Autonomous EV Braking Control Under Brake and Communication Failures

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current autonomous vehicle technologies lack an optimal braking control strategy for various failure scenarios, such as brake failures and communication failures, which can compromise vehicle stability during emergency situations.

Innovation Solution

A system comprising a vehicle control unit (VCU) controller, an integrated electric booster (IEB) controller, and a highway driving pilot (HDP) controller, which collaborate to ensure braking stability through regenerative braking and communication checks, and perform minimum-risk maneuver control to manage deceleration and alert the driver.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If a driver of a Level 3 autonomous vehicle neglects to look forward while the vehicle is being driven, then the driver cannot immediately respond in the case of an emergency, but the driver needs to be transferred control of the vehicle in the case of an emergency

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedriver attention requirementVSAvoiddriver response capability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by continuously monitoring driver state (attention level, readiness) and pre-preparing for emergency situations. The controller assesses whether the driver is ready to take control before a failure occurs, and can initiate warning signals or preparatory maneuvers to ensure the driver can respond immediately when needed, thus resolving the contradiction between reduced driver attention and maintained response capability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Extent of automation

If control is transferred to the driver in the case of vehicle failure, then the driver can take over control, but the stability of the vehicle needs to be ensured before control is transferred

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol transfer capabilityVSAvoidvehicle stability
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies beforehand cushioning by implementing preparatory measures before control transfer occurs. The controller ensures vehicle stability is maintained through preliminary braking control actions and warning signals to the driver, creating a buffer period that allows smooth transition of control while preventing instability. This cushioning approach ensures the driver is prepared and the vehicle is stabilized before full control transfer.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

3Ease of operation

If regenerative braking is performed through the driving motor, then braking control can be achieved, but communication between controllers must be maintained

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebraking controlVSAvoidcommunication reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses an intermediary approach by introducing alternative communication paths and intermediary control mechanisms. When primary communication between the HDP controller and IEB controller fails, the system can still achieve braking control through alternative routes or by using the driving motor as an intermediary braking mechanism, thus maintaining braking capability independent of communication reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Ease of operation

If direct braking is performed through the brake, then braking control can be achieved, but a specific method is not discussed for control strategy between controllers

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebraking controlVSAvoidcontroller coordination complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges the braking control functions of multiple controllers (HDP controller and IEB controller) into a unified control strategy. By combining the capabilities of both controllers and establishing clear coordination protocols, the system achieves straightforward direct braking control without requiring complex inter-controller communication methods, thus reducing device complexity while maintaining ease of operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentUS11760367B2System for controlling failure of environment-friendly vehicle
Publication Date: 2023.09.19 HYUNDAI MOTOR CO LTD
  • US11760367B2 patent drawing
  • US11760367B2 patent drawing
  • US11760367B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A system for controlling a failure of an environment-friendly vehicle is provided to which a highway driving pilot (HDP) system is applied. The system includes a vehicle control unit (VCU) controller that operates a driving motor, an integrated electric booster (IEB) controller that operates IEB for controlling a brake of the environment-friendly vehicle and generate a request to the VCU controller for regenerative braking, and an HDP controller that calculates a required deceleration of the environment-friendly vehicle based on the situation around the environment-friendly vehicle, determined through cognitive control sensors applied to the environment-friendly vehicle. The HDP controller transmits the required deceleration to the IEB controller. At least one of regenerative braking of the driving motor or braking through the brake is performed based on a type of a fault message output by the IEB controller or a failure in communication between the HDP controller and the IEB controller.