Vehicle Acceleration Arbitration for Smooth Restart From Stop

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In vehicles equipped with multiple driving assistance systems, abnormalities can cause the requested acceleration for maintaining a stopped state to remain constant, leading to delayed vehicle start responsiveness when another system or the driver attempts to start the vehicle.

Innovation Solution

A vehicle control device with a processor that sets a lower priority for the first requested value when acquiring predetermined information, excluding it from selection and preferring the second requested value to prevent the vehicle from being held in a stopped state, and sets an upper limit value for the holding force to ensure smooth starting.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Stability of the object's composition

If the requested acceleration for maintaining stopped state is selected based on predetermined selection criterion, then the vehicle stopping stability is improved, but the start responsiveness deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestopping stabilityVSAvoidstart responsiveness
Core Design Contradiction:
Stability of the object's compositionVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The arbitration unit dynamically changes the selection criterion based on vehicle state. When the vehicle is stopped, it prioritizes maintaining the stopped state by selecting the minimum requested acceleration. When the vehicle is moving, it switches to selecting the maximum requested acceleration, enabling quick response to start requests. This dynamic adaptation resolves the contradiction between stopping stability and start responsiveness.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the arbitration parameter (selection criterion) based on the vehicle's operational state. By switching between minimum-value selection and maximum-value selection depending on whether the vehicle is stopped or moving, the system optimizes performance for each state, achieving both stopping stability and start responsiveness.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If the requested acceleration value remains constant due to system abnormality, then the system reliability is improved, but the start responsiveness deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem reliabilityVSAvoidstart responsiveness
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The arbitration unit continuously monitors the vehicle state and feedback from multiple systems. When a start request is detected while the vehicle is stopped, the system overrides the constant holding requested acceleration and selects the start requested acceleration instead, ensuring responsive start behavior even when one system exhibits abnormal constant values.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system prepares for potential start requests by having multiple systems provide requested acceleration values in advance. When a start request occurs, the arbitration unit can immediately select the appropriate value without delay, even if other systems are providing constant holding values due to abnormalities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple systems provide requested acceleration values, then the system versatility is improved, but the arbitration complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem versatilityVSAvoidarbitration complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The arbitration process is segmented into distinct operational modes: stopped state arbitration (selecting minimum value to maintain stop) and moving state arbitration (selecting maximum value for responsive acceleration). This segmentation simplifies the decision logic within each mode while accommodating multiple input systems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The arbitration criterion dynamically switches between minimum-value selection and maximum-value selection based on vehicle state. This dynamic approach provides a clear, simple decision rule for each state, reducing arbitration complexity despite having multiple systems providing input values.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentUS12258022B2Vehicle control device, vehicle, and vehicle control method
Publication Date: 2025.03.25 TOYOTA JIDOSHA KK
  • US12258022B2 patent drawing
  • US12258022B2 patent drawing
  • US12258022B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A vehicle control device includes a processor. The processor is configured to receive a first requested value of acceleration acting on a vehicle from a first system configured to request holding a stopped state of the vehicle. The processor is configured to receive a second requested value of the acceleration from a second system. The processor is configured to select one of the first requested value and the second requested value as an arbitration result. The processor is configured to set a priority for selecting the first requested value lower than a priority for selecting the second requested value when the processor acquires predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system while the vehicle is stopped.