Adaptive Collision Determination Logic for Vehicle Safety Systems
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing collision reduction devices face inefficiencies in determining collision possibilities and managing actuation to minimize malfunctions, particularly in varying vehicle speeds, detection accuracies, and driver alertness, which affects the speed and reliability of collision mitigation processes.
Innovation Solution
The device employs a selecting mechanism to operate two types of actuating means based on collision possibility thresholds, vehicle speed, braking status, path curvature, detection accuracy, and driver alertness, allowing for faster determination when risks are high and more reliable determination when risks are low, using sensors like radar, cameras, and driver monitors to control braking, suspension, and alert systems.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Speed
If a smaller number of determinations is used for collision possibility assessment, then the speed of collision determination is improved, but the reliability of collision determination deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The system dynamically adjusts the number of determination cycles based on real-time collision risk levels. When collision risk is high, the system uses a smaller number of determinations (first number) to achieve fast response. When collision risk is low, the system uses a greater number of determinations (second number) to ensure high reliability. This dynamic adjustment resolves the contradiction between speed and reliability by making the determination process adaptive to situational requirements.
2Speed
If the system operates in high-risk modes with faster determination, then collision response speed is improved, but the rate of malfunctions increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system changes the parameter of determination cycle count based on collision risk levels. In high-risk situations, the system reduces the number of determination cycles to improve response speed while accepting a higher malfunction rate. In low-risk situations, the system increases the number of determination cycles to reduce malfunctions. This parameter change strategy allows the system to optimize performance based on operational context.
3Reliability
If a greater number of determinations is used for collision possibility assessment, then the reliability of collision determination is improved, but the speed of collision determination deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The determination process is segmented into different operational modes based on collision risk levels. The system divides the determination cycles into a first number for high-risk scenarios and a second number for low-risk scenarios. This segmentation allows the system to apply appropriate determination intensity for each situation, avoiding unnecessary delays in high-risk scenarios while ensuring reliability in low-risk scenarios.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
A collision reducing device 10 comprises a radar 12, an image sensor 14, a collision mitigation ECU 40, and a brake ECU 24. A collision predicting section 50 of the collision mitigation ECU 40 has a first actuating section 52 for causing a vehicle control section 46 to perform running control when a collision possibility exceeds a reference value in one-frame determination, a second actuating section 54 for causing the vehicle control section 46 to perform running control when the collision possibility exceeds a reference value in M-frame determination, and a selecting section 56 for selectively operating the first actuating section 52 and second actuating section 54, so that the vehicle control section 46 can be operated by two kinds of numbers of determinations, whereby the speed of collision determination can be secured by a smaller number of determinations when operating the first actuating section 52, while malfunctions can be reduced more by a greater number of determinations when operating the second actuating section 54.