determine the fourth test case. The fourth train control speed limit change scenario includes a speed limit point that represents the deceleration and a speed limit point that represents the acceleration.

[0104] Specifically, S54 may include:

[0105] S541: Based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario A and the principle, determine the fourth test case A. In the fourth train control speed limit change scenario A, the decrease in the speed limit point representing deceleration is equal to the increase in the speed limit point representing acceleration.

[0106] S542: Based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario B and the principle, determine the fourth test case B. In the fourth train control speed limit change scenario B, the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration is greater than the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration.

[0107] S543: Based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario C and the principle, determine the fourth test case C. In the fourth train control speed limit change scenario C, the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration is less than the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration.

[0108] S55: Test the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted equipment based on test cases.

[0109] When the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device includes the rear-end keeping distance and the safety allowance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is deemed to have passed the test. When the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device does not include the rear-end keeping distance and the safety allowance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is deemed to have failed the test.

[0110] Corresponding to step S511 above, S55 may include:

[0111] S551a: Input the first test case into the vehicle-mounted device.

[0112] S552a: If the speed limit increases after the rear-end distance is maintained in the MRSP curve output by the on-board equipment, then the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board equipment has passed the test.

[0113] S553a: If the speed limit increases at the rear-end distance in the MRSP curve output by the on-board equipment, then the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board equipment has failed the test.

[0114] Corresponding to steps S521 and S522 above, S55 may include:

[0115] S551b: Input the second test case A into the vehicle-mounted device.

[0116] S552b: If the speed limit before the deceleration point, which represents the deceleration, in the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device for the first time is obscured, then input the second test case B into the vehicle-mounted device.

[0117] S553b: If the speed limit before the deceleration point, which represents the deceleration, reappears in the second MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test.

[0118] S554b: If the speed limit before the deceleration point corresponding to the speed limit point representing the deceleration in the first MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device exists, or if the speed limit before the deceleration point corresponding to the speed limit point representing the deceleration in the second MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device does not appear, then it is determined that the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device has failed the test.

[0119] It should be noted that during the actual test, you can directly view the MRSP curve generated by the onboard equipment, or you can view the actual operation of the train based on the onboard equipment.

[0120] When testing whether the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is normal by examining the MRSP curve finally generated by the device, the MRSP curve generated by the device can be compared with the standard MRSP curve, which can improve the efficiency of judging whether the MRSP curve is correct.

[0121] Specifically, S55 may include:

[0122] S551c: Generate standard MRSP curves based on test cases.

[0123] S552c: Input the test cases into the vehicle-mounted device and obtain the actual MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device.

[0124] S553c: Match the actual MRSP curve with the standard MRSP curve, and determine whether the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle equipment passes the test based on the matching result.

[0125] Specifically, if the matching result indicates a successful match, the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is considered to have passed the test. If the matching result indicates a failed match, the MRSP curve generation function of the on-board device is considered to have failed the test.

[0126] To provide a clearer illustration of the various train control speed limit change scenarios and testing principles described above, please refer to Table 1 below.

[0127] Table 1. Different train control speed limit change scenarios and their corresponding MRSP curves

[0128]

[0129] Where "T" represents yes and "F" represents no. √ A colon (") represents "yes", and a space represents "no".

[0130] Figure 6 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the continuously increasing speed limit scenario and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in an embodiment of this application. See [link / reference]. Figure 6 As shown, a first test case was designed based on a scenario of continuous speed increase. This test case was input into the onboard device, which then used LRBG fitting to generate the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by A, B, and C. Based on the testing standard, considering the rear-end distance during acceleration, the onboard device needs to reserve a rear-end distance in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. Therefore, the standard MRSP curve should consist of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B in the first test case. 1 C 1 The MRSP curves generated by the on-board equipment confirm that the equipment is functioning correctly. If the on-board equipment does not output the curves generated by A and B in the first test case... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0131] Figure 7 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the continuously decreasing speed limit scenario and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in an embodiment of this application. See [link / reference] Figure 7As shown, a second test case was designed based on a continuous speed reduction scenario. This second test case was input into the onboard device, which then used LRBG fitting to generate the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by A, B, and C. Based on the testing standard, considering a safety margin during deceleration, the onboard device needs to reserve a safety margin in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. A standard MRSP curve should consist of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B under the second test case. 1 C 1 The MRSP curves generated by the on-board equipment confirm that the equipment is functioning correctly. If, under the second test case, the on-board equipment does not output the curves generated by A and B... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0132] Figure 8 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario in this application where the speed limit first increases and then decreases, the changes are identical before and after, and there are no dead pixels, along with the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment. See [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 8 As shown, a third test case A1 is designed based on a scenario where the speed limit is first increased and then decreased, the speed is the same before and after, and there are no dead pixels. Test case A1 is input into the onboard device, which uses LRBG to fit the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by A, B, and C. Based on the test standard, considering the rear-end distance during acceleration and the safety margin during deceleration, the onboard device needs to reserve a rear-end distance and a safety margin in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. Furthermore, the rear-end distance and the safety margin do not overlap. A standard MRSP curve should consist of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B under the third test case A1. 1 C 1 The MRSP curve generated by the on-board device confirms that the device is functioning correctly. If the on-board device does not output the curve generated by A and B under the third test case A1... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0133] Figure 9 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario in this application where the speed limit first increases and then decreases, the same before and after, and there are dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment. See [link / reference]. Figure 9As shown, a third test case A2 was designed based on a scenario where the speed limit increases first and then decreases, with the same speed before and after, and a defective point. Test case A2 was input into the onboard device, which then used LRBG fitting to generate the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by points A, B, and C. Based on the testing standard, during acceleration, the rear-end distance is considered, and during deceleration, a safety margin is considered. The onboard device needs to reserve a rear-end distance and a safety margin in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. However, the rear-end distance and the safety margin overlap, rendering the speed limit during acceleration ineffective and potentially leading to traffic accidents. Point B, being a defective point, needs to be eliminated. A standard MRSP curve should consist of points A, B, and C. 1 Composed of A and B. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B under the third test case A2. 1 The MRSP curve composed of A and B indicates that the on-board device is functioning correctly in generating the MRSP curve. If the on-board device does not output the curve composed of A and B under the third test case A2, then... 1 The MRSP curve composed of C and D is used to determine the functional abnormality of the MRSP curve generated by the on-board equipment.

[0134] Figure 10 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario of speed limit first increasing and then decreasing, high at the beginning and low at the end, and no dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in this application embodiment. See [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 10 As shown, a third test case B1 is designed based on a scenario where the speed increases first and then decreases, with a higher initial speed followed by a lower final speed, and no dead pixels. This third test case B1 is input into the onboard device, which uses LRBG fitting to generate the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by A, B, and C. Based on the test standard, considering the rear-end distance during acceleration and the safety margin during deceleration, the onboard device needs to reserve a rear-end distance and a safety margin in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. Furthermore, the rear-end distance and the safety margin do not overlap. A standard MRSP curve should consist of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B under the third test case B1. 1 C 1 The MRSP curve generated by the on-board device confirms that the device is functioning correctly. If the on-board device does not output the curve generated by A and B under the third test case B1... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0135] Figure 11 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario of speed limit first increasing and then decreasing, high at the beginning and low at the end, and with dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in the embodiments of this application. See [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 11As shown, a third test case B2 was designed based on a scenario where the speed limit increases and then decreases, with a high initial speed followed by a low final speed, and a defective point. Test case B2 was input into the onboard equipment, which then used LRBG fitting to generate the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by points A, B, and C. Based on the testing standard, during acceleration, the rear-end distance is considered, and during deceleration, a safety margin is considered. The onboard equipment needs to reserve a rear-end distance and a safety margin in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. However, the rear-end distance and the safety margin overlap, rendering the speed limit during acceleration ineffective and potentially leading to traffic accidents. Point B, being a defective point, needs to be eliminated. A standard MRSP curve should consist of points A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B under the third test case B2. 1 C 1 The MRSP curve generated by the on-board device confirms that the device is functioning correctly. If the on-board device does not output the curve generated by A and B under the third test case B2... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0136] Figure 12 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario of speed limit first increasing and then decreasing, lower at the beginning and higher at the end, and without dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in this application embodiment. See [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 12 As shown, a third test case C1 is designed based on a scenario where the speed increases first and then decreases, with a lower initial speed followed by a higher initial speed, and no dead pixels. This third test case C1 is input into the onboard device, which uses LRBG to fit the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by A, B, and C. Based on the test standard, considering the rear-end distance during acceleration and the safety margin during deceleration, the onboard device needs to reserve a rear-end distance and a safety margin in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. Furthermore, the rear-end distance and the safety margin do not overlap. A standard MRSP curve should consist of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device, under the third test case C1, also outputs a result composed of A and B... 1 C 1 The MRSP curve generated by the on-board device confirms that the device is functioning correctly. If the on-board device does not output the curve generated by A and B under the third test case C1... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0137] Figure 13This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario of speed limit first increasing and then decreasing, initially low and then increasing, and with dead pixels, as described in this application, along with the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment. (See attached diagram.) Figure 13 As shown, a third test case C2 was designed based on a scenario where the speed limit increases and then decreases, with a lower initial speed followed by a higher initial speed, and a defective point. This third test case C2 was input into the onboard equipment, which then used LRBG to fit the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by points A, B, and C. Based on the testing standard, during acceleration, the rear-end distance is considered, and during deceleration, a safety margin is considered. The onboard equipment needs to reserve a rear-end distance and a safety margin in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. However, the rear-end distance and the safety margin overlap, rendering the speed limit during acceleration ineffective and potentially leading to traffic accidents. Point B, being a defective point, needs to be eliminated. A standard MRSP curve should consist of points A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device, under the third test case C2, also outputs a result composed of A and B... 1 C 1 The MRSP curve generated by the on-board device confirms that the device is functioning correctly. If the on-board device does not output the curve generated by A and B under the third test case C2... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0138] Figure 14 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario in this application where the speed limit first decreases and then increases, the changes are identical before and after, and there are no dead pixels, along with the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment. See [link / reference]. Figure 14 As shown, a fourth test case A is designed based on a scenario where the speed limit is first reduced and then increased, with the speeds being identical before and after and without any dead pixels. Test case A is input into the onboard device, which uses LRBG fitting to generate the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by A, B, and C. Based on the testing standard, considering a safety margin distance during deceleration and a rear-end keeping distance during acceleration, the onboard device needs to reserve a safety margin distance and a rear-end keeping distance in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. Furthermore, the safety margin distance and the rear-end keeping distance do not overlap. A standard MRSP curve should consist of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B under the fourth test case A. 1 C 1 The MRSP curve generated by the on-board device confirms that the device is functioning correctly. If the on-board device does not output the curve generated by A and B under test case A (fourth test case A), then... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0139] Figure 15 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario of speed limit first decreasing and then increasing, high at the beginning and low at the end, and no dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in this application embodiment. See [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 15 As shown, a fourth test case B was designed based on a scenario where the speed limit is first reduced and then increased, with a high initial speed followed by a low initial speed, and no dead pixels. This fourth test case B was input into the onboard equipment, which then used LRBG fitting to generate the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by A, B, and C. Based on the testing standards, considering a safety margin during deceleration and a rear-end keeping distance during acceleration, the onboard equipment needs to reserve a safety margin distance and a rear-end keeping distance in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. Furthermore, the safety margin distance and the rear-end keeping distance do not overlap. A standard MRSP curve should consist of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B under the fourth test case B1. 1 C 1 The MRSP curve generated by the on-board device confirms that the device is functioning correctly. If the on-board device does not output the curve generated by A and B under test case B (fourth test case B), then... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0140] Figure 16 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the scenario of speed limit first decreasing and then increasing, lower at the beginning and higher at the end, with no dead pixels, and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in this application embodiment. See [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 16 As shown, a fourth test case C was designed based on a scenario where the speed limit is first reduced and then increased, with a low initial speed followed by a high initial speed and no dead pixels. This fourth test case C was input into the onboard equipment, which then used LRBG to fit the original MRSP curve. The original MRSP curve is formed by A, B, and C. Based on the testing standard, considering the rear-end distance during acceleration and the safety margin during deceleration, the onboard equipment needs to reserve a rear-end distance and a safety margin in the high-speed range of the original MRSP curve. Furthermore, the rear-end distance and the safety margin do not overlap. A standard MRSP curve should consist of A, B, and C. 1 C 1 Composition. If the on-board device also outputs a result composed of A and B under the fourth test case C. 1 C 1 The MRSP curve generated by the on-board device confirms that the device is functioning correctly. If the on-board device does not output the curve generated by A and B under test case C (fourth test case C), then... 1 C 1 The MRSP curves are composed to determine the functional abnormality of the on-board equipment generating the MRSP curves.

[0141] Figure 17 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the updating of the speed limit at the rear-end keeping distance and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in an embodiment of this application. See [link / reference]. Figure 17 As shown, the original MRSP curve generated by the on-board equipment includes A, B, and C. Considering the rear-end distance, the regenerated MRSP curve includes A and B. 1 C 1 In this scenario, a larger speed limit is added at the rear-end distance. The test case design will also include a new LRBG (Local Ratio Buffer Group) where the train passes through any rear-end distance during its forward movement. The LRBG contains the E27 packet and the SSP (Speed ​​Service Buffer) is updated, with the updated speed limit being greater than the previous speed limit. If the rear-end distance remains unchanged in the final MRSP curve generated by the onboard equipment, and the speed limit only increases after the rear-end distance has ended, then the onboard equipment's MRSP curve generation function is normal. Conversely, if the rear-end distance remains unchanged, then the onboard equipment's MRSP curve generation function is abnormal.

[0142] Figure 18 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the speed limit update for the deceleration range and the corresponding MRSP curve adjustment in an embodiment of this application. See [link / reference]. Figure 18 As shown in Figure a, the original MRSP curve generated by the on-board equipment includes A, B, and C. Considering a safety margin, the regenerated MRSP curve includes A and B. 1 C 1 Based on the braking curves (including at least: Emergency Brake Intervention (EBI) and Service Brake Intervention (SBI)), the braking force from B is calculated. 1 To C 1 The distance is insufficient to meet the deceleration requirements, B 1 If it's obscured, it needs to be treated as a dead pixel. See also... Figure 18 As shown in b, in the test case, when the train is traveling to B... 1 Upon arrival at the location, updated driving permits and route data were received; the speed limit at point B was reduced. 1 To C 1 The distance is sufficient to meet the deceleration requirements, B 1 The point reappears as a valid point. If this change occurs in the MRSP curve generated by the on-board device, it indicates that the on-board device is functioning normally in generating the MRSP curve. Conversely, if the change does not occur, it indicates that the on-board device is malfunctioning in generating the MRSP curve.

[0143] This concludes the description of the MRSP curve generation function test method for vehicle-mounted equipment provided in this application embodiment.

[0144] Based on the same inventive concept, as an implementation of the above method, this application also provides a vehicle-mounted equipment MRSP curve generation function test device.

[0145] Figure 19 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the on-board equipment MRSP curve generation function test device in the embodiments of this application. Figure 1 See Figure 19 As shown, the device may include a use case determination module 191 and a test module 192.

[0146] The test case determination module 191 is used to determine test cases for the function test of generating the maximum speed limit curve of the on-board equipment based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, the principle that the speed limit point representing acceleration in the train control speed limit change scenario needs to reserve the rear distance, and the speed limit point representing deceleration needs to reserve a safety reserve distance. The train control speed limit change scenario includes at least two speed limit points.

[0147] Test module 192 is used to test the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device based on test cases. When the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device includes the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test. When the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device does not include the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have failed the test.

[0148] Furthermore, as a response to Figure 19 In a refinement and extension of the illustrated device, this application also provides a test device for generating MRSP curves of vehicle-mounted equipment.

[0149] Figure 20 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the on-board equipment MRSP curve generation function test device in the embodiments of this application. Figure 2 See Figure 20 As shown, the device may include a use case determination module 201 and a test module 202.

[0150] The use case determination module 201 includes: a first use case determination unit 2011, a second use case determination unit 2012, a third use case determination unit 2013, and a fourth use case determination unit 2014.

[0151] The first test case determination unit 2011 is used to determine the first test case based on the first train control speed limit change scenario and principle, wherein the first train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points that characterize acceleration.

[0152] The first test case determination unit 2011 is specifically used to determine the first test case based on the first train control speed limit change scenario, principle and the updated speed limit at the rear-keeping distance in the first train control speed limit change scenario, wherein the updated speed limit is greater than the speed limit before the update at the rear-keeping distance.

[0153] The second test case determination unit 2012 is used to determine the second test case based on the second train control speed limit change scenario and principle, wherein the second train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points that characterize the deceleration.

[0154] The second test case determination unit 2012 is specifically used to determine the second test case A based on the second train control speed limit change scenario, principle, and the fact that the speed limit point representing speed reduction based on the braking curve in the second train control speed limit change scenario cannot achieve speed reduction; and to determine the second test case B based on the second train control speed limit change scenario, principle, and the fact that the speed limit point representing speed reduction cannot achieve speed reduction has been updated, the updated speed limit is less than the updated speed limit, and the updated speed limit can achieve speed reduction at the speed limit point representing speed reduction.

[0155] The third test case determination unit 2013 is used to determine the third test case based on the third train control speed limit change scenario and principle. The third train control speed limit change scenario includes a speed limit point that represents acceleration and a speed limit point that represents deceleration.

[0156] The third test case determination unit 2013 is specifically used to determine the third test case A based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A and the principle, wherein the increase in the speed limit point representing acceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A is equal to the decrease in the speed limit point representing deceleration; to determine the third test case B based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B and the principle, wherein the increase in the speed limit point representing acceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B is less than the decrease in the speed limit point representing deceleration; and to determine the third test case C based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C and the principle, wherein the increase in the speed limit point representing acceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario C is greater than the decrease in the speed limit point representing deceleration.

[0157] The third test case determination unit 2013 is specifically used to determine the third test case A1 based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A1 and the principles, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance; based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A2 and the principles, the third test case A2 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance; based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B1 and the principles, the third test case B1 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance. The sum of the reserved distances; based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B2 and the principle, the third test case B2 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserved distance; based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C1 and the principle, the third test case C1 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario C1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserved distance; based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C2 and the principle, the third test case C2 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario C2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserved distance.

[0158] The fourth test case determination unit 2014 is used to determine the fourth test case based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario and principle. The fourth train control speed limit change scenario includes a speed limit point that represents a decrease in speed and a speed limit point that represents an increase in speed.

[0159] The fourth test case determination unit 2014 is specifically used to determine the fourth test case A based on the fourth column control speed limit change scenario A and the principle, wherein the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration in the fourth column control speed limit change scenario A is equal to the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration; to determine the fourth test case B based on the fourth column control speed limit change scenario B and the principle, wherein the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration in the fourth column control speed limit change scenario B is greater than the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration; and to determine the fourth test case C based on the fourth column control speed limit change scenario C and the principle, wherein the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration in the fourth column control speed limit change scenario C is less than the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration.

[0160] Test module 202 includes: first test unit 2021, second test unit 2022 and third test unit 2023.

[0161] The first test unit 2021 is used to input the first test case into the vehicle-mounted device. If the speed limit increases after the rear-end keeping distance ends in the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test. If the speed limit increases at the rear-end keeping distance in the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have failed the test.

[0162] The second test unit 2022 is used to input the second test case A into the vehicle-mounted device. If the speed limit before the deceleration point corresponding to the speed limit point representing the deceleration in the first MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device is obscured, then the second test case B is input into the vehicle-mounted device. If the speed limit before the deceleration point corresponding to the speed limit point representing the deceleration in the second MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device reappears, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test. If the speed limit before the deceleration point corresponding to the speed limit point representing the deceleration in the first MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device exists, or the speed limit before the deceleration point corresponding to the speed limit point representing the deceleration in the second MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device does not appear, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have failed the test.

[0163] The third test unit 2023 is used to generate standard MRSP curves based on test cases; input test cases into the vehicle-mounted device to obtain the actual MRSP curves output by the vehicle-mounted device; match the actual MRSP curves with the standard MRSP curves, and determine whether the vehicle-mounted device's MRSP curve generation function passes the test based on the matching results. Specifically, when the matching result indicates a successful match, the vehicle-mounted device's MRSP curve generation function passes the test; when the matching result indicates a failed match, the vehicle-mounted device's MRSP curve generation function fails the test.

[0164] It should be noted that the description of the above device embodiments is similar to the description of the above method embodiments, and has similar beneficial effects. For technical details not disclosed in the device embodiments of this application, please refer to the description of the method embodiments of this application for understanding.

[0165] Based on the same inventive concept, embodiments of this application also provide an electronic device.

[0166] Figure 21 This is a schematic diagram of the electronic device in an embodiment of this application. See also... Figure 21 As shown, the electronic device may include: a processor 211, a memory 212, and a bus 213; wherein the processor 211 and the memory 212 communicate with each other through the bus 213; the processor 211 is used to call program instructions in the memory 212 to execute the methods in one or more of the above embodiments.

[0167] It should be noted that the descriptions of the above electronic device embodiments are similar to those of the above method embodiments, and have similar beneficial effects. For technical details not disclosed in the electronic device embodiments of this application, please refer to the descriptions of the method embodiments of this application for understanding.

[0168] Based on the same inventive concept, embodiments of this application also provide a computer-readable storage medium, which may include: a stored program; wherein, when the program is running, it controls the device where the storage medium is located to execute the methods in one or more of the above embodiments.

[0169] It should be noted that the descriptions of the storage medium embodiments above are similar to those of the method embodiments above, and have similar beneficial effects. For technical details not disclosed in the storage medium embodiments of this application, please refer to the descriptions of the method embodiments of this application for understanding.

[0170] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any variations or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application. Therefore, the scope of protection of this application should be determined by the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for testing the MRSP curve generation function of vehicle-mounted equipment, characterized in that, The method includes: Based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, and the principle that the speed limit points representing acceleration in the train control speed limit change scenarios need to reserve a rear-end keeping distance and the speed limit points representing deceleration need to reserve a safety reserve distance, test cases for the function test of generating the MRSP curve of the maximum limiting speed of the on-board equipment are determined. The train control speed limit change scenarios include at least two speed limit points. The MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is tested based on the test cases. When the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device includes the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to pass the test. When the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device does not include the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to fail the test. The test cases for the MRSP curve generation function test of the on-board equipment are determined based on the principles of multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, the need to reserve a rear-end distance for speed limit points representing acceleration in the train control speed limit change scenarios, and the need to reserve a safety reserve distance for speed limit points representing deceleration. These include: Based on the first train control speed limit change scenario and the aforementioned principle, a first test case is determined, wherein the first train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points representing acceleration; Based on the second train control speed limit change scenario and the aforementioned principle, a second test case is determined, wherein the second train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points representing deceleration; Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario and the aforementioned principle, a third test case is determined, wherein the third train control speed limit change scenario includes a speed limit point representing acceleration followed by deceleration and a speed limit point representing deceleration. Based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario and the aforementioned principle, a fourth test case is determined. The fourth train control speed limit change scenario includes a speed limit point that represents a decrease in speed followed by an increase in speed, and a speed limit point that represents an increase in speed.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario and the aforementioned principles, the third test case is determined, including: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A and the aforementioned principle, a third test case A is determined, wherein the increase in the speed limit point representing acceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A is equal to the decrease in the speed limit point representing deceleration. Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B and the aforementioned principle, a third test case B is determined, wherein the increase in the speed limit point representing acceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B is less than the decrease in the speed limit point representing deceleration. Based on the third column control speed limit change scenario C and the aforementioned principle, a third test case C is determined, wherein the increase in the speed limit point representing acceleration in the third column control speed limit change scenario C is greater than the decrease in the speed limit point representing deceleration. Based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario and the aforementioned principles, the fourth test case is determined, including: Based on the fourth column control speed limit change scenario A and the aforementioned principle, the fourth test case A is determined, wherein the decrease in the speed limit point representing deceleration in the fourth column control speed limit change scenario A is equal to the increase in the speed limit point representing acceleration. Based on the fourth column control speed limit change scenario B and the aforementioned principle, the fourth test case B is determined, wherein the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration in the fourth column control speed limit change scenario B is greater than the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration. Based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario C and the aforementioned principle, a fourth test case C is determined, wherein the decrease in speed limit point representing deceleration in the fourth train control speed limit change scenario C is less than the increase in speed limit point representing acceleration.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A and the aforementioned principles, the third test case A is determined, including: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A1 and the aforementioned principle, a third test case A1 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance. Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario A2 and the aforementioned principle, a third test case A2 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario A2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance. The determination of the third test case B based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B and the aforementioned principle includes: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B1 and the aforementioned principle, a third test case B1 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance. Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario B2 and the aforementioned principle, a third test case B2 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario B2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance. Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C and the aforementioned principles, the third test case C is determined, including: Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C1 and the aforementioned principle, a third test case C1 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario C1 is greater than the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance. Based on the third train control speed limit change scenario C2 and the aforementioned principle, a third test case C2 is determined, wherein the distance between the speed limit point representing acceleration and the speed limit point representing deceleration in the third train control speed limit change scenario C2 is less than or equal to the sum of the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The first test case is determined based on the first train control speed limit change scenario and the aforementioned principle, including: Based on the first train control speed limit change scenario, the aforementioned principle, and the updated speed limit at the rear-keeping distance in the first train control speed limit change scenario, a first test case is determined, wherein the updated speed limit is greater than the speed limit before the update at the rear-keeping distance. The testing of the MRSP curve generation function of the in-vehicle device based on the test cases includes: Input the first test case into the vehicle-mounted device; If the speed limit increases after the rear-end keeping distance ends in the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test. If the speed limit increases at the rear-end keeping distance in the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device has failed the test.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the second train control speed limit change scenario and the aforementioned principle, the second test case is determined, including: Based on the second train control speed limit change scenario, the aforementioned principle, and the fact that the speed limit point based on the braking curve characterizing the speed reduction in the second train control speed limit change scenario cannot achieve speed reduction, the second test case A is determined. Based on the second column control speed limit change scenario, the aforementioned principle, and the update of the speed limit before the speed reduction corresponding to the speed limit point that cannot achieve the speed reduction, the updated speed limit is less than the updated speed limit, and the updated speed limit can achieve the speed reduction at the speed limit point that represents the speed reduction, the second test case B is determined. The testing of the MRSP curve generation function of the in-vehicle device based on the test cases includes: Input the second test case A into the vehicle-mounted device; If the speed limit before the deceleration point, which represents the deceleration, in the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device for the first time is blocked, then the second test case B is input into the vehicle-mounted device. If the speed limit before the deceleration, which represents the speed reduction, reappears in the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device in the second time, then the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test. If the speed limit before the deceleration point corresponding to the speed limit point representing the deceleration exists in the first MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device, or if the speed limit before the deceleration point corresponding to the speed limit point representing the deceleration does not appear in the second MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device, then it is determined that the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device has failed the test.

6. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 5, characterized in that, The testing of the MRSP curve generation function of the in-vehicle device based on the test cases includes: Generate standard MRSP curves based on the test cases; Input the test cases into the vehicle-mounted device and obtain the actual MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device; The actual MRSP curve is matched with the standard MRSP curve, and the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle device is determined to pass the test based on the matching result. When the matching result indicates a successful match, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle device is determined to pass the test. When the matching result indicates a failed match, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle device is determined to fail the test.

7. A testing device for generating MRSP curves of vehicle-mounted equipment, characterized in that, The device includes: The test case determination module is used to determine test cases for the MRSP curve generation function test of the on-board equipment based on multiple preset train control speed limit change scenarios, the principle that the speed limit point representing acceleration in the train control speed limit change scenario needs to reserve the rear-end keeping distance, and the speed limit point representing deceleration needs to reserve a safety reserve distance. The train control speed limit change scenario includes at least two speed limit points. The testing module is used to test the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device based on the test cases. When the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device includes the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have passed the test. When the MRSP curve output by the vehicle-mounted device does not include the rear-end keeping distance and the safety reserve distance, the MRSP curve generation function of the vehicle-mounted device is determined to have failed the test. The use case determination module includes: a first use case determination unit, a second use case determination unit, a third use case determination unit, and a fourth use case determination unit; The first test case determination unit is used to determine the first test case based on the first train control speed limit change scenario and principle, wherein the first train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points that characterize acceleration; The second test case determination unit is used to determine the second test cases based on the second train control speed limit change scenario and principle, wherein the second train control speed limit change scenario includes two speed limit points that characterize the deceleration; The third test case determination unit is used to determine the third test case based on the third train control speed limit change scenario and principle. The third train control speed limit change scenario includes a speed limit point that represents acceleration and a speed limit point that represents deceleration. The fourth test case determination unit is used to determine the fourth test case based on the fourth train control speed limit change scenario and principle. The fourth train control speed limit change scenario includes a speed limit point that represents a decrease in speed and a speed limit point that represents an increase in speed.

8. An electronic device, characterized in that, The electronic device includes: a processor, a memory, and a bus; wherein the processor and the memory communicate with each other via the bus; the processor is used to call program instructions in the memory to execute the method as described in any one of claims 1 to 6.

9. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The storage medium includes: a stored program; wherein, when the program is executed, it controls the device where the storage medium is located to perform the method as described in any one of claims 1 to 6.

Images