检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:张新锋[1] 李浩 宋瑞 杨凯凯[1] ZHANG Xinfeng;LI Hao;SONG Rui;YANG Kaikai(School of Automobile,Chang’an University,Xi’an 710064,China;School of Information Engineering,Chang’an University,Xi’an 710064,China;China Automotive Technology Research Center Co.,Ltd.,Tianjin 300300,China)
机构地区:[1]长安大学汽车学院,西安710064 [2]长安大学信息学院,西安710064 [3]中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司,天津300300
出 处:《汽车工程学报》2023年第5期623-634,共12页Chinese Journal of Automotive Engineering
基 金:陕西省重点研发计划项目(2022GY-303);西安市科技计划项目(2022GXFW0152)。
摘 要:针对当前自动紧急制动系统评价中,存在雨雾等危险复杂气象状况的测试场景考虑不足,和评价结果难以客观反映AEB系统实际性能的问题,研究了包含雨雾天气的AEB系统测试场景和综合评价方法。根据国家车辆事故深度调查体系(National Automobile Accident in-Depth Investigation System,NAIS)的事故数据,参考中国新车评价规程,构建了雨雾天气下的AEB系统测试场景;基于层次分析法,建立了AEB系统评价层次模型,提出了AEB系统综合评价方法。在PreScan-Simulink平台上搭建了仿真测试场景,进行测试评价,验证了方法的效果,与传统单一评价指标方法进行对比,结果显示被测车辆得分为6.610 7分,小于单一速度减少量评价方法的9.015 0分,偏差分析表明该方法评价结果更客观,能更准确地反映AEB系统性能。In the assessment of the autonomous emergency braking(AEB) systems,test scenarios under dangerous and complex weather conditions,such as rain and fog,have not been sufficiently considered.And the evaluation results have difficulty in objectively reflecting the actual performance of the AEB system.Therefore,the AEB test scenarios including rainy and foggy weather and a comprehensive evaluation method are investigated.According to the accident data of the National Automobile Accident in-Depth Investigation System(NAIS) and the Chinese New Car Assessment Program(C-NCAP),AEB test scenarios in rainy and foggy weather were constructed.Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP),the AEB evaluation hierarchy model was established and a comprehensive evaluation method for AEB was proposed.The simulation test scenarios were built on the PreScan-Simulink platform,and the test evaluation was carried out to verify the effectiveness of the method.Compared with the traditional single evaluation index method,the results show that the tested vehicle scored 6.610 7 points,which is lower than the 9.015 0 points obtained using the single speed reduction evaluation method.The deviation analysis indicates that the evaluation results of the proposed method are more objective and can more accurately reflect the performance of the AEB system.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:3.22.41.47