Vehicle Deceleration Control Matching via V2V Communication

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing vehicle control systems face challenges in matching deceleration between vehicles during automated driving, particularly on downhill slopes, due to variations in gear ratios, leading to inconsistent following distances and difficulties in coordinating deceleration control.

Innovation Solution

A vehicle control apparatus that acquires deceleration information from other vehicles through communication, sets an allowable deceleration range, and performs deceleration control to match with the cooperative deceleration of other vehicles, ensuring stable and synchronized deceleration between vehicles.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If deceleration control is performed using fixed gear ratios, then vehicle control is simple, but deceleration matching between vehicles with different gear ratios becomes difficult

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedeceleration control simplicityVSAvoiddeceleration matching capability

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies dynamics by making the deceleration control system adaptive rather than fixed. The control apparatus dynamically adjusts deceleration commands based on real-time communication with other vehicles, allowing the system to adapt to different gear ratios and vehicle characteristics while maintaining coordinated deceleration across the fleet.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements feedback through vehicle-to-vehicle communication where deceleration information is exchanged and used to adjust control commands. The control apparatus receives deceleration data from other vehicles and modifies its own deceleration control accordingly, creating a closed-loop system that achieves matching deceleration despite hardware differences.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Speed

If deceleration ratio is increased to improve deceleration performance, then deceleration capability improves, but following distance control becomes inconsistent between vehicles

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedeceleration capabilityVSAvoidfollowing distance consistency

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent changes the control parameter from fixed gear ratio to dynamic deceleration commands. By adjusting deceleration parameters based on communicated vehicle data, the system maintains consistent following distances across vehicles with different deceleration capabilities, effectively decoupling deceleration performance from following distance control.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses feedback from other vehicles' deceleration states to adjust following distance control. By continuously exchanging deceleration information and adjusting control commands accordingly, the system compensates for hardware variations and maintains precise following distance consistency across the vehicle fleet.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Adaptability or versatility

If vehicle-to-vehicle communication is implemented for deceleration coordination, then deceleration matching between vehicles improves, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedeceleration matching capabilityVSAvoidcommunication system complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies universality by designing a communication system that handles multiple functions through a single integrated apparatus. The control apparatus simultaneously manages deceleration control, processes communication data from multiple vehicles, and adjusts control commands based on aggregated information, reducing overall system complexity despite the added communication capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Manufacturing precision

If cooperative deceleration control is implemented, then following distance consistency improves, but brake wear and heat generation increase due to frequent adjustments

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefollowing distance consistencyVSAvoidbrake wear

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by implementing selective deceleration control rather than continuous adjustment. The control apparatus adjusts deceleration commands only when necessary to maintain following distance consistency, avoiding unnecessary brake operations and reducing wear while still achieving the desired precision in following distance control.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS10967859B2Vehicle control apparatus and vehicle control method

Publication Date: 2021.04.06 HONDA MOTOR CO LTD

AI summary

A vehicle control apparatus controls a vehicle that is performing automated driving traveling. The vehicle control apparatus comprises: a communication unit configured to acquire deceleration information of another vehicle by communication with the other vehicle; a setting unit configured to set, for a deceleration of the vehicle, a range of an allowable deceleration that allows a vehicle speed change within a predetermined range; a determination unit configured to compare the deceleration of the vehicle with a deceleration included in the deceleration information and determine whether deceleration control of matching the deceleration of the vehicle with the deceleration of the other vehicle can be performed within the range of the allowable deceleration; and a control unit configured to perform the deceleration control of the vehicle based on a determination result of the determination unit.