ABRAM studies presented at ESV2015 and IV2015 conferences

Two recent studies developed within ABRAM were presented at the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles conference (ESV2015) in Gothenburg, Sweden, and at the IEEE Intelligent Vehicle Symposium (IV2015) in Seoul, Korea.

The first paper, titled "Autonomous emergency braking for cornering motorcycle", presented an advanced MAEB that can safely deploy a full braking even when the motorcycle is negotiating a bend. This system, named MAEB+, combined standard MAEB and ABC (active braking control), a module designed to adjust the braking distribution between front and rear wheel in order to produce a stabilisation of the vehicle along its trajectory. The paper also presented detailed computer simulations of three real world crashes from the InSafe dataset. Each case simulated in the actual configuration (without MAEB), with standard MAEB, and with MAEB+. The results showed that MAEB+ was able to slow down the motorcycle with higher deceleration compared to simple MAEB, without producing falling events in the pre-collision phase. These results indicated that a stability module associated to MAEB can make the system more robust even when the rider attempts lateral manoeuvres before the collision.

One of the crash cases simulated for ESV2015

The second paper, titled "Triggering Algorithm based on Inevitable Collision States for Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) in Motorcycle-to-Car Crashes," presented a collaborative AEB system based on the interaction between a motorcycle and an opponent passenger car. This system used an inverted approach compared to standard MAEB: the safety system mounted on the motorcycle detects a possible conflict with an approaching passenger car and when the collision becomes imminent yet still avoidable, it deploys the full braking intervention of the AEB mounted on the opponent vehicle via V2V. Computer simulations of 90 real world crash cases revealed that in more than half the considered cases collaborative AEB may have prevented the collision. Despite some limitations in the study, these promising results warrant further investigations.

Concept of the collaborative AEB presented at IV2015

Original Manuscript available on line - Evaluation of an autonomous braking system in real world PTW crashes

The original manuscript of the paper Evaluation of an autonomous braking system in real world PTW crashes published on Traffic Injury Prevention will be available for consultation soon.


To cite this article: 
Giovanni Savino, Marco Pierini, Matteo Rizzi & Richard Frampton (2013): Evaluation of an Autonomous Braking System in Real-World PTW Crashes, Traffic Injury Prevention, 14:5, 532-543.


Preview of this article:

Evaluation of an autonomous braking system in real world PTW crashes

Abstract

Powered two wheelers (PTWs) are becoming increasingly popular in Europe. They have the ability to get around traffic queues, thus lowering fuel consumption and increasing mobility. The risk of rider injury in a traffic crash is however much higher than that for their four wheeled counterparts. The European project Powered two wheeler Integrated Safety (PISa), identified an autonomous braking system (AB) as a priority to reduce the injury consequences of a crash. This study assessed the potential effectiveness of the AB system developed in PISa, taking into account the specific system characteristics that emerged during the design, development and testing phases. Fifty eight PTW accidents representing European crash configurations were examined. Two of the largest crash types were a PTW impacting a stationary object (CFS, 16%) and an object pulling across the PTW path (CRS, 54%). 43% of the crashes contained a rider with MAIS 2+ injury. In 67% of cases, the application of AB could have mitigated the crash outcome. Analysis of the real crash cases under a complete set of possible rider reactions showed the potential for an expert rider to avoid the collision. An early reaction of the rider, associated with a correct application of the brakes would have avoided 18 out of 37 CFS and CRS crashes. Conversely, according to the analysis, an expert rider would not have been able to avoid 19 out of 37 cases. In 14 of the 19 cases, the AB would have contributed to mitigate the crash outcomes. 


This is an Author's Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in Traffic Injury Prevention (copyright Taylor & Francis); Traffic Injury Prevention is available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/15389588.2012.725878