Off-Highway Vehicle Control by Operator Attention Level

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional control systems for off-highway vehicles lack efficient management of manual and automatic operations, particularly in determining appropriate levels of operator attention and task requirements, leading to limited options for managing computer-controlled operations and ensuring safety and precision during tasks.

Innovation Solution

A method that determines operator attention levels and task requirements to generate output parameters controlling the operation of work functions, allowing for adaptive management of manual and automatic commands, including function speed, range of movement, and enable/disable flags, to ensure efficient and safe operation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If conventional control systems are used for off-highway vehicles, then the system structure is simple, but the management of manual and automatic operations is inefficient and lacks adaptive control capabilities

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveadaptive management of manual and automatic commandsVSAvoidcontrol system structure

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system dynamically adjusts operational parameters based on real-time operator attention levels. The system transitions between different control modes (manual, semi-automatic, automatic) depending on the detected attention level, making the control characteristics adaptable rather than fixed. This resolves the contradiction by implementing dynamic adaptability without requiring complete system redesign.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes key operational parameters (control capability level, function speed, range of movement, rate of change) based on operator attention levels. By adjusting these parameters dynamically, the system achieves adaptive management of manual and automatic operations while building upon the existing control structure rather than replacing it entirely.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If automatic input commands are implemented without operator attention monitoring, then productivity increases, but safety and precision control are compromised

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesafety and precision controlVSAvoidautomated task execution efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system continuously monitors operator attention levels and uses this feedback to adjust control capabilities in real-time. This closed-loop feedback mechanism ensures that automatic operations maintain appropriate safety and precision controls based on the operator's current state, resolving the contradiction between automated efficiency and controlled reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The control system dynamically adjusts the level of automatic command execution based on real-time operator attention monitoring. When attention is high, more automatic control is permitted; when attention drops, manual oversight is required. This dynamic adjustment maintains both productivity and reliability adaptively.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

3Measurement precision

If multiple operator attention levels are implemented, then control precision and safety management improve, but the complexity of determining and managing attention levels increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoperator attention level detection accuracyVSAvoidattention level determination system

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The operator attention level is segmented into discrete levels (first, second, third attention levels), each associated with specific control capabilities. This segmentation simplifies the measurement and management of continuous attention states, making the system more manageable while maintaining sufficient precision for safety-critical decisions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

4Productivity

If unrestricted automatic commands are allowed, then productivity increases, but the risk of harmful factors and safety issues increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveautomated work function operationVSAvoidsafety risks from automated operations

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system preemptively limits automatic command capabilities based on predicted or current operator attention levels before harmful situations can develop. By预先 restricting automatic control authority when attention is low, the system prevents safety incidents rather than reacting to them after occurrence, resolving the contradiction between productivity and safety risk prevention.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

Data Source

PatentUS11920326B2Systems and methods for determining control capabilities on an off-highway vehicle

Publication Date: 2024.03.05 HUSCO INT INC

AI summary

Systems and methods for controlling operation of an off-highway vehicle are provided. A control method includes receiving an input command that includes at least one of a manual input command and an automatic input command, determining if an operator attention level is at a first attention level, a second attention level, or a third attention level, generating at least one output parameter based on the determined operator attention level and the input command, generating an output command based on the at least one output parameter, and outputting the output command to the first work function to control operation of the first work function based on the output command.