Adaptive Cruise Control for Intersection Obstacle Confirmation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Adaptive cruise control systems face inefficiencies due to the requirement for visual confirmation of radar-detected stationary objects, which can lead to unnecessary deceleration in clear paths and delayed reaction to actual obstacles, especially at intersections where visual confirmation is unfeasible within the vehicle's range.

Innovation Solution

The system employs a threshold distance-based approach using vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication to determine if a radar-detected stationary object is likely a stopped vehicle at an intersection, allowing speed adjustments without visual confirmation, leveraging traffic condition data and historical data to assess the presence of obstacles.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If visual confirmation is required for all radar-detected stationary objects, then false decelerations are reduced, but reaction time to actual obstacles at intersections is delayed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of obstacle detectionVSAvoidreaction time to obstacles
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies different confirmation requirements to stationary objects based on their location. Objects detected near intersections within a threshold distance are treated differently from objects detected elsewhere, allowing faster response at intersections while maintaining accuracy in other areas.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

Intersection data from V2V and V2X communications serves as an intermediary indicator to infer the presence of stopped vehicles at intersections. This mediator allows the system to make informed decisions about stationary objects without requiring direct visual confirmation, thereby reducing reaction time while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Measurement precision

If visual confirmation range is extended to cover all stationary objects, then detection accuracy improves, but system complexity and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection accuracy of stationary objectsVSAvoidsensor range and system configuration
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses different sensor ranges for different locations. Radar is used for detecting stationary objects near intersections where visual confirmation is not feasible, while camera visual confirmation is used for objects detected in other areas, optimizing the use of each sensor's capabilities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses multi-functional sensors that can operate in different modes. The radar sensor serves both for detecting moving vehicles and stationary objects, while the camera provides visual confirmation when needed. Intersection data from V2V/V2X communications provides additional information that complements the sensor data.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Productivity

If radar range is increased to detect stationary objects beyond visual confirmation range, then detection capability improves, but false positive rate increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection capability of stationary objectsVSAvoidaccuracy of stationary object identification
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

Intersection data from V2V and V2X communications acts as an intermediary indicator to verify whether radar-detected stationary objects are actual stopped vehicles at intersections. This mediator helps distinguish true obstacles from false positives caused by radar limitations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses feedback from multiple sources including intersection data, radar data, and camera visual confirmation to continuously verify and update the status of detected stationary objects. This feedback mechanism reduces false positives by cross-validating detections from multiple independent sources.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS11912274B2Adaptive cruise control with non-visual confirmation of obstacles
Publication Date: 2024.02.27 FORD GLOBAL TECH LLC
  • US11912274B2 patent drawing
  • US11912274B2 patent drawing
  • US11912274B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A system comprises a computer having a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to access sensor data of a first sensor of a vehicle while an adaptive cruise control feature of the vehicle is active, detect, based on the sensor data of the first sensor, a stationary object located along a path of travel of the vehicle, wherein the stationary object is located outside of a range of a second sensor of the vehicle, determine a presence of an intersection within a threshold distance of the stationary object that is along the path of travel of the vehicle, and responsive to a determination that the stationary object is a stopped vehicle of the intersection, adjust, by the adaptive cruise control feature, the speed of the vehicle.