Steering Intent Detection via Reference Signal Comparison

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing steering-assistance systems struggle to distinguish between intentional and reflexive steering movements of a driver, leading to potential oversteer situations when correcting for unexpected vehicle deviations due to varying road friction coefficients.

Innovation Solution

A method that determines an instantaneous non-perturbation vehicle state and calculates a steering signal reference value, comparing it with the current steering signal to differentiate between intentional and corrective steering movements, thereby enabling precise actuator intervention.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If steering-assistance systems provide countersteering support to correct vehicle deviation, then vehicle stability is improved, but oversteer situations may occur leading to loss of control

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevehicle stabilityVSAvoidoversteer

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adapts the steering assistance based on real-time detection of driver intent. By continuously monitoring steering movements and comparing them against predicted reference values, the system adjusts whether to provide countersteering support, thereby preventing oversteer while maintaining vehicle stability when needed.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system employs feedback mechanisms by comparing actual steering movements with predicted reference steering movements. This feedback loop enables the system to detect deviations caused by road friction variations and adjust the steering assistance accordingly, preventing harmful oversteer while maintaining stability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Productivity

If steering assistance provides support during fast steering movements, then evasive maneuver effectiveness is improved, but reflex-like countersteering cannot be distinguished leading to excessive intervention

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveevasive maneuver effectivenessVSAvoidsteering intervention accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary calculations of reference steering movements based on predicted vehicle states before actual steering actions occur. By having these reference values pre-computed and ready, the system can quickly compare actual steering movements against them during critical moments, enabling accurate distinction between intentional evasive maneuvers and reflex countersteering without excessive intervention.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the parameter of steering assistance intervention based on the detected steering movement type. By comparing actual steering movements against predicted reference values, the system adjusts the level of intervention - providing full support for intentional evasive maneuvers while reducing or eliminating support for reflex-like countersteering movements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Speed

If conventional systems use steering velocity as criterion for intervention, then fast steering response is achieved, but inability to distinguish intentional from reflexive steering occurs

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesteering response speedVSAvoidsteering intent detection accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system introduces an intermediary comparison mechanism between actual steering movements and predicted reference steering movements. This intermediary step acts as a mediator that translates raw steering velocity data into meaningful intent detection, enabling the system to distinguish between intentional and reflexive steering while maintaining fast response times.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system replaces the simple mechanical threshold-based steering velocity criterion with a more sophisticated computational approach. By substituting the basic velocity threshold with a comparison against predicted reference values derived from vehicle state models, the system achieves both fast response and accurate intent detection.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS10829151B2Method for differentiating driver input

Publication Date: 2020.11.10 FORD GLOBAL TECH LLC

AI summary

A method for distinguishing intentional steering movements of a driver for influencing an intentional driving path of a motor vehicle from corrective steering movements of the driver as a reaction to unexpected deviations of the motor vehicle from the intentional driving path including ascertaining an instantaneous undisturbed motion of the vehicle along the driving path and calculating a reference value for a steering angle (SAR) corresponding to the ascertained, undisturbed motion of the motor vehicle or a reference value for a steering velocity (SVR) corresponding to the ascertained, undisturbed motion of the motor vehicle. Comparing the reference value(s) (SAR; SVR) with instantaneous steering-angle values (SA(t)) or instantaneous steering-velocity values (SV(t)) and ascertaining whether a difference between the instantaneous steering-angle value (SA(t)) and the corresponding reference steering-angle value (SAR) or a difference between the instantaneous steering-velocity value (SV(t)) and the corresponding reference steering-velocity value (SVR) exceeds a predetermined error-limit value (ΔE) which is established for the calculation of the reference values (SVR; SAR). If so, determining it is a corrective steering movement of the driver as a reaction to an unexpected deviation of the motor vehicle from the intentional driving path.