Vehicle Acceleration Arbitration for Driver and ADAS Speed Requests
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing vehicle controllers struggle to effectively integrate driver requests for acceleration or deceleration with speed control requests from driver assistance systems, leading to potential conflicts and suboptimal vehicle speed management.
Innovation Solution
A vehicle controller architecture that includes a setting unit, two arbiter units, and a commanding unit, which processes request values for longitudinal acceleration limits and driver requests to arbitrate and set command values for actuators, ensuring seamless integration of driver inputs with system requests.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If the vehicle controller only follows driver assistance system requests, then speed control precision is improved, but driver input responsiveness deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The controller segments the arbitration process into two distinct arbiter units: a first arbiter unit that handles acceleration requests and a second arbiter unit that handles deceleration requests. This segmentation allows independent processing of driver acceleration inputs and system speed control requirements, resolving the contradiction by enabling both precise speed control and responsive driver input through separate arbitration channels.
2Measurement precision
If the vehicle controller integrates multiple request values from driver assistance systems, then control accuracy is improved, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The arbitration function is segmented into two specialized arbiter units, each handling specific types of requests. The first arbiter unit processes acceleration-related requests while the second processes deceleration requests. This segmentation reduces system complexity by dividing the arbitration logic into manageable, specialized components rather than requiring a single complex arbitration mechanism.
Solution Approach 2:
The controller dynamically selects which request values to prioritize based on current driving conditions and driver inputs. When driver acceleration requests are detected, the system dynamically adjusts arbitration behavior to reflect these inputs while still adhering to speed control limits. This dynamic adaptation improves control accuracy without requiring permanent structural complexity.
3Ease of operation
If the vehicle controller prioritizes driver acceleration requests, then driver input responsiveness is improved, but speed control safety deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The controller applies preliminary anti-action by pre-establishing speed control limits and safety constraints before processing driver acceleration requests. The arbiter units are configured to automatically prevent requests that would violate safety limits, thereby protecting against unsafe operations while still allowing responsive handling of valid driver inputs. This preliminary protective measure ensures safety without compromising legitimate driver responsiveness.
Data Source
AI summary
A vehicle controller sets an upper limit request value related to an upper limit of a longitudinal acceleration of a vehicle, a lower limit request value related to a lower limit of the longitudinal acceleration, and an acceleration request value related to the longitudinal acceleration that corresponds to an amount of the operation of the vehicle. The vehicle controller sets a first arbitration request value to a greater one of the lower limit request value and the acceleration request value. The vehicle controller sets a second arbitration request value to a smaller one of the first arbitration request value and the upper limit request value. The vehicle controller sets, to a value that corresponds to the second arbitration request value, a command value sent to an actuator that operates to adjust the traveling speed.