Automated Drive Controller for Vehicle Safety via Behavior Comparison

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current autonomous vehicle systems face challenges in ensuring safety, particularly in emergency situations where unintended vehicle behavior occurs, and may not meet high safety standards due to limitations in monitoring and deceleration control, especially when using existing drive sources or controllers that do not meet stringent safety requirements.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of an automated drive controller with multiple processors operating in parallel, which detects actual vehicle behavior and compares it to predicted behavior, issuing instructions to decelerate the vehicle through a brake device or cut off energy supply, and prompting a transition to manual driving mode when necessary, ensuring sufficient time for driver intervention and meeting high safety standards.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If an automated drive controller is implemented to monitor and compare predicted vs actual vehicle behavior, then vehicle safety is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevehicle safetyVSAvoidcontroller complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent embeds multiple processors within the automated drive controller, where each processor performs specific monitoring functions. The controllers are nested within the control system architecture, with processors containing functional modules for prediction, detection, and comparison operations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #7Nested doll (Nesting)

Solution Approach 2:

The automated drive controller is divided into multiple independent processors, each handling specific aspects of safety monitoring. This segmentation allows parallel processing of different safety-critical functions while maintaining modularity and reducing the complexity burden of any single processor.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Reliability

If multiple processors operate in parallel for redundancy, then reliability is improved, but manufacturing cost increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecontroller reliabilityVSAvoidmanufacturing cost

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements partial redundancy by having multiple processors operate in parallel for critical safety functions, rather than duplicating the entire controller system. This provides sufficient reliability for safety-critical operations while avoiding the excessive cost of full system redundancy.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The multiple processors are designed to perform universal safety monitoring functions, where each processor can independently execute the same safety-critical tasks. This multi-functionality allows any processor to take over if another fails, providing reliability without requiring specialized hardware for each unit.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Speed

If the automated drive controller issues deceleration instructions to the brake device, then response time is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresponse speedVSAvoidcontrol system complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The automated drive controller pre-establishes communication channels and control protocols with the brake device during system initialization. This preliminary setup enables immediate deceleration commands to be transmitted without establishing connections in real-time, reducing response delay.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The controller continuously monitors actual vehicle behavior and compares it with predicted behavior, creating a feedback loop that triggers automatic deceleration commands when deviations exceed thresholds. This closed-loop feedback system enables rapid response to unsafe conditions without requiring complex manual intervention systems.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

4Measurement precision

If the system compares predicted behavior with actual behavior continuously, then measurement precision is improved, but use of energy increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvebehavior detection precisionVSAvoidcontroller energy consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The automated drive controller performs behavior comparison at periodic intervals rather than continuously, checking predicted versus actual behavior at predetermined time points. This periodic monitoring maintains sufficient measurement precision for safety-critical detection while significantly reducing energy consumption compared to continuous real-time monitoring.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #19Periodic action

Data Source

PatentUS10173690B2Vehicle, vehicle controller, vehicle control method, and medium storing vehicle control program

Publication Date: 2019.01.08 HONDA MOTOR CO LTD

AI summary

A vehicle includes a detection section and a automated drive controller. The detection section detects actual behavior of the vehicle. The automated drive controller generates a automated drive action plan for the vehicle, issues an instruction relating to behavior of the vehicle based on the generated action plan to a drive source controller that controls a drive source of the vehicle, and compares predicted behavior of the vehicle predicted based on the issued instruction and actual behavior of the vehicle detected by the detection section. In cases where the predicted behavior of the vehicle and the actual behavior of the vehicle detected by the detection section differ from each other by more than a preset range, the automated drive controller issues an instruction to decelerate the vehicle to a brake device of the vehicle.