AEB Target Motion Assessment for Accurate Collision Braking

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Traditional methods for determining estimated accelerations in automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems fail to account for varying scenarios, leading to inaccurate braking inputs that can cause collisions or discomfort, and are unable to adapt to targets that are accelerating or decelerating.

Innovation Solution

A method that determines whether a target is likely to be stopped before a potential collision, selecting an appropriate estimated-acceleration function based on this determination, and calculating the estimated acceleration to avoid the collision using specific equations tailored to the scenario.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If traditional simple kinetic equations are used to determine estimated acceleration, then the calculation is simple and fast, but the accuracy is insufficient when targets are accelerating or decelerating

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of estimated accelerationVSAvoidcomplexity of acceleration determination system
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically selects between multiple acceleration determination functions based on the detected motion state of the target object. When the target is stationary or moving at constant velocity, a simpler function is used. When the target is accelerating or decelerating, a more complex function that accounts for target acceleration is selected, optimizing the balance between accuracy and computational complexity for each specific scenario.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the parameters and structure of the acceleration determination function based on the target's motion state. Different functions with varying levels of complexity are employed depending on whether the target is stationary, moving at constant velocity, or accelerating/decelerating, allowing the system to adapt its computational approach to match the actual physical situation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If high deceleration is applied to avoid potential collisions, then collision avoidance is improved, but driver comfort deteriorates due to harsh braking

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision avoidance capabilityVSAvoiddriver comfort
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The braking system dynamically adjusts the deceleration level based on the assessed collision risk and target motion state. When a genuine collision threat is detected with an accelerating target, high deceleration is applied to ensure safety. When the target is likely to stop or is moving away, reduced deceleration is applied, maintaining driver comfort while still preventing collisions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the braking force parameter based on the selected acceleration determination function and the assessed situation. By accurately determining whether the target is accelerating or decelerating, the system can adjust the braking intervention level accordingly, applying stronger braking only when necessary and milder braking when the situation allows, thus balancing safety and comfort.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If premature braking is applied to avoid potential collisions, then safety is improved, but traffic flow deteriorates due to unnecessary brake events

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety of braking interventionVSAvoidtraffic flow efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis of the target's motion state (acceleration, deceleration, stationary) before initiating braking intervention. By assessing whether the target is likely to stop on its own or is moving away, the system can prevent premature braking actions that would disrupt traffic flow, while still maintaining safety by being ready to brake when genuine threats are identified.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously monitors and updates the target's motion state, using this feedback to adjust the braking decision. By observing whether the target is accelerating or decelerating in real-time, the system can refine its collision risk assessment and avoid unnecessary braking interventions, thereby maintaining both safety and traffic flow efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentEP4144601B1Estimated-acceleration determination for automatic emergency braking
Publication Date: 2026.03.04 APTIV TECHNOLOGIES AG
  • EP4144601B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4144601B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4144601B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The techniques and systems herein enable estimated-acceleration determination for AEB. Specifically, for a potential collision, a determination is made as to whether the target of the potential collision is likely to be stopped prior to the potential collision (e.g., due to its own braking). One of a plurality of estimated-acceleration functions is then selected based on whether the target is likely to be stopped prior to the potential collision. Using the selected estimated-acceleration function, an estimated acceleration to avoid the potential collision is calculated. By selecting different estimated-acceleration functions based on whether targets are likely to be stopped prior to potential collisions, more-accurate estimated accelerations may be generated, thus enabling better collision avoidance and/or avoiding unnecessarily strong braking.