pre-rear end positioning and risk extenuation system · 2019-09-19 · pre-rear end positioning and...

Pre-Rear End Positioning and Risk Extenuation System

Alexis Basantis, Alexandria Rossi-Alvarez, Adam Novotny, Eric Bloomquist , Samantha Haus, Richard Greatbatch, Luke Riexinger, Phillip Grambo, and Zachary Doerzaph

2

Introduction and Motivation

PREPARES | Introduction

2011

NASS/GES12% of police reported

crashes

2015

CRSS2 million rear-end collisions

12,880 serious injuries

2017

Introduction and MotivationDrivers are more likely to be out of position when vehicle is stationary than when it’s moving. (Fice, 2018; S hugg, 2011)

● There is an increas ed s everity of whiplas h. (J akobsson, 2008; S turzenegger, 1995)

Current advanced driver as s is tance s ys tems (ADAS ) focus es on the s triking vehicle only.

3

JNCAP

PREPARES | Introduction

Introduction and Motivation

Develop and evaluate a new safe system which mitigates injury of

occupants in struck vehicles during imminent rear collisions.

4

Crash Studies

● Uses current vehicle systems to detect an imminent rear-end collision and activate a multi -modal cue

● The goal of this cue:

○ Use natural human responses to stimuli

○ Rapidly redirect the occupant’s attention

○ Elicits the standard seating position

5PREPARES | Introduction

PREPARES System

System Design6

The Team

7

Advanced System Safety Class

PREPARES | System Design

8

PREPARES Process Map


Motivation01 What is the problem?

SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driving Database

Examined cases in which the subject vehicle impacted a stopped vehicle.

38% of drivers in a rear-end collisions at a stop light or stop sign were out of proper seating position.

9PREPARES | System Design

10

PREPARES Process Map


System Design02 How can we address the problem?

Motivation01 What is the problem?

Crash Studies


PREPARES Components

Sensor Algorithm Display

Display Design

Auditory Stimuli

● Pure-tone of 3000 Hz

● +10 dB to ambient noise level

Visual Stimuli

● Orange LED light strip

● No associated semantic meaning


PREPARES Interface

Crash Studies


Component Interaction

14

PREPARES Process


System Safety Analysis03 Could there be unintended consequences from introducing the system?


Introduction01 What is the problem?

Overall SystemHazard Analysis

Crash Studies


System Safety Analysis


Crash Studies



Sub -System: Sensor

Causal Map Analysis

Sub -System: Algorithm

Fault -Tree Analysis

Sub -System:Interface

Barrier Analysis


Crash Studies



Sub -System: Sensor

Causal Map Analysis

Sub -System: Algorithm

Fault -Tree Analysis

Sub -System:Interface

Barrier Analysis

Risk Assessmentand

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

18

PREPARES Process


Sensor Testing04 How do we use sensors already in vehicle to trigger an display when an immanent crash will occur?




Crash Studies


Sensor Suite & Testing

Sensor Suite:● 3 radar sensors● Inertial measurement unit (IMU)● LiDAR

S urface S treet Expansion portion of the Virginia T ech T ransportation Institute (VT T I) S mart Road.

● S tatic tests = validate sensors

● Dynamic tests = test and refine algorithm

20

PREPARES Process


Data Analysis06 Does the system perform as anticipated?

Sensor Testing04 How do we use sensors already in vehicle to trigger an display when an immanent crash will occur?




Display Testing05 Do people react to the display?

Display Testing

21

Crash Studies

22PREPARES | Display Test

Experimental Design

● 36 participants

● Three sorting task locations

● Four display conditions

● Stationary vehicle in garage bay at VTTI

● Mixed factorial experimental design

● Trials:○ Trial 1 = Surprise

○ Trials 2-4 = Instructed

● Surveys and facilitated discussions

Display conditions

Display Condition Visual Audio

1 Flash Pulse

2 Constant Constant

3 Constant Pulse

4 Flash Constant


“Surprise” Trial Results

26 of 36 participants (72%) reacted to the display

15 of those 26 (58%) repositioned into standard seating position



Range of average reaction times:

● Initial reaction: ○ 0.723 - 1.192 seconds

● Return to s tandard seating pos ition: ○ 1.258 - 2.022 seconds

Crash Studies


Qualitative Findings

Responses from facilitated discussions and surveys:

● The auditory stimulus was more salient than the light stimulus

● It was understood that the auditory and visual stimulus was some type of alert, informing them that something negative was occurring

● Participants liked that the system was going to prepare them for an accident that they may not be able to detect.

● Participants wanted an explanation of the system if the system was to be implemented or utilized in their vehicle

Crash Studies


Conclusion

● Proof-of -concept study was successful● With no knowledge of the display, 72% of participants redirected their

attention forwards and of those, 58% returned to the seating position● Average reaction time to return to standard seating position: 1.55 seconds

● Limitations:

○ Controlled study challenges ecologically validity○ Focuses only on driver

Crash Studies


Future Directions

● Integration and implementation of sensors, algorithm, and interface

● Additional participant testing in a high fidelity environment

● Autonomous vehicles○ May not require drivers to be attentive at

all times

○ Occupants can sit in many different positions

○ PREPARES may be useful in alerting out-of-position occupants of a collision

News Atlashttps://newatlas.com/panasonic -autonomous -cabin -concept/47280/

https://newatlas.com/panasonic-autonomous-cabin-concept/47280/

Acknowledgments

29PREPARES

Pre-Rear End Positioning and Risk Extenuation System

Alexis Basantis, Alexandria Rossi-Alvarez, Adam Novotny, Eric Bloomquist, Richard Greatbatch, Samantha Haus, Luke Riexinger, Phillip Grambo, and Zachary Doerzaph

Provisional Patent: 62828267

pre-rear end positioning and risk extenuation system · 2019-09-19 · pre-rear end positioning and...

Documents