You are on page 1of 285

DOT HS 811 454A June 2011

Advanced Crash Avoidance


TechnoIogies Program -
FinaI Report of the Honda-DRI Team
VoIume I: Executive Summary and
TechnicaI Report
This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange.
The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of
the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government
assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers
names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the
object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The
United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
DOT HS 811 454A
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies (ACAT) Program
Final Report oI the Honda-DRI Team, Volume I: Executive
Summary and Technical Report
5. Report Date
June 2011
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
Van Auken, R.M, Zellner, J.W., Chiang, D.P., Kelly, J.,
Silberling, J.Y., Dai, R., Broen, P.C., Kirsch, A.M., Sugimoto, Y.
8. Performing Organization Report No.
DRI-TR-09-10
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Dynamic Research Inc.
355 Van Ness Ave, Suite 200
Torrance, CA 90501
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTNH22-06-H-00070
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
National Highway TraIIic SaIety Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave, SE
Washington, D.C. 20590
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final, Sept 2006 through July 2009
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
The Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies (ACAT) program initiated by the National Highway TraIIic SaIety
Administration had two major objectives. These are to develop a standardized SaIety Impact Methodology (SIM) tool to
evaluate the eIIectiveness oI advanced technologies in mitigating speciIic types oI vehicle crash avoidance crashes; and to
develop and demonstrate objective tests that are used in the SIM to veriIy the saIety impact oI a real system. Honda and
Dynamic Research Inc. (DRI) had been developing and applying such a SIM Ior several years and DRI with Honda's support
entered into a Cooperative Agreement with NHTSA to extend the existing SIM, which provides an estimate oI Iull systems
saIety beneIits at the US level. Objective tests that produce quantiIiable, repeatable and reproducible results were developed
to ensure that a crash avoidance countermeasure meets system perIormance speciIications, and that the results are directly
linked to the saIety needs and sample oI technology-relevant crashes being addressed. The objective tests, which are based
on dynamic reconstructions oI a sub-sample oI technology-relevant real crashes, include Track tests with an expert driver
using automatically guided soIt targets (GSTs) oI an automobile and oI a pedestrian; and Driving Simulator tests with a jury
oI 12 typical drivers, in order to evaluate driver-vehicle system response and to measure the driver's and vehicle's response
characteristics to system warnings and interventions. Results Irom the objective tests were used to parameterize, calibrate
and validate the SIM tool, which was then used to estimate US-level beneIits. The delivered SIM tool includes modules Ior
automated reconstruction oI conIlict and crash scenarios Irom available databases; deIinition and sampling oI Technology
Relevant Crash Types; dynamic simulations involving a human-vehicle-device-environmental model; and an overall saIety
eIIects estimator. An example application oI the extended SIM tool and developed objective tests involved evaluation oI
Honda`s prototype Advanced Collision Mitigation Brake System (A-CMBS).
17. Key Word
crash avoidance, objective tests, beneIits analysis
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the public Irom the National
Technical InIormation Service www.ntis.gov
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
UnclassiIied
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
UnclassiIied
21. No. of Pages
285
22. Price
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xvi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Project Aims.................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Program information ....................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Scope of the Study .......................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Broad Limitations ........................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Partners ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Task Structure ................................................................................................................. 7
1.7 Task Flow Chart.............................................................................................................. 7
1.8 Report Outline................................................................................................................. 8
2 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 Development of the Honda Prototype A-CMBS System ............................................. 10
2.1.1 Predecessor Production CMBS System ........................................................................ 14
2.1.1.1 Performance and Performance Limitations .................................................................. 16
2.1.2 Extensions, Modifications and Adjustments Leading to Honda Prototype A-CMBS .. 17
3 SAFETY IMPACT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 22
3.1 Technical Approach...................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Potential Alternative Approaches That Could Have Been Used .................................. 23
3.3 SIM Flow Chart (with High Level Description of the Flow Chart (Module-by-
Module)) ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Model Development Area ......................................................................................... 28
3.3.1.1 Data Usage Activity .................................................................................................. 29
3.3.1.1.1 Archival data (NHTSA Function 1) ...................................................................... 29
3.3.1.1.2 Real world data (NHTSA Function 2) .................................................................. 29
3.3.1.1.3 Corporate body of knowledge (NHTSA Function 3) ................................................ 30
3.3.1.1.4 Technology characteristics (NHTSA Function 4)..................................................... 30
3.3.1.2 Case Scenarios Activity............................................................................................. 30
iv
3.3.1.2.1 Breakdown of scenario characteristics (NHTSA Function 5) ................................... 31
3.3.1.2.2 Crash characteristics: roadway/vehicle (NHTSA Function 6) ........................... 31
3.3.1.2.3 Countermeasure relevant crash scenarios (NHTSA Function 7) ....................... 31
3.3.1.3 Objective Testing Activity ........................................................................................ 32
3.3.1.3.1 Driving simulator tests (NHTSA Function 8) ........................................................... 32
3.3.1.3.2 Driver-not-in-the-loop Track tests (NHTSA Function 9) ......................................... 34
3.3.1.3.3 Driver-in-the-loop Track tests (NHTSA Function 10) .............................................. 34
3.3.1.3.4 Human factors tests (NHTSA Function 11) .............................................................. 34
3.3.1.3.5 Lab tests (NHTSA Function 12) ............................................................................... 34
3.3.1.4 Model Creation Activity............................................................................................ 35
3.3.1.4.1 Model logic (NHTSA Function 13)........................................................................ 35
3.3.1.4.2 Distributions of parameters (NHTSA Function 14) .................................................. 37
3.3.1.4.3 Validation/calibration of model (NHTSA Function 15) ........................................... 37
3.3.1.4.4 Test for model adequacy (NHTSA Function 16) ...................................................... 37
3.3.2 Model Execution and Analysis Area ......................................................................... 37
3.3.2.1 Data Generation Activity........................................................................................... 38
3.3.2.1.1 Initial Scenario Conditions (NHTSA Function 17).............................................. 38
3.3.2.1.2 Computer Simulation (NHTSA Function 18) ...................................................... 38
3.3.2.2 Countermeasure Performance Analysis Activity ...................................................... 39
3.3.2.2.1 Without countermeasures (NHTSA Function 19) ............................................... 39
3.3.2.2.2 With countermeasures (NHTSA Function 20) ..................................................... 39
3.3.2.2.3 Safety Effectiveness (NHTSA Function 21).......................................................... 39
3.3.2.3 Safety Benefits Activity (NHTSA Function 22).................................................... 40
3.4 Safety Benefits Equations............................................................................................. 42
4 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................... 46
4.1 Assumptions Made to Enable Development of the SIM Tool ...................................... 46
4.1.1 For Any Safety Technology.......................................................................................... 46
4.1.3 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., A-CMBS) ..................................................... 48
4.2 Basic Underlying Principles That Apply to the SIM Tool ........................................... 48
4.2.1 For Any Safety Technology.......................................................................................... 48
4.2.1.1 Limitations in the Available Data ................................................................................. 51
v
4.2.2 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., A-CMBS) ..................................................... 52
4.2.3 Associated Level of Uncertainty in the Estimates of System Effectiveness ................ 53
4.3.2 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., Frontal ACATs) ........................................... 61
4.3.3 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., A-CMBS) ..................................................... 62
4.3.3.1 Limitations in the Available Data ................................................................................. 63
5 DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS ......................................................................... 64
5.1 Safety Technology Data................................................................................................ 65
5.2 Vehicle Characteristics Data......................................................................................... 67
5.3 Other Proprietary Data (e.g., Polk Data)....................................................................... 69
5.4 Crash Data..................................................................................................................... 70
5.4.1 FARS Data.................................................................................................................... 70
5.4.2 NASS/GES Data ........................................................................................................... 72
5.4.3 NASS/CDS Data........................................................................................................... 73
5.4.4 NASS/PCDS data.......................................................................................................... 75
5.5 Naturalistic Data ........................................................................................................... 78
5.5.1 VTTI 100-Car Near-Crash Data ................................................................................... 78
6 CASE SCENARIOS ........................................................................................................... 81
6.1 Identification of Technology Relevant Crash Types (TRCT's) .................................... 81
6.2 Reconstructions of Cases .............................................................................................. 82
6.2.1 NASS/CDS Crash Cases............................................................................................... 82
6.2.2 VTTI Near-Crash Cases................................................................................................ 86
6.2.3 Other Potential Future Cases ........................................................................................ 87
6.2.3.1 NMVCCS Crash Cases................................................................................................. 87
6.2.3.2 Cases with EDR Data.................................................................................................... 87
6.2.3.3 Other Naturalistic Crash, Near-Crash, Conflict and Non-Conflict Cases .................... 87
6.3 Sampling of TRCT Cases for Use in SIM .................................................................... 88
6.3.1 Method .......................................................................................................................... 88
6.3.2 Result ............................................................................................................................ 89
6.4 Sub-Sampling of TRCT Cases for Test Purposes ......................................................... 90
6.4.1 Method .......................................................................................................................... 90
6.4.1.1 Driver-not-in-the-loop Test Case Selection .................................................................. 90
vi
6.4.1.2 Driver-in-the-loop Test Case Selection ........................................................................ 92
6.4.2 Result ............................................................................................................................ 93
7 OBJECTIVE TESTING..................................................................................................... 96
7.1 Conversion of Test Case Sub-Sample into Driving Scenarios for Track Tests ............ 96
7.1.1 Guided Soft Target Specifications................................................................................ 96
7.1.1.1 System Requirements.................................................................................................... 97
7.1.1.2 Overall GST System Architecture ................................................................................ 98
7.1.1.3 GST System Operation ............................................................................................... 100
7.1.1.4 PGST Specific Components ....................................................................................... 102
7.1.1.5 Pedestrian Drive and Trolley System ......................................................................... 103
7.1.1.6 Car GST-Specific Components ................................................................................... 106
7.1.1.7 GST System Features .................................................................................................. 110
7.1.1.8 GST Impact Considerations ........................................................................................ 111
7.1.2 Track Test Procedures ................................................................................................. 111
7.1.2.1 Detailed Driver-not-in-the-loop Test Procedures ....................................................... 112
7.1.2.2 Detailed Driver-in-the-loop Test Procedures .............................................................. 114
7.1.3 Track Test Measurements ........................................................................................... 117
7.1.4 Limitations of GST and Track Test Procedures ......................................................... 120
7.1.5 Applicability of Track Test Procedures to Other Safety Technologies ...................... 120
7.1.6 Test Selection Index Correlation ................................................................................ 121
7.2 Calibration of SIM Model versus Tests ...................................................................... 124
7.2.1 Lab Tests of Warning Display Characteristics ........................................................... 124
7.2.1.1 Lab test versus Driving Simulator .............................................................................. 124
7.2.1.1.1 Visual Warnings .......................................................................................................... 124
7.2.1.1.1.1 Luminance measurements ..................................................................................... 126
7.2.1.1.1.2 Luminance camera location .................................................................................. 126
7.2.1.1.1.3 Evaluation of luminance data ................................................................................ 128
7.2.1.1.2 Audible Warnings ....................................................................................................... 130
7.2.1.1.3 Tactile Warnings ......................................................................................................... 132
7.2.1.2 Lab Tests versus CSSM.............................................................................................. 134
7.2.1.2.1 Visual Warnings .......................................................................................................... 135
vii
7.2.1.2.2 Audible Warnings ....................................................................................................... 135
7.2.1.2.3 Tactile Warnings ......................................................................................................... 136
7.2.2 Track Tests.................................................................................................................. 136
7.2.2.1 Vehicle Dynamics Calibration .................................................................................... 137
7.2.2.1.1 Geometry, Center of Mass and Aerodynamic Properties ........................................... 137
7.2.2.1.2 Vehicle Dynamic Measurements ................................................................................ 137
7.2.2.1.2.1 Slowly Increasing Steer ........................................................................................ 138
7.2.2.1.2.2 Step Steer Response.............................................................................................. 138
7.2.2.1.2.3 Step Steer Results ................................................................................................. 139
7.2.2.1.2.4 Step Accelerator Response ................................................................................... 143
7.2.2.1.2.5 Step Accelerator Results ....................................................................................... 144
7.2.2.1.2.6 Step Brake Response............................................................................................. 148
7.2.2.2 Driver-not-in-the-loop ACAT Calibration .................................................................. 151
7.2.2.3 Driver-in-the-loop Expert Driver With and Without ACAT: Track versus DS Test
Results......................................................................................................................... 161
7.2.3 CSSM vs. DS (Driver-in-the-loop Expert and Typical Drivers With and Without
ACAT) ........................................................................................................................ 166
7.3 Conversion of Test Case Sub-Sample into Driving Scenarios for Driving Simulator
Tests ............................................................................................................................ 172
7.3.1 Driving Simulator Description .................................................................................... 172
7.3.2 Driving Simulator Scene Generation .......................................................................... 173
7.3.2.1 Roadway Graphics...................................................................................................... 173
7.3.2.2 Collision Partner and Pedestrian Models.................................................................... 180
7.3.2.3 Driving Scenario Control ............................................................................................ 180
7.3.3 Driving Scenario Participants ..................................................................................... 195
7.3.3.1 Participant Selection ................................................................................................... 195
7.3.3.2 Participant Protocol..................................................................................................... 195
7.3.3.3 Participant Summary ................................................................................................... 196
7.3.4 Driving Simulator Procedures ..................................................................................... 196
7.3.4.1 Driver-in-the-Loop Driving Simulator Tests .............................................................. 197
7.3.4.2 Distraction Task Timing ............................................................................................. 198
7.3.4.3 Eye-Tracker Data Reduction....................................................................................... 199
viii
7.3.5 Driving Simulator Test Matrix .................................................................................... 200
7.3.6 Driving Simulator Measurements ............................................................................... 201
7.3.6.1 Objective Measurements ............................................................................................. 201
7.3.6.2 Subjective Measurements ........................................................................................... 203
7.3.7 Limitations of Driving Scenario Test Procedures ....................................................... 206
7.3.8 Applicability of Driving Simulator Test Procedures to Other Safety Technologies .. 206
7.3.9 Test Selection Index Correlation, Driving Simulator ................................................. 207
8 CSSM MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS .................................................... 209
8.1 Status of Originally Planned Extensions to Pre-Existing Honda-DRI SIM ............... 209
8.2 Modifications of CSSM as a Result of Testing .......................................................... 213
8.3 Description of the Final CSSM................................................................................... 213
8.3.1 Details (Including Parameters) of Resulting Models of Driver Performance............. 218
8.3.2 Details (Including Parameters) of Resulting Models of Vehicle Motion ................... 222
8.3.3 Details (Including Parameters) of Resulting Models of Countermeasure Intervention
..................................................................................................................................... 223
8.4 Description of Final CSSM Input Data....................................................................... 224
8.5 CSSM Resulting Output Data..................................................................................... 225
8.5.1 Driver .......................................................................................................................... 227
8.5.2 ACAT.......................................................................................................................... 227
8.5.3 Vehicle ........................................................................................................................ 227
8.5.4 System......................................................................................................................... 227
8.6 Some Suggested Further Extensions of the SIM Tool ................................................ 228
9 SIM DATA FLOW (INPUTS, CONTROL (E.G., BATCH VS SINGLE), OUTPUTS))
............................................................................................................................................. 229
9.1 Crash Scenario Database Development Tools ............................................................ 230
9.2 Technology Relevant Crash Type Specification and Case Sampling Tools ............... 231
9.3 Crash Sequence Simulation Module ........................................................................... 231
9.4 Overall Safety Effects Estimator ................................................................................ 231
10 COUNTERMEASURE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ............................................... 233
10.1 Benefits Equation........................................................................................................ 233
10.2 Inputs To The Benefits Equation ................................................................................ 236
ix
10.2.1 Tracing the Data/Parameters Supplied as per the Data Generation Process that
Generates the Outputs for the Measures of Performance With and Without the ACAT
Safety Technologies.................................................................................................... 236
10.2.2 Estimate of Effectiveness by TRCT ........................................................................... 245
11 SAFETY BENEFITS ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 247
11.1 Estimation of Number of US Crashes Prevented and Fatalities Reduced (i.e., last item
in the SIM flowchart) (US counts for collisions, vehicles involved and fatalities) .... 247
12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 250
12.1 Extensions of the SIM Achieved in this Study ........................................................... 251
12.2 Application of the Extended SIM ............................................................................... 252
12.3 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 254
12.4 Broad Limitations ....................................................................................................... 254
12.5 Recommendations....................................................................................................... 254
12.5.1 For General Aspects.................................................................................................... 255
12.5.2 For Crash Scenario Database Development Tools (Module 1) .................................. 255
12.5.3 For Automated Accident Reconstruction Tool (AART) (Module 1.3) ...................... 255
12.5.4 For Technology Relevant Crash Specification and Case Sub-Sampling Tools (Module
2) 256
12.5.5 For Objective Test Procedures and Test Systems ....................................................... 256
12.5.6 For Collision Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) (Module 3) .............................. 256
12.5.7 For Overall Safety Effects Estimator (Module 4) ....................................................... 257
13 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 258
14 ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................... 264
x
VOLUME II
APPENDIX A Fatality Equivalent Injury Units ............................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B Description of Crash Scenarios and AART (Module 1) .......................... B-1
APPENDIX C Description of Technology Relevant Crash Type Specification and Case
Sub-Sampling Tools (Module 2) ................................................................ C-1
APPENDIX D Description of CSSM (Module 3)............................................................... D-1
APPENDIX E Description of OSEE (Module 4) ............................................................... E-1
APPENDIX F Crash_Scenario_Variables_and_Definitions.............................................F-1
APPENDIX G A-CMBS TRCT Criteria (.a21 File Format) ............................................ G-1
APPENDIX H AART Output File Format (.a13 File Format) ........................................ H-1
APPENDIX I Simulation Case Samples (.a22 File) .......................................................... I-1
APPENDIX J Test Case Descriptions................................................................................. J-1
VOLUME III
APPENDIX K Track Test Driver-Not-In-The-Loop Time Histories .............................. K-1
VOLUME IV
SIM Tool Users Manual
VOLUME V
APPENDIX L Track Test Driver-In-The-Loop Time Histories ...................................... L-1
APPENDIX M Track Test Collisions and Resultant Relative Velocity .......................... M-1
APPENDIX N Driver Parameter Values from Driving Simulator Tests ........................ N-1
APPENDIX O Vehicle Dynamics Response Calibration.................................................. O-1
APPENDIX P Driver-Not-In-The Loop Calibration.........................................................P-1
APPENDIX Q CSSM vs. DS Calibration Correlation Data............................................. Q-1
VOLUME VI
APPENDIX R CSSM vs DS Calibration, Part 1 ............................................................... R-1
xi
VOLUME VII
APPENDIX R CSSM vs DS Calibration, Part 2 ........................................................... R-312
VOLUME VIII
APPENDIX S Driving Simulator Collisions and Resultant Relative Velocity................S-1
APPENDIX T CSSM Collisions and Resultant Relative Velocity ................................... T-1
APPENDIX U ACAT Driving Simulator Participant Documents and Forms ............... U-1
APPENDIX V Details (including parameters) of Resulting Models of Vehicle Motion V-1
APPENDIX W CSSM Time History Output File Format (.a32 File Format) ................ W-1
APPENDIX X OSEE Input Files for the US...................................................................... X-1
APPENDIX Y OSEE Input Effectiveness Function .......................................................... Y-1
....................................................................................................................... Z-1
APPENDIX Z Collision Probability Reduction for Track, Driving Simulator and CSSM
APPENDIX AA A-CMBS Mode Zones .............................................................................. AA-1
APPENDIX AB Intermediate Overall Safety Effects Results .......................................... AB-1
APPENDIX AC Non-Technology Specific Crash Types .................................................. AC-1
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
: Task Flow Chart .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 1
Figure 2: System configuration of CMBS ................................................................................ 14
Figure 3: Operation Modes of CMBS with Motorized Seatbelts .......................................... 15
Figure 4: Basic Control Logic of the Predecessor Production Honda CMBS ...................... 16
Figure 5: System Configuration of A-CMBS .......................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Top View of Vehicles Illustrating Outputs of Sensor Model ................................. 19
Figure 7: Simulink Models Required to Provide Data to A-CMBS ...................................... 20
Figure 8: Illustration of Relation Between Crash Sequence and A-CMBS States and
Outputs......................................................................................................................................... 21
: NHTSA ACAT SIM Framework ............................................................................. 26 Figure 9
: Honda-DRI SIM Tool Schematic........................................................................... 27 Figure 10
Figure 11: Honda-DRI SIM Tool Module Hierarchy............................................................. 28
Figure 12: Module 3 Crash Sequence Simulation Module ................................................. 36
Figure 13: Module 4 Overall Safety Effects Estimator (OSEE) Top Level Modules ....... 41
Figure 14: AART Assumed Crash Phases for Vehicle Dynamics ......................................... 59
Figure 15: Assumed Speed Profile for AART Reconstructions ............................................. 59
Figure 16: Overall Safety Effects Estimator Internal Data Flow .......................................... 64
Figure 17: Simulation Sample Selection Method .................................................................... 89
Figure 18: GST System Architecture....................................................................................... 99
Figure 19: Example Trajectories for SV and GST ............................................................... 101
Figure 20: Pedestrian Guided Soft Target............................................................................. 102
Figure 21: Pedestrian Drive System ....................................................................................... 104
Figure 22: Pedestrian Drive Assembly and Processor .......................................................... 105
Figure 23: Pedestrian Trolley Assembly ................................................................................ 105
Figure 24: View of Self-Propelled and Self-Guided Turtle Base ..................................... 107
Figure 25: View of Example Soft Car Body .......................................................................... 108
Figure 26: View Just Before and During Impact .................................................................. 108
Figure 27: Distraction Timing Diagram ................................................................................ 115
Figure 28: Track Test Measurement Plot Example .............................................................. 119
: Test Selection Index Correlation Plot .................................................................. 123 Figure 29
Figure 30: Example Time History of GST Velocity Control Lag ........................................ 124
Figure 31: ACAT Vehicle Nominal Driver Display Showing Odometer Display .............. 125
Figure 32: ACAT Vehicle Driver Display with Warning On .............................................. 125
Figure 33: ACAT Vehicle Driver Display with Warning Off .............................................. 126
Figure 34: Luminance Camera Setup in ACAT Car............................................................ 127
Figure 35: Illustration of Eye Ellipse Procedure .................................................................. 127
Figure 36: Luminance Image Showing Selected Display Areas .......................................... 128
Figure 37: Comparison of 1/3 Octave Sound Pressure Level for ACAT Car and Simulator
Cab ............................................................................................................................................. 132
: Seat Belt Web Tension Load Cell ........................................................................ 133 Figure 38
Figure 39: Comparison of Seat Belt Web Tension Warning, First Level ........................... 134
Figure 40: Comparison of Seat Belt Web Tension Warning, Second Level ....................... 134
xiii
Figure 41: Yaw Rate Response as a Function of Speed, Left and Right Turns Separate . 140
: Example Three-way (CSSM, DS, Track) Comparison of Step Steer Response
: Example Three-way (CSSM, DS, Track) Comparison of Step Brake Response
Figure 42: Yaw Rate Response as a Function of Speed, All Data Combined..................... 141
Figure 43
..................................................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 44: Modeled Longitudinal Response to Accelerator Input ...................................... 145
Figure 45: Example Three-way (CSSM, DS, Track) Comparison of Step Accelerator
Response..................................................................................................................................... 146
Figure 46: 33% Step Accelerator Input Response from 0 km/h ......................................... 148
Figure 47
..................................................................................................................................................... 150
Figure 48: Driver-not-in-the-loop A-CMBS Calibration Plot ............................................. 153
Figure 49: Diagram of A-CMBS Components ...................................................................... 156
Figure 50: Diagram of A-CMBS Components without Sensor Model ................................ 157
: A-CMBS Without Sensor Model ......................................................................... 158 Figure 51
Figure 52: A-CMBS Model Inputs, DS versus CSSM.......................................................... 160
Figure 53: A-CMBS Off Example Time History Plot ........................................................... 168
Figure 54: A-CMBS On Example Time History Plot ........................................................... 169
Figure 55: Subject Vehicle Speed at Collision/Minimum Distance ..................................... 171
Figure 56: DRI Driving Simulator ......................................................................................... 173
Figure 57: Example NASS/CDS 2-D Scene Diagram ........................................................... 174
Figure 58: Example Scene Photograph for Intersecting Path (case C017305501) ............. 175
Figure 59: Example Modeled Scene Site for Intersecting Path (case C017305501) .......... 176
Figure 60: Example Modeled Scene Site for Rear-End (case C010305202) ....................... 177
Figure 61: Example Modeled Scene Site for Head-On (case C014513401) ........................ 178
Figure 62: Example Modeled Scene Site for Pedestrian (case P978263301) ...................... 179
Figure 63: Example Virtual Roadway Circuit Segment ...................................................... 180
Figure 64: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Intersecting Path Case C017305501 ............................... 183
Figure 65: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Intersecting Path Case C017218102 ............................... 184
Figure 66: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Intersecting Path Case C001213102 ............................... 185
Figure 67: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Rear-End Case C010305202............................................ 186
Figure 68: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Rear-End Case C001110801............................................ 187
Figure 69: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Rear-End Case C007613501............................................ 188
Figure 70: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Head-On Case C014513401 ............................................. 189
Figure 71: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Head-On Case C018105302 ............................................. 190
Figure 72: Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner Vehicle Paths during Last 3 Seconds
before Reconstructed Impact for Head-On Case C011306501 ............................................. 191
xiv
Figure 73: Subject Vehicle and Pedestrian Paths during Last 3 Seconds before
Reconstructed Impact for Case P978263301.......................................................................... 192
Figure 74: Subject Vehicle and Pedestrian Paths during Last 3 Seconds before
Reconstructed Impact for Case P967262001.......................................................................... 193
Figure 75: Subject Vehicle and Pedestrian Paths during Last 3 Seconds before
Reconstructed Impact for Case P969064201.......................................................................... 194
Figure 76: Distraction Timing Diagram (Note: braking time history (including the 0.82 s
delay after the end of distraction) is that from the accident reconstruction and is shown for
illustrative purposes only). ....................................................................................................... 199
Figure 77: Example Image of Driving Simulator Recorded Participant Video (Note green
cross hair on taillight of lead vehicle indicating driver's glance location) ........................... 200
Figure 78: Overall Quality of Collision Warning and Braking System .............................. 204
Figure 79: Noticeability of Alarm Features ........................................................................... 205
Figure 80: How much would you be willing to pay to have this collision warning and
braking system in your car? .................................................................................................... 205
: Correlation Between Reconstruction TSI and DS TSI ...................................... 208 Figure 81
Figure 82: CSSM Functional Module Diagram .................................................................... 214
Figure 83: Apex Driver Model................................................................................................ 215
Figure 84: Cognitive Driver Model Structure....................................................................... 216
Figure 85: Driver Model Object Procedural Knowledge..................................................... 217
Figure 86: Driver Model Vehicle Control Procedural Knowledge ..................................... 217
Figure 87: Parametric Form of the Assumed Driver Pre-Cognitive (i.e., Open Loop)
Emergency Braking Procedure ............................................................................................... 219
Figure 88: Parametric Form of the Assumed Driver Pre-Cognitive (i.e., Open Loop)
Emergency Steering Procedure ............................................................................................... 220
: A-CMBS Simulink Model ..................................................................................... 223 Figure 89
Figure 90: CSSM Graphical User Interface.......................................................................... 225
Figure 91: Example CSSM Technology Effectiveness Estimator .a33 output file ............. 227
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Categories, Purposes and Approximate Number of Tests .................. 2
Table 2a: Estimated Crash Problem Size for the Entire US Motor Vehicle Fleet in the 2005
Calendar Year ............................................................................................................................. 12
Table 2b: Estimated Crash Problem Size for the Entire US Light Passenger Vehicle Fleet
in the 2005 Calendar Year ......................................................................................................... 12
Table 3: CMBS Effectiveness by Crash Type ......................................................................... 17
Table 4: Sensor Output Variables............................................................................................ 19
Table 5: Summary of Categories, Purposes and Approximate Number of Tests ................ 33
Table 6: Basic Sources of Uncertainty in the OSEE............................................................... 54
Table 7: Assumed Uncertainty Propagation Equations in the OSEE ................................... 55
Table 8: Assumed Tire-Road Friction Coefficient.................................................................. 60
Table 9: Assumed Pre-Event Longitudinal Acceleration....................................................... 60
Table 10: Assumed Crash Avoidance Longitudinal Acceleration......................................... 61
Table 11: SIM Data Sources ..................................................................................................... 65
Table 12: Other Safety Technology Data used in the OSEE ................................................. 66
Table 13: Average Stiffness Measures (N/mm) from Passenger NCAP Tests between MY
1998-2001 ..................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 14: Coefficient of Restitution by Vehicle Type at 48 and 56 km/h in Vehicle-to-Fixed
Rigid Barrier Full-Frontal Collisions........................................................................................ 67
Table 15: Assumed Passenger Vehicle Retention Rate .......................................................... 68
Table 16: Assumed Vehicle Exposure per Number of Vehicles Registered on July 1 ......... 69
Table 17: Polk NVPP Data File Format .................................................................................. 70
Table 18: NASS/CDS Datasets.................................................................................................. 73
Table 19: Weighting Adjustment Factors for the Qualifying 2000 through 2003 CDS Data
....................................................................................................................................................... 74
Table 20: NASS/PCDS Datasets ............................................................................................... 76
Table 21: PCDS Case Weightings for the 2000-2003 Calendar Years .................................. 78
Table 22: VTTI Event Weightings ........................................................................................... 79
Table 23: A-CMBS Technology Relevant Crash Type Criteria ............................................ 83
Table 24: Estimated Addressable Crashes for the Entire US Light Passenger Vehicle Fleet
in the 2005 Calendar Year ......................................................................................................... 84
Table 25: Number of AART Reconstructed Cases Available and Selected for Simulation 90
Table 26: 1-Vehicle Pedestrian Driver-not-in-the-loop and Driver-in-the-loop Test Cases 94
Table 27: 2-Vehicle Rear-End Forward Impact Trailing Driver-not-in-the-loop and
Driver-in-the-loop Test Cases .................................................................................................... 94
Table 28: 2-Vehicle Head-On Driver-not-in-the-loop and Driver-in-the-loop Test Cases .. 94
Table 29: 2-Vehicle Intersecting Path Opposite Direction Driver-not-in-the-loop and
Driver-in-the-loop Test Cases .................................................................................................... 95
Table 30: Pedestrian Guided Soft Target System Specification and Performance ........... 106
Table 31: Quantitative Specifications for Car GST (current prototype) ........................... 109
Table 32: Driver Distraction Timing...................................................................................... 115
Table 33: Track Test Measurements...................................................................................... 118
xvi
Table 34: Track Test Procedure Limitations ........................................................................ 120
Table 35: Test Selection Index with Variables ...................................................................... 122
Table 36: Luminance Measurements of ACAT Car and Simulator Warning Display ..... 129
Table 37: Contrast Ratio Measurements for ACAT Car and Simulator Cab ................... 130
Table 38: Assumed Detection Index Parameters Based on Laboratory Test Results ....... 135
Table 39: CSSM Warning Lamp Detection Index versus ACAT Warning State ............. 135
Table 40: CSSM Audible Warning Level versus ACAT Warning State ............................ 136
Table 41: CSSM Tactile Warning Level versus ACAT Warning State .............................. 136
Table 42: Track Testing Activities ......................................................................................... 136
Table 43: Summary of Geometric, Mass and Aerodynamics Parameters for Vehicle
Dynamics Model........................................................................................................................ 137
Table 44: Vehicle Dynamic Test Measurements................................................................... 138
Table 45: SIS Test Matrix ....................................................................................................... 138
Table 46: Step Steer Response Measurements ...................................................................... 139
Table 47: Step Steer Measurement Matrix ........................................................................... 139
Table 48: R
S
2
values for Comparison between CSSM and Track test Step Steer Response
..................................................................................................................................................... 142
Table 49: Step Accelerator Response Measurements........................................................... 144
Table 50: Step Throttle Measurement Matrix ...................................................................... 144
Table 51: R
S
2
values for Comparison between CSSM and Track test Step Accelerator
Response..................................................................................................................................... 146
Table 52: Step Brake Test Measurements ............................................................................. 149
Table 53: Step Brake Measurement Matrix.......................................................................... 149
Table 54: R
S
2
Values for Comparison Between CSSM and Track test Step Brake Response
..................................................................................................................................................... 151
Table 55
..................................................................................................................................................... 154
Table 56: Driver-not-in-the-loop A-CMBS Calibration Correlations, Track test versus
CSSM ......................................................................................................................................... 155
: Driver-not-in-the-loop A-CMBS Calibration Correlations, Track test versus DS
Table 57: Driver-not-in-the-loop A-CMBS Calibration Correlations, DS versus CSSM . 159
Table 58: Measured Values of Driver Parameters for Expert Driver Runs for the Driving
Simulator and Track Tests....................................................................................................... 163
Table 59: Comparison of ACAT Collision Probability Reduction for Expert Driver Runs,
Driving Simulator versus Track Tests .................................................................................... 164
Table 60: Comparison of Run Outcomes for DS versus Track test as Indicated by
Occurrence of Collision ............................................................................................................ 164
Table 61: Comparison of Driver Response Type Between DS and Track.......................... 165
Table 62: Comparison of Driver Response Type and Outcome within Pairs of Identical
Runs ............................................................................................................................................ 166
Table 63: Correlation by Driver............................................................................................. 170
Table 64: Correlation by Scenario ......................................................................................... 170
Table 65: Correlation by A-CMBS State............................................................................... 171
xvii
Table 66: 2000 - 2001 NASS/CDS Weighted Crash Scenarios ............................................ 195
Table 67: Number of Individuals in Driver Test Sample in Each Gender and Age Category
Based on NASS/CDS data ........................................................................................................ 195
Table 68: Typical-Driver Participant Summary ................................................................... 196
Table 69: Driver Distraction Timing...................................................................................... 198
Table 70: Test Matrix .............................................................................................................. 201
Table 71: List of Driving Simulator Variables Collected..................................................... 202
Table 72: Driving Simulator Test Procedure Limitations ................................................... 206
Table 73: Status of Initially Planned Extensions of the HondaDRI SIM Tool ................ 209
Table 74: Status of Additional Extensions of the SIM Tool ................................................. 212
Table 75: CSSM .a31 Summary Output File Variables ....................................................... 226
Table 76: Some suggested further extensions of the SIM tools ........................................... 228
Table 77: NHTSA Framework Functions and SIM Tool Modules ..................................... 229
Table 78: SIM Tool Output Files ............................................................................................ 230
Table 79: Effect of A-CMBS on Number of Collisions by TRCT ....................................... 239
Table 80: Effect of A-CMBS on Number of Subject Vehicle Driver and Collision Partner
Fatality Equivalent Injuries by TRCT.................................................................................... 240
Table 81: Effect of A-CMBS on Number of Subject Vehicle Driver and Collision Partner
Fatalities by TRCT ................................................................................................................... 242
Table 82: A-CMBS Exposure, Prevention, and Fatality Ratios by TRCT ......................... 244
Table 83: Estimated A-CMBS Effectiveness by TRCT ........................................................ 246
Table 84: Estimated Overall Effectiveness of A-CMBS if Installed on the Entire US Light
Passenger Vehicle Fleet in the 2005 Calendar Year .............................................................. 248
Table 85: Overall Estimates of Benefits of the A-CMBS if Installed on the Entire US Light
Passenger Vehicle Fleet in the 2005 Calendar Year .............................................................. 249
xviii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goals of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Advanced Crash
Avoidance Technologies (ACAT) program were twofold. These were:
To develop a standardized Safety Impact Methodology (SIM) tool to evaluate the
effectiveness at a US level of advanced crash avoidance technologies in mitigating
specific types of crashes; and
To develop and demonstrate objective tests that are used in the SIM to verify the safety
impact of a real system.
This report describes results of the Honda-DRI ACAT project, supported by NHTSA and Honda,
and performed by Dynamic Research Inc (DRI). This particular ACAT study extended earlier
work by Honda and DRI to develop evaluation tools similar to those of interest in the ACAT
project.
As a result, more than 30 substantial SIM extensions and refinements were achieved in the
current study. Some of the SIM extensions required the full duration of the project to achieve,
and were therefore not able to be applied to the evaluation of the real system, whereas other SIM
extensions required less time to achieve and were therefore able to be applied to the evaluation of
the real system.
The development of Objective Tests involved developing and demonstrating a Guided Soft
Target (GST) test system, comprising a car GST and a pedestrian GST. The car GST consists of
a self-propelled, self-steering and braking, GPS-guided, low-profile, hardened turtle chassis, to
which soft, 3D targets of a Light Passenger vehicle (constructed of separable foam panels) are
attached. The pedestrian GST consists of a cable-driven, low-profile, hardened turtle trolley,
the longitudinal position of which is GPS-guided, and to which an inflatable pedestrian form is
attached.
In addition, a preliminary SIM calibration methodology was developed and demonstrated, to
compare by means of time history correlations the outputs of the SIM model (i.e., from the
vehicle, ACAT, and driver-vehicle-ACAT models) to those measured in the Lab, Track and
Driving Simulator tests, for the primary Technology Relevant Crash Types.
1
Table 1 provides a
summary of categories and approximate number of tests for each category.
The SIM tool and objective tests were used to evaluate Hondas prototype Advanced Collision
Mitigation Brake System (A-CMBS), the next generation of the already deployed Honda
Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) that responds to impending rear-end collisions
1
Calibrations tests were not run for secondary Technology Relevant Crash Types (TRCTs) owing to their definition,
i.e., as crash types for which the subject ACAT is expected to have only some or small collision and fatality
probability reductions. It is considered to be cost effective to run calibrations for the primary TRCTs, for which the
expected collision and fatality probability reductions are substantial, and not cost effective to run calibration tests for
the secondary TRCTs, for which the expected collision and fatality probability reductions are only some or small.
1
using three progressively more severe modes of warning and intervention. The A-CMBS
responds to other types of impending collisions (e.g., head-on, intersecting path, pedestrian and
others) as well as to rear-end collisions.
Table 1: Summary of Categories, Purposes and Approximate Number of Tests
Category of
test
Type of test
(driver-not-in-
the-loop/driver-
in-the-loop, i.e.,
driver inputs are
fixed or reactive)
Facility Key indices to
be measured
Number of
Tests
ACAT
Warning
Component Lab Warning
locations,
magnitudes and
spectra
10 tests
(5 luminance, 3
audible, 2 tactile)
Vehicle Component Lab Vehicle
dimensions,
weight, etc.
3 tests
Driver-not-in-
the-loop
Track Vehicle response
to driver controls
48 tests
Vehicle-
ACAT
Driver-not-in-
the-loop
Track with
GST
ACAT response
to CP
6 tests per TRCT
x 4 primary
TRCTs
=24 tests
Vehicle response
to ACAT
Driver-
Vehicle-
ACAT
Driver -in-the-
loop
Track with
GST
Expert driver
response delays
and magnitudes
3 tests per TRCT
x 4 primary
TRCTs
2
x 2 ACAT States
(off/on)
=24 tests
Driving
Simulator
Expert and typical
drivers response
delays and
magnitudes
3 tests per TRCT
x 4 primary
TRCTs
x (12 typical +1
expert driver)
x 2 ACAT States
(off/on)
=312 tests
2
Although 12 cases (i.e., 3 cases times 4 TRCTs) were selected for Driver-in-the-loop Track testing, it was decided
in the course of testing that one of these cases posed too great a damage risk to the Subject Vehicle and GST to
attempt. As a consequence, 12 cases were tested in the Driver-in-the-loop Driving Simulator tests, whereas 11 cases
were tested in the Driver-in-the-loop Track tests.
2
The results of calibrating the SIM driver-vehicle-ACAT model against the Objective Tests
indicated that some portions of the model (e.g., vehicle response to driver control inputs)
achieved high correlation coefficient values, while others (e.g., ACAT response to Collision
Partners) had lower R
S
2
values (probably due to not modeling ACAT sensor noise and sensing
of extraneous objects).
The Driving Simulator Objective test data were also used to identify the frequency, amplitudes
and timing of driver crash avoidance behaviors. Four types of behaviors were considered: brake
only, steer only, brake-and-steer and no action. For the 12 typical drivers who were tested in the
Driving Simulator, 26 unique driver-behavior combinations were observed and identified (in
terms of frequency, amplitudes and timing) for the non-ACAT safety-related conflict exposures,
and 28 unique driver-behavior combinations were observed and identified for the A-CMBS
safety-related conflict exposures. These frequencies, amplitudes and timings of the 26 and 28
driver-behavior combinations respectively were then used as variations in the simulations of 266
NASS/CDS and PCDS cases representing Technology Relevant Crash Types.
The ACAT program was a proof-of-concept effort that sought to determine the feasibility of
developing estimates of effectiveness for specific safety technologies in the absence of data from
real world crashes or field operational tests. This project was successful at developing and
demonstrating a methodology that could be used to estimate the safety benefits of the particular
crash countermeasure evaluated in this research project.
The Safety Impact Methodology (SIM) tool developed was used to provide an estimate of safety
benefits in terms of reduction in crashes and fatalities. Although these estimates are provided, the
focus of this project was on the development of the SIM and linking it to the results of the
objective tests. The SIM used the data available at the time of the study to estimate safety
benefits, the calculation of which involved various assumptions and limitations. A follow-on
effort would be required to incorporate any new data and this in turn could change the estimated
safety benefits generated in this study.
When projected to the US level (including all non-TRCT crashes) in calendar year 2005, this
corresponded to total estimated collision and fatality effectiveness values of 8.3% and 3.7%
respectively, and this corresponds to estimated safety benefits of 511,336 fewer collisions and
1,623 fewer fatalities. Confidence intervals based on some sources of variations were also
calculated at some stages of the analysis as indicated in App AB.
The extension, enhancement and refinement of the SIM in this study has resulted in a more
robust, accurate, general and user friendly suite of software tools for estimating safety benefits of
advanced safety technologies. The advantage of this particular SIM is that it is applicable to
and has already been used by DRI to evaluate a broad range of advanced safety technologies
for crash avoidance, mitigation, crashworthiness and compatibility.
3
Overall, both the Track tests and the Driving Simulator tests indicated substantial safety effects
of the A-CMBS technology in the sample of cases tested; and varying levels of correlation
among the Track tests and Driving Simulator and CSSM simulation models in terms of response
and performance.
Estimation of the likely future effectiveness of newly emerging advanced safety technologies
necessarily involves various assumptions and limitations. In the current work, these included the
facts that the SIM model did not include the run-to-run variability of each of the 12 typical
driver participants; did not include ACAT sensor noise and sensing of extraneous objects; and
while developing an innovative, refined method for crash reconstruction, had to use for ACAT
effects estimation (for schedule and scope reasons) an older set of NASS/CDS crash
reconstructions which contained a computational artifact that in some cases resulted in a last
split-second swerve of an unrealistic lateral g level. This unrealistic g level is some cases
compromised the operation of the Honda prototype A-CMBS safety technology.
4
1 INTRODUCTION
This report describes results of cooperative research under the Advanced Crash Avoidance
Technologies (ACAT) program. This program was supported by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Honda R&D Co. Ltd. It was conducted by Dynamic
Research Inc (DRI).
This particular contract extended earlier work by Honda and DRI to develop evaluation tools
similar to those of interest in the ACAT project. Honda and Dynamic Research Inc. (DRI) had
been developing and applying such a SIM for the several previous years. DRI, with the support
of Honda, entered into a Cooperative Agreement with NHTSA to extend the existing SIM, which
provides an estimate of full systems safety benefits at the US level.
1.1 Project Aims
The goals of NHTSAs ACAT program were twofold. These were:
to develop a standardized Safety Impact Methodology (SIM) tool to evaluate the
effectiveness of advanced crash avoidance technologies in mitigating specific types of
vehicle crashes; and
to develop and demonstrate objective tests that are used in the SIM to verify the safety
impact of a real system.
1.2 Program information
This project was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement DTNH22-06-H-00070 initiated on
20 September 2006. The Program Manager for the Honda-DRI team was J ohn Zellner, and the
Team Manager for the Honda Team was Yoichi Sugimoto.
1.3 Scope of the Study
The scope of this study involved:
Theoretical and software extensions to the existing Honda-DRI SIM tool, which provides
an estimate of advanced technology safety benefits at the US level;
Development of objective test procedures and apparatus that produce quantifiable,
repeatable and reproducible results intended to verify the response characteristics and
performance of a given ACAT safety technology;
Objective test procedures that included Track Tests with an expert driver using
automatically Guided Soft Targets (GSTs) of a passenger car and of a pedestrian;
Driving Simulator tests with a jury of 12 typical drivers, in order to measure the drivers
response characteristics to system warnings and interventions as well as to Collision
Partner motions and a standardized in-car distraction;
5
Using the data from the objective tests to parameterize, calibrate and validate the SIM
tool;
Delivering an extended SIM tool which includes modules for automated reconstruction of
conflict and crash scenarios
3
from available databases; automated definition and sampling
of Technology Relevant Crash Types; dynamic simulations involving a human-vehicle-
device-environmental model; and an overall safety effects estimator.
An example application of the extended SIM tool and the developed objective tests which
involved safety effectiveness and benefits estimation for Hondas prototype Advanced
Collision Mitigation Brake System (A-CMBS).
1.4 Broad Limitations
An ideal method to assess the safety impact of advanced safety technologies is via analysis of
existing crash data.
However, since newly emerging safety technologies typically involve prototype (or pre-
production) systems which have not yet been deployed, estimation of likely safety effectiveness
necessarily involves various assumptions and limitations. In the current work, these included the
facts that the current study:
Measured but did not at this stage include in the SIM the run-to-run variability of the 12
typical driver participants;
Observed the effects of but did not at this stage include in the SIM model ACAT sensor
noise and sensing of extraneous objects;
Due to parallel development and evaluation efforts (i.e., see Section 1.7), used for ACAT
effects estimation an older (2005) set of reconstructed NASS/CDS crash cases which
contained a computational (swerve) artifact, which in some cases compromised the
operation of the Honda prototype A-CMBS safety technology.
Driver long term exposure (e.g., to many more than 50 exposures) and adaptation to
ACAT response to safety-related conflicts.
4
Potential risks that hypothetically might occur in other scenarios.
1.5 Partners
Honda R&D Company Ltd provided substantial support to the project, including co-funding of-
the project; the A-CMBS hardware and software for evaluation of their safety effectiveness; a
vehicle with a prototype A-CMBS installed; general descriptions of the A-CMBS and its
predecessor production CMBS; technical interaction in regard to proper functioning of the
3
Conflict and crash scenarios described herein are based on individual conflicts or crashes, not hypothetical
situations or based on aggregated information. These scenarios typically have case weightings corresponding to the
probability that they were sampled. These weighted scenarios are assumed be representative of the traffic conflicts
and crashes in the US.
4
Depending on individual and traffic factors such long term exposure might correspond to many months or years.
6
A-CMBS; inputs regarding the primary and secondary Technology Relevant Crash Types for the
A-CMBS; and program coordination with the Honda team.
American Honda Motor Company Inc provided additional funding for the project, and technical
inputs regarding ways in which the SIM could potentially be used.
William Vrotney is a NASA subcontractor who in this project provided programming support
using NASAs human operator modeling software, Apex, which is integrated as part of the SIM.
1.6 Task Structure
The project was broken into seven Tasks as follows:
Task 0: Kickoff Meeting and Program Management Plan
Task 1: Safety Impact Methodology ("SIM") extension
Task 2: Safety area to be addressed and advanced technology
Task 3: Develop objective tests for predicting safety benefits
Task 4: Conduct objective tests
Task 5: Quantify safety benefits using "SIM"
Task 6: Coordination and reporting
1.7 Task Flow Chart
The Task flow chart is given in Figure 1. Note that there are parallel paths involving
development of the SIM software (i.e., top path) and development and application of the
Objective test methods (middle path).
Task 1
SIM
Task 3
Develop
Task 4
Conduct
Task 5
Update SIM and
quantify safety
Task 2
Safety area and
advanced
Figure 1: Task Flow Chart
7
The safety area and advanced technology of interest (Task 2) helped to define the needed SIM
extensions (Task 1), which in turn provided tools for automatically defining the objective tests
(Task 3). Conduct of the objective tests (Task 4) produced parameter values, correlations and
other data used to update the SIM and to quantify safety benefits of the advanced technology
(Task 5).
Most SIM extensions were applied to the evaluation of the A-CMBS technology. However, some
of the SIM extensions, including some aspects of the automated reconstruction in Task 1
required the full duration of the project to achieve, and therefore these were not used in the
evaluation of the A-CMBS technology.
1.8 Report Outline
The remainder of this report describes the approach to and results of the program.
Section 2 describes the background, including development and characteristics of the Honda
prototype A-CMBS system and its predecessor, the production CMBS system
Section 3 describes the technical approach to the Safety Impact Methodology, including its main
features and the safety effectiveness and benefits equations used.
Section 4 describes assumptions made to enable development of the SIM tool, critical limitations
in the available data and associated level of uncertainty in the estimates of system effectiveness.
Section 5 describes the data sources for the safety technology, for the vehicle, and for the crash,
naturalistic driving and other databases used in the SIM tool, along with their limitations.
Section 6 describes the crash case scenarios, including identification of Technology Relevant
Crash Types (TRCTs), reconstructions of cases from available databases, sampling of TRCT
cases for use in SIM computer simulations and sub-sampling of TRCT cases for test (i.e.,
primary TRCT calibration
5
) purposes.
Section 7 describes the objective tests, including conversion of the crash case sub-sample into
driving scenarios, the Track tests with Guided Soft Targets, and the Driving Simulator tests to
measure driver response parameters and calibration of SIM model versus the primary TRCT
tests.
5
Calibrations tests were not run for secondary Technology Relevant Crash Types (TRCTs) owing to their definition,
i.e., as crash types for which the subject ACAT is expected to have only some or small collision and fatality
probability reductions. It is considered to be cost effective to run calibrations for the primary TRCTs, for which the
expected collision and fatality probability reductions are substantial, and not cost effective to run calibration tests for
the secondary TRCTs, for which the expected collision and fatality probability reductions are only some or small.
8
Section 8 describes the Crash Sequence Simulation Module development, including the status of
the planned model extensions, modifications as a result of testing, description of the final model
and simulation, and its input and output data.
Section 9 describes the SIM data generation and data flow, from its origins with the safety
technology specifications and crash databases through all functional blocks to the Overall Safety
Effects Estimator.
Section 10 describes the safety technology effectiveness (i.e., percentage reduction) analysis,
including the benefits equations, inputs thereto and results.
Section 11 describes the advanced technologies safety benefits (i.e., count reduction) analysis
and results.
Section 12 describes the summary and conclusions of the project, including recommendations for
further development.
9
2 BACKGROUND
This section describes the development and characteristics of Hondas prototype Advanced
Collision Mitigation Braking System (A-CMBS) which is the example ACAT system evaluated
using the newly extended SIM methodology.
2.1 Development of the Honda Prototype A-CMBS System
Hondas prototype A-CMBS is undergoing development and refinement, as the next step in the
evolution of the production Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) introduced in 2004 in
J apan and 2006 in the US. The following sections summarize the predecessor CMBS, its
performance and performance limitations, and the functional extensions, modifications and
adjustments introduced by Honda in the development of the A-CMBS.
The prototype Honda A-CMBS is designed to be installed on light passenger vehicles (i.e.,
passenger cars and light trucks) to prevent and mitigate a variety of crash types. The potential
numbers of crashes, involved vehicles, and fatalities that represent the size of the problem for the
entire US motor vehicle fleet are listed in Table 2a.
6
However, since the prototype Honda A-
CMBS is intended to be installed only on light passenger vehicles, the number of crashes,
vehicles, and fatalities involving one or more light passenger vehicles is listed in Table 2b. These
results were queried from the 2005 NASS/GES and FARS data. The non-technology specific
crash type categories are based on the numbers of vehicles involved in the crash, the NASS/GES
Accident Configuration,
7
and pedestrian contacted are defined as follows:
- Pedestrians =Collision partner is a Pedestrian
- Forward Impact =NASS Accident Configuration:
C - Single driver, forward impact
- Rear-End =NASS Accident Configurations:
D - Same traffic way, same direction, rear-end
E - Same traffic way, same direction, forward impact
- Side Swipe =NASS Accident Configuration:
F - Same traffic way, same direction, side swipe or angle
6
Throughout this report the estimated values were computed to relatively high numerical precision in order to
enable readers to track the data flow and to verify the tabular results, and as related to this, in order to control round-
off errors that could be introduced at various stages of the analysis. The computed values have been rounded off
(e.g., to the nearest integer) for reporting purposes; however this does not imply that the estimated values are
statistically accurate to the number of significant figures indicated. To the contrary, the estimated values generally
have substantially lower levels of statistical accuracy than the values indicated herein. For example the GES Users
Manual [GES, 2006] provides equations to calculate confidence intervals for GES estimates. Confidence intervals
for estimated values were computed for other stages of the analysis, as described in Section 4.2.3 and reported in
App AB. In other stages of the analysis, the number of data points used to estimate a value is indicated in square
brackets [ ].
7
The NASS Accident Configuration was used because it is a readily available accident-level classification that is
based on the vehicle-level NASS Accident Type variable contained in the NASS databases that were extensively
used in this study. See page F-39 in App F.
10
- Opposite direction =NASS Accident Configurations:
G - Same traffic way, opposite direction, head-on
H - Same traffic way, opposite direction, forward impact
I - Same traffic way, opposite direction, side swipe/angle
- Intersecting path =NASS Accident Configurations:
J - Change Trafficway, Vehicle Turning, Turn Across Path
K - Change Trafficway, Vehicle Turning, Turn Into Path
L - Intersecting Paths - straight paths
- 3-vehicle =Number of vehicles in the crash is 3.
Note that the Other Crash types include, for example, lane departure crashes and back over
crashes. The non-technology specific crash types are further defined in terms the NASS/GES and
FARS database variables in App AC.
11
T
a
b
l
e

2
a
:

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
r
a
s
h

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

S
i
z
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

E
n
t
i
r
e

U
S

M
o
t
o
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

F
l
e
e
t

i
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
5

C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r

Y
e
a
r

M
e
t
r
i
c

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
r
a
s
h

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

S
i
z
e


S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

1

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

2

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

3

o
r

M
o
r
e

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

T
o
t
a
l

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n


F
o
r
w
a
r
d

I
m
p
a
c
t


O
t
h
e
r

1
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d


S
i
d
e

S
w
i
p
e


O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n


I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

P
a
t
h


O
t
h
e
r

2
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

6
1
,
6
0
3
a

6
0
6
,
8
8
6

a

1
,
2
2
5
,
5
4
2

a

1
,
4
5
2
,
8
1
0

a

4
2
7
,
9
8
3

a

1
3
1
,
5
5
0
a

1
,
5
7
7
,
6
6
9

a

2
9
1
,
7
8
8

a

3
7
1
,
0
7
5

a

6
,
1
4
6
,
9
0
7

a
,
d

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

6
1
,
6
0
3
a

6
0
6
,
8
8
6

a

1
,
2
2
5
,
5
4
2

a

2
,
9
0
5
,
6
2
1

a

8
5
5
,
9
6
6

a

2
6
3
,
1
0
1
a

3
,
1
5
5
,
3
3
7

a

5
8
3
,
5
7
5

a

1
,
1
8
1
,
2
4
6

a

1
0
,
8
3
8
,
8
7
8

a
,
d

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

4
,
2
9
8
b

2
,
5
5
4

b

1
7
,
3
4
6

b

1
,
6
0
7

b

3
5
2

b

5
,
6
2
6
b

6
,
2
1
4

b

2
,
2
8
0

b

3
,
2
3
3

b

4
3
,
5
1
0

b
,
e

T
a
b
l
e

2
b
:

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
r
a
s
h

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

S
i
z
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

E
n
t
i
r
e

U
S

L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

F
l
e
e
t

i
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
5

C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r

Y
e
a
r

M
e
t
r
i
c

S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
r
a
s
h

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

S
i
z
e


C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

O
n
e

o
r

M
o
r
e

L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s


C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

O
n
l
y

N
o
n
-
L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s


T
o
t
a
l

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

1

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

2

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

3

o
r

M
o
r
e

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n


F
o
r
w
a
r
d

I
m
p
a
c
t


O
t
h
e
r

1
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d


S
i
d
e

S
w
i
p
e


O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n


I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

P
a
t
h


O
t
h
e
r

2
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

5
7
,
7
5
7
a
,
f

5
2
0
,
1
5
6

a
,
f

1
,
0
9
6
,
6
0
1

a
,
f

1
,
4
4
6
,
1
5
9

a
,
f

4
2
0
,
9
3
2

a
,
f

1
2
9
,
8
6
5

a
,
f

1
,
5
7
2
,
9
3
6

a
,
f

2
8
7
,
3
7
9

a
,
f

3
7
0
,
2
2
7

a
,
f

2
4
4
,
8
9
5

g

6
,
1
4
6
,
9
0
7

a
,
d

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

5
7
,
7
5
7
a
,
f

5
2
0
,
1
5
6

a
,
f

1
,
0
9
6
,
6
0
1

a
,
f

2
,
8
9
2
,
3
1
9

a
,
f

8
4
1
,
8
6
4

a
,
f

2
5
9
,
7
2
9

a
,
f

3
,
1
4
5
,
8
7
2

a
,
f

5
7
4
,
7
5
8

a
,
f

1
,
1
7
8
,
6
8
8

a
,
f

2
7
1
,
1
3
4

g

1
0
,
8
3
8
,
8
7
8
a
,
d

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

3
,
5
2
6
b
,
f

2
,
0
1
6

b
,
f

1
4
,
7
2
4

b
,
f

1
,
4
3
2

b
,
f

3
2
4

b
,
f

5
,
5
3
0

b
,
f

6
,
0
6
1

b
,
f

2
,
1
3
0

b
,
f

3
,
1
9
0

b
,
f

4
,
5
7
7

g

4
3
,
5
1
0
b
,
e

1
2

T
a
b
l
e

2
a

a
n
d

2
b

n
o
t
e
s
:

1

T
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

h
i
g
h

n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

e
n
a
b
l
e

r
e
a
d
e
r
s

t
o

t
r
a
c
k

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

f
l
o
w

a
n
d

t
o

v
e
r
i
f
y

t
h
e

t
a
b
u
l
a
r

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
,

a
n
d

a
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
i
s
,

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

r
o
u
n
d
-
o
f
f

e
r
r
o
r
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

a
t

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

s
t
a
g
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.

S
e
e

F
o
o
t
n
o
t
e

6
.
2

"
C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

O
n
e

o
r

M
o
r
e

L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
"

a
r
e

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

o
n
e

o
r

m
o
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
s
h

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

i
s

a

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

a

p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

c
a
r

a
n
d

a

m
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
)
.

"
C
r
a
s
h
e
s

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

O
n
l
y

N
o
n
-
L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
"

a
r
e

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

n
o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
s
h

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

i
s

a

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

a

l
a
r
g
e

t
r
u
c
k

a
n
d

a

m
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
)
.

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

a
r
e

d
e
f
i
n
e
d

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

(
B
o
d
y

T
y
p
e
)

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
a
b
l
e

o
n

p

V
-
8

o
f

t
h
e

F
A
R
S

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c

R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

G
u
i
d
e

1
9
7
5

t
o

2
0
0
6

[
T
e
s
s
m
e
r
,

2
0
0
6
]
.

3

T
h
e

(
N
o
n
-
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
)

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e
s

a
r
e

d
e
f
i
n
e
d

i
n

A
p
p

A
C
.

O
t
h
e
r

C
r
a
s
h

t
y
p
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
a
n
e

d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

a
n
d

b
a
c
k

o
v
e
r

c
r
a
s
h
e
s
.

S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:


a

Q
u
e
r
i
e
d

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
5

N
A
S
S
/
G
E
S

d
a
t
a
.


b

Q
u
e
r
i
e
d

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
5

F
A
R
S

d
a
t
a
.


c

T
o
t
a
l

=

s
u
m

o
f

o
t
h
e
r

c
o
l
u
m
n
s
.


d

N
A
S
S
-
G
E
S

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

U
s
e
r
'
s

M
a
n
u
a
l

1
9
9
8
-
2
0
0
5

[
G
E
S
,

2
0
0
6
]
,

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
,

T
a
b
l
e

2
.


e

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

S
a
f
e
t
y

F
a
c
t
s

2
0
0
6
,

T
a
b
l
e

2
.

f

T
h
i
s

v
a
l
u
e

i
s

u
s
e
d

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

A
B
-
5

c
o
l
u
m
n

(
E
)
.


g

T
h
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

U
S

t
o
t
a
l

a
n
d

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

f
o
r

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

o
n
l
y

l
i
g
h
t

p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.


1
3

2.1.1 Predecessor Production CMBS System
Hondas original Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) was developed and introduced
by Honda in the J apan market in MY 2004 and in the US market in MY 2006. The CMBS is
designed to assist the driver in detecting and avoiding or mitigating collisions. The current speed,
brake pressure, steering angle, and yaw rate of the drivers vehicle are used in combination with
radar data giving the position of other objects and vehicles in the environment, to determine if a
collision seems imminent.
These calculations by CMBS result in three possible responses. In the first, least severe mode,
CMBS provides a visual and audio warning to alert the driver to avoid the collision. At the
second mode of response, CMBS adds a tactile signal in the form of a seatbelt tug and light
braking, in addition to the audio and visual warning, to alert the driver. At the third and most
severe mode, CMBS activates a seatbelt pre-tensioner to place the driver in crash position, and
applies strong braking to reduce velocity before a collision.
Figure 2 shows the system configuration of CMBS [Sugimoto, 2005]. A millimeter wave radar
sensor is equipped as the sensor for forward obstacle detection.
Figure 2: System configuration of CMBS
Figure 3 shows the basic operation modes of the system. CMBS operates an autonomous brake
system in combination with motorized seatbelts. If the subject vehicle gets close to a leading
vehicle and distance becomes short, primary warning occurs by audio and visual warning.
14
Figure 3: Operation Modes of CMBS with Motorized Seatbelts
If the subject vehicle approaches closer and the system judges a collision may occur, the system
issues a tactile warning in addition to the audio and visual warning. The motorized pre-tensioner
retracts a drivers seat belt gently and CMBS activates light braking.
When the system judges that a collision is unavoidable, the motorized pre-tensioners retract
seatbelts strongly to hold the driver in position, and the system engages strong braking to
compensate for a driver s operational delay and insufficient brake pedal force. Thus the system
assists a driver effectively and reduces collision velocity.
Figure 4 illustrates the basic control flow. The system recognizes a leading vehicle by a radar
sensor, and the subject vehicles path is estimated from its dynamics state quantities. Then, the
system calculates lateral travel, which is necessary for collision avoidance by steering, and
evaluates the possibility of a rear-end crash. When the possibility of a rear-end collision becomes
high, the warnings are issued, and if this state continues and avoidance becomes very difficult,
emergency braking is applied.
The model of the CMBS control logic was directly built-in to the simulation model. It was also
used in the complementary Driving Simulator experiments used in the preliminary SIM
evaluation of the A-CMBS described subsequently.
15
Figure 4: Basic Control Logic of the Predecessor Production Honda CMBS
2.1.1.1 Performance and Performance Limitations
To date, it is unclear whether a CMBS effectiveness estimate based on vehicles in use can be
made with statistical significance as, so far, there may be too few CMBS vehicles deployed, with
only a tiny fraction of these having been involved in crashes that would have been documented
to a substantial extent in the available crash databases.
As an alternative, until such crash statistical estimates become available, performance of the
CMBS has been estimated using SIM-like tools [Sugimoto, 2005]. For example in the latter
paper it is estimated [that] the effectiveness of a collision mitigation braking system in
enhancing safety by simulating approximately 50 cases of rear-end collisions from the US
National Automotive Sampling System, Crashworthiness Data System. The simulation model
consisted of the accident scenario database, the vehicle model, the driver model and the
environment model. The vehicle model included a radar model, control logic and a brake
actuator model as well as a conventional vehicle dynamics model. The driver model, which
could react to the warnings by braking and or steering, was based on test results using a Driving
Simulator.
The results showed that the collision mitigation braking system had substantial potential to
reduce or mitigate rear-end collisions. Based on the results of the simulations and analyses, it
was estimated that if it had been installed in all of the vehicles involved in rear-end collisions:
There would have been a 38% reduction in the number of [rear-end] collisions that
occurred;
For the preliminary model of probability of fatality as a function of the change in
velocity, it was estimated that there would have been a 44% reduction in probability of
fatality in these rear-end collisions. [Grover et al., 2008]
16
A further, preliminary estimate of CMBS effectiveness was made during the current project,
using an earlier version of the SIM tool. As further described in the remainder of this report, the
SIM estimates the effectiveness in each Technology Relevant Crash Type (TRCT), based on
computer simulations of a sample of reconstructed NASS/CDS cases randomly sampled for each
TRCT; and then the simulation portion of the SIM tool provides a linkage between the specific
crash sequences, reconstructed with an automated reconstructed tool, and the overall system
performance in these crash sequences. The Overall Safety Effects Estimator portion of the SIM
tool then applies these calculations to the fleet of vehicles to be equipped with given safety
features, including the ACAT being analyzed.
Based on the results of the preliminary simulations and analyses with a preliminary version of
the SIM, it was estimated that if the predecessor production CMBS had been installed in all of
the vehicles involved in tow-away collisions in the United States in 2000-2001, there would have
been a 38% reduction in CMBS technology relevant rear-end crashes and a 44% reduction in
technology relevant rear-end crash fatalities [Sugimoto, 2005]. This corresponds to an estimated
3.8% reduction in crashes and 0.7% reduction in fatalities overall (which corresponds to 285
lives at the US level, if this particular specific type of CMBS system was installed on the US
Light Passenger Vehicle Fleet in 2005). These effectiveness results are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: CMBS Effectiveness by Crash Type
8
CMBS
Crash Type
Collision
effectiveness
Fatality
effectiveness
Rear-end striking
(CMBS technology relevant) 38% 44%
All 3.8% 0.7%
So, in its production version, CMBS is estimated to have substantial effectiveness in rear-end
collisions. This fact and the theoretical possibility of reducing other types of collisions and
fatalities with a similar concept led Honda to further development of the CMBS concept.
2.1.2 Extensions, Modifications and Adjustments Leading to Honda Prototype A-CMBS
The prototype Advanced Collision Mitigation System (A-CMBS) illustrated in Figure 5 is the
next generation of the CMBS active safety technology developed by Honda, that automatically
predicts impending collisions, warns the driver, and applies braking in order to reduce the effects
of an impact on occupants and vehicle damage. Whereas the original CMBS version of the
system was primarily intended to respond to impending rear-end collisions, the A-CMBS has
been upgraded to be effective in other types of vehicle-to-vehicle collisions (e.g., head-on,
intersecting path and pedestrian) as well as rear-end collisions.
8
[Sugimoto, 2005]
17
Autonomous
brake
system
Yaw rate sensor
Distance/azimuth
sensor
Motorized seatbelt
ECU
Figure 5: System Configuration of A-CMBS
The A-CMBS has a distance and azimuth sensor mounted in the front portion of the vehicle. In
the SIM simulations, no actual physical sensors are used, but mathematical models of the sensors
(e.g., in Figure 7 Sensor Model 1) were developed as an enhancement of the A-CMBS on-board
software, that models some aspects of the physical sensor, i.e., determining the detectability to
the sensor of objects in the environment, considering sensor field of view, sensor height, and
possible occlusions of objects by other objects in the environment.
These sensor models calculate the following variables (see Figure 6 and Table 4 for details): the
range from the sensor to the nearest sensed part of each object (1), the angle to the leftmost
sensed part of an object (2), the angle to the rightmost sensed part of an object (3), the relative
speed of the object (average of the relative speed of the leftmost sensed part and the rightmost
sensed part), as well as a flag indicating whether the object is detected or not detected. If an
object is not detected then the values of all the other output variables calculated by the sensor
models are set equal to zero and not used.
18
Table 4: Sensor Output Variables
Name Description
1. Range Minimum range to detectable point on object
2. Angle Max Angle to the left-most detectable point on object
3. Angle Min Angle to the right-most detectable point on object
4. Relative Speed Average of relative speeds of left-most and right-most detectable points
on object
5. Detecting Flag 1: Object detected 2: Object not detected
3
2
1
Angle
- (left)
Subject Vehicle
Detected part
(body surface)
Collision
Partner
0
+ (right)
Note numbers in circles correspond to output variables listed in Table 4.
Figure 6: Top View of Vehicles Illustrating Outputs of Sensor Model
The outputs from Sensor Model 1 are integrated with a Simulink model (i.e., Sensor Model 2 in
Figure 7 provided by Honda), and passed to the A-CMBS Simulink model, which ultimately
produces a number of warning states and brake pressure outputs.
19
Subject Vehicle
Collision Partner
Occluding Object
Sensor Properties
ACAT
Sensor Model 1 Sensor Model 2
A-CMBS
Model
Figure 7: Simulink Models Required to Provide Data to A-CMBS
Figure 8 illustrates the relation between the crash sequences, and the generalized A-CMBS
internal and warning states and actions.
The crash sequence is shown along the top of Figure 8, from non-conflict to post-crash. The
crash sequence comprises non-conflict, benign conflict, safety critical conflicts, imminent crash,
crash, and post crash phases. Benign conflicts occur when the driver will need to take corrective
action such as slowing down or changing lanes in order to avoid an eventual collision, however
this action is part of normal driving (path and speed regulation). Safety critical conflicts occur
when the driver needs to take immediate corrective action (i.e., an open-loop, pre-cognitive
procedure) in order to avoid a collision. The imminent crash phase occurs when a collision is
unavoidable but impact has not yet occurred. The crash phase occurs when the vehicle is in
contact with a collision partner.
The top most time bar generally illustrates the time period during which an object is within the
A-CMBS sensing cone. T1, T2, and T3 indicate the boundaries between the non-conflict, benign
conflict, safety critical conflict and imminent crash phases respectively. Adapting the definitions
assumed in this project, T1 is the time required for a 0.25g x mu deceleration to be able to avoid
the collision partner; T2 is the time required for a 0.50g x mu deceleration to be able to avoid the
collision partner; and T3 is the time required for a 0.75g x mu deceleration to be able to avoid the
collision partner.
During the non-conflict stage, the probability of collision (POC) is determined to be essentially
zero and during this time, the time to collision (TTC) is not relevant. During the conflict stages,
the POC begins to increase and TTC is calculated and begins to decrease as the vehicles
separation distance decreases. If the driver does not take any corrective action, then the POC will
reach 1.0 and a collision is imminent.
20
The A-CMBS provides three modes of audio, visual, and tactile warnings based on various
collision detection algorithm thresholds. The 1
st
mode comprises an audible tone and visual
indicator, which occurs when the algorithm determines that the inter-vehicular distance is
insufficient. The 2
nd
mode comprises an audible tone and visual indicator, plus light belt
retraction (30 to 40 N) and light braking (0.2g) when the algorithm determines that the inter-
vehicular distance is further diminished. The 3
rd
mode increases the belt retraction to 75 to 100
N and increases the braking to 0.6 g when the algorithm determines that the collision is
unavoidable.
A-CMBS Non- ConfIict Imminent Crash Post
Performance ConfIict Benign Safety CriticaI Crash Crash
Feature T1 T2 T3 POI POS POR
1. Sensing PotentiaI object within sensing cone (120 m x 30 horizontaI FOV x 4 verticaI FOV) and detected
2. CoIIsion Detection AIgorithm
- Indices
1 2 3
intervehicuIar distance IntervehicuIar distance CoIIision is
is insufficient is further diminished unavoidabIe
3. Warnings, HMI
- Audio (tone)
65 db
2048 Hz
65 db
2048 Hz
65 db
2048 Hz
- VisuaI
(teII taIe)
Strong beIt retraction
0 Light beIt retraction (30 to 40 N) (75 to 100 N)
4. Crash Mitigation
Strong beIt retraction
0 Light beIt retraction (30 to 40 N) (75 to 100 N)
Strong braking
0 Light braking (0.2 g) (0.6 g)
Time
- ProbabiIity
of CoIIision
- TTC
0
100%
0%
- TactiIe
(safety beIt)
- EIectric-
pretensioner
- Output Mode
- CMS braking
Figure 8: Illustration of Relation Between Crash Sequence and A-CMBS States and
Outputs
Note that there is no relationship between the intervals that may be of interest to researchers
indicated by T1, T2 and T3; and the modes (distance insufficient; distance further diminished;
and collision unavoidable) of the A-CMBS.
The remainder of this report will describe the newly extended SIM tools and associated
assumptions for evaluating the US-level effectiveness of ACATs -- such as the A-CMBS -- with
more precision, calibrated and validated by laboratory, Track tests and Driving Simulator tests,
and resulting in more detailed mappings of the ACATs performance envelopes (e.g., maps for
modes 1, 2, and 3 initiation).
21
3 SAFETY IMPACT METHODOLOGY
3.1 Technical Approach
The technical approach used in the Honda-DRI SIM generally fits within the SIM framework
proposed by NHTSA [Carter, 2009]. As such, the Honda-DRI SIM involves the two main
areas of the NHTSA framework SIM (i.e., Model Development and Model Execution and
Analysis) as well as the nine activities (i.e., Data Usage, Case Scenarios, etc.) and most of the
22 functions (e.g., Archival Data, Computer Simulation, etc.). These are further described in
Section 3.3 below.
The technical approach at the heart of the Honda-DRI SIM (encompassing various NHTSA
functions) predicts ACAT effectiveness based on:
Physics-based and empirically based time domain simulations of the driver-vehicle-
environment-ACAT (and no ACAT) system;
Sample of reconstructed crash cases (i.e., from the NASS/CDS, PCDS and VTTI
databases);
Variations involving sampled cell empirical models (e.g., up to 4 sets of identified
driver parameter values for each driver among 12 typical drivers, based on measurements
taken during Driving Simulator experiments);
Crash outcome of the physics models (e.g., yielding delta-V) and empirical models (i.e.,
yielding NHTSA "Fatality Equivalent" injuries and fatalities (i.e., probability of fatality)
based on published crash data);
NHTSAs US-level safety effectiveness and benefits equations, i.e., [Burgett, 2008].
The Honda-DRI SIM methodology is an extension of the SIM-like tools described by Honda
[Suzuki, 2006; Sugimoto, 2005], conforming to the NHTSA framework and extended in various
aspects described herein.
The advantages of using physics-based and empirically based time domain simulations is that
they account for the time-space relationships that most advanced technologies respond to; and
they provide a cause-effect chain which can be used to better understand the effectiveness and
limitations of a given technology at micro as well as at macro levels.
The advantages of using a sample of reconstructed crash cases are that: they include co-
variations that have been observed to occur in all the case variables (i.e., not just those judged to
be key variables); they are more likely to be realistic than a synthesized test; currently, they are
the most available and (e.g., in the case of NASS/CDS) most regularly updated databases; they
have established weighting factors that relate them to US level crash data; and in general, they
appear to be nearly the best available, most representative and most complete detailed level
data for US crashes.
22
The advantages of using sampled cluster variation are that this uses samples involving actual
sets of key parameter values that have been observed to occur in these particular combinations
in real individual crash cases (rather than imposing assumptions about the distributions and inter-
relationships of these key variables (e.g., normal distributions, independently or linearly co-
varying)). This helps ensure that the cases are indeed realistic. Rather than synthesizing a case
created from mean values of key parameters, which case might never actually occur, a real case
that has key variable values closest to e.g., the centroid of the n-dimensional distribution of key
variable values is selected. In other words, in order to select such an actual case for testing
purposes, its typicality or diversity is evaluated by means of such cluster analysis based
Test Selection Indices described in Section 6.
Overall, the Honda-DRI SIM produces estimates for any vehicle safety system in terms of
effectiveness (i.e., percentage reductions) and benefits (i.e., count reductions) at the US-level
crashes and fatalities.
3.2 Potential Alternative Approaches That Could Have Been Used
These could potentially involve various combinations of alternative systems modeling methods,
e.g.:
Time domain simulations (used herein)
Statistical input/output models and interpolation/extrapolation thereof (e.g., regression
(i.e., linear, logistic, etc) models, neural networks)
Simplified physics models, e.g., 1 degree-of-freedom models.
Alternative crash case databases, e.g.:
Reconstructed crash cases (used herein)
Recorded crash cases (e.g., naturalistic driving databases such as those from the VTTI
100 car study, where the motions and control histories have been recorded on-board the
subject vehicles)
Synthesized crash cases (e.g., examining statistical characteristics of the crash categories
of interest and synthesizing (i.e., creatively suggesting) how they could be represented by
a set of baseline tests.
And variations in parameter values based on, e.g.:
Sensitivity analysis (i.e., representative upper and lower values for each key parameter)
Monte Carlo variation (i.e., randomized variation of the values of key parameters, about
which statistical information exists)
Cluster analysis based variation (used herein).
As for limitations, the limitations of the selected approach are discussed subsequently in
Section 4. Some of the limitations of the alternative approaches are summarized as follows.
23
As for statistical input/output models, except for certain types of technologies, these tend to
neglect the critical and often complex time-space relationships to which many ACATs
(including A-CMBS) and other technologies are highly sensitive, and which may pose
difficulties for extrapolation.
As for simplified physics models, these can be useful when the safety technology involves
one-degree-of-freedom motion (e.g., forward) and it neither attempts to respond to nor is
adversely affected by other (e.g., lateral) motions. For example, the A-CMBS is a 3 degrees-of-
freedom technology, so this approach is not suitable for it.
As for recorded crash cases, this is the ideal approach, if and when such data are available. The
challenges with existing recorded databases (e.g., VTTI 100-car study) are that they may contain
very few crashes (e.g., for VTTI, 3 airbag deployments and approximately 70 minor impacts),
and may contain most but not all the recorded variables needed for ACAT analysis.
As for synthesized crash cases, this might be the only workable approach for some crash types
for which the existing crash and naturalistic databases do not have sufficient or any information.
The risk is that crashes synthesized from statistical or other information might not be truly
representative of any real crashes. There are several reasons for this, including the facts that
using mean values (if that is the specific approach that is used) of say 7 crash variables (e.g., SV
and CP traveling speeds, SV and CP general direction of motion before conflict, SV and CP pre-
conflict maneuvers and mean deceleration from simulator tests) to create a synthesized test, may
produce a crash that rarely or never actually happened or will happen. The reasons for this are
that a) often crash variables do not exhibit normal distributions, so that the mean for each of the
variables may not be a good representation of the modes (i.e., principal components) or of
what is typical; and b) often the distributions of variables do not co-vary in the expected way,
so that a real crash that occurred near the mean value of one variable may have other variables
values which are not near their mean values. In addition, synthesized crashes often assume
simplified pure motions whereas real use (as can be reflected in recorded or reconstructed
crashes) often involves many other seemingly extraneous motions, inputs and effects that
nevertheless can have an influence on the technologys collision and fatality probability
reductions. These are more complicated but real effects generally excluded from synthesized
crashes. Still, synthesized scenarios might be the only available approach for some crash types
and technologies.
As for sensitivity analysis, this can be a useful approach to quantify and to include the effects
of uncertainty in a limited number of key variables. Some of its limitations and assumptions are:
a) how to select and limit the number of key variables used for sensitivity variation, b) what
values to use for the upper and lower perturbation values used for each key variable in the
sensitivity analysis, c) how to treat co-variation of the key variables, and d) how to deal with
variations in what are assumed to be non-key variables.
As for Monte Carlo variation, this is a special type of sensitivity analysis that addresses some
of the limitations of that general category listed above. It does include the effects of uncertainty
24
in a number of key variables, the number of variables addressed can be larger, and the
perturbations can typically involve co-variations involving several key variables. The
perturbation magnitudes are typically based on statistical distributions (i.e., standard deviation
values) of each variable, though it should be ensured that these are taken about the baseline
crash, rather than e.g., across all US crashes. Some of its limitations include its repeatability
(though this can be provided by a standardized seed of the random number generation that it
uses). Unless due care is taken, there is some risk that some of the crashes so synthesized might
not correspond to any real (documented) crashes. Overall, it is a viable alternative to sampled
cluster methods, which involve sampling real (recorded or reconstructed) crashes and accepting
the natural, documented variations which occurred among all its variables.
So, overall, the selected approach (i.e., time domain simulations using reconstructed crash cases
and sampled cluster empirical models) was considered to be the most well-suited for the A-
CMBS and many other active and passive safety technologies, and as well as for the current state
of knowledge in terms of the limited extent and availability of real recorded crash cases. Note
that the Honda-DRI SIM approach is readily adaptable in the future for increased availability of
the latter type of databases (and in fact already includes 800 VTTI recorded near-crash cases).
This is because the availability of recorded crash cases simplifies and/or to a large extent
eliminates the need for reconstructed crash cases, which have their own limitations, as further
described in Section 4.
3.3 SIM Flow Chart (with High Level Description of the Flow Chart (Module-by-Module))
As previously noted in Section 3.1, the flow of the Honda-DRI SIM generally fits within the
Safety SIM framework proposed by NHTSA [Carter, 2009], which is illustrated in Figure 9.
Figure 9 illustrates the three top levels of SIM flow hierarchy as proposed in the NHTSA SIM
framework (i.e., areas, activities and functions). Additional, lower levels in the hierarchy contain
levels describing the pre-existing and extended Honda-DRI SIM tool (i.e., Software Modules). In
this way, the NHTSA framework can be considered to overlay the underlying Honda-DRI SIM
tool structure given in Figure 10. The NHTSA SIM tool hierarchy in Figure 9 provides a
convenient and multi-level way of communicating, at increasing levels of detail, the approach,
assumptions and substance of the Honda-DRI SIM.
The Honda-DRI SIM tool schematic presented in Figure 10 illustrates the main software
modules of the tool, the various portions of which are nested within the higher level NHTSA
SIM tool functional hierarchy, and that is the approach used in the descriptions in the subsequent
subsections of this report.
The overall NHTSA SIM tool flow chart hierarchy is therefore:
Areas (i.e., Work performed prior to data generation, denoted by the boxes outlined in
gold in Figure 9; post data generation processes, denoted by the boxes outlined in blue in
Figure 9; and final estimates of safety benefits, denoted by the purple box.)
25
Figure 9: NHTSA ACAT SIM Framework
Activities (the large open blocks in 9, e.g., Data Usage, Case Scenarios, etc.)
Functions (i.e., the shaded boxes in 9, e.g., Archival Data, Real world
Data, etc.) Note: the grey areas represent activities which do not involve
software modules of the SIM.
Main Modules (i.e., denoted by the colored boxes in the Honda-DRI
schematic of Figure 10 and following, i.e., Crash Scenario Database
Development Tools, Crash Avoidance Simulation Tool, etc.)
Sub Modules (i.e., the approximately 700 software and subprograms and
files comprising the Honda-DRI SIM, which are integrated in a linked
application, with Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs)
Note that NHTSA SIM framework of Figure 9 is also displayed in the top level GUI for the SIM
tool software. As explained in the User Manual (i.e., Volume IV), the user can select and
navigate to the various functions therein.
The description in the remainder of this section will mention the highest levels in this hierarchy,
and then will mainly focus on the 22 functions (i.e., the lowest level in the NHTSA
framework) and their relationships to the modules (the highest and intermediate levels in the
Honda-DRI overall schematic). Note that the functions and modules in bold headings below
denote those implemented in the SIM software.
26
Archival Accident Data
(e.g., NASS/CDS, PCDS, FARS)
Technology Relevant
Crash Type
Specification and Case
Sub-Sampling Tools
Crash Scenario Database
Development Tools
Evaluation
of future
technology
Evaluation
of existing
technology
Technology
Relevant
Crash Type
Criteria
Case Sub-
Sample IDs
and
Weightings
Crash Scenario Database
Text
Summaries
Scene
Diagrams
Geometry
and Time
Histories
Coded
Data
1
2
Figure 10: Honda-DRI SIM Tool Schematic
Overal Safety Effects Estimator (OSEE)
Crash Sequence Simulation Module(CSSM)
Driving
Simulator
Studies
Laboratory
and/or Full
Scale Tests
Accident Data
Analysis
Estimated Overall Technology Effectiveness
Exposure Ratio (ER)
Prevention Ratio (PR)
Fatality Ratio (FR)
3
4
27
The hierarchy of the Honda-DRI software modules is further illustrated in Figure 11. The
numbers in square brackets [ ] indicate the corresponding NHTSA functions illustrated in Figure
9. The data generation and flow for this hierarchy are further described in Section 9, Apps B
through E, and the User Manual.
1. Scenario Database Development Tools
1.1. Scenario Data Extraction and Assembly Tools [1]
1.1.1. Extract NASS/CDS data
1.1.2. Extract NASS/PCDS data
Extract NASS/GES data
Extract VTTI 100-Car naturalistic driving conflict data
1.1.3. PCDS case weighting
1.1.4. Concatenate data
1.2. Scene Diagram Download Tool [1]
1.2.1 CDS Scene Diagram Download Tool [1]
1.2.2 PCDS Scene Diagram Download Tool [1]
1.3. Automated Accident Reconstruction Tools (AART) [6]
NASS CDS and PCDS cases
VTTI cases
2. Technology Relevant Case Selection and Case Sub sampling Tools [7]
2.1. TRCT description GUI
2.2. Simulation Case Subsample Selection GUI
2.3. Test Case Selection
3. Crash Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) [17, 18, 19, 20]
3.11. Technology Effectiveness Estimator [21]
4. Overall Safety Effects Estimator (OSEE) [22]
Note: numbers in square brackets [ ] indicate the corresponding functions in the NHTSA SIM
framework
Figure 11: Honda-DRI SIM Tool Module Hierarchy
3.3.1 Model Development Area
This area involves development of data and information needed to create the model, model
inputs for data generation, and data to support the validation and calibration of the model [for the
primary TRCTs]. Not all of these activities need to be executed if there exists a completed
evaluation of a similar ACAT countermeasure [Carter, 2009].
28
3.3.1.1 Data Usage Activity
This activity describes the available data that is used in the development of a SIM [Carter,
2009].
The data usage is further described in Section 5.
3.3.1.1.1 Archival data (NHTSA Function 1)
This NHTSA function corresponds to Honda-DRI SIM Modules 1.1 and 1.2, which extract from
archival US DOT crash databases (NASS/CDS, PCDS, and FARS). These databases contain in-
depth coded data and scene diagrams that are assumed to be representative of all US crashes.
For the desired calendar years Module 1.1.NASS extracts coded crash scenarios from the CDS
and PCDS Databases:
Module 1.1.1 extracts qualifying crash scenarios involving tow-away crashes from the
NASS/CDS hierarchical databases, based on the desired range of calendar years selected
by the user. This tool currently supports ranges of one or more calendar years between
1997 and 2003;
Module 1.1.2 extracts crash scenarios involving pedestrian crashes from the NASS/PCDS
databases;
Module 1.1.GES extracts crash scenarios involving non-tow-away crashes from the
NASS/GES databases, for the desired range of calendar years;
Module 1.2.1 downloads selected CDS case scene diagrams from the NHTSA website;
Module 1.2.2 downloads PCDS reports from the NHTSA website and extracts case scene
diagrams.
The resulting data are used in Functions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 22.
Further details of these Modules are given in App B and the User Manual (Vol IV).
3.3.1.1.2 Real world data (NHTSA Function 2)
Approximately 800 near-crash cases are contained in a specially post-processed (not raw) sub-
database for the VTTI 100 car study [Dingus, 2006]. These 800 cases were not used in the
current A-CMBS evaluation, but could be used to evaluate an ACATs response to the
continuum of conflict severities between benign conflicts and safety-related conflicts, including
evaluating possible false alarms.
The ACAT evaluator uses Module 1.1.VTTI to:
1) extract coded crash scenarios from the VTTI 100-Car Near-Crash database;
2) download satellite images from the terraserver.com website.
29
The resulting data are used in Functions 5, 6, 17, 18 and 22.
Further details of these Modules are given in App B and the User Manual (Vol IV).
3.3.1.1.3 Corporate body of knowledge (NHTSA Function 3)
The ACAT designer generically defines what he/she considers to be the Technology Relevant
Crash Types for the ACAT of interest. Currently these definitions can be in whatever terms,
descriptors and criteria are present in the coded scenario database, which are extracted from the
NASS/CDS, PCDS and VTTI databases. This is an independent, off-line function that presumes
intimate familiarity with the characteristics of the technology, and the types of crashes for which
it is expected to have a) a substantial level of collision and/or fatality probability reductions
(Primary TRCTs), or b) some or small level of collision and/or fatality probability reductions
(Secondary TRCTs).
This information is used by the ACAT evaluator in Functions 7, 21, and 22.
Universal Descriptions [Burgett, 2008] are not yet supported.
At the current time, this definition process is completely flexible and non-standardized and
provided with support tools. The SIM tool will estimate the effectiveness based on representative
samples of cases in each defined Primary and Secondary TRCT; and will assume that the
effectiveness in all other crash types is zero. Note that narrowly and precisely defined TRCTs
will tend to have higher average effectiveness values, but fewer cases and therefore greater
uncertainty levels; broadly defined TRCTs will tend to have lower average effectiveness values,
but more cases and therefore smaller uncertainty levels. Of course, if the ACAT designer is
completely inaccurate on his/her TRCT definitions as to under what conditions the ACAT is
expected to be effective, it is conceptually possible to generate a zero (or excessively low)
effectiveness value. It is not likely with this SIM to generate excessively high effectiveness
values, due to the nature of the assumptions, models and algorithms. So, this places the onus on
the ACAT designer to accurately and reasonably define the effective TRCTs.
3.3.1.1.4 Technology characteristics (NHTSA Function 4)
In the Honda-DRI SIM, this conceptual function is the same as and merged with Function 3.
3.3.1.2 Case Scenarios Activity
In this activity, the SIM developer consolidates the crashes that are relevant to the specific
ACAT countermeasure [Carter, 2009].
The case scenarios are further described in Section 6.
30
3.3.1.2.1 Breakdown of scenario characteristics (NHTSA Function 5)
Conceptually this block function limits the representative cases to be addressed to CDS, PCDS,
and VTTI cases (although these are the only databases available in Modules 1.1 and 1.2). Note
that there is no software directly associated with this block function.
3.3.1.2.2 Crash characteristics: roadway/vehicle (NHTSA Function 6)
This function corresponds to the Automated Accident Reconstruction Tool (AART)
(Module 1.3). The AART estimates the time-space relationships of the vehicle Collision Partners
and occluding objects for use in the Crash Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM). The
reconstructed vehicle trajectories are based on available information (e.g., digitized scene
diagrams and coded data), Newtonian Physics (e.g., [Fleck, 1981]) and various assumptions. The
drivers pre-crash control inputs are inferred from the reconstructed vehicle trajectories.
The ACAT evaluator uses Module 1.3 (AART) to reconstruct the crash scenarios.
Module 1.3.NASS is used to reconstruct available and reconstructable
9
CDS and PCDS
cases;
Module 1.3.VTTI is used to reconstruct available and reconstructable VTTI near-crash
cases.
The results are used in Functions 8, 9, 10 and 18.
Further details of these Modules are given in App B and the User Manual (Vol IV).
3.3.1.2.3 Countermeasure relevant crash scenarios (NHTSA Function 7)
This function is addressed by SIM tool Module 2.
Module 2.1 is used by the ACAT designer to define the Technology Relevant Crash Types for
the ACAT, based on the information from Function 3. The results from this module are used in
Functions 21 and 22 and Modules 2.2 and 2.3.
Module 2.2 is used by the ACAT evaluator to automatically select a subsample of cases from the
reconstructed cases from Function 6 for simulation purposes (Note: a library is provided in the
SIM software containing already reconstructed (c. 2005) cases comprising approximately 900
CDS 1- and 2-vehicle crash cases, 250 PCDS pedestrian crash cases and 12 VTTI near-crash
cases). The results of defining the TRCTs are used in Function 18 and Module 2.3. However,
note that some of these library cases, reconstructed with an older, 2005 version of the AART
software, contain unrealistic computational artifacts (see Section 4.2.2), including "last split
second swerve" before the crash, that might adversely affect some ACAT's. Therefore, use of the
9
Reconstructable CDS and PCDS case criteria are listed in Tables B-4 and B-5 in App B.
31
library cases should be selective, and generating new reconstructions with the new AART is
recommended.
Module 2.3 is used by the ACAT evaluator to automatically select a subsample of cases from
Module 2.2 that can be run in the computer simulation Function 18 on a preliminary basis (for
test planning) and for final Safety Benefits analysis in Function 22. The preliminary simulation
results (for testing planning purposes) from Function 21 are used in Module 2.3 to automatically
select cases for test purposes to be used in Functions 8, 9 and 10.
Further details of these Modules are given in App C and the User Manual (Vol IV).
3.3.1.3 Objective Testing Activity
Once the relevant crashes, crash data, and the basic concept of the model are established,
various types of tests are used to obtain values for the embedded parameters Various
parameter values and distribution of values will be needed to replicate the following
relationships in order to accurately account for driver, vehicle, countermeasure, and scenario
interactions and obtain representative results to base the estimate of safety benefits. The
relationships that need to be replicated include: the drivers response to the ACAT
countermeasure; the performance of the ACAT countermeasure system; the vehicles response to
control inputs, including any direct ACAT countermeasure intervention; the characteristics of the
driver; the system/component characteristics of the ACAT countermeasure [Carter, 2009].
Table 5 provides a summary of the test categories as well as the approximate number of tests for
each category. The Objective tests are further described in Section 7.
3.3.1.3.1 Driving simulator tests (NHTSA Function 8)
Driver-in-the-loop Driver-Vehicle-ACAT tests to measure driver response and behavior, with
and without the ACAT, were accomplished in the DRI Driving Simulator. An attempt was made
to standardize and to semi-automate the development and implementation of the Driving
Simulator conflict scenarios.
The ACAT evaluator performs Driving Simulator tests for the cases identified in Function 7
using distraction intervals identified in preliminary simulations from Function 18, for a sample of
typical drivers, and stores the simulator test data for use in Functions 14 and 15.
The Driving Simulator test procedures involve directly importing the test case scenarios (i.e.,
scene diagrams, initial speed and lane choice of Subject Vehicle, and the time-space trajectories
of Collision Partner relative to Subject Vehicle), modeling the scenarios (this was done in a
semi-automated, modular way), and randomizing the order of presentation to the driver
participants of conflicts and non-conflicts in each of the case scenarios.
32
Table 5: Summary of Categories, Purposes and Approximate Number of Tests
Category of
test
Type of test
(driver-not-in-
the-loop/driver-
in-the-loop, i.e.,
driver inputs are
fixed or reactive)
Facility Key indices to
be measured
Number of
Tests
ACAT
Warning
Component Lab Warning
locations,
magnitudes and
spectra
10 tests
(5 luminance, 3
audible, 2 tactile)
Vehicle Component Lab Vehicle
dimensions,
weight, etc.
3 tests
Driver-not-in-
the-loop
Track Vehicle response
to driver controls
48 tests
Vehicle-
ACAT
Driver-not-in-
the-loop
Track with
GST
ACAT response
to CP
6 tests per TRCT
x 4 primary
TRCTs
=24 tests
Vehicle response
to ACAT
Driver-
Vehicle-
ACAT
Driver-in-the-
loop
Track with
GST
Expert driver
response delays
and magnitudes
3 tests per TRCT
x 4 primary
TRCTs
x 2 ACAT States
(off/on)
=24 tests
Driving
Simulator
Expert and typical
drivers response
delays and
magnitudes
3 tests per TRCT
x 4 primary
TRCTs
x (12 typical +1
expert driver)
x 2 ACAT States
(off/on)
=312 tests
Driver-not-in-the-loop Driving Simulator tests were also conducted for calibrating the ACAT
warnings and braking response against those measured in the Track tests, for the CP types and
trajectories in each selected case.
The Driving Simulator recorded time history data includes driver eye fixation and control
actions, SV and CP motions and ACAT warning and braking states. Subjective rating data on
warning notice-ability and ACAT usefulness were also collected.
33
The Driving Simulator tests are further described in Section 7.3 and their calibrations in
Section 7.2.
3.3.1.3.2 Driver-not-in-the-loop Track tests (NHTSA Function 9)
Full-scale driver-not-in-the-loop vehicle and ACAT Track tests were done to measure the
response of the ACAT system when involved in representative conflict scenarios. These results
were used, among other things, to calibrate the Driving Simulator and CSSM models of the
ACAT system. These tests involved an expert driver and a Guided Soft Target to function as the
Collision Partner and to interact with the Subject Vehicle sensors
The ACAT evaluator performs driver-not-in-the-loop Track tests for cases identified in Function
7 and stores data for use in Function 15.
For purposes of validation of the computer simulation and simulator vehicle model,
measurements of vehicle response to steering, brake and accelerator inputs were also recorded.
The driver-not-in-the-loop Track tests are further described in Sections 7.1.2.1, and their use in
model calibrations in Section 7.2. The Guided Soft Target is further described in Section 7.1.1.
3.3.1.3.3 Driver-in-the-loop Track tests (NHTSA Function 10)
Full-scale driver-in-the-loop driver-vehicle-ACAT tests were done to measure the response
(parameter values) of the expert driver to the CP and to the ACAT, in addition to the response of
the ACAT system to the CP, when involved in representative conflict scenarios. These results
were used to further validate both the Driving Simulator model and CSSM model of the expert
driver and ACAT. Like the driver-not-in-the-loop vehicle tests, these tests involved an expert
driver and the Guided Soft Target to function as the Collision Partner.
The ACAT evaluator performs driver-in-the-loop Track tests with an expert driver.
The cases identified in Function 7 and stores data for use in Function 15.
The driver-in-the-loop Track tests are further described in Section 7.1.2.2 and their use in model
calibrations in Section 7.2. The Guided Soft Target is further described in Section 7.1.1.
3.3.1.3.4 Human factors tests (NHTSA Function 11)
In the Honda-DRI SIM, this function is identical to Function 8.
3.3.1.3.5 Lab tests (NHTSA Function 12)
A series of laboratory tests was done in order to measure the characteristics of the ACAT
warnings as they are experienced by a vehicle driver during a potential conflict event. The results
34
from these tests were used for creating and calibrating the Driving Simulator (DS) equipment
that was used during the DS tests, as well as to provide parameter values for the CSSM model.
The ACAT evaluator performs laboratory tests to measure the warning locations, amplitudes and
frequencies, for use in Functions 8, 14 and 15.
The lab tests and the use of their data in DS calibration and simulation parameterization are
further described in Section 7.2.1
3.3.1.4 Model Creation Activity
A key element of the NHTSA SIM is that the data about driver and system performance is
generated by a computer model as illustrated in Figure 12. The purpose of the model is to
generate the data that produces the safety benefits. The details of the model are tailored to suit
the technology of the ACAT system and the relevant scenarios identified in the preceding
activity. The model [logic in Function 13] is a set of equations (differential, algebraic, Boolean,
etc.) with an embedded set of parameters that describe the performance of the
vehicle/driver/ACAT countermeasure. The equations describe three relationships: 1) the control
actions by the driver in response to all environmental stimuli, including warnings or other input
from a ACAT countermeasure, 2) the motions of the vehicle in response to driver control inputs
including interactions with other vehicles and the roadway, and 3) the performance of the
countermeasure relative to vehicle motion and the driving environment [Carter, 2009].
3.3.1.4.1 Model logic (NHTSA Function 13)
This function involves the Crash Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) (Module 3) illustrated in
Figure 12. The core function of the CSSM is a time domain simulation of the driver (Module
3.5), vehicle (with and without the ACAT) and environment (Module 3.6), in order to simulate
the effects of the ACAT and driver behaviors (based on driver parameters measured in the
Driving Simulator tests) on crash occurrence and injury consequences in real-world crash
scenarios. Module 3.5 is a driver model which is based on NASAs Apex human operator
programming language [Freed, 1998; NASA 2005]. Module 3.6 is a Simulink model of the
vehicle, environment and ACAT model. Module 3.7 is a display of the virtual world comprising
the scene diagram, vehicle, and Collision Partner. The Apex and Simulink models are linked
together; providing visual object information to the driver model and driver control to the vehicle
model. The virtual reality display that can be viewed by the user is driven by the Simulink
model. A driver model pert chart output is also generated in Module 3.8. The pert chart is a
diagnostic output that illustrates the driver physical (hands, right foot, and gaze) and mental
resources (driving mode, alarm status, and collision likelihood estimation) versus time. The
Crash Simulation (Module 3.9) estimates the crash delta-V based on the vehicle impact
conditions. This block comprises the automatic crash simulation setup, using the US Air Force
Articulated Total Body (ATB) multi-body impact simulation, and post-processing. Module 3.9.1
creates the ATB simulation input files based on the calculated vehicle impact speeds and impact
geometry resulting from the drivers (and ACAT if applicable) sensing and control actions.
35
Driver and Crash Scenario Database
Technology Case
Vehicle
Relevant Geometry Sub-sample
Test Data
Scene Coded
and Time
Crash Type (eg., Driving IDs and
Diagrams Data
Simulator, Full
Histories
Criteria Weightings
Scale Test)
3 Crash Sequence
Simulation Module
Graphical User
Interface
Run
Initialization
APEX
Initialization
Vehicle and
Environment
Model
Driver
Model
(APEX 3.0)
Animation
Driver
Behavior
Pert Chart
Technology
Simulation
TCP
Crash
Simulation
Injury
Outcome
Estimator
Technology
Effectiveness
Estimator
ATB
Cases and simulation parameters
Probability of Fatality, Fatality Equivalents
Virtual World
Initialization
e.g.,
maneuvers,
response times
Case IDs
Case Weightings
Impact Conditions
Delta V
Crash Occurrence
3.1
3.2 3.3 3.4
3.5 3.6 3.7
3.8 3.9
3.10
3.11
Exposure Ratios (ER
i
),
Prevention Ratios (PR
i
),
FataIity Ratios (FR
i
)
Figure 12: Module 3 Crash Sequence Simulation Module
36
The CSSM ATB simulation in Module 3.9.2 is similar to the AART ATB simulation used in
Function 6 (Module 1.3). Module 3.9.3 extracts the longitudinal and lateral components of the
vehicle crash delta-Vs from the ATB simulation output.
The ACAT evaluator uses the data from Functions 3, 4 and 6 to develop and refine a suitable
driver, vehicle, ACAT and environment simulation model and export it to Function 17.
The CSSM simulation model is further described in Section 8.
3.3.1.4.2 Distributions of parameters (NHTSA Function 14)
The ACAT evaluator extracts driver, vehicle, ACAT, and environment parameter values from
Functions 3, 8, 9 and 12. These parameter values are combined with the simulation model from
Function 13 and used to validate/calibrate the simulation model in Function 15.
The parameter extraction procedures are further described in Section 8.3.
3.3.1.4.3 Validation/calibration of model (NHTSA Function 15)
The ACAT evaluator overlays the pairs of data sets from Functions 8 and 12, 8 and 9, 8 and 10,
and 8 and 18. Then the ACAT evaluator computes correlation figures-of-merit ( R
S
2
)
10
between
the data in the pairs.
The calibration of the resulting simulation against the objective test data for the primary TRCTs
is further described in Section 7.2.
3.3.1.4.4 Test for model adequacy (NHTSA Function 16)
The ACAT evaluator compares the correlation figures-of-merit (e.g., R
S
2
) from Function 15 with
the desired criterion (0.9), and then decides whether to make further model refinements in
Function 13, or to proceed with simulations in Function 18.
The results of the calibration of the resulting simulation against the objective test data for
primary TRCTs is further described in Section 7.2.
3.3.2 Model Execution and Analysis Area
This area involves running the model to generate the necessary data to calculate safety benefits
estimates of the subject ACAT countermeasure [Carter, 2009].
10
See Eqn (32) in Section 7.2.
37
3.3.2.1 Data Generation Activity
When the model has been completed and validated, it is ready to be used for data generation.
This activity uses the finished model that was validated and calibrated in the Model
Development activity. In this activity the model is executed using initial conditions and other
scenario information to generate the data needed to estimate the safety benefits. Each run will
simulate a period of time during which a driver is exposed to a critical event, including initial
conditions that reflect an appropriate level of risk. The performance of the driver (as represented
by the driver performance model) affects whether or not a crash will occur during each run. Each
run with the countermeasure system active will be matched by a corresponding run without the
countermeasure, for all of the scenarios [Carter, 2009].
3.3.2.1.1 Initial Scenario Conditions (NHTSA Function 17)
The CSSM simulation has a graphical user interface (Module 3.1 in Figure 12) which enables the
user to select the desired crash scenarios and sample of driver models (e.g., time delays,
maneuver amplitudes and response times to the ACAT warnings and to the Collision Partner
motions) to simulate, with and without the ACAT. CSSM then initializes the time domain
simulations for all desired combinations of crash scenarios and driver behaviors specified by the
user in Module 3.1. Modules 3.2 to 3.4 automatically initialize the time domain simulation in
Modules 3.5 to 3.7 respectively.
The ACAT evaluator uses Module 3.1 to import simulation cases from 6, as selected in
Function 7 to run the simulation in 18.
Note that this function is integrated into Module 3 (CSSM) in Function 18.
The computer simulation initialization procedures are further described in the User Manual
(Vol IV).
3.3.2.1.2 Computer Simulation (NHTSA Function 18)
CSSM runs the time domain simulations for all desired combinations of crash scenarios and
driver behaviors specified by the user in Module 3.1. Modules 3.2 to 3.4 initialize the time
domain simulation in Modules 3.5 to 3.7 respectively.
The ACAT evaluator uses Module 3 (CSSM) to simulate the crash scenario cases imported in
Function 17, with and without the ACAT, using the parameters imported from Function 14 and
the model imported from Function 13. Exported to Functions 19 and 20 are data that describe the
occurrence of collision (yes/no), and if a collision occurs, the delta-Vs for the respective
vehicles and impact speed for any pedestrian.
The computer simulation run procedures are further described in the User Manual (Volume IV).
38
3.3.2.2 Countermeasure Performance Analysis Activity
This activity uses the data from the Data Generation activity to calculate the various ratios
needed to evaluate the performance of the subject ACAT countermeasure and determine the
systems Safety Effectiveness in preventing crashes [Carter, 2009]
3.3.2.2.1 Without countermeasures (NHTSA Function 19)
This function corresponds to the Injury Outcome Estimator (Module 3.10), which passes through
data on whether a collision occurred with a particular driver model in a particular conflict
scenario and if a collision occurs, estimates driver casualty in terms of NHTSAs Fatality
Equivalent (FE) injury units (App A) and probability of fatality (POF), based on the calculated
crash delta-V from Module 3.9 and the drivers restraint use.
The ACAT evaluator uses this to evaluate the outcome of the simulations from the Function 18
runs without the ACAT. The results are used in Function 21.
Note that this function is integrated into Module 3 (CSSM) in Function 18.
The Injury Outcome Estimator is further described in App D.
3.3.2.2.2 With countermeasures (NHTSA Function 20)
This is essentially identical to Function 19, except that the function is applied to the with
ACAT runs generated by the CSSM simulation model.
The ACAT evaluator uses this to evaluate the outcome of the simulations from the Function 18
runs with the ACAT. The results are used in Function 21.
Note that this function is integrated into Module 3 (CSSM) in Function 18.
3.3.2.2.3 Safety Effectiveness (NHTSA Function 21)
This function corresponds to the Technology Effectiveness Estimator (Module 3.11), which
estimates the Prevention Injury and Fatality Ratios for each technology relevant crash type based
on the simulation results. The Exposure Ratio is currently assumed to be 1.0 as safety critical
conflict avoidance is not currently analyzed (although it could be readily analyzed) by the SIM.
The ACAT evaluator uses Module 3.11 to estimate the collision and fatality effectiveness of the
ACAT for each run and for each TRCT based on the simulation results from Functions 19 and
20, so that it may be exported to Function 22.
The Technology Effectiveness Estimator is further described in Section 10 and App D.
39
3.3.2.3 Safety Benefits Activity (NHTSA Function 22)
This activity transforms the performance ratios into safety benefit estimates in terms of US-
level counts. Ratios associated with fatalities, exposure, and prevention are transformed into
estimates of crash reductions [Carter, 2009].
This function corresponds to the Overall Safety Effects Estimator (OSEE) (Module 4), which
estimates the overall safety benefits (in terms of the reduction in the numbers of collisions and
fatalities at the US level) based on data for technology effectiveness functions, crash scenarios,
retrospective and forecasted data, as illustrated in Figure 13. The technology effectiveness
functions describe the Exposure, Prevention and Fatality Ratios (ER, PR, FR) for each
technology relevant crash type. The technology effectiveness functions (e.g., look-up tables) are
based on results from the CSSM simulation (Module 3), or other a-priori knowledge (e.g.,
published literature and statistical crash data analyses for other existing safety technologies such
as side airbags, e.g., as described in [Braver, 2003].
Retrospective data are known information about conditions that occurred in the past.
Retrospective data sources include FARS and GES crash databases [Tessmer, 2006; GES, 2006]
and Polk vehicle registration data [Polk, 2007].
11
It is assumed that past conditions are fixed (i.e.,
the past cannot be changed.)
Forecasted data describe future conditions (i.e., future model years and/or future calendar years),
from the vantage point of the retrospective data. It is assumed that the future conditions are
subject to change (e.g., the ACAT may or may not be installed in a future model year vehicle).
Forecasted data sources include estimated installation rates as determined by the ACAT designer
and/or evaluator, and vehicle retention/scrappage rates, e.g., [Wards, 2002].
The ACAT evaluator uses Module 4 (OSEE) to estimate the reduction in collisions and fatalities
at the US level as a result of the ACAT.
This module is further described in Section 11, App E and [Suzuki, 2006].
11
The current SIM OSEE database has retrospective information for 1995 through 2004 model year vehicles for the
1997 through 2004 calendar year (e.g., 1997 through 2004 FARS, GES, and Polk vehicle registration data).
Therefore from this vantage point the 2005 model year and 2005 calendar year occur in the future.
40
A-Priori
Knowledge
(e.g., published
literature, accident
data analysis)
Retrospective
Data
Archival
Accident Data
(FARS, GES)
Existing Vehicle
Make-Model-
Year Identifiers
Existing Vehicle
Exposure Data
(Polk NVPP)
Existing Vehicle
Parameters and
Technologies
Forecasted
Data
Future Vehicle
Parameters and
Technologies
Estimated
Vehicle
Scrappage
Estimated
Future Vehicle
Sales
Technology
Relevant
Crash Type
Criteria
(.a21 file)
Exposure Ratios (ER
i
),
Prevention Ratios (PRi),
Fatality Ratios (FR
i
)
(from the CSSM TEE)
(.a33 file)
Effectiveness Functions
(dynamically linked)
Existing
Technologies
Vehicle
Factors
Human and
Environmental
Factors
New
Technology
OSEE
Interactive Software Tool
Systems Model
Estimated Overall Technology Effectiveness
4.1
4.2
( ) ( ) ( ) S C FR S C PR S C ER , , , , ,
( ER ) ( ) ( ) S C FR S C PR S C , , , , ,
( ) ( ) ( ) S C FR S C PR S C ER , , , , ,
( ) ( ) ( ) S C FR S C PR S C ER , , , , ,
4 OSEE
Crash Scenario
Database
Coded Data
Figure 13: Module 4 Overall Safety Effects Estimator (OSEE) Top Level Modules
41
3.4 Safety Benefits Equations
The safety effectiveness and benefits equations are those described by NHTSA [Burgett, 2008;
Carter, 2009], i.e.:
B = N
WO
N
W
(1)
where
B is the benefit, (which can be the number of crashes, number of fatalities, harm,
or other such measures);
N
WO
is the value of this measure, (e.g., the number of crashes) that occurs without the
system; and
N
W
is the value of the measure with the system fully deployed.
The value of N
WO
is usually known from crash data files, but N
W
is not known for pre-
production or early-production systems. Thus, it is necessary to estimate the effectiveness of a
countermeasure and combine it with the known value of N
WO
, as shown in the following
equations:
B = N
WO
SE (2)
where
SE is the effectiveness of the system, and
N
WO
is the size of the problem.
An extension of this idea is that the overall benefits consist of the sum of benefits across a
number of specific scenario types:
B = B
i
= N
WO
E
i
(3)
i
i i
where
"i" is an index referring to a specific crash-related scenario type;
E
i
is the effectiveness of the system in reducing the number of crashes (or fatalities)
in the ith scenario type;
42
~ ~
A
W
X
W
i i
E =
~ i
A
~
WO
X
WO
i i
N
WO
i
is the baseline number of crashes (or fatalities) in the ith scenario type; and
B
i
is the benefit in the ith scenario type.
From Eqns (2) and (3), the system effectiveness can be written as:
N
WO
i
|


|
|
|
SE = E
i

(4)
N
WO i
\ .
An extension of Eqn (4) is needed when the source of estimates of the number of crashes without
the system is not the same as the source of estimates with the system. In this case the relative
exposure between the two sources needs to be included. This extension is expressed in the form:
(5)
where
~
A
WO
i
is the baseline number of crashes in individual scenario type i
~
A
W
i
is the number of crashes with the system for individual scenario type i
~
X
W
i
is the exposure with the system for individual scenario type i
~
X
WO
i
is the exposure without the system for individual scenario type i
and the ~ is used to denote estimated values.
Commonly used measures of exposure include vehicle miles traveled (VMT), number of
registered vehicles, or other indirect measures.
A second extension is needed if the number of conflict events varies within a scenario type. A
modified version of Eqn (5) that accommodates non-uniform exposures is given by:
~ ~
( ( |


|
|
|
|


|
|
|
S A
W
i
W
i
~

(
(
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(
(
(

VMT
W
S
\ . \ .
~ W
i i
E = 1 (6)
i ~ ~
|


|
|
|
|


|
|
|
S A
WO
i
~
WO
i
VMT
WO
S
\ . \ .
WO
i i
43
S VRY
W
i
ER =
W
i
i
S VRY
WO WO
i i
A S
W
i
PR =
W
i
i
A S
WO
i
WO
i
where
~
S
WO
i
is the number of conflicts that occur without the system for scenario type i
~
S
W
i
is the number of conflicts that occur with the system for scenario type i
VMT
WO
i
is the exposure (VMT is used in this expression) that occurs without the
system for scenario type i
VMT
W
i
is exposure that occurs with the system for scenario type i.
It can be seen that this expression for the estimate of effectiveness is composed of rates of
crashes per conflict (Prevention Ratio) and rates of conflicts per unit of exposure (Exposure
Ratio).
In this form, the expression for effectiveness is written as:
~
E
i
= (1 ER PR
i
)
(7) i
where
ER
i
is the Exposure Ratio for the specific scenario type i, defined as
(8)
PR
i
is the Prevention Ratio for the specific scenario type i, defined as
(9)
and where
VRY is the number of vehicle registration years;
S
W
and S
WO
are the numbers of conflicts with and without the ACAT; and
A
W
and A
WO
are the number of crashes with and without the ACAT.
This is the expression for E
i
that is included in Eqn (4) for system effectiveness. Note that this
effectiveness value is to be multiplied by the number of baseline crashes at the US level to obtain
the US level benefits in terms of number of crashes.
44
~
E
I
i
= (1 ER
i
PR
i
IR
i
)
~
E
F
i
= (1 ER
i
PR
i
FR
i
)
FE A
W
i
IR =
W
i
i
FE A
WO WO
i i
F A
W
i
FR =
W
i
i
F A
WO WO
i i
This method has also been extended to include injuries and fatalities as follows:
(10)
(11)
where
IR
i
is the Injury Ratio for the specific scenario type i, defined as
(12)
FR
i
is the Fatality Ratio for the specific scenario type i, defined as
(13)
and where
FE
W
and FE
WO
are the number of fatality equivalent injuries with and without the
ACAT,
F
W
and F
WO
are the number of fatalities with and without the ACAT.
Note that these effectiveness values are multiplied by the respective numbers of baseline fatality
equivalent injuries and fatalities at the US level to obtain the US level benefits in terms of the
numbers of fatality equivalent injuries and fatalities.
45
4 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
This chapter explains the assumptions, basic underlying principles, and method of approach
taken in the development of the SIM tool.
4.1 Assumptions Made to Enable Development of the SIM Tool
This section lists assumptions made to enable development of the SIM tool and the associated
evaluations. These are grouped according to whether they are applicable to any safety
technology, or to the subject category of safety technology (i.e., Frontal ACATs) or specifically
for the subject safety technology itself (i.e., A-CMBS).
4.1.1 For Any Safety Technology
1. Safety effectiveness values (i.e., percentage reductions in collisions and fatalities) assume
that none of the Collision Partners are fitted with the safety technology being evaluated
(Note that if the ACAT was fitted to all relevant Collision Partners, it could have an effect
on the safety effectiveness of the ACAT being evaluated);
2. It is further assumed that cases in crash and naturalistic databases can be sampled and
reconstructed in sufficient detail to provide time-space relationships of the Subject Vehicle
motions and (inferred) control inputs and Collision Partner motions.
3. A given safety technology is assumed to have zero effectiveness in all non-TRCTs.
4. A suitably calibrated driver-vehicle-environment time-domain simulation of a sufficiently
large (e.g., n=100) sample of cases:
can adequately cover the time-space relationships in that crash category.
is adequate to evaluate safety technology effectiveness in that crash category.
5. Human reactions to events in the Subject Vehicle (i.e., distraction), glance direction, and
perceived motions of the Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner can be modeled by a
behavior matrix, measured in Track tests and/or Driving Simulator tests using a
representative sample of participants, and producing a distribution of human reaction:
Types
Thresholds
Delays
Amplitudes
6. The safety technologys collision and/or fatality probability reduction in each Technology
Relevant Crash Type (TRCT) is the same as the effectiveness for the population in that
TRCT.
46
7. The crash scenarios with their associated weighting factors are a representative sample of
US crashes.
8. The overall effectiveness in all US crashes in the fleet can be estimated from the estimated
effectiveness in each Technology Relevant Crash Type, assuming that the effectiveness in
all other crash types is zero.
9. The Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner have dimensional and mass characteristics of the
vehicles in the coded crash scenario database, as determined from the provided vehicle
parameter tables.
For purposes of AART crash reconstruction only
10. The CDS cases qualifying for reconstruction (based on their being complete and
applicable) are a representative sample of all CDS cases, to the levels of number of vehicles
involved and calendar year.
11. If the coded pre-event movement indicates the subject vehicle was stopped in traffic lane
(VPCMOVE=5) then the vehicle is assumed to be stopped for a 5 sec interval prior to
impact. The same assumption is used for the collision partner if it is a vehicle).
12. If the vehicle was not stopped in traffic lane, then the initial speed is assumed to be the
CDS coded "travel speed." If the travel speed is unknown then the initial speed is assumed
to be the "speed limit" plus 7 km/h. This was done based on analysis of results in [IIHS,
2008].
13. The NASS/CDS and PCDS (i.e., J PEG or GIF) scene diagrams are accurately scaled as are
the indicated POI and POR (as required by NASS protocols but as occasionally possibly in
conflict with coded values indicating that their positions were "uncertain"). The PDF
versions of the scene drawings are assumed to have been converted using a uniform bit
scaling. The uncertainty in the POI and POR are assumed to be small (e.g., 1 meter
longitudinally (see Table B-9 of assumed uncertainties in App B)) (Note: in the future it is
recommended that CDS teams consider estimating and coding the positional uncertainty in
POI and POR, as they do for other CDS variables).
4.1.2 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., Frontal ACATs)
14. For the Honda A-CMBS (and perhaps other Frontal ACATs) it is assumed that the range,
range rate, range acceleration, and bearing angle are sufficient to describe the domain of
conditions within each TRCT within which the A-CMBS will function and have some
measurable level of collision and fatality probability reductions. Therefore there are N=4
key variables, and therefore at least N+2=6 driver-not-in-the-loop (i.e., vehicle-ACAT only)
test cases that are sought to calibrate the CSSM in each primary TRCT.
47
4.1.3 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., A-CMBS)
15. Currently, it is assumed that the subject vehicle driver is "distracted" in all cases, and that is
the primary contributing factor in all cases.
Only for the preliminary SIM estimates of A-CMBS collision and fatality probability
reductions, for purposes of test case selection
12
16. It was assumed that the collision partner trajectory (i.e., position vs. time) is the same as
determined by the AART reconstruction, and is not affected by changes in the trajectory of
the subject vehicle.
4.2 Basic Underlying Principles That Apply to the SIM Tool
This section lists the basic underlying principles that apply to and were used in the development
of the SIM tool and the associated evaluations. These are grouped according to whether they are
applicable to any safety technology, or to the subject category of safety technology (i.e., Frontal
ACATs) or specifically for the subject safety technology itself (i.e., A-CMBS).
4.2.1 For Any Safety Technology
1. Any safety technology functionality and collision and fatality probability reductions are
strongly dependent on the detailed time-space relationships of a given conflict or crash
situation. Safety technology functionality and collision and fatality probability reductions
are highly dependent on the detailed, real-world, case-specific:
Time-space relationships
Human interactions (and their variation)
Environment (e.g., occluding objects, road geometry)
and therefore, these must be included in sufficient detail. The only known practical way to
do this is with so-called large sample or fleet time-domain simulations, calibrated with
test data.
2. Descriptions of time-space relationships that are representative of real-world crashes are
contained in archival a) reconstructed cases from in-depth crash databases (e.g., NASS/CDS
and PCDS) or b) recorded time history data from naturalistic driving databases (e.g.,
VTTI 100-car).
12
A preliminary SIM assessment was made using a preliminary version of the SIM tool in order to select test
cases that were expected to be representative of the crash scenarios for which A-CMBS would have some effect.
These assumptions were necessary to accomplish this preliminary assessment.
48
3. The system designer is in the best position to define the Technology Relevant Crash Types
(TRCTs) that a given safety technology will address.
4. A given safety technology may have a different effectiveness in each TRCT.
5. Due to the dynamic complexity of many safety technologies, one Track test for each TRCT:
a. is too narrow to cover all time-space relationships in that crash category
b. is too narrow to evaluate overall collision and fatality probability reductions in that
crash category
c. can be used to calibrate and refine the simulation tool for the time-space relationships
of one case
6. Many safety technologies performance whether the safety technology is intended for
crash avoidance or for crash protection is dependent on human reactions to events in the
Subject Vehicle (i.e., distraction), glance direction, and perceived motions of the Subject
Vehicle and Collision Partner.
7. A safety technologys performance in a given real world case can be measured on a case-by-
case basis, via the change in:
Occurrence of collision
If there is a collision, the collision geometry and speeds, affecting the resulting
calculated delta-Vx and delta-Vy
Fatality Equivalent injuries (FE) and Probability of Fatality (POF), for each SV and
CP driver and each pedestrian.
8. The conflict/crash cases to be simulated and tested involve Subject Vehicles, and when
present, vehicular Collision Partners, which:
Are Light Passenger Vehicles (LPVs)
Have mass, length, width and driver belt usage determinable from the case
information (including VIN)
9. The SIM tool can assess the interaction of any safety technology with the Subject Vehicles
existing safety equipment (including various passive and active safety systems), based on
published effectiveness information for the latter, and which of the latter each vehicle in the
US fleet is equipped with (based on VIN decoding).
10. The expected average collision and fatality effectiveness in each crash type is a constant to
be estimated, and zero in all other crash types. Note that if the TRCTs are too broadly
defined then the assumption of a constant expected collision and fatality effectiveness may
not be appropriate.
49
11. Given the limitations of existing coded databases, the TRCTs should closely correspond to
the actual capabilities of the safety technology. This is because the OSEE fleet systems
model is based on the assumption that the collision and fatality effectiveness of the ACAT
within each TRCT is a constant and uncorrelated with other risk factors. This can be
achieved whenever the effectiveness of the ACAT in a given TRCT is either 0% or 100%.
From a statistical point of view, confidence intervals for estimated effectiveness tend to be
smaller near 50% as compared to 0% or 100%.
13
Therefore, TRCTs should be determined so
as to achieve large effectiveness values (i.e., in the range of 50%) if possible.
12. Since each case in the weighting factor-expanded pool of cases is sampled with equal
probability, the resulting sample of cases can be assumed to be a representative sample of
US cases, to the extent that the weighted cases (e.g., qualifying CDS cases) are a
representative sample of US cases.
13. Forecasts for future application of safety technologies and their interactions can be included
in the Overall Safety Effects Estimator of the SIM.
14. The PCDS case weightings for the desired set of calendar years (e.g., 2000 through 2003)
assume that the probability that a pedestrian crash being sampled for the PCDS database
depends only on the vehicle type (VTYPE=passenger car or light truck or van (LTV)) and
whether the pedestrian was fatally injured or not.
15. ER
l
(C
j
, S
k
) PR
l
(C , S
k
) FR
l p
(C , S
k
)is the assumed relative risk
14
of person p fatality
j , j
for vehicle model-model year-calendar year combination j , assuming the number of
vehicle registration years remains constant, due to factor l, in crash scenario k. The factors
include vehicle technologies (e.g., ABS), vehicle parameters (e.g., wheelbase and Track), or
human and environmental factors (e.g., driver age and gender).
16. ER
l
(C
j
, S
k
) PR
l
(C
j
, S
k
) is the assumed relative risk of property damage crash
involvement for vehicle model-model year-calendar year combination j , assuming the
number of vehicle registration years remains constant, due to factor l , in crash scenario k .
13
See Table F in [Box, 1978] for the confidence limits for p in binomial sampling.
14
The relative risk referred to in this report is consistent with the definition used by [Fleiss, 1981]. The relative
risk is defined on p 64 of [Fleiss, 1981] as
P(B A)
R =
P(B A)
where
P(B A) is the probability of event B occurring when A is present, and
P(B A) is the probability of event B occurring when A is not present.
50
For ATB crash simulation for CSSM and AART
17. During a crash, the distance traveled between the POI
(-)
and POI
(+)
is very short, and so the
distance the vehicle travels in this period can be neglected.
18. The ATB crash simulation assumes that each vehicle has a single mass segment with an 8
th
order hyper-ellipsoid shape. Rectangular fixed objects are modeled by 8
th
order hyper-
ellipsoids. Vertically oriented cylindrical objects (e.g., poles) are modeled by 2
nd
order
ellipsoids.
For purposes of AART crash reconstruction only
19. For purposes of crash reconstruction, the AART currently assumes that the ground is
horizontal and the vehicles do not pitch or roll and that they remain in contact with the
ground with force equal to their respective weights.
20. The time derivative of the front wheel angle is a stochastic random process, i.e., the front
wheel angle has a 1/s
2
power spectral density (see Section 6.2.1).
21. For crash reconstruction purposes, some of the key coded and digitized parameter values are
assumed to have assumed uncertainty levels.
22. A vehicle is initially traveling at a constant speed, then brakes at up to two different levels
of deceleration in sequence (as indicated by the NASS coding) until the point of impact; and
that the levels of deceleration depends on the driver attempted avoidance maneuver, pre-
event movement and roadway surface conditions.
4.2.1.1 Limitations in the Available Data
This section describes limitations in the data used for the SIM tool and A-CMBS evaluation
described in this report.
23. As described in Section 4.2.2, although an innovative, refined method for crash
reconstructions was developed during the entire course of the project, NASS/CDS crash
reconstructions without the artificial swerve, resulting from the earlier, pre-existing
Honda-DRI SIM (c. 2005), were not available during the timeframe of this project and are
not included in the delivered reconstructed NASS/CDS database, for use with any safety
technology.
In addition, a methodology and data for modeling sensor noise effects and sensing of
additional extraneous objects was not available, and the Track tests seemed to suggest that
these could have some impact on the level of correlation between the measured and the
modeled ACAT response and collision and fatality probability reductions.
51
4.2.2 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., A-CMBS)
24. The SIM assessment was run with CDS cases reconstructed (c. 2005) with the pre-existing
Honda-DRI AART tool. As previously noted in Section 1.4, this included a computational
artifact (called a swerve) near the end of the pre-crash phase, where the previous fitting
algorithms allowed a discontinuity in lateral acceleration. Due to the fact that the AART
software extensions, that removed this swerve effect, were under development throughout
this ACAT project, crash reconstructions without this artificial swerve were not available
during the timeframe of the project.
15
It would be possible to re-run the effectiveness
evaluation without the swerve effect after a suitable number of CDS cases have been
reconstructed with the new, extended AART software, with some time and effort.
25. The primary and secondary TRCTs do not include collisions involving loss-of-control of
the Subject Vehicle as these involve more complicated pre-crash vehicle motions than are
currently modelled in the CSSM.
26. The sensor model portion of the A-CMBS simulation model assumes that the sensor can
ideally track the Collision Partner as long as it is within the range of the sensor. There are no
noise effects or additional objects unless these are explicitly defined. Updating the sensor
model to account for these effects is beyond the scope of this project and should be
considered as a future improvement.
27. All simulations were accomplished with both A-CMBS on and off. The A-CMBS off
condition was simulated by disconnecting the outputs from the A-CMBS model to the
vehicle and driver, and in this condition, A-CMBS had no effect on the outcome of the
simulation. However the A-CMBS outputs have been recorded and used to determine
whether A-CMBS could potentially have an effect on the outcome if it were on. Only
cases where the A-CMBS would have outputted a warning to the driver or automatic vehicle
braking prior to impact were simulated with A-CMBS on. Otherwise, if the A-CMBS did
not provide any warning to the driver, or automatic vehicle braking or seatbelt pre-
tensioning, then it was assumed that the crash outcome would be the same as in the original
collision, i.e., the A-CMBS "off" case.
28. It is assumed that, by design, the A-CMBS does not affect conflict occurrence and therefore
the Exposure Ratio is assumed to be 1.00.
15
Developing the fully integrated pre-crash, crash and post-crash solution method, which eliminated the swerve
effect, and integrating it into the SIM, involved substantial protracted efforts during the entire course of the project.
Revising the reconstructions with the resulting reconstruction tool and revising the A-CMBS effectiveness
evaluation would have involved significant additional efforts which were determined to be beyond the scope of the
project.
52
Only for the preliminary SIM estimates of A-CMBS effectiveness, for purposes of test case
selection
16
29. The pre-existing AART, CAST and FAS [Sugimoto, 2005; Suzuki, 2006] software modules
were used.
30. Only cases that were able to be reconstructed with AART were run through CAST. It was
assumed that these cases are representative of all US tow-away crashes.
31. If the A-CMBS 1st warning occurs after the subject vehicle began emergency braking (i.e.,
T
A
in Figure 15 for the subject vehicle) in the reconstructed case, then (based on coded data
and reconstructed velocities) the A-CMBS would have no effect on the collision outcome
because the driver is assumed to be already braking at an emergency level to avoid the
collision.
4.2.3 Associated Level of Uncertainty in the Estimates of System Effectiveness
32. There are numerous sources for uncertainty in the systems effectiveness estimates. These
include the following:
- Uncertainty in the CSSM estimates of Exposure, Prevention, Injury, and Fatality
Ratios arising due to:
The variation in real-world US conflict and crash events and the number of
representative cases in the evaluation sample (e.g., 100 simulated crash cases
for each TRCT),
The variation in drivers and driver behaviors in the US and the number of
representative driver-behavior combinations used in the evaluation sample
(e.g., 30 simulated driver-behavior combinations representing observed
behaviors of 12 typical drivers),
Uncertainty in the estimates of the simulation parameters,
Accuracy and fit of the reconstructed cases and simulation models,
- Uncertainty in the OSEE estimates of overall numbers of crashes and fatalities and
system effectiveness based on
The aforementioned ratios,
Ability of the systems model to fit and control for the effects of other vehicle
technologies, vehicle parameters, and human and environmental factors,
16
A preliminary SIM assessment was made using a preliminary version of the SIM tool in order to select test
cases that were expected be representative of the crash scenarios which A-CMBS would have some effect. These
assumptions were necessary to accomplish this preliminary assessment.
53
The variation in real-world US conflict and crash events and the number of
representative cases in the systems model (e.g., 7500 crash cases),
Variability in the accident data used to calibrate the systems model.
The CSSM does not currently provide estimates of uncertainty in the various effectiveness ratios.
However, the numbers of cases used to compute these ratios are reported, and this provides an
indication of uncertainty in the results. For example, effectiveness ratios based on 100 cases
would tend to be more reliable than estimates based on three cases.
The OSEE estimates the uncertainty in the results, due to some sources of variation, as follows:
- The number of fatalities from the FARS databases, for a given make, model, body
type, model year, and calendar year.
- The number of vehicles involved in accidents from the GES databases, for a given
make, model, body type, model year, and calendar year.
Assuming that the number of fatalities ( n ) is Poisson distributed with expected value q , then the
and the 95% standard error for the expected number of fatalities is approximately
confidence interval for the expected number of fatalities is approximately
q = n 1.96 n (14)
for large n [Rde, 1989]. This assumption is also extended to weighted GES cases, assuming the
variation in the individual case weightings is small compared to the average case weighting, as
summarized in Table 6.
Table 6: Basic Sources of Uncertainty in the OSEE
n
Statistic Estimate Assumed Standard
Error of the
Estimate
Main Assumption
Number of fatalities F
F
F has a Poisson distribution
Number of vehicles
involved in accidents
n W W A
n
k
k
= =

=1
n W
n has a Poisson distribution
( )
2
2
W W W
k
<<
Fatality rate
VRY
F
VRY
F
F has a Poisson distribution
Accident rate
VRY
n W
VRY
A
=
VRY
n W
n has a Poisson distribution
( )
2
2
W W W
k
<<
The basic sources of uncertainly listed in Table 6 are then propagated throughout the OSEE
accident and fatality estimates using the equations and assumptions listed in Table 7. The
54
difference equation is used to estimate the uncertainty in the reduction in accidents and fatalities
due to the ACAT installation.
Table 7: Assumed Uncertainty Propagation Equations in the OSEE
Operation Estimate Assumed Variance
of the Estimate
Main Assumption
Multiply by known
value C
C x z = 2 2 2
x z
s C s =
C is known
Product
x y z = 2 2 2 2 2
y x z
s x s y s + =
x and y are independent,
2 2
x s
x
<< ,
2 2
y s
y
<<
Ratio
y
x
z =
2
2
2
2
2
2
y
s
y
x
s
s
y x
z
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
x and y are independent,
2 2
x s
x
<< ,
2 2
y s
y
<<
Sum
y x z + = 2 2 2
y x z
s s s + =
x and y are independent
Difference
y x z = 2 2 2
y x z
s s s =
z is independent of x or y,
whichever has the smaller
uncertainty
Weighted sum

=
=
n
k
k k
x w z
1

=
|
.
|

\
|
=
n
k
k k z
n
z
x w s
1
2
2
-
4.3 Method of Approach in the Development of the SIM Tool
This section lists the method of approach used in the development of the SIM tool and the
associated evaluations. These are grouped according to whether they are applicable to any safety
technology, or to the subject category of safety technology (i.e., Frontal ACATs) or specifically
for the subject safety technology itself (i.e., A-CMBS).
4.3.1 For Any Safety Technology
1. For SIM evaluation purposes, the hardware and software of the safety technology being
evaluated is provided by its developer to the evaluator as black boxes with defined inputs
and outputs.
2. US level safety benefits (i.e., count reduction in collisions and fatalities) are estimated by
scaling the counts calculated for the modeled fleet (from the estimated safety
effectiveness for that fleet) for each non-technology specific crash type to the counts at the
US level in the calendar year of interest. The number of crashes and vehicles involved in
crashes by crash type were queried from the NASS/GES database and the fatalities were
queried from FARS. The non-technology specific crash types are defined in App AC.
55
3. The driver model for the SIM tool can be based on a human operator model (e.g., NASA
MIDAS [Hart, 2001], including:
Vision model, with scan, fixation, distraction
Look-ahead and feedback path and speed control for normal operation
Conflict detection
Discrete crash avoidance braking and/or steering commands from memory
Reaction matrix to safety system warnings, describing a distribution of human
reactions to warnings as observed in tests
4. The pedestrian conflict/crash cases to be simulated and tested involve pedestrians for whom
the stature is determinable from the PCDS case information.
5. Several representative Track (or Driving Simulator) tests can be selected from the sample
of simulation cases for each Technology Relevant Crash Type, and used to calibrate the
simulation and Driving Simulator models of the vehicle and safety technology.
6. The US Fleet modeled in the current Overall Safety Effects Estimator, which comprises
all US Light Passenger Vehicles manufactured by Honda with VIN coding and Polk
vehicle registration data, is assumed to be representative of the entire US light passenger
vehicle fleet.
7. The numbers of vehicles in operation in the future are forecasted using the most recent
registration data and inputs of estimated future sales, and assumed vehicle retention
rate/scrappage rate trends. The assumed retention rate trends are currently based on Wards
vehicles-in-operation [Wards, 2002] and EPA sales data [Hellman, 2004]. These rates could
be updated based on NHTSA Vehicle Survivability and Travel Mileage Schedules [Lu,
2006].
8. The US weighting adjustment factor is assumed to depend only on the number of vehicles
( ANVEH
k
) and the calendar year ( AYEAR
k
).
For the AART accident reconstructions and CSSM crash avoidance simulations
9. It is assumed that the pre-crash lateral-directional equations of motion for each vehicle are
[Bundorf, 1976].

X = u cos vsin
Y

= usin + v cos (15)


u
= r =
2
o
w
a + b + u K
u
and
56
2
v = u| ~ r(b u D ) (16)
r
where
K
u
= D
f
D
r
(17)
For the CSSM crash avoidance simulation
10. It is assumed that the driver has adapted to the vehicle steering wheel gain and braking gain,
and that his outputs can be expressed as vehicle inputs (e.g., front wheel steer angle and
master cylinder brake line pressure).
11. Prior to any crash avoidance action, the steering and braking control of the driver model is
modeled by a cross-over feedback control model, with an outer loop lateral path cross-over
frequency of approximately 1 rad/sec and speed cross-over frequency of approximately 0.5
rad/sec. There are feed-forward paths based on the accident reconstructions representing
intended path curvature and intended speed. The former is based on the positions of the
digitized scene diagram vehicle icons as well as presumed future intended target lane
centers. The latter is based on the coded traveling speed if available, or else the posted
speed limit plus 7 km/h. The latter was done based on analysis of results in [IIHS, 2008].
For ATB crash simulation for CSSM and AART
12. All vehicles and objects are constrained to move without vertical, pitch, or roll degrees-of-
freedom.
13. Currently, it is assumed that the ATB contact energy absorption factor R=E and the
permanent deflection function G=1-E, where E=0.0225.
17
Potentially, this could be changed
in the future to be make-model specific, based on, e.g., for example, stiffness categories
used in NASS/CDS SMASH delta-V calculations [Tsongos, 1986] or analysis of
published NCAP crash test data, if desired.
14. If a collision occurs involving 2 vehicles (i.e., the Subject Vehicle and the vehicle GST), it
is assumed that the vehicle delta-Vx and delta-Vy can be estimated given the impact
conditions and vehicle parameters, using the ATB model as described in Section 4 and
[Fleck, 1981; Cheng, 1998]. The vehicle parameters used to estimate the delta-V would be
17
R and G are factors used in the ATB contact force vs. deflection algorithm described in Section 7.5 of [Fleck,
1981]. R is an Energy Absorption factor where a value of 1 indicates that all of the energy can be recovered if the
deflection returns to 0 (i.e., no energy loss after contact) and 0 corresponding to maximum energy loss. G is
Deflection factor where a value of 0 corresponds to no permanent deflection and 1 corresponds to maximum
permanent deflection. R=0.0225 and G=0.9775 is a rough approximation for an inelastic contact resulting in a large
amount of energy absorption and permanent deflection as typically observed in crash test contacts.
57
based on the Subject Vehicle and Collision Partner in the original CDS case, not the test
subject vehicle or Guided Soft Target.
For CSSM crash outcome analysis
15. The estimated driver FE and POF functions have the following assumed empirical model
form:
z
ELU e
=
`
z
POF 1+ e
)
(18)
where
2 2 2 2
|
0
AV

| A
+ ( )
AV

|
( )
A z = + |
( ) ( )
+
( ) +
V
( )
+ |
( )
+
+
V
( ) +
x x x x y y y y
(19)
and where
0 if AV
i
> 0
AV
( )
=

AV
i
if AV
i
< 0
, i = { } x, y (20)
AV if AV > 0
AV
( )
=

i i
i
+

0 if AV
i
s 0
For purposes of AART crash reconstruction only
16. The dynamic motions of each vehicle during the conflict and crash sequence comprise three
phases as illustrated in Figure 14. These phases are the:
Pre-crash phase where the vehicle dynamics are dominated by lateral and longitudinal
forces produced by rolling tires with zero slide slip and where the steering angle rate
is assumed to be a stochastic random variable (i.e., the steering angle power spectral
density is 1/s
2
-like); which can be approximated by a quasi-steady 4
th
order vehicle
directional control model;
Impact phase where the vehicle dynamics are dominated by forces resulting from
contact with a single vehicle or fixed object; which can be modeled using the US
DOT Crash Victim Simulator/US Air Force Articulated Total Body (ATB) program
[Fleck, 1981; Cheng, 1998];
Post-impact phase where the vehicle dynamics are dominated by lateral and
longitudinal forces produced by assumed non-rolling tires that are sliding on the road
with constant friction coefficient; which can be approximated by constant
translational and angular deceleration until the vehicle comes to rest. The non-rolling
tire assumption is made in view of the alternative possibilities of maximum braking
after impact, resulting in locked tires (without ABS) or fully cycling ABS; or
58
skidding due to one or more wheel-axle-suspension assemblies being broken or
jammed by the collision, among other possibilities.
Pre-impact Impact Post-impact
time
POI
(-)
POI
(+)
POR
Figure 14: AART Assumed Crash Phases for Vehicle Dynamics
impact
|a
x
|
a
A
"Pre-Event
Movement"
"Attempted
Avoidance
Maneuver"
a
B
0
0.75 g braking
needed to avoid
collision
time
v
x
"Police Reported
Travel Speed"
or "Speed Limit"
+ 7 km/h
AV
0
(-) (+) time
t
B
t
A
, t
SCC
t
POI
t
POI
t
POR
Figure 15: Assumed Speed Profile for AART Reconstructions
59
17. The assumed tire-road friction coefficients for the case-coded surfaces are listed in Table 8.
Table 8: Assumed Tire-Road Friction Coefficient
VRDCOND Roadway Surface Condition Assumed Friction Coefficient
()
1 Dry 1.00
2 Wet 0.60
3 Snow or slush 0.30
4 Ice 0.15
5 Sand/dirt/oil 0.50
8 Other 1.00
9 Unknown 1.00
.
NASS/CDS SURCOND variable values and coding definitions
18. The assumed Pre-Event Movement Longitudinal Acceleration is listed in Table 9.
Table 9: Assumed Pre-Event Longitudinal Acceleration
VPCMOVE
PPCMOVE
Pre-Event Movement CDS
PREMOVE
PCDS
PPREVHMO
Assumed
a
B
/ (g)
00 No driver present 00 98
2
-
01 Going straight 01 01 0.00
02 Decelerating in traffic lane 02 02 -0.25
03 Accelerating in traffic lane 03 - 0.25
04 Starting in traffic lane 04 03 0.25
05 Stopped in traffic lane 05 04 0.00
06 Passing or overtaking another vehicle 06 05 0.25
07 Disabled or parked in travel lane 07 06 0.00
08 Leaving a parking position 08 07 0.15
09 Entering a parking position 09 08 -0.15
10 Turning right 10 09 0.00
11 Turning left 11 10 0.00
12 Making a U-turn 12 11 0.00
13 Backing up (other than for parking position) 13 12 -0.15
14 Negotiating a curve 14 13 0.00
15 Changing lanes 15 14 0.00
16 Merging 16 15 0.00
17 Successful avoidance maneuver to a
previous critical event
17 16 0.00
97 Other 97 97 0.00
99 Unknown 99 99 0.00
Based on NASS/CDS PREMOVE and/or PCDS PPREVHMO variable coding definitions
2
Numbers in blue font indicate values that were recoded in order to be consistent with CDS values
60
19. The assumed Attempted Avoidance Maneuver Longitudinal Acceleration is listed in
Table 10.
Table 10: Assumed Crash Avoidance Longitudinal Acceleration
VPCMAN
PPCMAN
Attempted Avoidance Maneuver Assumed
a
A
/ (g)
00 No driver present -
01 No avoidance maneuver (actions) =a
B
/
02 Braking (no lockup) -0.50
03 Braking (lockup) -0.75
04 Braking (lockup unknown) -0.50
05 Releasing brakes -0.20
06 Steering left -0.10
07 Steering right -0.10
08 Braking and steering left -0.40
09 Braking and steering right -0.40
10 Accelerating 0.25
11 Accelerating and steering left 0.25
12 Accelerating and steering right 0.25
98 Other action -0.25
99 Unknown -0.25
.
NASS/CDS MANEUVER variable values and coding definitions
20. Currently, the initial, pre-impact reference trajectory used to linearize the path and
control identification is assumed to be an arc with constant curvature (including the
possibility of zero curvature) and constant steer angle (i.e., a neutral steer vehicle with zero
sideslip angle).
21. The assumed uncertainty in the pre-conflict speed is 3 m/s if the vehicle was coded as
stopped, and 10 m/s if the vehicle was coded as not stopped.
4.3.2 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., Frontal ACATs)
22. The driver is momentarily distracted (by a standardized ring tone and distraction lamp from
the passenger seat forward-top-right corner (i.e., for which peripheral visibility of the
forward road scene is small), during which a sudden transition in Collision Partner conflict
level occurs.
23. Provided that the test conditions are to be taken from the set of all reconstructable real-world
collisions, it can be assumed that the domain of the time-space relationships for which the
61
A-CMBS has some effect within each TRCT can be characterized by the following
summary indices:

cp
(t
scc
)
sv
(t ) - the absolute value of the heading angle of the conflict partner
scc
relative to the subject vehicle (deg) at t
scc
,
Subject vehicle velocity (m/s) at t
scc
,
Conflict partner velocity (m/s) at t
scc
,
Conflict partner acceleration (g), at t
scc
.
The latter indices were used because they describe the vehicle and conflict partner positions
and motions relative to each other and to the ground and these are likewise assumed to be
fundamentally related to Frontal ACAT functionality.
24. By selecting the 16
th
and 84
th
percentiles of the aforementioned indices, one is not assuming
the key variables have Normal distribution, but rather one is selecting a range that would
correspond to 1-sigma values if the variables were Normally distributed. 1-sigma values
are suggested because they are considered to span a relatively large (i.e., 68%) but still
central or main portion of the sample, but not necessarily of the more extreme (i.e., 2-
sigma (95%); or 3-sigma (99%)) cases, which tend to have strange or unusual
characteristics.
4.3.3 For the Subject Safety Technology (i.e., A-CMBS)
25. It is also assumed that the case is not technology relevant if the Subject Vehicle is stopped
prior to the critical pre-crash event.
26. In the A-CMBS off condition it was assumed that the driver braking and steering were the
same as in the reconstruction of the original collision.
Only for the preliminary SIM estimates of A-CMBS effectiveness, for purposes of test case
selection
18
27. Possible collateral collisions of the subject vehicle with objects in the environment due to
the drivers collision avoidance maneuvers (steering, primarily) were not considered.
28. The CAST model of the distance and azimuth sensor system for sensing other vehicles
assumes that all vehicles and obstacles modeled in the CAST environment model were
perceived by the A-CMBS system. That is, there are no failures modeled here based on
possible failures of the sensor system.
18
A preliminary SIM assessment was made using a preliminary version of the SIM tool in order to select test
cases that were expected to be representative of the crash scenarios for which A-CMBS would have some effect.
These assumptions were necessary to accomplish this preliminary assessment.
62
29. In order to represent distraction, it was assumed that the subject vehicle driver is visually
fixating on the distraction lamp location (as a surrogate for all types of distraction), between
times T
1
and T
2
, where T
1
and T
2
are defined as follows:
T
2
is the time the subject vehicle begins emergency braking in the reconstructed
accident (i.e., T
A
in Figure 15 for the subject vehicle)
T
1
is the time the collision partner begins emergency braking in the reconstructed
accident (i.e., T
A
in Figure 15 for the collision partner) or T
2
-2 sec, whichever occurs
first. T
1
is also limited to be no earlier than the start of the simulation, which is 5 sec
prior to impact in the reconstructed case.
30. Only for purposes of this preliminary SIM assessment, it was assumed that the subject
vehicle driver always responds to the A-CMBS warning 1. In general, the probability of
response may be less than 1.0 and may depend on various attributes (e.g., magnitudes,
spectra and locations) of the visual, audio, and tactile warnings, and the individual driver,
which were measured and modeled during subsequent stages of this project.
31. Only for purposes of this preliminary SIM assessment and for selection of candidate test
cases, it was assumed that the subject vehicle driver applied "braking only" in response to
the A-CMBS warning 1. It was further assumed that the braking delay time was 0.82 sec
and the braking magnitude was 0.90g x mu. The "braking only" response is based on results
from previous Driving Simulator studies which indicated that 75% of the emergency
braking maneuvers involved braking only. The time delay and magnitude are the 50th
percentile values observed in these same studies.
4.3.3.1 Limitations in the Available Data
This section describes limitations in the data used for the SIM tool and A-CMBS evaluation
described in this report.
32. Missing data or parameters that would be useful to improve the SIM include:
NASS/CDS cases reconstructed without the swerve noted in Section 4.2.2.
Refined adjacent lane coded categories and coding protocols in order to better model
the proper steering direction to be used to avoid a collision, e.g., as in side swipe
crashes (see Footnote 6 in App B).
A greater number of and more recent reconstructed cases, especially in TRCTs in
which there were few available qualified cases.
Data describing ACAT sensor noise effects and additional objects, for inclusion in
ACAT models, as these may influence the collision and fatality probability reductions
and resulting effectiveness estimates.
63

Future safety trends
5 DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS
The SIM tool uses data from several sources, as illustrated for example, in Figure 16. The main
data files and sources are listed in Table 11.
PopuIation
exposure
data
Assess past risk
(by model, body type, model year,
and calendar year)
PoIice
reported
accident
data
PD
cases
PoIice
reported
accident
data
reduction
FataI
accident
data
FataI
cases
FataI
accident
data
reduction
Predict change in risk
(relative to baseline)
Predicted
change in
A/VRY
Predicted
change in
F/A
Accident and fatality
probability functions
C
B
BaseIine
condition
(e.g., current
design)
StatisticaI modeIs
and/or
computer
simuIations
S
i
C
A
New
condition
(e.g., new
design)
Crash
scenario
data
reduction
In-depth
accident
data
Crash
scenario
cases
F/A
Predicted
change in
VRY
Legend
Estimated
scrappage
rates
VehicIe
parameter
data
Future
saIes and
instaIIation
rates
SeIect
Important
VariabIes
VRY A/VRY
F number of fatalities
A number of property damage
Baseline Predict Risk for
accidents
condition New Condition VRY number of vehicle registration-
years
Past safety trends
A
c
t
u
a
l

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

F/A a measure of crashworthiness and
compatibility risk
A/VRY a measure of crash avoidance risk
VRY A/VRY F/A
PD property damage accident
Figure 16: Overall Safety Effects Estimator Internal Data Flow
64
Table 11: SIM Data Sources
Database
description
Source Link Used by
Modules
FARS ASCII
Sequential
Analysis files
NHTSA ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/FARS/####/Seql/ 1.1, 4
FARS latitude
and longitude
file
NHTSA http://www-
fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/QueryTool/QuerySection/Select
Year.aspx
1.1
NASS/GES
ASCII flat files
NHTSA ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/GES/GES##/ASCII/ 1.1, 4
NASS/CDS
ASCII
Sequential
Analysis files
NHTSA ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/NASS/####/ASCII/ 1.1
NASS/CDS
scene diagrams
NHTSA http://www-
nass.nhtsa.dot.gov/BIN/NASSCaseCS.exe/NASSCa
seCSScene?CASEID=...
1.2
NASS/PCDS
ASCII flat files
NHTSA ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/Ped/ASCII/ 1.1
NASS/PCDS
Reports
NHTSA http://www-nass.nhtsa.dot.gov/pedreports/ 1.2
VTTI event
satellite images
www.terraser
vice.net
http://www.terraservice.net/GetImageArea.ashx?t=
4&s=9&w=2000&h=2000&lon=
[longitude]&lat=[latitude]
1.2
Polk NVPP
vehicle
registrations
(US level)
R.L. Polk http://usa.polk.com/products/1_nvpp.htm 4
5.1 Safety Technology Data
In general, the data available to the ACAT system in the physical vehicle are measured directly
from on-board sensors, and are communicated throughout the vehicle using a CAN interface. For
the purposes of simulation, the input variables are calculated based on the outputs from the
vehicle dynamics models of the subject vehicle and collision partner, respectively.
Data describing the ACAT are in the form of a MATLAB Simulink model and information from
the ACAT designer about the crash types for which the ACAT is intended to have a benefit. The
Simulink model currently assumes inputs from the vehicle and sensors; and outputs to the
vehicle and driver. ACAT model inputs include:
- Subject vehicle:
65
o Velocity
o Yaw rate
o Brake pressure
o Steering wheel angle
- Collision partner attributes relative to the subject vehicle sensor:
o Range
o Azimuth
o Horizontal angle
o Rates of the above
ACAT model outputs include:
- ACAT braking (combined with driver braking)
- Visual warning
- Audible warning
- Tactile warning
The ACAT warning magnitudes are calibrated using laboratory tests. The ACAT function is
validated using six driver-not-in-the-loop Track tests per each primary TRCT, based on
reconstructed real crashes. The advantages of using reconstructed real crash cases as further
discussed in Section 3.1, are that they are more likely to be realistic than a synthesized test;
that the tool is being calibrated in actual cases and combinations of conditions in which it will be
applied for evaluation purposes; and that they include co-variations that have been observed to
occur among all the case variables (i.e., not just those judged to be key variables). Whether real
crashes or synthesized crashes, a key objective of the driver-not-in-the-loop tests is to cover the
ACAT response envelope including the expected boundaries of the response envelope.
In addition, data describing the effectiveness of other safety technologies and their installation
rates, and other vehicle and driver/environmental factors are used to control for (i.e., include the
interactions of the subject safety technology with) these effects in the Overall Safety Effects
Estimator (Module 2). These technologies or effects, references, and data sources are listed in
Table 12.
Table 12: Other Safety Technology Data used in the OSEE
Technology or Effect Reference Data Source
ABS installation rate [Farmer, 2001] (fatalities)
[Hertz, 2000] (crashes)
Manufacturer, Wards
Automotive Yearbook
Side airbags [Braver and Kyrychenko, 2003] Manufacturer, Safercars.gov
Electronic Stability Control [Dang, 2004] Manufacturer
Curb weight, wheelbase, and
Track
[Van Auken, 2003] Manufacturer and other
sources
Driver age and gender [Van Auken, 2002] Estimated from NASS/GES
66
5.2 Vehicle Characteristics Data
Data describing the vehicle wheelbase, length, and width is obtained from several sources,
including the NASS/CDS and PCDS cases, NHTSAs vehicle parameter database [McCullough,
1995], Wards Automotive Yearbooks [Wards, 2002], and Automotive News Market Databooks.
The SIM tool Module 1.1 integrates this data into the crash scenario data file for each vehicle
involved in a crash scenario. This data is in turn used by Modules 1.3 (AART), 3 (CSSM), and 4
(OSEE).
Data summarizing passenger vehicle contact stiffness in Table 13 was obtained from [Swanson,
2003]. Based on these results it was assumed that the contact stiffness of a vehicle to a rigid
barrier is 1000 N/mm. Therefore, it was assumed that the mutual contact stiffness was 1000
N/mm for a 1-vehicle collision, and 500 N/mm in 2-vehicle collisions.
Table 13: Average Stiffness Measures (N/mm) from Passenger NCAP Tests between MY
1998-2001
All Mini Light Compact Medium Heavy
n k n k n k n k n k n k
Initial stiffness 73 1376 1 1041 7 1254 15 1600 26 1218 24 1458
Static stiffness 90 1500 1 2024 10 1143 18 1552 36 1556 25 1502
Dynamic stiffness 102 781 1 725 10 618 21 767 42 770 28 870
Test weight (kg) 839-1065 1066-1292 1293-1519 1520-1746 1746 and over
Source: [Swanson et al., 2003]
Notes:
n indicates the number of tests that were averaged,
k indicates the average stiffness (N/mm).
Data summarizing the vehicle collision energy absorption factor and coefficient of restitution
was obtained from [Monson, 1999] and [Niehoff, 2005]. The average coefficient of restitution
results from Monson listed in Table 14 varies from 0.105 to 0.160. The average coefficient of
restitution for 47 passenger vehicles in [Niehoff, 2005], Table 17 is 0.15. Based on these results
it was assumed that the coefficient of restitution is e=0.15. The corresponding energy absorption
factor is E=e=0.0225.
Table 14: Coefficient of Restitution by Vehicle Type at 48 and 56 km/h in Vehicle-to-Fixed
Rigid Barrier Full-Frontal Collisions
Vehicle Type
FMVSS 208 (48 kph) NCAP (56 kph)
Ave c o n Ave c o n
Passenger Car 0.139 0.045 53 0.152 0.028 70
Pickup Truck 0.105 0.023 5 0.160 0.036 5
Sport Utility 0.135 0.058 6 0.146 0.026 8
Van 0.131 0.044 7 0.143 0.041 8
Source: [Monson, 1999], Table 3.
67
The OSEE (Module 4) uses vehicle retention rates to estimate the number of vehicles, by model
year, in future calendar years. The vehicle retention rates vs. vehicle age (Calendar year-model
year) in Table 15 were estimated from vehicles in-operation data from Wards Automotive
Yearbooks. The retention rate is the fraction of vehicles that are registered on J uly 1 that are
expected to survive until J uly 1 of the next year. The retention rate for the first year is greater
than 1 because not all of the vehicles are sold and registered by J uly 1 of the first year.
Table 15: Assumed Passenger Vehicle Retention Rate
Vehicle Age
(Calendar Year-Model Year)
Number of vehicles on J uly 1, Calendar Year+1
Number of vehicles on J uly 1, Calendar year
Passenger Cars Light Trucks and Vans
0 1.345 1.293
1 0.990 0.974
2 0.987 0.965
3 0.994 0.968
4 0.990 0.966
5 0.986 0.958
6 0.979 0.968
7 0.970 0.957
8 0.970 0.957
9 0.958 0.944
10 0.946 0.933
11 0.919 0.913
12 0.900 0.910
13 0.879 0.889
14 0.875 0.900
15 0.875 0.900
20 0.900 0.900
30 0.900 0.900
The OSEE currently assumes that the numbers of crashes and fatalities is proportional to the
vehicle exposure as quantified by number of registered vehicle-years. It was assumed that the
number of vehicle-registered-years in a calendar year is related to the number of vehicles
registered on J uly 1 of the calendar year according to Table 16. It is assumed that all of the
vehicles registered on J uly 1 are registered for the entire calendar year. Note that the exposure
rate for the first year is also assumed to be 1 because, even though not all of the current model
year vehicles are registered for the entire year. This is based on the following assumptions:
- The average VRY per vehicle in first year is assumed to be 0.71875 based on the
assumption that vehicles are placed in operation at a constant rate starting from
September 1 of the MY-1 calendar year until August 31 of the MY calendar year.
Therefore VRY per vehicle =1-0.75/2 =0.71875.
68
- The number of registered vehicles reported on J uly 1st is 9/12 of the total number of
vehicles sold. If there is a 0 to 14 day time delay between the date the vehicle is sold and
when it appears on the state registration files, then the fraction of all MY model year
vehicles sold that are reported on J uly 1st of the CY=MY calendar year is between 0.75
and 0.71.
Therefore the number of registered vehicles reported on J uly 1 of the MY model year is
approximately the same as the number of VRY for MY model year vehicles in MY=CY calendar
year.
Table 16: Assumed Vehicle Exposure per Number of Vehicles Registered on July 1
Vehicle Age
(Calendar Year-Model Year)
Registered Vehicle Years/Number of Registered
Vehicles on J uly 1
Passenger Cars Light Trucks and Vans
0 1 1
1 1 1
30 1 1
The OSEE can also use vehicles in-operation data from Wards to interpolate Polk NVPP

[Polk, 2004] vehicle registration data between calendar years, if this data is not available.
5.3 Other Proprietary Data (e.g., Polk Data)
The OSEE uses Polk National Vehicle Population Profile

data, e.g., [Polk, 2004]. This database


lists the number of vehicles registered on J uly 1 by calendar year, make, model, model year, and
body type, as indicated in Table 17. There are separate ASCII data files for passenger cars and
light trucks for each calendar year (1995, and 1997 through 2005). Registration weighted
average curb weight is also included for 1998 through 2005 calendar year passenger car files.
Light truck (and van) data does not include curb weight, however it is also broken down by the
drive wheels (REAR or FOUR).
69
Table 17: Polk NVPP Data File Format
ASCII data record
character positions
Passenger Car Files Light Truck and Van Files
Start Stop
1 4 Calendar year Calendar year
5 24 Polk make name Polk make name
25 44 Polk model name Polk model name
45 48 Model year Model year
49 55 Polk vehicle type Polk vehicle type
56 75 Polk body type Polk body type
76 79 Curb weight (lbs) Drive wheels
80 89 Number of registered vehicles Number of registered vehicles
5.4 Crash Data
The SIM tool uses crash data from the NHTSA FARS and NASS/GES, NASS/CDS, and
NASS/PCDS databases.
A limitation of the FARS and NASS crash data is that they do not include vehicle safety related
crashes, injuries, and fatalities that occur in:
non-traffic crashes (e.g., single-vehicle crashes on private roads, collisions with
pedestrians on driveways, and two-vehicle crashes in parking facilities) and,
non-crash incidents (e.g., injured by closing door, carbon monoxide poisoning).
It is assumed that the A-CMBS is not effective in these types of crashes and incidents; however
this limitation may be more important in other safety technologies such as those intended to
address back-over crashes. These types of crashes and incidents are addressed by NHTSAs Not-
in-Traffic Surveillance System [NHTSA, 2009].
5.4.1 FARS Data
Fatal crash data are obtained from the NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
database [Tessmer, 2006]. FARS is a census of US motor vehicle traffic crashes that result in
fatality to a vehicle occupant or non-motorist, from injuries resulting from a traffic crash, that
occur within 30 days after the crash. This data has a hierarchical structure with crash, vehicle,
driver, and person level data records that are linked together. For each fatal crash there are
typically about 150 coded data variables (not including case identifier and data linkage
variables), comprising:
45 crash level variables, including latitude and longitude beginning in 2001,
70
45 vehicle level variables, including vehicle make, model, model year, and VIN
information,
28 driver level variables, and
35 person level variables, including age, gender, and police reported injury severity
(KABCOU scale).
The Overall Safety Effects Estimator (SIM Module 4) uses the 1995 through 2004 ASCII
Sequential Analysis Files", which can be downloaded from the NHTSA FTP website listed in
Table 11. This data is used to estimate vehicle fatality rates by make, model, model year, and
calendar year, for prior calendar years; and to estimate future fatalities with the ACAT present
based on relative changes in fatality rates predicted by the OSEE Systems Model and ACAT
effectiveness.
In addition to the primary use for the OSEE, Module 1.1 also uses the FARS ASCII data files, in
combination with latitude and longitude data. The latitude and longitude data is downloaded
separately from the FARS query website also listed in Table 11. Module 1.1 uses the FARS data
to obtain additional information that would not otherwise be available for the crash scenarios
extracted from the CDS and PCDS data. The FARS data is linked to the fatal CDS and PCDS
cases to provide:
Latitude and longitude or traffic way information for fatal non-pedestrian (CDS) cases.
This information is useful for obtaining satellite images for crash reconstruction and
Driving Simulator scenario development.
Vehicle driver age and gender for fatal pedestrian (PCDS) cases. This information is used
by the OSEE to control for the effects of driver age and gender in the systems model.
Vehicle driver height and weight, for cases where this data is coded in the FARS data.
Some of the limitations of the FARS data are:
Coded database variables are not generally compatible with NASS database variables
(e.g., NASS crash type).
There is insufficient information to reconstruct the pre-crash and crash time histories, for
the purposes of simulating and testing the effects of ACATs like the Honda A-CMBS.
Information not provided which is needed for crash reconstruction include:
Crash scene diagrams,
Delta-V estimates
Latitude and longitude data is not available prior to 2001.
ASCII Sequential Analysis Files are not available after 2004 (More recent FARS data is
available in other proprietary data formats which are not currently supported by the SIM
tool).
71
5.4.2 NASS/GES Data
Police reported traffic crash data are obtained from the NASS General Estimates System (GES).
This data is a stratified sample of approximately 57,000 police reported crashes per year from an
estimated 6 million police reported crashes that occur annually. This data has a hierarchical
structure with crash, vehicle/driver, and person level data records that are linked together. This
data typically comprise:
50 crash level variables,
60 vehicle and driver level variables, including vehicle make, model, model year, and
VIN information, and
30 person level variables, including age, gender, and police reported injury severity
(KABCOU scale).
Each database record includes a weighting factor that is used to estimate the corresponding
number of annual US crashes, vehicle, or persons. This case weighting is inversely related to the
probability that the case was sampled, as described in [Bondy, 1997]. There are typically about
57,000 crash cases and 100,000 crash involved vehicles in this database per calendar year, which
when weighted according to the case weightings, represent an estimated 11 million vehicles
involved in the 6 million police reported crashes each year.
Module 1.1 can extract crash scenario cases from the GES ASCII crash, vehicle, and person data
files, for the purpose of including non-tow-away crash scenarios in the OSEE systems model.
This module extracts only non-CDS applicable (i.e., non-tow-away) GES cases (as an
approximation, GES STRATUM 3 and 4), in order to avoid over-representing these types of
crashes when merged with CDS cases. There are about 35,000 vehicle level cases that meet this
criterion per year. These non-CDS applicable (i.e., non-tow-away) GES cases are appended to
the file containing the CDS (i.e., tow-away) cases to create a merged data set.
Some of the limitations of the GES data are:
Data are based on information in police crash reports, which may not be as reliable and
complete as information from in-depth at-scene or on-scene investigations.
There is insufficient information to reconstruct the pre-crash and crash time histories, for
the purposes of simulating and testing the effects of ACATs like the Honda A-CMBS.
Information not provided which is needed for crash reconstruction include:
Crash scene diagrams,
Delta-V estimates
Latitude and longitude, for downloading satellite images.
Vehicle VIN information is often missing or not valid.
72
5.4.3 NASS/CDS Data
In-depth crash data for more severe traffic crashes are obtained from the NASS Crashworthiness
Data System (CDS). This data is a stratified sample of approximately 4500 crashes involving a
CDS applicable tow-away crash per year from an estimated 2.5 million CDS applicable crashes
that occur annually. This data has a hierarchical structure with several data sets, as summarized
in Table 18, that are linked together.
Table 18: NASS/CDS Datasets
Data Set Typical Number of
Variables
Typical Number of Records
per Calendar Year
Accident 24 4500
Accident Event 13 8200
General Vehicle 101 7800
Exterior Vehicle 63 5800
Interior Vehicle 101 5200
Occupant Assessment 80 10000
Occupant Injury 23 28000
Module 1.1.1 extracts coded data and text summaries for qualifying crash scenario cases from
the CDS sequential data files. The coded data are saved in an ASCII tab-separated data file with
1 record for each vehicle, using the variable renaming and coding conventions described in
App F. Text summaries are saved in separate text files, one file per case. Qualifying CDS cases
are cases that meet the following criteria:
Have non-zero case weighting (in order to exclude non-representative case data from
special studies),
Involve 1, 2, or 3 vehicles (in order to exclude crashes involving a large number of
vehicles that are difficult to classify),
Do not have pedestrian contact (in order to avoid double counting when merged with
PCDS data),
Have a general vehicle record and exterior vehicle record with vehicle number between 1
and the number of vehicles involved, and a person record for the driver, for each involved
vehicle (in order to exclude cases with incomplete data),
Have a crash event record (The CDS version of the AART can currently only reconstruct
cases with a single crash event).
The case weightings need to be adjusted since not all of the CDS cases meet these qualifying
criteria. It is assumed that the probability that a CDS case will meet these qualification criteria
depends only on the calendar year and number of vehicles involved in the crash. Therefore, the
case weightings for each qualifying case ( ACWGHT
k
) are computed according to the following
73
equation, which adjusts for the exclusion of non-qualifying cases and the number of calendar
years in the desired data set:
RIFX S(ANVEH , AYEAR )
k k k
ACWGHT
k
= (21)
N
year
where
RIFX
k
is the original CDS ratio inflation factor or case weighting for the kth case.
S(ANVEH , AYEAR
k
) is a weighting adjustment factor, and
k
N
year
is the number of database years (e.g., 2 years).
The weighting adjustment factor is:

RIFX
k
{{ANVEH =i} {AYEAR = j ke }}
k k
S( ) i, j = (22)

RIFX
k
ke{ { =i} {AYEAR = Qualifyingcases ANVEH
k

k
j}}
where the denominator and numerator are the weighted number of cases and qualifying cases in
the CDS database. The weighting adjustment factors for the qualifying 2000 through 2003 CDS
cases are listed in Table 19.
Table 19: Weighting Adjustment Factors for the Qualifying 2000 through 2003 CDS Data
Number of Vehicles Weighting Adjustment Factor
(weighted CDS case per weighted qualifying CDS case)
ANVEH 2000 CDS 2001 CDS 2002 CDS 2003 CDS
1 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3
2 3.9 4.4 3.4 3.3
3 22.6 38.9 16.0 21.2
Module 1.1.4 then combines the resulting qualifying CDS case file from Module 1.1.1 with the
corresponding pedestrian case file from Module 1.1.2. The combined crash scenario data file is
then used throughout the remainder of the SIM tool.
CDS crash scene diagrams are downloaded separately by Module 1.2 from the NASS CDS case
query website listed in Table 11.
74
Some of the limitations of the NASS/CDS data are:
A large number of cases have insufficient information to accurately reconstruct the pre-
crash and crash time histories, for the purposes of simulating and testing the effects of
ACATs like the Honda A-CMBS. This includes the following:
Cases with missing crash scene diagrams,
Cases with insufficient crash induced physical evidence to know or approximate
the point of impact and final rest position for this vehicle's Highest Delta-V
Collision Deformation Classification (as indicated by the CDS DOCTRAJ
19
variable).
Crash scene diagrams may not be to scale.
Cases with missing Delta-V estimates because they could not be reconstructed
with WINSMASH (as indicated by the CDS DVBASIS
19
variable)
In addition, a large number of cases have the following missing data for the following
variables, which could be exploited to improve the crash reconstructions:
WINSMASH algorithm inputs and outputs such as:
Vehicle yaw inertia
Impact positions (X, Y)
Translational and angular components of energy absorbed
IMPACTSP - Impact speed
19
Pre-crash velocity from EDR data
Latitude and longitude (currently from FARS data for fatal crashes).
Does not include collisions involving non-CDS applicable vehicles (e.g., large trucks,
motorcycles). Collisions with pedestrians are currently addressed by the PCDS database.
Does not include less severe (non-tow-away) crashes.
5.4.4 NASS/PCDS data
In-depth crash data for crashes involving pedestrians are obtained from the NASS Pedestrian
Crash Data System (PCDS). This data is a sample of 552 crashes involving a pedestrian. This
data has a hierarchical structure, as summarized in Table 20. It was assumed that the probability
that each pedestrian case was sampled depended only on the crash severity (injured, killed) and
vehicle type (passenger car, light truck or van).
19
See App F for glossary of crash scenario database variable names and descriptions.
75
Table 20: NASS/PCDS Datasets
Data Set Number of Variables Number of Records
Accident and Event 18 552
General Vehicle 37 552
Exterior Vehicle 51 552
Pedestrian Assessment 38 552
Pedestrian Injury 16 4500
Module 1.1.2 extracts pedestrian crash scenario cases from the PCDS ASCII sequential data files
and saves the results in an ASCII tab-separated data file with 1 record for each vehicle, using the
variable renaming and coding conventions described in App F.
Module 1.1.4 then combines the resulting pedestrian case file from Module 1.1.2 with the
corresponding qualifying CDS case file from Module 1.1.1. The combined crash scenario data
file is then used throughout the remainder of the SIM tool.
The PCDS case weightings for the desired set of calendar years (e.g., 2000 and 2001) were
conceptually estimated in Module 1.1.3 (Note that this Module has not been implemented in
software), assuming that the probability that a pedestrian crash was sampled for the PCDS
database depends only on the vehicle type (VTYPE=passenger car or light truck or van (LTV))
and whether the pedestrian was fatally injured or not, according to the equation
ACWGHT
k
= W(pedestrian injury severity
k
,VTYPE
k
) (23)
The case weightings for cases with fatally injured pedestrians were determined according to the
equation:
|
F

1,non pedestrian
(VTYPE)
|
| F
1,pedestrian
(VTYPE) |
W(fatal,VTYPE) =
|
|
(24)

f
1,pedestrian
(VTYPE)
|
F
1,non pedestrian
(VTYPE)
|
\ .
\ .
where
F
1,pedestrian
(VTYPE) is the number of fatalities in 1-vehicle pedestrian crashes involving
vehicle type VTYPE , as determined from FARS for the desired set of
calendar years,
F
1,non-pedestrian
(VTYPE) is the number of fatalities in 1-vehicle non-pedestrian crashes
involving vehicle type VTYPE , as determined from FARS for the desired set
of calendar years,
76
f
1,pedestrian
(VTYPE) is the number of fatally injured pedestrians in 1-vehicle crashes
involving vehicle type VTYPE in the NASS/PCDS database,
F

1,non -pedestrian
(VTYPE) is the estimated number of fatalities in the qualifying 1-vehicle
non-pedestrian crashes involving vehicle type VTYPE that were extracted
from the NASS/CDS database. This value was estimated according to the
equation
X F

1,non pedestrian
( ) =

ACWGHT
k
f
k
(25)
ke
qualifyingcases{ANVEH =1}
k
`

non pedestrian{VTYPE
k
= X}
)
f
k
is the number of fatalities in case k.
The case weightings for cases with non-fatally injured pedestrians were determined by replacing
f
1,pedestrian
(VTYPE) and F

1,non -pedestrian
(VTYPE) in Eqn (24) with
e
1,pedestrian
(VTYPE) is number of Fatality Equivalent injuries for non-fatally injured
pedestrians in 1-vehicle crashes involving vehicle type VTYPE in the
NASS/PCDS database, and
E

1,non-pedestrian
(VTYPE) is the estimated number of ELU
20
for non-fatally injured
persons in the qualifying 1-vehicle non-pedestrian crashes involving vehicle
type VTYPE that were extracted from the NASS/CDS database.
The pedestrian case weightings were determined by first running Module 1.1.2 without case
weightings to determine f
1,pedestrian
(VTYPE) and e
1,pedestrian
(VTYPE), and then comparing the
number of pedestrian cases to the weighted number of single vehicle crashes and the
corresponding numbers of pedestrian and single vehicle crashes in the FARS crash data. The
resulting pedestrian case weightings are input to second pass of Module 1.1.2. The resulting
pedestrian case weightings for the 2000-2003 combined data set are listed in Table 21.
20
ELU refers to ISO 13232-5 (2005) Normalized Injury Cost, sometimes referred to as Equivalent Life Units, a
measure of injuries similar to the NHTSA Fatality Equivalents.
77
Table 21: PCDS Case Weightings for the 2000-2003 Calendar Years
VTYPE ACWGHT
(Annual US Cases per Qualifying PCDS case)
Fatal Pedestrian Cases Non-Fatal Pedestrian Cases
1-Passenger car 52.5 69.2
2-LTV 69.4 45.1
PCDS crash scene diagrams are obtained by Module 1.2. This module downloads the PCDS case
reports from the NASS PCDS case query website listed in Table 11; then scene diagrams are
automatically extracted from these reports. Text summaries are not in the ASCII sequential
analysis data files, but can be manually transcribed from PCDS case reports.
Some of the limitations of the NASS/PCDS data are:
There are no case weightings to estimate the US annual values.
Information about the vehicle driver age and gender is not available; however this can be
determined from the FARS data in the 50 fatal pedestrian cases.
Data was collected from 1994 to 1998 and may not represent the current US pedestrian
crash scenarios.
Text summaries are not in the ASCII data files.
Most scene diagrams appear to be hand drawn.
5.5 Naturalistic Data
Naturalist driving data was sought in order to model pre-conflict scenarios that did not result in a
crash, and to include non-conflict and non-crash cases in the OSEE systems model. Possible
sources for naturalistic driving data include the VTTI 100-car study, UMTRI data, and the 2500
car SHRP-2 study currently in progress.
5.5.1 VTTI 100-Car Near-Crash Data
The crash data is supplemented by near-crash data from the VTTI 100-Car Naturalistic Driving
Study [Neale, 2005]. The near crash dataset compiled for this ACAT project comprises coded
data and time-domain reconstructions based on recorded electronic data, and satellite images.
The vehicle trajectories were estimated based on GPS latitude and longitude time history data.
This data was also used to locate and download satellite images.
The coded near crash data was compiled and reconstructed based on data provided by VTTI and
NHTSA. VTTI provided the following data files:
Pixilated video for 828 crash and near crash events,
A table listing the Event Nature for 830 crash and near crash events;
78
A table listing the make and model name for each vehicle ID.
The VTTI crash and near-crash events were identified by an Epoch ID. NHTSA provided an
additional table listing the text based values for 53 variables versus Webfile ID for 828 crash and
near crash events. The Epoch ID and Webfile IDs were manually matched up in order to create a
merged database.
The NHTSA provided text data were first recoded according to the VTTI coding convention
described in App B of [Dingus, 2006]. The reconstruction of the VTTI coded data was then
compared to aggregated results reported in [Dingus, 2006]. The VTTI coded data was then
recoded according the coding convention described in App F in order to merge these cases with
crash scenarios from CDS and PCDS.
VTTI event case weightings (events/year) were estimated based on the number of events in the
VTTI database, the VTTI data exposure (million VMT), and annual US exposure (million
VMT/year) as indicated in Table 22.
Table 22: VTTI Event Weightings
Severity
(A)
Number of
Sampled
Events in
VTTI
Database
(Events)
(B)
VTTI
Database
Exposure
(MVMT)
(C)
Annual US
Exposure
(MVMT/YR)
(MVMT/YR)
(D)
Annual
Number of
Events
(Events/YR)
(E)
Number of
Sampled
Events in
VTTI
Database w
Complete
Data
(Events)
(F)
Number of
Reconstructed
Events in
Honda-DRI
Database
(Events)
(G)
Event
Weighting
(Events/YR)
Crashes 82 1.84 2,765,633 123,251,014 69 68 1,812,515
Near Crashes 761 1.37 2,765,633 1,536,238,199 761 760 2,021,366
Crashes and
Near Crashes
843 830 828
Incidents 8,295 1.37 2,765,633 16,745,198,239 8,295 (1) (1)
Baseline 20,000 20,000 19,646 2,021,366
Sources and Notes:
(A)
DOT HS 810593, Table 2.4, p 22. Includes 13 crashes without complete data.
(B)
DOT HS 810593, p 309.
(C)
Traffic Safety Facts, average of 2000 and 2001 calendar years.
(D)
=(A)x(C)/(B).
(E)
DOT HS 810593, Table 2.4, p 22.
(F)
Estimated. DRI has time domain data for 35 Crashes and 792 Low G crashes and near crash
events.
(G)
=(D)/(F), assume baseline weighting=near crash weighting.
(1)
There was insufficient information available (i.e., there was no available time-domain data) to
reconstruct the VTTI Incidents.
Satellite images for the near crash cases locations have been downloaded from the
www.terraservice.net website.
79
Limitations of the 100-car crash data include:
Aggregated results for the reconstructed coded data are close to but do not exactly agree
with the values reported in [Dingus, 2006].
Some time domain cases cannot be reconstructed because of missing GPS latitude and
longitude data (i.e., data dropouts).
Information about the conflict partners is very limited. The available radar sensor data
could provide some information, however this would need further investigation.
Satellite images are not available or are outdated for some cases.
80
6 CASE SCENARIOS
The SIM tool uses coded crash (and conflict) scenarios that are extracted and downloaded from
the NHTSA crash databases and naturalistic driving databases in Modules 1.1 and 1.2, as
described in Section 5. The resulting case scenario data from these Modules comprises coded
data, text summaries, and scene diagrams or satellite images, to the extent that this information is
available.
Given this data:
The AART (Module 1.3) can then be used to reconstruct the time-space pre-crash, crash,
and post-crash trajectories for these cases, in order to complete the scenario database for
Driver-Vehicle-ACAT simulation and testing purposes,
The ACAT designer uses Module 2.1 to define the Technology Relevant Crash Types
(TRCTs) based on coded data,
The ACAT evaluator uses Module 2.2 to select a representative sample of reconstructed
cases for simulation purposes,
The ACAT evaluator uses Module 2.3 to select a sub-sample of simulation cases for
testing purposes.
6.1 Identification of Technology Relevant Crash Types (TRCT's)
It is generally assumed that the ACAT effectiveness in reducing the probability of conflicts,
crashes, injuries, and fatalities depends on the numerous variables related to the crash
circumstances. In order to estimate the safety benefits it is necessary to first quantify the ACAT
collision and fatality effectiveness in crash types for which the ACAT is intended to be effective,
based on a detailed technical understanding of the ACAT functionality. Primary TRCTs are
those for which there are expected to be substantial collision and/or fatality effectiveness,
whereas secondary TRCTs are those for which there are expected to be some or small collision
and/or fatality effectiveness.
21
These crash types should also be defined based on coded database
variables which are available in the representative US crash databases that are used by the OSEE
systems model. The crash scenario dataset described in App F was developed for this purpose,
and includes many coded variables that can be used to describe the Technology Relevant Crash
Types of many safety technologies (e.g., ABS, ESC, side airbags).
Module 2.1 allows the ACAT designer to specify classification criteria or rules that describe
the Technology Relevant Crash Types in terms of these coded variables. These rules are saved in
a data file which has an .a21 extension. These crash type criteria or rules are then used to
21
Since, for the primary TRCTs, the collision and fatality probability reductions are expected to be substantial, it
is considered to be cost effective to run Track and Driving Simulator calibration tests. In contrast, for the secondary
TRCTs, since the collision and fatality probability reductions are expected to be only some or small, it is not
considered to be cost effective to run calibration tests. In other words, for secondary TRCTs, one could expend large
efforts (and associated costs) to calibrate collision probability reductions due to the ACAT, only to find that there
were little such reductions.
81
automatically determine the TRCT of individual crashes in the crash scenario file, in other SIM
Modules. The Technology Relevant Crash Types and classification criteria identified by Honda
R&D for the A-CMBS are listed in Table 23. The corresponding detailed .a21 TRCT
classification criteria file is listed in App G.
The numbers of addressable crashes, fatalities, and vehicles involved in each TRCT listed in
Table 24 were then estimated using the OSEE Fleet Systems model as described in App AB. The
Fleet Systems model uses the TRCT classification criteria in Table 23 in combination with the
corresponding in-depth crash scenario database described in App F to effectively interpolate the
FARS and GES results in Table 2b to the A-CMBS TRCT level of detail (see, for example,
[Najm, 2007]).
6.2 Reconstructions of Cases
The time-space relationships of the vehicles relative to the environment in real-world crash and
conflict scenarios need to be reconstructed in order to quantify the collision and fatality
probability reductions of many ACATs using simulation and testing, including the Honda
A-CMBS. These time-space relationships are reconstructed using the Automated Accident
Reconstruction Tool (AART). There are different versions of the AART for NASS crash cases
and VTTI near crash cases because the reconstruction methods used depend on the available data
and crash outcome.
6.2.1 NASS/CDS Crash Cases
The version of the AART for NASS data (Module 1.3.NASS) is used to reconstruct the time-
space relationships of the CDS and PCDS cases. The tool is currently only applicable to the
following types of crashes:
CDS cases that meet the following conditions (as indicated in Table B-4 in App B):
Have a scene diagram with indicated
points of impact,
points of rest,
pre-impact trajectories.
Have a single impact event, which are either a single vehicle hitting a fixed object
or a 2-vehicle collision,
Have coded delta-V information,
Do not involve loss-of-control or vehicle rollover,
Have known vehicle length, width, wheelbase, and curb weight, for vehicle
Collision Partners.
82
T
a
b
l
e

2
3
:

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

T
R
C
T

C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

T
R
C
T

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t

C
a
s
e

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

T
y
p
e

P
r
e
-
E
v
e
n
t

M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

P
r
e
c
r
a
s
h

E
v
e
n
t

P
r
e
-
I
m
p
a
c
t

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t

T
y
p
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

Q
u
a
d
r
a
n
t

T
y
p
e

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

H
e
i
g
h
t

A
N
V
E
H
(
1

A
C
T
Y
P
E
(
1

V
P
C
M
O
V
E
(
2

V
P
C
E
V
N
T
(
3

V
P
C
S
T
A
B
(
4

V
A
T
Y
P
E
(
5

V
I
M
P
Q
D
(
1

P
T
Y
P
E
(
6

P
D
H
G
H
T
(
7

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

1

-
N
o
t

S
t
o
p
p
e
d

i
n

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

(

5
)

N
o

l
o
s
s

o
f

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

(
>
9
)

N
o

s
k
i
d
d
i
n
g

(
=
0
,

1
,

2
,

o
r

9
)

-
F
r
o
n
t

(
=
1
)

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
=
7
2
)

>
9
9

c
m

S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

-
f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

(
=
1
1
,
1
2
,
1
3
,

1
4
,
1
5
,

o
r

1
6
)

-
N
o
n
-
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
>
3
0

a
n
d

7
2
)

-
-
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d
/
f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

2

-
r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d

o
r

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

(
=
2
0
,
2
4
,
2
8
,
3
2
,
3
3
,

3
8
,
4
0
,
4
2
,

o
r

4
3
)

-
-
-
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,

s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

-
S
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

(
=
4
4
,
4
5
,
4
8
,

o
r

4
9
)

-
-
-
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,

h
e
a
d
-
o
n

-
s
a
m
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
a
y
,

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
=
5
0
,
5
1
,
5
2
,
5
3
,
5
5
,
5
7
,

5
8
,
5
9
,
6
0
,
6
1
,
6
2
,
6
3
,

6
4
,
6
5
,
6
6
,

o
r

6
7
)

-
-
-
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

p
a
t
h

-
c
h
a
n
g
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
a
y
,

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

t
u
r
n
i
n
g

(
=
6
8
,
6
9
,
7
1
,
7
3
,
7
4
,
7
5
,

7
7
,
7
9
,
8
0
,
8
1
,
8
3
,
8
4
,

8
5
,
8
6
,
8
8
,
9
0
,

o
r

9
1
)

-
-
-
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

3

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

c
h
a
i
n
,

c
v

r
e
a
r

3

c
h
a
i
n
,

S
V

i
n

r
e
a
r

(
=
3
1
3
)

-
-
-
-
N
o
t
e
s
:

1
)

S
e
e

A
p
p

F
.

2
)

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

N
A
S
S
/
C
D
S

P
R
E
M
O
V
E

a
n
d
/
o
r

P
C
D
S

P
P
R
E
V
H
M
O

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

c
o
d
i
n
g

d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

a
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

i
n

A
p
p

F
.

3
)

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

N
A
S
S
/
C
D
S

P
R
E
E
V
E
N
T

a
n
d
/
o
r

P
C
D
S

P
P
R
E
V
E
N
T

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

c
o
d
i
n
g

d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

a
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

i
n

A
p
p

F
.


4
)

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

N
A
S
S
/
C
D
S

P
R
E
I
S
T
A
B

a
n
d
/
o
r

P
C
D
S

P
P
R
E
S
T
A
B

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

c
o
d
i
n
g

d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

a
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

i
n

A
p
p

F
.


5
)

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

N
A
S
S
/
C
D
S

A
C
C
_
T
Y
P
E

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

c
o
d
i
n
g

d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

a
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

i
n

A
p
p

F
.


6
)

C
o
d
e
s

3
0
-
9
9

a
r
e

N
A
S
S
/
C
D
S

O
B
J
C
O
N
T

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

v
a
l
u
e
s

a
n
d

c
o
d
i
n
g

d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

a
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

i
n

A
p
p

F
.


7
)

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

N
A
S
S
/
C
D
S

a
n
d

P
C
D
S

H
E
I
G
H
T

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

v
a
l
u
e
s
,

a
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

i
n

A
p
p

F
.


8
3

T
a
b
l
e

2
4
:

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

A
d
d
r
e
s
s
a
b
l
e

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

E
n
t
i
r
e

U
S

L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

F
l
e
e
t

i
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
5

C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r

Y
e
a
r

M
e
t
r
i
c

S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

A
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d

I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

O
n
l
y

L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s


A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e


O
t
h
e
r

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e
s

(
N
o
n

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
)

T
o
t
a
l

L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
P
)


F
o
r
w
a
r
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

(
S
)

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
,

F
o
r
w
a
r
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

T
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

(
P
)

S
i
d
e

S
w
i
p
e

(
S
)

H
e
a
d
-
O
n

(
P
)

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

P
a
t
h
,

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
)

3
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
,

C
h
a
i
n
,

S
V

r
e
a
r

(
S
)

T
o
t
a
l

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

3
8
,
7
8
9
a

4
7
4
,
2
1
6

a

6
2
7
,
9
4
8
a

2
4
1
,
8
4
5

a

9
6
,
8
7
5

a

8
7
4
,
5
8
0
a

1
8
,
6
3
8
a

2
,
3
7
2
,
8
9
1

b

3
,
5
2
9
,
1
2
1

a
,
e

5
,
9
0
2
,
0
1
2

a
,
c

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

3
8
,
7
8
9

a

4
7
4
,
2
1
6

a

1
,
2
5
5
,
8
9
5

a

4
8
3
,
6
9
0

a

1
9
3
,
7
4
9

a

1
,
7
4
9
,
1
6
1

a

5
9
,
3
3
8
a

4
,
2
5
4
,
8
3
9

b

6
,
3
1
2
,
9
0
5

a
,
e

1
0
,
5
6
7
,
7
4
4
a
,
c

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

2
,
7
7
9

a

4
9
0

a

8
6
7

a

1
6
1

a

4
,
1
3
3

a

3
,
3
9
4
a

2
6

a

1
1
,
8
5
0

b

2
7
,
0
8
3

a
,
e

3
8
,
9
3
3
a
,
d

N
o
t
e
s
:


T
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

h
i
g
h

n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

e
n
a
b
l
e

r
e
a
d
e
r
s

t
o

t
r
a
c
k

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

f
l
o
w


a
n
d

t
o

v
e
r
i
f
y

t
h
e

t
a
b
u
l
a
r

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
,

a
n
d

a
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
i
s
,

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

r
o
u
n
d
-
o
f
f

e
r
r
o
r
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

a
t

v
a
r
i
o
u
s


s
t
a
g
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.

S
e
e

F
o
o
t
n
o
t
e

6
.


T
h
e

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e
s

a
r
e

d
e
f
i
n
e
d

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

2
3
.


(
P
)

d
e
n
o
t
e
s

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

T
R
C
T
,

(
S
)

d
e
n
o
t
e
s

S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

T
R
C
T
.


S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:

a

C
o
l
u
m
n

(
E
)

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

A
B
-
5
.

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

F
A
R
S

a
n
d

N
A
S
S
/
G
E
S

d
a
t
a
.

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s


b
a
s
e
d

o
n

2
0
0
0

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

2
0
0
3

N
A
S
S
/
C
D
S
,

1
9
9
4

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

1
9
9
8

N
A
S
S
/
P
C
D
S
,

a
n
d

2
0
0
0

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

2
0
0
3

N
A
S
S
/
G
E
S

d
a
t
a
.


b

S
u
m

o
f

a
l
l

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e
s
.


c

2
0
0
5

N
A
S
S
/
G
E
S

d
a
t
a

q
u
e
r
y
.

d

2
0
0
5

F
A
R
S

d
a
t
a

q
u
e
r
y
.


e

T
h
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

f
o
r

a
l
l

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

l
i
g
h
t

p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

A
-
C
M
B
S

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t


c
r
a
s
h
e
s
.

8
4

PCDS cases that meet the following conditions (as indicated in Table B-5 in App B):
Have a scene diagram,
Have a single impact event involving a single vehicle and 1 pedestrian,
Have coded impact speed,
Do not involve loss-of-control or vehicle rollover,
Have known vehicle wheelbase and track.
22
This reconstruction process is accomplished by the following sequence of steps:
The SIM tool user starts the AART version for NASS data.
The user then selects a CDS or PCDS case from the available scene diagrams.
The AART then loads the case, including coded data, scene diagram, and text summary if
it is available, and displays the scene diagram and text summary.
The user then enters the scene diagram scaling factor based on information in the scene
diagram.
The user also digitizes the compass angle displayed on the scene diagram. This value is
currently only used for reference purposes.
The user then digitizes the locations and orientation angles of both Collision Partners
(i.e., vehicles, fixed object, pedestrian) at the points of impact and rest.
The user then digitizes the pre-impact locations and angles of both Collision Partners.
The AART then estimates vehicle time-domain trajectories that satisfy the following
physics based equations of motion for each crash phase (see Figure 14), as further
described in App B:
Pre-impact vehicle trajectories consistent with the [Bundorf, 1976] lateral
directional equations-of-motion, assuming that the driver steering wheel angle
rate is a random process (i.e., the steering wheel angle power spectral density is
1/s
2
-like
23
) and the vehicle has neutral steering and zero side slip (i.e., the
cornering compliances are zero). Longitudinal speed is based on constant
accelerations during pre-event and crash avoidance maneuvers, based on coded
data.
Planar (3-degree-of-freedom) impact crash dynamics computed using the US Air
Force Articulated Total Body computer program [Cheng, 1998].
Constant translational and angular deceleration post-impact equations-of-motion.
Vehicle-pedestrian impact and post-impact dynamics are not computed for
pedestrian crashes. Rather, the pedestrian probability of fatality is based on an
empirical function of the coded vehicle impact speed.
22
Vehicle length and width are not coded in the PCDS database. Therefore it is assumed for that database that length
is 1.75 times the wheelbase and width is 1.2 times the track, based on analysis of available data.
23
The power spectral density at a given frequency is inversely proportional to the square of the frequency.
85
The user can then digitize the size, shape, locations, and orientation angles of other
objects that may be relevant to the crash, e.g. view obstructions.
Finally, the user saves the reconstructed case trajectories and other information to a data
file, as described in App H for use in the CSSM (Module 3) and test case development.
The physics based reconstruction is solved in four steps, as follows:
1) The X-Y locations and yaw angles for each vehicle at the pre-impact, point-of-impact,
and point-of-rest locations indicated on the crash scene diagram are digitized;
2) A Reference Trajectory is fit to the digitized locations and angles and coded data (e.g.,
NASS WINSMASH delta-V). The reference trajectory satisfies aforementioned physics
based equations of motion, with the added constraint that the steering wheel angle is
initially assumed to be constant. The resulting pre-crash trajectory then simplifies to a
constant radius circular path with fewer parameters that are better suited for non-linear
optimization. Two different non-linear optimization routines are then used;
a non-linear iterative least squares algorithm that exploits a closed form and
numerically determined J acobian; and
the Nelder-Mead Simplex Method [Lagarias, 1998], which is implemented in the
MATLAB fminsearch function [MathWorks, 2007].
3) The lateral directional equations of motion are then linearized about the Reference
Trajectory and an extended Kalman Filter-Smoother [Bryson, 1975] is then used to
estimate the vehicle trajectory assuming that the steering wheel angular rate is a white
noise process (i.e., the power spectral density of the steering wheel angle is inversely
proportional to the frequency). Note that the resulting reconstructed steering wheel angle
is a continuous and smooth function of time.
4) The longitudinal speed of the vehicles is then determined, given the impact speeds from
step 1 and assuming constant decelerations during the pre-event and crash avoidance
phases, as illustrated in Figure 15. The constant deceleration levels are determined based
on coded data for the pre-event and crash avoidance maneuvers and assumed tire-road
friction, based on coded data for road surface condition. The crash avoidance braking
begins at t
A
, which is assumed to be the same as the Safety Critical Conflict time. The
Safety Critical Conflict time (t
SCC
) is defined as the last time at which braking at 0.75 g
can successfully avoid an impact.
6.2.2 VTTI Near-Crash Cases
The version of the AART for VTTI near-crash cases (Module 1.3.VTTI) is similar in concept to
the NASS data version, with the following differences:
86
There is no impact or post-crash dynamics, as the cases are near-crash. The equations-
of-motion are based on the [Bundorf, 1976] lateral-directional equations-of-motion.
Most of the data is obtained from GPS, vehicle network speed, and longitudinal
acceleration time domain data provided by VTTI. The main input from the user is to
select the case identifier and then digitize the relative offset between the reconstructed
trajectory and the satellite image.
The vehicle trajectory is estimated in a four-step process, comprising:
As a first step, fitting a circular path (constant steer angle) Reference Trajectory to
the GPS latitude and longitude data.
The longitudinal speed is estimated from the GPS speed, vehicle network speed,
and longitudinal accelerometer data using a Kalman Filter-Smoother with 1
degree-of-freedom.
The lateral directional equations of motion are then linearized about the Reference
Trajectory and an extended Kalman Filter-Smoother is then used to estimate the
vehicle trajectory assuming that the steering wheel angular rate is a white noise
process, as was done for the CDS based data.
The resulting trajectory is displayed overlaid on the satellite image. The user can
then shift the reconstructed trajectory relative to the satellite image to adjust for
any apparent offset that may be present in the GPS data relative to the satellite
image.
6.2.3 Other Potential Future Cases
In the future it may be possible to extend the AART to reconstruct cases from other sources (e.g.,
NMVCCS or naturalistic driving data), or using different types of data (e.g., EDR data).
6.2.3.1 NMVCCS Crash Cases
In the future it may be possible to extend the AART to support NMVCCS data, provided scene
diagrams and EDR data for pre-crash speed vs. time are available. The EDR data would be
needed in order to provide information about the pre-crash speed because crash delta-V
information is not available.
6.2.3.2 Cases with EDR Data
It may also be possible to incorporate the pre-crash speed vs. time EDR data into the version of
the AART for NASS data. This would replace the assumed pre-crash speed profile currently
used, and may provide better information about the impact speed.
6.2.3.3 Other Naturalistic Crash, Near-Crash, Conflict and Non-Conflict Cases
The current version of the AART for VTTI data could also be used for conflict and non-conflict
cases, provided the GPS, vehicle network speed, and longitudinal acceleration time history data
87
were available for these cases. Extension of this tool to naturalistic crash cases would need
further investigation and depend on the available information.
6.3 Sampling of TRCT Cases for Use in SIM
Using Module 2.2, the ACAT evaluator can select for simulation purposes either:
a. all available reconstructed cases, or
b. a representative sample of reconstructed cases,
for each TRCT. Selecting a large number of cases will improve the statistical accuracy of the
results but also increase the amount of computer time needed to run the simulations.
6.3.1 Method
The case sampling is accomplished in two steps as illustrated in Figure 17.
The first step is to create an intermediate "unweighted" data set, where each record in this
intermediate data set has a weighting of 1, that is equivalent to the original nationally
representative crash scenario file (comprising reconstructed cases from the NASS databases,
where each case has a weighting factor W). This is accomplished by replicating each case in the
crash scenario file N times, where N is equal the case weighting factor W after rounding to the
nearest integer value. For example, if a case in the nationally representative dataset has a
weighting factor W=2.8, then this case will be represented by N=3 identical records in the
unweighted intermediate dataset. Therefore, if for example, the original data set has 542
weighted cases and the sum of the case weightings is 1,118,165, then there will be 1,118,165
records in the intermediate unweighted dataset.
The second step is to randomly sample the desired number of cases from the unweighted
intermediate data set. This is accomplished by generating a pseudo random number for each
unweighted database record, then sorting the cases and then selecting the desired number of
cases from the beginning of the sorted case list. A pseudo random number is used so the resulting
random sample is repeatable provided the weighted data set, TRCTs, and number of cases are the
same. Each case in the new sample will have a weighting equal to the original number of
weighted cases (e.g., 1,118,165) divided by the number of sampled cases (e.g., 25). This
weighting is inversely related to the probability that it was sampled.
It is possible that a weighted case may be sampled more than once. This is more likely to occur if
the number of sampled cases is relatively large compared to the number of heavily weighted
cases in the nationally representative dataset. If this occurs then a warning message is displayed
88
by Module 2.2 and the ACAT evaluator has the option to choose to use all of the available
reconstructed cases instead of a subsample of cases
24
Nationally Equivalent Nationally
Weighted Unweighted Representative
Database
Step 1
Database
Step 2
Subsample of
Cases
Unweighted
Case A
Weighted
Case A
W=2.8
Unweighted
Case A
Unweighted
Case A
Randomly
Sampled
Case A
Weighted
Case B
W=1.2
Unweighted
Case B
Unweighted
Case C
Unweighted
Case C
Unweighted
Case C
Unweighted
Case C
Weighted
Case C
W=3.9
Randomly
Sampled
Case C
Figure 17: Simulati
e.g.,
542 cases
e.g.,
1 118 165 cases
on Sample Selection Method
e.g.,
25 cases
6.3.2 Result
The simulation cases for the A-CMBS were sampled using Module 2.2 described in App C. The
resulting numbers of cases are listed in Table 25. The resulting simulation case sample is listed
in App I.
24
This option to use all of the available cases was used for the 1-vehicle, forward impact, 2-vehicle, read-
end/forward impact, and 2-vehicle side swipe cases as indicate in column 3 of Table 25.
89
6.4 Sub-Sampling of TRCT Cases for Test Purposes
Cases to be used in driver-not-in-the-loop and driver-in-the-loop Track Tests and Driving
Simulator tests should be sampled from the sample of cases selected for computer simulation.
Since some of the criteria used for test case selection are based on preliminary CSSM (Module 3)
simulation results, this test case selection Module (2.3) is combined with Module 3.11, the
CSSM simulation post-processor.
Table 25: Number of AART Reconstructed Cases Available and Selected for Simulation
Technology Relevant Crash
Type
Number of
Reconstructed
Cases
Available
Sampling
Method
Number of
Sampled
Cases for
Simulation
Number of
Unique
Simulation
Cases
1 vehicle, pedestrian 179 Sampling 100 72
1 vehicle, forward impact 22 All 22 22
2 vehicle, rear-end/forward 54 All 54 54
2 vehicle, sideswipe 6 All 6 6
2 vehicle, head-on 173 Sampling 100 41
2 vehicle, intersecting path 617 Sampling 100 71
3 vehicle chain, cv rear 0 - 0 0
Total 1051 - 382 266
6.4.1 Method
Test cases are selected in order to represent a typical range of conflict and crash conditions
where the ACAT is expected to have some safety effect; as well as meeting a test feasibility
criterion. Therefore preliminary simulation results are needed in order to determine the cases in
which the ACAT will have some effect.
The test feasibility criteria were as follows, in consideration of the current limitations of the
Guided Soft Target test system:
Dry road condition,
65 km/h Collision Partner maximum speed,
Daylight (for driver-in-the-loop tests only).
6.4.1.1 Driver-not-in-the-loop Test Case Selection
The purpose of the driver-not-in-the-loop tests are to calibrate the SIM tool within a domain of
conditions over which the ACAT is intended to function and ultimately to be effective (to a
greater or lesser extent). In general, for any model correlation methodology, and for models
involving N independent variables, at least N+2 comparisons (i.e., of test versus model) must be
90
done in order to calibrate the model.
25
In order to select a set of N+2 test cases that is
representative of conditions in which the ACAT has some effect, the following method was used
(provided that N > 2 ):
26
a) Identify in which reconstructable real-world crash cases the ACAT is expected to have
some effect by applying the SIM tool Crash Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM),
containing a model of the ACAT of interest.
b) Considering only the set of cases for which the ACAT is expected to have some effect
that were identified in step a), find the cases nearest the 16th and 84th percentile in each
of the N key variables.
27
Note that this method selects 2N cases, which is greater than the N+2 need for calibration against
the primary TRCT test cases.
28
This allows for the possibility that some selected test cases may
be redundant.
For the Honda A-CMBS (and perhaps other ACATs) it is assumed that the:
range,
range rate,
range acceleration, and
bearing angle
are sufficient to describe the domain of conditions within each TRCT within which the A-CMBS
will function and have some measurable level of collision and fatality probability reductions.
Therefore N=4, and therefore at least N+2=6 driver-not-in-the-loop (i.e., vehicle-ACAT only)
test cases were sought to calibrate the CSSM in each TRCT.
25
The rationale is that N+2 or more observations are needed in order to estimate the linear effects of N independent
variables, plus an intercept term, with at least one statistical degree-of-freedom. This N+2 criterion conceptually
represents a minimum number of observations, and does not address possible interaction between variables, or other
unmodeled variables
26
The rationale is that one 16th percentile case and one 84th percentile case for each of N variables would be 2N
total cases (provided there are a sufficient number of cases), and at least N+2 cases are sought. Therefore
2N > N + 2 , which simplifies to N > 2.
27
The rationale for selecting the 16th and 84th percentiles is to select two test cases that would have approximately
the same mean and standard deviation as the original sample, while recognizing that the variable of interest may not
be Normally Distributed in general. If the variable of interest is Normally Distributed, then the 16th and 84th
percentiles correspond to 1-sigma values of the distribution. Note that the 16th and 84th percentiles, which span a
relatively large (i.e., 1-sigma (68%)) central portion of the sample, do not include the more extreme (i.e., 2-sigma
(95%); or 3-sigma (99%)) cases, which may have strange or unusual characteristics.
28
Calibrations tests were not run for secondary Technology Relevant Crash Types (TRCTs) owing to their
definition, i.e., as crash types for which the subject ACAT is expected to have only some or small collision and
fatality probability reductions. It is considered to be cost effective to run calibrations for the primary TRCTs, for
which the expected collision and fatality probability reductions are substantial, and not cost effective to run
calibration tests for the secondary TRCTs, for which the expected collision and fatality probability reductions are
only some or small.
91
6.4.1.2 Driver-in-the-loop Test Case Selection
The purpose of the driver-in-the-loop tests is to calibrate and validate the SIM tool over a
domain of conditions over which the ACAT is to function and to have some level of collision
and fatality probability reductions, with the focus being on quantifying the effects of the M
individual driver's reactions to both the ACAT and the Collision Partners. These tests tend to
involve greater levels of effort than driver-not-in-the-loop tests, involving several human
participants (in effect, each human participant tested becomes another variable). The following
test selection criteria were used in order to achieve these objectives with only 3M tests (where M
is the number of human participants) (i.e., the number of other key variables is reduced to N=1
by introducing a combined variable, denoted as TSI; thereby reducing the number of tests to
(N+2)xM or 3M):
a) Identify in which reconstructable real-world crash cases the ACAT is expected to have
some effect by applying the SIM tool Crash Sequence Simulation Module, containing a
model of the ACAT of interest.
b) Considering only the set of cases for which the ACAT is expected to have some effect
that were identified in step a), compute the Test Selection Index value for each case
according to the following equation:
x
i,k
x
i
TSI
k
=

( ,c )
(26)
max s
i x i
i
where
1
n
2 2
s
x
= (x
i,k
x
i
)
(27)
i
n 1
k =1
1
n
x = x
i

i,k (28)
n
k=1
and where x
i,k
are key variables for the kth case which are normalized by the observed
standard deviations s
x
i
. Therefore each of the key variables is equally weighted in this
index. The c
i
are assumed small non-zero values used to prevent possible division by
zero if the standard deviations are zero.
c) Find the cases with TSI closest to the mean TSI (i.e., the most representative value)
and the +1 sigma TSI, (i.e., the upper percentile). If the total number of unique driver-
in-the-loop test cases is less than 3, then the case closest to -1 sigma TSI value can also
be used. Note that TSI tends to be more Normally distributed than the individual x
i,k
variables according to the Central Limit Theorem.
92
d) Again, considering only the set of cases for which the ACAT is expected to have some
effect, that were identified in step a), compute the reduction in the probability of fatality x
the annual US case weighting (i.e., the effect for each case). Compute the mean value of
the effect across all these cases, and find the case closest to this mean effect value (i.e.,
the case that is most representative of the average effect of the given ACAT).
For the A-CMBS the key variables (and corresponding c
i
values) that were used for Driver-not-
in-the-loop test selection were
the absolute value of the heading angle of the conflict partner relative to the subject
vehicle (deg) at t
SCC
, ( (t ) (t ) ), (c =1deg ),
cp scc sv scc
the subject vehicle and conflict partner velocities ( c = 0.1km/h ), and
the conflict partner acceleration ( c = 0.1g ),
all at t
SCC
.
6.4.2 Result
The test case selection results using the described test case selection method are listed in
Table 26 to Table 29.
29
29
Note that due to the parallel development schedule for this ACAT project, A-CMBS test case selection was based
on pre-existing AART reconstructions and preliminary development versions of the CSSM and other modules.
Therefore not all of the selected test cases are in the final set of CSSM simulation cases.
93

9
4
T
a
b
l
e

2
6
:


1
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
n
o
t
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

T
e
s
t

C
a
s
e
s

|

C
a
s
e


|

S
C
C

t
i
m

|


r
a
n
g
e

|

r
a
n
g
e

r

|

r
a
n
g
e

a

|

b
e
a
r
i
n
g

|


|
R
H
A
|

|

|
S
V

v
e
l

|

|
C
P

v
e
l

|

|
C
P

a
c
c

|


T
S
I

|

U
S

B
e
n
e

|

I
.
S
p
e
e
d

|


|

I
D


|


(
s
)


|


(
m
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|


(
g
)


|

(
d
e
g
)


|

(
d
e
g
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|


(
g
)


|


(
-
)


|


(
P
o
f
)

|


(
k
m
/
h
)

|


J

|

T
e
s
t
-

|

L
a
t
i
t
u
d
e


|

L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

|

(
-
)

|


a
b
l
e

|


(
d
e
g
)


|


(
d
e
g
)


|















































|

P
9
5
8
2
6
1
1
0
1

|


-
0
.
1


|





























|

P
9
6
8
2
6
0
3
0
1

|


-
0
.
2


|




























|

P
9
6
9
0
6
0
1
0
1

|


-
0
.
2


|





























|

P
9
6
9
0
6
4
2
0
1

|


-
0
.
1


|



























|

P
9
7
4
9
6
0
2
0
1

|


-
0
.
2


|





























|

P
9
7
8
2
6
0
3
0
1

|


-
0
.
2


|



























|

P
9
7
9
0
6
4
4
0
1

|


-
0
.
2
(
-
)
|






























|

P
9
8
9
0
6
1
1
0
1

|


-
0
.
1


|






























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































3
.
3


|

-
3
5
.
1


|


0
.
4


|


-
3
.
6
(
-
)
|


3
.
4
(
-
)
|

-
1
3
.
4


|


0
.
5


|


-
1
.
0


|


2
.
7


|

-
1
3
.
4


|


-
0
.
0
(
-
)
|


1
3
.
5


|


4
.
3


|

-
5
6
.
9


|


0
.
0


|


6
.
5
(
+
)
|


3
.
6


|

-
2
3
.
7
(
+
)
|


-
0
.
0


|


-
2
.
9


|


4
.
9
(
+
)
|

-
3
2
.
9


|


0
.
4


|


-
4
.
7


|


7
.
1


|

-
6
1
.
8
(
-
)
|


0
.
0


|


-
3
.
1


|


4
.
3


|

-
5
4
.
5


|


0
.
4
(
+
)
|


5
.
4


|


7
1
.
8
8
8
.
4
2
.
5
8
7
.
4
5
5
.
9
9
1
.
8
9
1
.
6
8
9
.
5
||||||||
3
6
.
3
1
3
.
6
2
8
.
0
5
7
.
0
2
6
.
0
3
3
.
2
6
2
.
0
5
4
.
3
||||||||
4
.
3
4
.
3
1
4
.
4
4
.
3
4
.
3
4
.
3
4
.
3
4
.
3
||||||||
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
||||||||
-
1
.
1


|


-
1
.
6


|


-
2
.
2


|


0
.
5
(
s
)
|
-
2
.
3


|


-
0
.
5


|


1
.
0


|


0
.
5


|


4
.
3


|



0
.
1


|



2
.
2


|



5
.
8
(
m
)
|
2
.
1


|



3
.
4


|



1
4
.
0


|



8
.
0


|




3
5
.
0

|

1
0
.
0

|

2
8
.
0

|

5
7
.
0

|

2
6
.
0

|

3
0
.
0

|

6
2
.
0

|

5
3
.
0

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|

O

O

Y

Y

O

O

O

Y

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

|

P
9
7
8
2
6
3
3
0
1

|
|

P
9
6
7
2
6
2
0
0
1

|
|

P
9
6
9
0
6
4
2
0
1

|
-
0
.
2
-
0
.
2
-
0
.
1
|||
4
.
0
5
.
3
4
.
3
|

-
2
2
.
7
|

-
5
0
.
5
|

-
5
6
.
9
|||
0
.
5
0
.
0
0
.
0
|||
0
.
7


|


2
.
5


|


6
.
5
(
+
)
|
8
9
.
4
8
3
.
3
8
7
.
4
|||
2
2
.
6
5
1
.
0
5
7
.
0
|||
4
.
3
5
.
4
4
.
3
|||
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
|


-
1
.
1
(
s
)
|
|


0
.
3
(
m
)
|


|


0
.
5
(
s
)
|


1
.
7


|



1
1
.
0


|



5
.
8
(
m
)
|

2
0
.
0

|

5
1
.
0

|

5
7
.
0

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|
N
a
N

|

Y

Y

Y

|

|

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|

.

|

.

|

|

M
e
a
n


|


-
0
.
1
9
9

|


4
.
0
9
4

|

-
2
8
.
6
3
5

|


0
.
1
9
4

|


0
.
1
4
9

|


8
9
.
6
7
0

|


2
8
.
2
8
4

|


8
.
3
2
4

|


0
.
0
0
0

|


-
0
.
0
0
0

|


-


|







-

|


|

S
t
d
.

d
e
v
.


|


0
.
1
1
0

|


1
.
0
6
3

|


1
9
.
7
3
3

|


0
.
2
2
1

|


1
4
.
2
5
4

|


2
5
.
2
4
0

|


1
9
.
7
4
4

|


4
.
8
3
7

|


0
.
0
0
0

|


1
.
7
4
2

|


-


|







-

|


|

T
S
I

n
o
r
m


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


2
5
.
2
4
0

|


1
9
.
7
4
4

|


4
.
8
3
7

|


0
.
1
0
0

|


-


|


-


|







-

|


T
a
b
l
e

2
7
:


2
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d

F
o
r
w
a
r
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

T
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
n
o
t
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

T
e
s
t

C
a
s
e
s

|

C
a
s
e


|

S
C
C

t
i
m

|


r
a
n
g
e

|

r
a
n
g
e

r

|

r
a
n
g
e

a

|

b
e
a
r
i
n
g

|


|
R
H
A
|

|

|
S
V

v
e
l

|

|
C
P

v
e
l

|

|
C
P

a
c
c

|


T
S
I

|

U
S

B
e
n
e

|

I
.
S
p
e
e
d

|


|

I
D


|


(
s
)


|


(
m
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|


(
g
)


|

(
d
e
g
)


|

(
d
e
g
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|


(
g
)


|


(
-
)


|


(
P
o
f
)

|


(
k
m
/
h
)

|


-

|



-



|


-

|


-

|

-

|



-



|


-

|


-

|

-

|



-



|


-

|


-

|

J

|

T
e
s
t
-

|

L
a
t
i
t
u
d
e


|

L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

|

(
-
)

|


a
b
l
e

|


(
d
e
g
)


|


(
d
e
g
)


|

|

C
0
0
1
1
1
0
8
0
1

|


-
0
.
6


|


8
.
7


|

-
2
0
.
3


|


-
0
.
3
(
-
)
|


-
1
.
2


|


|

C
0
0
7
5
0
0
7
0
1

|


-
0
.
6


|


9
.
2
(
-
)
|

-
2
6
.
7
(
+
)
|


0
.
1


|


-
5
.
8


|


|

C
0
0
7
6
1
3
5
0
1

|


-
1
.
4
(
-
)
|


2
7
.
3


|

-
5
7
.
1
(
-
)
|


-
0
.
0


|


1
.
0


|


|

C
0
1
1
3
1
3
5
0
1

|


-
0
.
9


|


1
7
.
8


|

-
4
9
.
2


|


0
.
5


|


1
.
6
(
+
)
|


|

C
0
1
7
3
1
2
6
0
2

|


-
1
.
1


|


2
5
.
3
(
+
)
|

-
6
2
.
3


|


-
0
.
2


|


-
1
.
3


|


|

C
0
1
7
4
0
5
5
0
1

|


-
0
.
9


|


1
4
.
7


|

-
4
1
.
1


|


0
.
7


|


-
3
.
0
(
-
)
|


|

C
0
1
8
1
0
1
4
0
1

|


-
0
.
7
(
+
)
|


1
1
.
1


|

-
3
2
.
0


|


1
.
0
(
+
)
|


2
.
6


|


0
.
1
4
.
4
1
.
0
5
.
9
5
.
2
2
.
6
2
.
0
|||||||
4
6
.
1
4
1
.
9
9
0
.
3
4
9
.
3
6
4
.
7
4
1
.
2
3
2
.
0
|||||||
2
5
.
8
1
4
.
9
3
3
.
3
0
.
1
2
.
3
0
.
0
0
.
0
|||||||
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
7
1
.
0
|


-
0
.
7
(
m
)
|


3
9
.
5


|



|


-
1
.
4


|

1
6
2
.
4


|



|


2
.
2
(
s
)
|


2
9
.
1
(
m
)
|



|


-
1
.
1


|


9
.
8


|



|


-
1
.
0


|


7
5
.
3


|



|


-
1
.
3


|


0
.
3


|



|


-
1
.
0


|


1
.
2


|




4
6
.
1

|

3
9
.
8

|

7
8
.
1

|

4
9
.
3

|

6
4
.
7

|

4
1
.
2

|

3
2
.
0

|
3
.
8
8

|
5
.
2
4

|

1
1
.
1
9

|
3
.
2
8

|
5
.
6
5

|
3
.
8
6

|
4
.
9
5

|

Y

Y

Y

Y

O

Y

Y

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

|

C
0
1
0
3
0
5
2
0
2

|


-
1
.
2


|


|

C
0
0
1
1
1
0
8
0
1

|


-
0
.
6


|


|

C
0
0
7
6
1
3
5
0
1

|


-
1
.
4
(
-
)
|
1
7
.
0
8
.
7
2
7
.
3
|

-
3
8
.
9


|


0
.
2


|


|

-
2
0
.
3


|


-
0
.
3
(
-
)
|


|

-
5
7
.
1
(
-
)
|


-
0
.
0


|


-
0
.
3
-
1
.
2
1
.
0
|||
0
.
3
0
.
1
1
.
0
|||
4
9
.
2
4
6
.
1
9
0
.
3
|||
1
0
.
3
2
5
.
8
3
3
.
3
|||
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
4
|


-
1
.
6
(
s
)
|


2
.
9


|



|


-
0
.
7
(
m
)
|


3
9
.
5


|



|


2
.
2
(
s
)
|


2
9
.
1
(
m
)
|




2
8
.
6

|

4
6
.
1

|

7
8
.
1

|
2
.
7
1

|
3
.
8
8

|

1
1
.
1
9

|

Y

Y

Y

|

|

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|

.

|

.

|

|

M
e
a
n


|


-
1
.
4
8
1

|


2
5
.
4
5
8

|

-
4
4
.
2
9
5

|


0
.
2
3
7

|


-
3
.
7
0
2

|


6
.
1
5
5

|


5
8
.
6
8
9

|


1
3
.
2
7
2

|


0
.
4
0
5

|


|

S
t
d
.

d
e
v
.


|


0
.
9
6
8

|


1
8
.
3
2
7

|


2
5
.
6
8
8

|


0
.
5
3
8

|


2
3
.
7
0
3

|


9
.
2
4
9

|


2
3
.
7
3
7

|


1
4
.
9
2
8

|


0
.
3
8
9

|


|

T
S
I

n
o
r
m


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


9
.
2
4
9

|


2
3
.
7
3
7

|


1
4
.
9
2
8

|


0
.
3
8
9

|


T
a
b
l
e

2
8
:


2
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

H
e
a
d
-
O
n

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
n
o
t
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

T
e
s
t

C
a
s
e
s

|

C
a
s
e


|

S
C
C

t
i
m

|


r
a
n
g
e

|

r
a
n
g
e

r

|

r
a
n
g
e

a

|

b
e
a
r
i
n
g

|


|
R
H
A
|

|

|
S
V

v
e
l

|

|
C
P

v
e
l

|

|
C
P

a
c
c

|


|

I
D


|


(
s
)


|


(
m
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|


(
g
)


|

(
d
e
g
)


|

(
d
e
g
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|


(
g
)


|


0
.
0
0
0

|


-


|







-

|


2
.
2
7
9

|


-


|







-

|


-


|


-


|







-

|


T
S
I

|

U
S

B
e
n
e

|

I
.
S
p
e
e
d

|


(
-
)


|


(
P
o
f
)

|


(
k
m
/
h
)

|


-

|



-



|


-

|


-

|

-

|



-



|


-

|


-

|

-

|



-



|


-

|


-

|

J

|

T
e
s
t
-

|

L
a
t
i
t
u
d
e


|

L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

|

(
-
)

|


a
b
l
e

|


(
d
e
g
)


|


(
d
e
g
)


|

|

C
0
0
0
2
1
2
5
0
2

|


-
0
.
8


|


1
3
.
7
(
-
)
|

-
4
2
.
3
(
+
)
|


-
0
.
0


|


-
7
.
2


|

1
7
7
.
3


|

C
0
0
1
3
1
3
3
0
2

|


-
1
.
3
(
m
)
|


2
5
.
3


|

-
6
7
.
0
(
m
)
|


0
.
4
(
+
)
|


2
.
9


|

1
7
6
.
5


|

C
0
1
0
9
1
5
8
0
2

|


-
0
.
8
(
+
)
|


1
6
.
5


|

-
5
5
.
7


|


0
.
2


|


-
0
.
3
(
+
)
|

1
6
8
.
4


|

C
0
1
1
3
0
6
5
0
1

|


-
1
.
3


|


2
8
.
9


|

-
6
6
.
7


|


-
0
.
0
(
m
)
|


-
3
.
6
(
m
)
|

1
3
9
.
5


|

C
0
1
4
5
1
3
4
0
1

|


-
1
.
6
(
-
)
|


5
1
.
0
(
+
)
|
-
1
1
2
.
0
(
-
)
|


-
0
.
1
(
-
)
|


-
9
.
1
(
-
)
|

1
5
5
.
5
|

C
0
1
8
1
0
5
3
0
2

|


-
1
.
2


|


3
2
.
0
(
m
)
|

-
8
8
.
7


|


0
.
2


|


-
2
.
0


|

1
7
5
.
9


||||||
3
5
.
5
6
0
.
9
2
8
.
1
6
5
.
5
8
4
.
2
3
8
.
6
||||||
7
.
1
6
.
2
2
8
.
1
1
.
6
2
9
.
7
5
0
.
1
||||||
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
3
0
.
0
0
.
2
0
.
3
|


-
1
.
9


|


3
.
9


|



|


-
1
.
1


|


1
2
.
1


|



|


-
1
.
5


|


0
.
7


|



|


-
2
.
9


|


2
1
.
9
(
m
)
|



|


-
0
.
1
(
m
)
|


2
6
.
5


|



|


0
.
2
(
s
)
|


0
.
6


|




3
5
.
5

|

4
2
.
8

|

2
8
.
1

|

6
5
.
5

|

8
4
.
2

|

3
8
.
6

|

1
0
.
7
6

|
3
.
8
8

|

4
7
.
5
7

|

1
2
.
3
9

|

2
5
.
2
8

|
2
5
.
0
5

|

O

O

Y

Y

YY

|


.

|


.

|


|


.

|


.

|


|


.

|


.

|


|


.

|


.

|


|


.

|


.

|

|

4
7
.
6
5
0
3
9
2

|
-
1
2
2
.
0
8
9
3
0

|

|

C
0
1
4
5
1
3
4
0
1

|


-
1
.
6
(
-
)
|


5
1
.
0
(
+
)
|
-
1
1
2
.
0
(
-
)
|


-
0
.
1
(
-
)
|


-
9
.
1
(
-
)
|

1
5
5
.
5
|

C
0
1
8
1
0
5
3
0
2

|


-
1
.
2


|


3
2
.
0
(
m
)
|

-
8
8
.
7


|


0
.
2


|


-
2
.
0


|

1
7
5
.
9


|

C
0
1
1
3
0
6
5
0
1

|


-
1
.
3


|


2
8
.
9


|

-
6
6
.
7


|


-
0
.
0
(
m
)
|


-
3
.
6
(
m
)
|

1
3
9
.
5


|||
8
4
.
2
3
8
.
6
6
5
.
5
|||
2
9
.
7
5
0
.
1
1
.
6
|||
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
0
|


-
0
.
1
(
m
)
|


2
6
.
5


|



|


0
.
2
(
s
)
|


0
.
6


|



|


-
2
.
9


|


2
1
.
9
(
m
)
|




8
4
.
2

|

3
8
.
6

|

6
5
.
5

|

2
5
.
2
8

|
2
5
.
0
5

|

1
2
.
3
9

|

YY

Y

|


.

|


.

|

|

4
7
.
6
5
0
3
9
2

|
-
1
2
2
.
0
8
9
3
0

|


|


.

|


.

|

|

M
e
a
n


|


-
1
.
5
3
1

|


4
8
.
0
5
5

|

-
9
7
.
0
2
5

|


0
.
3
1
8

|


-
2
.
7
5
3

|

1
6
4
.
3
8
4

|


4
8
.
6
2
7

|


4
9
.
5
4
5

|


|

S
t
d
.

d
e
v
.


|


0
.
8
0
0

|


4
0
.
0
7
2

|


4
5
.
2
5
1

|


0
.
8
0
8

|


1
0
.
0
4
8

|


1
9
.
8
9
6

|


2
6
.
9
3
6

|


2
6
.
8
0
1

|


|

T
S
I

n
o
r
m


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


1
9
.
8
9
6

|


2
6
.
9
3
6

|


2
6
.
8
0
1

|


N
o
t
e
:


S
e
e

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

6
.
4
.
1
.
1

a
n
d

6
.
4
.
1
.
2
.

0
.
3
6
9

|
0
.
6
9
0

|
0
.
6
9
0

|
0
.
0
0
0

|
2
.
0
8
4

|
-


|


-


|



-


|



-


|







-

|




-

|




-

|
-

|
-

|
-

|

-



|

-



|

-



|
-

|
-

|
-

|
-

|

-

|

-

|


9
5
T
a
b
l
e

2
9
:


2
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

P
a
t
h

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
n
o
t
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

T
e
s
t

C
a
s
e
s

|

C
a
s
e


|

S
C
C

t
i
m

|


r
a
n
g
e

|

r
a
n
g
e

r

|

r
a
n
g
e

a

|

b
e
a
r
i
n
g

|


|
R
H
A
|

|

|
S
V

v
e
l

|

|
C
P

v
e
l

|

|
C
P

a
c
c

|


T
S
I

|

U
S

B
e
n
e

|

I
.
S
p
e
e
d

|


J

|

T
e
s
t
-

|

L
a
t
i
t
u
d
e


|

L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

|

|

I
D


|


(
s
)


|


(
m
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|


(
g
)


|

(
d
e
g
)


|

(
d
e
g
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|

(
k
m
/
h
)


|


(
g
)


|


(
-
)


|


(
P
o
f
)

|


(
k
m
/
h
)

|


(
-
)

|


a
b
l
e

|


(
d
e
g
)


|


(
d
e
g
)


|

|

C
0
0
0
2
1
1
9
0
2

|


-
1
.
2


|


2
4
.
0


|

-
5
9
.
4


|


0
.
0


|


2
.
9
(
+
)
|

1
5
8
.
9


|

C
0
0
7
3
1
6
0
0
1

|


-
0
.
8


|


1
3
.
8


|

-
4
0
.
7


|


-
0
.
0
(
-
)
|


1
5
.
0


|

1
0
6
.
5


|

C
0
0
7
6
1
3
6
0
2

|


-
1
.
5


|


3
5
.
4


|

-
7
6
.
0
(
-
)
|


6
.
0


|


-
2
.
6


|

1
6
1
.
4


|

C
0
1
0
4
0
5
9
0
2

|


-
1
.
0


|


1
7
.
3
(
-
)
|

-
4
8
.
0


|


0
.
2
(
+
)
|


-
2
.
3


|

1
5
8
.
7


|

C
0
1
4
8
1
6
1
0
2

|


-
0
.
9


|


1
5
.
9


|

-
4
5
.
9
(
+
)
|


0
.
0


|


1
.
5


|

1
5
7
.
6


|

C
0
1
7
3
0
5
0
0
2

|


-
1
.
3


|


2
7
.
7


|

-
6
6
.
3


|


-
0
.
1


|


-
7
.
8
(
-
)
|


8
9
.
9


|

C
0
1
7
3
0
5
5
0
1

|


-
1
.
7
(
-
)
|


4
1
.
1
(
+
)
|

-
8
1
.
9


|


-
0
.
0


|


0
.
6


|

1
3
7
.
4


|||||||
5
6
.
8
3
9
.
4
7
5
.
9
4
7
.
4
4
5
.
8
6
5
.
0
7
7
.
5
|||||||
3
.
0
4
.
1
0
.
1
0
.
7
0
.
2
1
0
.
7
6
.
4
|||||||
0
.
0
0
.
0
6
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
1
0
.
0
|


-
0
.
7


|


|


-
2
.
8


|


|


1
0
.
7


|


|


-
1
.
3


|


|


-
1
.
4


|


|


-
1
.
8


|


|


-
0
.
2
(
m
)
|
0
.
9
5
6
.
4
8
5
.
7
7
.
2
3
7
.
7
2
.
0
0
.
1
|||||||

5
6
.
8

|

3
9
.
4

|

7
5
.
9

|

3
8
.
2

|

4
5
.
8

|

6
5
.
0

|

7
7
.
5

|

1
7
.
0
8

|
5
.
3
5

|
8
.
7
5

|
4
.
8
7

|
6
.
2
2

|

5
2
.
9
9

|

9
7
.
4
8

|

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
S
R
-
3
2

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
0
0
0
7
9

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|

.

|


























































































































































































|

C
0
1
7
3
0
5
5
0
1

|


-
1
.
7
(
-
)
|


4
1
.
1
(
+
)
|

-
8
1
.
9























|

C
0
1
7
2
1
8
1
0
2

|


-
1
.
3


|


3
5
.
9


|

-
9
1
.
5
























|

C
0
0
1
2
1
3
1
0
2

|


-
1
.
2


|


2
2
.
8


|

-
5
8
.
5

















































































|||
-
0
.
0
0
.
2
0
.
0
|||
0
.
6
-
6
.
2
-
1
.
8
|

1
3
7
.
4
|

1
7
8
.
4
|

1
3
3
.
2
|||
7
7
.
5
5
0
.
0
5
6
.
8
|||
6
.
4
4
1
.
8
1
.
8
|||
0
.
0
0
.
3
0
.
0
|


-
0
.
2
(
m
)
|


0
.
1


|



|


1
.
8
(
s
)
|


2
.
0


|



|


-
1
.
5


|


2
4
.
4
(
m
)
|




7
7
.
5

|

5
0
.
0

|

5
6
.
8

|

9
7
.
4
8

|

7
0
.
2
1

|

3
6
.
4
6

|

Y

Y

Y

|

|

|
.

|
.

|
.

|
.

|

.

|

.

|

|

M
e
a
n


|


-
1
.
1
5
1

|


2
4
.
2
7
1

|

-
6
7
.
3
7
2

|


0
.
2
3
6

|


6
.
1
0
4

|

1
3
2
.
4
5
7

|


4
1
.
8
4
1

|


3
3
.
9
6
7

|


|

S
t
d
.

d
e
v
.


|


0
.
5
0
8

|


1
3
.
5
2
6

|


2
3
.
4
1
2

|


0
.
4
2
9

|


2
5
.
8
0
1

|


3
6
.
7
4
7

|


2
2
.
9
4
1

|


2
0
.
6
8
2

|


|

T
S
I

n
o
r
m


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


-


|


3
6
.
7
4
7

|


2
2
.
9
4
1

|


2
0
.
6
8
2

|


N
o
t
e
s
:

C
a
s
e
s

w
i
t
h

A
A
R
T

J

>

1
0
0

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

C
S
S
M

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

D
r
i
v
e
r
-
n
o
t
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

t
e
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
:


d
r
y

r
o
a
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

s
p
e
e
d

<
=

6
5

k
m
/
h


D
r
i
v
e
r
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
l
o
o
p

t
e
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
:


d
r
y

r
o
a
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

d
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
,

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

s
p
e
e
d

<
=

6
5

k
m
/
h

N
o
t
e
:


S
e
e

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

6
.
4
.
1
.
1

a
n
d

6
.
4
.
1
.
2
.


0
.
3
4
3

|


-
0
.
0
0
0

|
0
.
5
6
1

|


1
.
8
8
2

|


0
.
5
6
1

|


-


|


-


|



-


|



-


|







-

|




-

|




-

|
-

|
-

|
-

|

-



|

-



|

-



|
-

|
-

|
-

|
-

|

-

|

-

|

7 OBJECTIVE TESTING
7.1 Conversion of Test Case Sub-Sample into Driving Scenarios for Track Tests
Each of the 36
30
selected test cases (in App J ) represents a scenario that was first reconstructed
using the AART then sampled using the crash Scenario Case Sub-sample Selection Tool (in
order to identify all reconstructed cases that are technology relevant) and then selected for testing
using the Test Selection Tool. As described in the Task 3 report, the objective of the Test
Selection Tool is to assemble a set of cases for testing that spans the range of Subject Vehicle to
Collision Partner relative motions that are encompassed in the overall set of technology relevant
cases. With this set of cases, it is possible to make measurements that are then used to
characterize the response of both the vehicle ACAT system and the driver. These response
measurements are utilized for calibration of the driver-in-the-loop ACAT model that is used for
simulation (CSSM) purposes and for the Driving Simulator tests with typical drivers. Additional
measurements of the recorded Driving Simulator data are used to determine driver model
parameters which are also used in the CSSM simulation.
Once the test cases have been selected for Track testing, it is necessary to fit the case scenario
trajectories to the available Track testing area. This includes:
1. Making modifications to the path sequence of both the Subject Vehicle (SV) and the
Collision Partner, represented in the Track tests by a Guided Soft Target (GST), if
necessary, so that the test run can be accomplished within the available test pad area. The
goal is to make the necessary modifications to the early portion of the run (usually
making it shorter, in general) so that the later part of the sequence (when the ACAT
system might start to recognize the conflict) is the same as in the baseline (no ACAT) test
case.
2. Determining the best location for the GST system base station and antenna to
accommodate the path sequence of SV and GST.
3. Determining the best location for the panning video camera in order to capture the best
image without interfering with the ACAT sensors.
7.1.1 Guided Soft Target Specifications
The Track tests involved test cases where the Subject Vehicle (SV) was placed in a situation
where a collision with a car or pedestrian was possible, likely, or unavoidable. In order to
support these types of tests, an unmanned Guided Soft Target (GST) was used in place of the
Collision Partner (CP). The GST appeared to the eye of the driver and to the ACAT sensors as
either another vehicle or pedestrian. The GST had propulsion and navigation capability to
accomplish the required CP motion, and had the capability to be involved in a collision without
injury to test personnel or damage to itself or to the SV.
30
36 test cases comprise (6 driver-not-in-the-loop tests +3 driver-in-the-loop tests) x 4 TRCT's.
96
7.1.1.1 System Requirements
The GST system was designed to meet the following requirements. The GST must:
- Survive a direct, moving-moving impact with Subject Vehicle (SV), up to a specified
closing speed for each impact geometry (e.g., head-on, side, rear-end, pedestrian, etc.)
- Not damage the Subject Vehicle in an impact
- Accurately follow the programmed x(t), y(t) trajectory of the Collision Partner up to the
point of impact
- Use a programmed trajectory that can be taken from either a physics-based reconstruction
or a hypothetical time history, of the pre-crash motion of the Collision Partner relative to
the ground and to the Subject Vehicle
- Be capable of performing any maneuvers within its speed and acceleration envelope
- Record all the data necessary to evaluate the vehicle trajectories during the pre-crash
event, e.g.:
o Time
o Subject Vehicle:
X, Y position
Speed
Path angle
o GST:
X, Y position
Speed
Path angle
Be recognized by the driver of the Subject Vehicle as a vehicle or a
pedestrian
Be sensed by the crash avoidance technology (e.g., infrared, radar, sonar,
etc.) that is installed in the Subject Vehicle
Enable quick repeat of a test
Use a reconfigurable and replaceable car body or pedestrian figure.
Current example targets include:
- Elastic foam block assembly
- Inflatable vehicle form
- Inflatable pedestrian figure
Have alternative operating modes, i.e.:
- Automatic control of x, y position relative to Subject Vehicle, or
- Automatic control to obtain a specified impact speed at targeted x,
y impact point, or
- Semi-autonomous (i.e., with manual override of speed), for course
and test setup purposes
97
In order to achieve the objectives of the project and to meet the requirements listed above, two
versions of the GST were constructed:
- Car GST
- Pedestrian GST (PGST)
These two versions shared the same computer hardware and operated on the systems network
similarly, but differed in their method of propulsion. Whereas the developed Car GST was self-
propelled by electric motors and can follow curved trajectories, the developed PGST was
propelled by a motor driven cable loop, and was constrained to operate along straight-line
trajectories only, as the majority of the PCDS scene drawings indicated pedestrian trajectories
that were linear or nearly linear.
7.1.1.2 Overall GST System Architecture
The Overall GST computer and sensor system comprises 3 major nodes as follows and as shown
in Figure 18:
- GST
- Base station
- Subject Vehicle module
The GST node hardware comprises several main components:
- Processor, which is a ruggedized PC104 computer system that provides all of the
operational functionality including path and speed control as well as communication with
Base Station and Subject Vehicle
- Low profile, wheeled trolley (pedestrian-GST only)
- Low profile, hardened turtle enclosing the drive unit, in order to protect the
components in case of contact with Subject Vehicle (car-GST only)
- Steer motor with controller (car-GST only)
- Drive motor(s) with controller(s)
- Battery system with power distribution system
- Lightweight foam car or inflatable pedestrian shape, attached on top of the hardened
turtle
The base station node is a stationary computer system that is used by the GST system operator to
control the overall system. The base station included the following equipment:
- Differential GPS (DGPS) receiver
- Notebook PC
- Wireless router, in-line amplifier and directional, high gain antenna
- Radio control transmitter to effect an E-Stop
98
99

Base Station Notebook
-WLAN PC Card
-Undedicated PCMCIA Slot
-2 USB ports
-1 Serial port
G
P
S
WLAN Antenna
RTCM
ACAT Vehicle
GPS
GST
W
L
A
N1
G
P
S
18-36VDC
M
SteeringMotor
Encoder
GPS Receiver
Analog, Digital I/O
Servo Controller
Processor
Power Supply
WLAN
Data Storage
Comm1
Comm2
Encoder In
PWMOut
Video
Keyboard/Mouse
M
Drive Motor
Motor
Controller
PWM
Out
Analog
In
Encoder
Speed Cmd
Meas Speed
1
WLAN Communication:
FromBase to Rovers:
- RTCM Correction Signal
- GST/ACAT vehicle position
FromRovers to Base:
- Position
- Health
- Opertational Mode
RTCM
GGK
BASE STATION
W
LA
N
1
-ACAT Signals
-Driver inputs
-Vehicle response measures
Data Acquisition (Somat)
-SV and GST position,
speed, heading, acceleration
-SV driver discrete inputs
Data Acquisition (RTD)

Figure 18: GST System Architecture


The Subject Vehicle node resides in the SV and provides necessary information including SV
position and status, as well as a timed distraction event to the driver, and open-loop braking (to
simulate pre-conflict braking, when present, in an accurate and repeatable manner) at
predetermined locations. The Subject Vehicle module includes the following equipment:

- DGPS receiver
- Notebook PC
- Tri-axial accelerometer
- Distraction LED
- Synchronization LED (to synchronize video data recorded on the vehicle to the digitally
recorded data stored elsewhere)
- Open-loop braking system:

o Compressed air tank
o Pneumatic cylinder to actuate the brake pedal
o Computer-controlled pneumatic valves
The three main nodes of the system form a wireless network with function and communication
as described below:
- GST Node: The system onboard the GST was mostly self-contained, and performed the
following functions:
o Stored the target paths and speeds for GST and SV
o Broadcast:
GST Position
Speed
Path direction
Heading angle
GST health
o Received:
Mode information from the base station
Subject Vehicle position
Subject Vehicle ACAT status
o Executed guidance, navigation and control algorithms according to the target path
and speed profile
- Base Station Node: The base station was used to:
o Start or initialize a run
o Position the GST
o Terminate a run
o Download data (e.g., position time history for the GST and SV)
o Initiate an emergency stop
o Display position of GST and A-CMBS in real time
o Receive status from the SV and GST
o Transmit mode information to the GST
o Provide manual control of the GST
- Subject Vehicle node: The Subject Vehicle computer was used to:
o Broadcast:
SV position
Synchronization switch state
SV accelerations
o Turn on/off distraction LED
o Initiate open-loop braking
o Begin data recording on the A-CMBS MABX
7.1.1.3 GST System Operation
The system was operated by first creating a pair of trajectories, one describing the motion of the
SV, and one describing the trajectory of the GST, as shown in Figure 19.
100
Figure 19: Example Trajectories for SV and GST
The trajectory shown in red is the path of the SV just before impact, while the trajectory shown
in blue is the corresponding path of the GST. In this example case, both vehicles are in motion
for the period of time shown, but the GST is also capable of executing a scenario wherein the
GST remains stationary while the SV approaches, and then moves quickly at the last instant into
the path of travel of the SV.
101
Once trajectories for both parties are created, the SV is driven (by an expert driver) along its
intended path toward the collision point. The GST system automatically and continuously
computes the desired position of the GST based on the SV position (2-Dimensional), and the
trajectories held in memory. The drive system then continuously controls the position of the GST
accordingly, recreating the timed conflict-collision scenario precisely and in a repeatable way.
7.1.1.4 PGST Specific Components
The Pedestrian Guided Soft Target (PGST) differs from the Car GST in its method of
conveyance, and in its appearance. The pedestrian figure is an inflatable mannequin
31
and rides
atop a low-profile wheeled trolley as shown in Figure 20. The pedestrian figure is held upright
by a light-weight, flexible polypropylene stand, which withstands repeated impacts, while not
damaging the SV and without sustaining substantial damage itself.
Figure 20: Pedestrian Guided Soft Target
31
Note that the sensor utilized for this project did not require the target to be radar-reflective.
102
7.1.1.5 Pedestrian Drive and Trolley System
Pedestrian target mobility was provided by a low, rugged trolley which was propelled via a cable
loop and servo motor assembly, as shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22. The construction of the
trolley, as shown in Figure 23, made use of its very low profile to protect the SV from damage in
the event that the SV drove over the trolley. This construction also ensured that the trolley itself
was not damaged in the event that the SV drove over it, even with one of its wheels. Rebound
and tip-up were minimized by the trolley designs low ground clearance and minimal overhangs.
This minimized the risk that the trolley would bounce upward and/or rotate to strike the
underside of the SV when it was driven over. Table 30 presents the pedestrian GST system
specifications and performance.
103
Figure 21: Pedestrian Drive System
104
Figure 22: Pedestrian Drive Assembly and Processor
Figure 23: Pedestrian Trolley Assembly
105
Pedestrian System Specification
Table 30: Pedestrian Guided Soft Target System Specification and Performance
Description Value
Soft Pedestrian Figure Inflatable Mannequin (<1kg)
Light-weight, flexible polypropylene stand (1 kg)
Mass, trolley 4 kg
Length, trolley 0.5 m
Width, trolley 0.3 m
Height, trolley 25 mm
Height, pedestrian figure 1.7 m
Drive Motor 1 brushless DC motor,
2.2 kW continuous
7.2 kW peak
48 VDC bus voltage
Power supply 110 VAC to 48 VDC power supply
Maximum duty cycle Not hardware limited
Maximum Pedestrian Trolley Travel 9.1 m
Maximum Pedestrian Trolley Acceleration 0.3 g
Maximum Pedestrian Trolley Speed 16 km/h
Detectability Dependent on crash avoidance sensing
technology
Crash types appropriate for PGST Straight-line pedestrian trajectories
7.1.1.6 Car GST-Specific Components
The Car GST used the same computer equipment and network as the pedestrian system, but also
incorporated a fully programmable, autonomously guided, hardened turtle encasing the drive
system (Figure 24), which can withstand being driven over by the SV at a wide range of speeds
and path angles. This allows the Car GST to travel along straight or curved paths, at moderate
speeds and can replicate CP motions in the pre-crash phase. The turtle is intended to deliver the
soft car body to the POI at the appropriate speed, and at the appropriate time.
106
Figure 24: View of Self-Propelled and Self-Guided Turtle Base
The soft car body used for the Track tests was a modular foam car shown in Figure 25. This car
was roughly modeled after a Volkswagen Golf, and comprised several polyethylene foam blocks,
which are connected via polypropylene panels and Velcro. A Volkswagen Golf was selected
because an inflatable car (which later was found to be damage-prone) had been acquired from a
UK supplier in that make and model body. The modular foam car
32
could be reassembled from
its modular components in less than 10 minutes after each crash, and was designed to separate
into its constituent parts upon impact at the attachment joints (Figure 26), thereby minimizing the
impact loading on the SV and minimizing the damage to the soft car body itself.
32
Note that the sensor utilized for this project did not require the target to be radar-reflective.
107
Figure 25: View of Example Soft Car Body
Figure 26: View Just Before and During Impact
108
Specifications for car-GST mass, dimensions, performance, etc., are listed in Table 31 below.
Table 31: Quantitative Specifications for Car GST (current prototype)
Mass and Geometry Value/ Metrics
Mass, drive turtle 225 kg
Mass, payload (e.g., car body) capacity 90 kg
Mass, foam block car body 35 kg
Length, turtle 2800 mm
Width, turtle 1520 mm
Height, turtle 125 mm
Wheelbase, turtle 1250 mm
Track, turtle 650 mm (front)
Ground clearance, suspension travel 10 mm
Performance
Speed Maximum speed, turtle: 80 km/h (spec, as
limited by batteries, gearing, etc.)
Maximum speed with foam block body: >55 km/h
(demonstrated; limited by foam body deflections
due to airflow)
Minimum speed: 0 km/h
Maximum closing speed at impact: 110 km/h
(demonstrated; can result in slight dent to Subject
Vehicle)
Longitudinal acceleration and
deceleration
+0.3 g (acceleration limited by current drive train
gearing; deceleration limited by current rear-only
brake configuration, due to packaging limits)
Lateral Acceleration +0.3 g (currently limited by low friction, small
diameter tires, 40/60 F/R weight distribution and
short wheelbase; currently oversteers at the limit)
Waypoint accuracy Lateral: 30 cm
Longitudinal: 30 cm
Distance traveled per battery charge 4 km at 40 km/h (theoretical)
Remote control range 0.5 km
Location resolution Turtle DGPS: 20 cm
Subject Vehicle DGPS: 1 cm
Drive motor performance 2 brushless DC drive motors, totaling
30 kW peak
6 kW continuous
200 VDC bus voltage
Turn radius <3 m
109
Performance
Visibility with white foam block body,
daylight
To the naked eye: >0.5 km
By the ACAT: ACAT dependent
Detectability Dependent on reflectance of car body that is used,
and on crash avoidance sensing technology
(reflective surfaces can be added to exterior or
interior of car body)
Crash types appropriate for GST All (e.g., Rear-end, Head-on, Intersecting path,
Side Swipe, etc.) except stationary Subject Vehicle
(i.e., in this case the edge of the turtle may
impact a stationary tire resulting in very large
impact forces, rather than it wedging itself under
a rolling tire)
Battery charge time 30-40 min (for full charge of depleted batteries)
Car body foam block reassembly time
after crash
10 minutes
7.1.1.7 GST System Features
The following is a listing of GST System features.
- GST System includes:
o Base station (with DGPS)
o Subject Vehicle node (with DGPS)
o GST node (with DGPS)
o Wireless network communication
- Fully programmable time/space trajectories
- Supports a wide range of potential vehicle body sizes and shapes
- Durable drive unit can be used continuously, i.e., no inter-run servicing required other
than battery charging
- Semi-Autonomous mode allows for path following, with manual control over speed
o Can be fitted with road-marking system for low speed path or lane layout of
straight or curved lines on the Track surface
o Allows for pre-test set up for each scenario
- Digital outputs from GST System in Subject Vehicle can be used to trigger discrete
events, e.g.:
o Distraction task sound and light source
o Automatic braking
- Base station
o Implements test configuration and control
o Enables manual remote operation of GST
o Facilitates centralized operation of all GST System nodes via wireless network
110
o Adjustment of guidance system parameters is currently done manually, depending
on the speed history and geometry of each scenario, but could be automatically
implemented as a speed-dependent look-up table.
7.1.1.8 GST Impact Considerations
Risk of damage to the Subject Vehicle during collision with GST body depends on the relative
speed at impact and the impact geometry. Countermeasures for minimizing Subject Vehicle
impact damage may include adding protective structures such as a supplemental front bumper
assembly to the Subject Vehicle. Areas on the Subject Vehicle that can be more vulnerable to
GST impact damage include side fenders (especially around the wheel openings) and side
mirrors in test cases where the GST impacts the side of the Subject Vehicle, and such protective
countermeasures in those areas could help minimize the chance of damage.
7.1.2 Track Test Procedures
The ACAT Track tests were either driver-not-in-the-loop or driver-in-the-loop. In the driver-not-
in-the-loop cases, the expert driver
33
drove the Subject Vehicle through each scenario without
responding to the collision threat. This was accomplished with and without the ACAT system
activated, and was meant to measure the response of the ACAT system itself. The test driver
would follow the Subject Vehicle path laid out on the test surface with 4 inch wide white
polypropylene plastic strips - while accelerating to and maintaining the target speed. If pre-
conflict braking was a coded part of the crash scenario, then that was accomplished using an
open-loop brake actuator controlled automatically and applied at the target location along the SV
path.
Alternately, the driver-in-the-loop tests were intended to measure both the ACAT and expert
driver response to the conflict within each crash scenario. The expert driver would start each test
run in a way which was similar to that of the driver-not-in-the-loop runs. The driver followed the
SV path while accelerating to and maintaining the target speed. Prior to the conflict, however,
the drivers attention was diverted downward and to the right using a distraction display so that
the forward road scene through the windshield was beyond his field of view. The driver was
instructed to maintain his gaze on the distraction until either the distraction ended, or there was
an A-CMBS warning. The driver was instructed to then look back out the windshield to see the
forward view and any possible conflict. He was then to make control inputs as necessary to avoid
the possible collision while staying on the marked roadway surface (i.e., generally two or more
lanes). These runs were meant to measure expert driver response, in order to compare the Track
tests and driving simulator tests for validation purposes.
33
A DRI employee who is an engineer with 20 years test driving experience, who is also an instrument rated private
pilot and licensed motorcycle competition road race rider.
111
7.1.2.1 Detailed Driver-not-in-the-loop Test Procedures
The driver-not-in-the-loop ACAT Track tests are intended to measure the response of the ACAT
system when involved in a set of representative conflict scenarios. The results were used, among
other things, to calibrate the Driving Simulator and CSSM models of the ACAT system. The
driver-not-in-the-loop tests involved a single expert driver and either the respective vehicle
Guided Soft Target (GST) or the Pedestrian GST (PGST) to function as the Collision Partner and
to interact with the Subject Vehicle sensors.
Driver-not-in-the-loop tests require the expert driver to maintain the speed and path as defined in
the conflict scenario. In a driver-not-in-the-loop test, the expert driver does not react to any
ACAT warnings. If the crash reconstruction determines there was pre-conflict braking, the
braking is accomplished through a computer-controlled pneumatic actuator that presses on the
brake pedal in order to achieve the desired deceleration.
The procedure for operating driver-not-in-the-loop Track tests can be broken into 5 components:
roadway layout, scenario trajectory initialization, preparation of the Subject Vehicle, preparation
of the GST, and test execution.
A. Roadway Layout (Vehicle GST)
1. The Subject Vehicles trajectory file, which contains the prescribed path and speeds
for the specific scenario is loaded into the GST as its trajectory file (see Trajectory
Initialization for details).
2. The GST is driven in semi-autonomous mode (automatic path following, manually
controlled speed) to the beginning of the Subject Vehicles path.
3. The GST is driven in semi-autonomous mode along the Subject Vehicles path while
path indication markings are laid on the test area behind it.
a. These markings are offset by the distance from the center of the Subject Vehicle
to the center of the expert drivers head to allow the driver to follow the path by
keeping the markings in the center of his field of view.
b. The markings that were used were long flat pieces of plastic made to resemble
lane marking lines but can be any object visible to the human eye but not visible
to the ACAT sensor.
B. Roadway Layout (PGST)
1. Using the DGPS system, survey the test area to find the starting and impact points for
the pedestrian and the Subject Vehicle, which are defined in the trajectory file for
each crash scenario.
2. Position the Pedestrian pulley system and the PGST such that it will begin at the
starting point and will cross the impact point.
C. Trajectory Initialization
1. A separate trajectory file exists for each vehicle in each crash scenario. The trajectory
file specifies the paths and speeds of the vehicles as well as additional information,
such as the existence of pre-conflict braking and the expert driver distraction interval.
112
2. ,The GST (or PGST) and Subject Vehicle trajectory files for the selected scenario are
identified by the case number and the vehicle number.
3. Load the selected trajectory files into the RTD (Real Time Devices, the computer that
controls the GST and PGST) through the Base Station interface.
D. Preparation of the Subject Vehicle
1. Enable or disable the A-CMBS system in the Subject Vehicle depending on the test.
a. This is done through a Remote Desktop Connection from the Base Station to the
Micro Auto Box (MABX) computer which is running the A-CMBS.
b. For tests with the A-CMBS activated, manually trigger the A-CMBS warning,
braking, and seatbelt pretensioner through the MABX and confirm that the
expert driver is able to sense all three stimuli.
2. If the crash scenario requires driver braking, fill the air tank in the Subject Vehicle to
a level that will achieve the required deceleration.
a. Test the deceleration level by driving the Subject Vehicle along the laid out path
and allowing the computer-controlled pneumatic braking system to stop the
vehicle.
b. From the recorded data, confirm the deceleration level of the SV was within
0.03 g
34
of the level specified in the crash scenario.
c. If not, adjust the pressure level in the tank and repeat the steps 2a and 2b.
3. Position the Subject Vehicle at the beginning of the path that has been laid out.
E. Preparation of the GST (Not applicable for pedestrian cases)
1. Drive the GST in semi-autonomous mode until it has acquired the path that was
specified in its trajectory file.
2. Enable the Run mode from the Base Station, which enables the GSTs fully
autonomous mode, so the GST will match its position along its path relative to
Subject Vehicles position along its path.
F. Test Execution
1. Provide the expert driver with his target speed which will be maintained (by cruise
control if available) until there is braking from either the A-CMBS or the pneumatic
braking system.
2. Begin the test by enabling the Run mode from the Base Station and inform the expert
driver that he can begin the test.
3. As soon as the expert driver begins moving he should press the synchronization
trigger in the Subject Vehicle; this trigger will be used to synchronize the data
collected in the GST and the MABX.
4. The GST will automatically begin moving along its path as soon as the Subject
Vehicle begins moving along its path.
5. After the conflict, place the GST/PGST into the Hold mode which will trigger the
data transfer from the RTD to the Base Station over the wireless network
34
Note that the value of 0.03 g was chosen as an achievable and practical tolerance of 10% of a typical 0.3 g
braking level. Note also that SV deceleration level does not apply to the calculation of TSI.
113
6. View the data to confirm that the paths were followed by both vehicles, that the
correct speeds were achieved, and that the data was captured for the duration of the
run.
7.1.2.2 Detailed Driver-in-the-loop Test Procedures
The driver-in-the-loop ACAT Track tests are intended to measure the response of the expert
driver in the presence of the response of the ACAT system, when involved in a set of
representative conflict scenarios. These results are used to validate both expert drivers Driving
Simulator tests (involving the ACAT model and vehicle model previously calibrated against
Track tests) and the CSSM model of the ACAT, expert driver and vehicle acting together as a
system. Like the driver-not-in-the-loop vehicle tests, these tests involve a single expert driver
and either a vehicle Guided Soft Target or the Pedestrian GST functioning as the Collision
Partner.
Driver-in-the-loop tests require the expert driver initially to maintain the target speed as defined
in the conflict scenario while staying within a specified lane. Additionally, the driver is
instructed that upon hearing a phone ring he should look at a distraction lamp which becomes
illuminated (at a position 45 degrees to the right and 30 degrees downward from and outside of
his normal field of view). He is instructed to maintain his gaze until either the light extinguishes
or he becomes aware of an ACAT warning, at which time he should look back to the road. The
driver can then take any evasive action necessary to avoid a collision as long as the vehicle stays
on the marked roadway (typically two or more lanes).
Table 32 shows the start and stop of the distraction (secondary task) timing by case number. A
diagram of the timing of the ACAT warning, secondary task, and braking force is shown in
Figure 27. This illustrates the distraction timing and how it synchronizes with various elements
of the critical event. The mean reaction time (0.82s) is the 50
th
percentile warning-to-brake pedal
response time from [Sugimoto, 2005].
Note that the distraction interval used in the Track tests differs from the distraction interval used
in the DS for typical drivers, but is the same for the expert driver in the DS, as shown in
Figure 27. During pilot testing in the DS, it was determined that the distraction interval used in
the Track tests was too short for use with typical drivers in the DS, and did not provide enough
time for participants to fixate on the distraction LED before an ACAT warning was issued.
Therefore, the distraction interval start time for typical drivers was subsequently increased from
0.82 seconds before an expected ACAT warning to 2.0 seconds before an expected ACAT
warning. However, in order to maximize the similarity between Track and DS scenarios for the
expert driver, the distraction interval timing from the Track tests was used in the DS for the
expert driver only.
114
Table 32: Driver Distraction Timing
Case Number Distraction Start, s Distraction Stop, s
P978263301 -1.9 -1.0
P967262001 -3.1 -0.8
P969064201 -1.8 -0.8
C010305202 -2.9 -2.0
C001110801 -3.6 -0.8
C007613501 -3.3 -2.2
C014513401 -2.2 -0.8
C018105302 -2.2 -0.8
C011306501 -2.9 -0.8
C017305501 -2.7 -0.8
C017218102 -2.3 -0.8
C001213102 -3.3 -0.8
CSSM ACAT warning
Distraction light
Forward road scene
Distraction light
Brake pedal force
A
A
R
T

i
m
p
a
c
t
o
r

e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

b
r
a
k
i
n
g

0.82 s 0.82 s
V
a
r
i
e
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s

Figure 27: Distraction Timing Diagram
115
The procedure for conducting driver-in-the-loop Track tests can be broken into 5 components:
roadway layout, scenario trajectory initialization, preparation of the Subject Vehicle, preparation
of the GST, and test execution.
A. Roadway Layout (for GST)
1. Create the roadway markings on the test surface based on the crash scenario diagram
including lane markings and roadway edges. This can be implemented with 4 inch
wide white polypropylene plastic strips placed on the test surface.
2. In Manual mode, drive the GST down the center of the lane that the Subject Vehicle
will be driving down during the test and record the GPS position data.
3. When building the trajectory file, ensure that the Subject Vehicles trajectory path
coincides with the measured position data for the center of the lane as recorded from
the GST in the previous step.
B. Roadway Layout (for PGST)
1. Create the roadway markings on the test surface based on the crash scenario diagram
including lane markings and roadway edges.
2. Using the DGPS system, survey the test area to find the starting and impact points for
the pedestrian and the Subject Vehicle, which are defined in the trajectory file for
each crash scenario.
3. Position the Pedestrian pulley system and the PGST such that it will begin at the
starting point and will cross the impact point at the correct point in the lane based on
the scene diagram.
C. Trajectory Initialization (same as Driver-not-in-the-loop procedure)
D. Preparation of the Subject Vehicle
1. Enable or disable the A-CMBS system in the Subject Vehicle depending on the test.
a. This is done through a Remote Desktop Connection from the Base Station to the
Micro Auto Box (MABX) computer which is running the A-CMBS.
b. For tests with the A-CMBS activated, manually trigger the A-CMBS warning,
braking, and seatbelt pretensioner through the MABX and confirm that the expert
driver is able to sense all three stimuli.
2. Position the Subject Vehicle at the beginning of the path that has been laid out.
E. Preparation of the GST (same as Driver-not-in-the-loop procedure)
F. Test Execution
1. Provide the expert driver with his target speed which will be maintained until a
conflict arises.
2. Begin the test by enabling the Run mode from the Base Station and inform the expert
driver that he can begin the test.
3. As soon as the expert driver begins moving he should press the synchronization
trigger in the Subject Vehicle; this trigger will be used to synchronize the data
collected in the GST and the MABX.
4. The GST/PGST will automatically begin moving along its path as soon as the Subject
Vehicle begins moving along its path.
5. After the conflict, place the GST/PGST into the Hold mode which will trigger the
data transfer from the RTD to the Base Station over the wireless network
116
6. View the data to confirm that the paths were followed, that the correct speeds were
achieved, and that the data was captured for the duration of the run.
7.1.3 Track Test Measurements
For each Track test, various data were recorded using the GST system as well as the MABX
system on board the Subject Vehicle. A common synchronization signal triggered by the expert
driver was used to synchronize the measurements on the individual recorders.
Data recording on the GST begins when the Base Station operator transitions the mode into
Run. Data recording on the MABX begins when the expert driver presses the synchronization
trigger and this event is recorded in the GST data as well. The time scales are then synchronized
and then shifted so that the time of the beginning of distraction is as specified in the
reconstruction. Therefore, time zero indicates the time of the collision in the reconstruction, and
the differences between ACAT on and ACAT off cases can be seen as differences after the
distraction begins.
A list of the measured signals including a description, units, and the recording source is provided
in Table 33. The complete set of plots of the data for the driver-not-in-the-loop and driver-in-the-
loop Track tests is found in App K and L, respectively. An example plot is in Figure 28, which
shows one of the four pages of plots generated for each test.
The occurrence of a collision and the resultant relative velocity (RRV) of the subject vehicle and
the collision partner was calculated using the measured data in order to quantify the severity of
the collision if one occurred. If no collision occurred, the resultant relative velocity is calculated
at the time of minimum distance. This data can be found in App M.
117
Table 33: Track Test Measurements
Signal Units Description Source
GST_Speed_GPS km/h GST GPS Speed
GST
GST_Path_Angle deg GST Path Angle
GST_Waypoint GST Waypoint
GST_Wheel_Speed ft/s GST Wheel Speed
GST_Y ft GST Y Position
GST_X ft GST X Position
SV_Speed_GPS km/h Subject Vehicle GPS Speed
SV_Path_Angle deg Subject Vehicle Path Angle
SV_Waypoint Subject Vehicle Waypoint
SV_Y ft Subject Vehicle Y Position
SV_X ft Subject Vehicle X Position
Distraction Participant Distraction Indicator
SV_Ax G Subject Vehicle Longitudinal Accel
SV_Ay G Subject Vehicle Lateral Accel
SV_Az G Subject Vehicle Vertical Accel
Sync_Signal Data Synchronization Trigger
Ped_Position ft Pedestrian Position
Ped_Y ft Pedestrian Y Position
Ped_X ft Pedestrian X Position
MinDistance ft Minimum Distance between objects
VehSpeed km/h Subject Vehicle Speed
MABX
LongAccel G Subject Vehicle Longitudinal Accel
LatAccel G Subject Vehicle Lateral Accel
YawRate deg/s Subject Vehicle Yaw Rate
SWA deg Subject Vehicle Steering Wheel Angle
ThrottlePos Subject Vehicle Throttle Position
MasterCylPress Mpa Subject Vehicle Master Cylinder Pressure
118
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
0
50
k
m
/
h

Case C0011108, Rear End, Run 2140, A-CMBS Off, Closed Loop
GST.GST_Speed_GPS
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
310
315
320
d
e
g

GST.GST_Path_Angle
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
0
50
100
GST.GST_Waypoint
GST.SV_Waypoint
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
-50
0
50
f
t
/
s

GST.GST_Wheel_Speed
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
0
500
1000
f
t
GST.GST_Y
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
-500
0
500
f
t
Time (sec)
GST.GST_X
Figure 28: Track Test Measurement Plot Example
119
7.1.4 Limitations of GST and Track Test Procedures
In the course of preparation for and execution of the Track testing, several limitations were either
purposely imposed on test scenarios for safety reasons, or were observed as a result of hardware
capabilities. Table 34 is a list of the limitations and the reasoning for each:
Table 34: Track Test Procedure Limitations
Limitation Purpose/Reason
Testing was to occur only in dry conditions Hardware limitation GST system was not
designed to operate in wet conditions
Maximum closing speed at impact was not to
exceed 100 km/h
For SV driver safety, and to minimize potential
damage to SV with the current vehicle GST
configuration
Maximum speed of the GST was not to exceed
60 km/h
Limited available test surface run-up area,
since GST acceleration was limited to
approximately 0.3 g
Maximum initial vehicle-vehicle separation
was not to exceed 300 m
This is primarily due to the limitations of the
wireless network. The length of the paved
surface is also a limitation, and has a length of
approximately 0.6 km
CP vehicle maneuvers were to be sub-limit The Car GST was limited to approximately 0.3
g longitudinal acceleration, due to drive train
limitations, and approximately 0.3 g lateral
acceleration, due to the hard, low friction,
small-diameter wheels.
Collision scenarios should be chosen such that
the GST will not strike the SV while the SV is
stationary
In order to minimize damage to the SV and
GST, i.e., to ensure that the SV rolls over
rather than is struck by the GST turtle.
7.1.5 Applicability of Track Test Procedures to Other Safety Technologies
Due to the inherent operational flexibility of the GST system (within the current GST limits
noted in Table 34), the test procedures used herein can readily be applied to testing other safety
technologies. Virtually any safety technology which senses the presence of another vehicle or
pedestrian (below some limits on very high range and very high speeds) can be tested in this
manner. The Car GST and PGST provide a realistic, moving CP representation which can be
safely struck by the SV without undue risk to the driver of the SV or to the SV itself. The system
is well-suited to testing most types of collision avoidance or mitigation systems. Examples of
these systems are:
Rear-End collision mitigation/avoidance systems
Head-on collision avoidance assistance systems
120
Pedestrian collision avoidance systems
Intersecting path collision avoidance systems
Lane change warning/assistance systems
Other systems
In addition to the above ACAT (and CIB)-type systems, the GST system may also potentially be
used in studies or tests where collision between two vehicles or a vehicle and a pedestrian is
possible or likely, and where one vehicle is driven by a human. These include studies where
human perception is a key factor, and where a vehicle-based sensor/actuator/communication
system may or may not be present. This can also include, but is not limited to vehicle-to-vehicle
communication systems as well as vehicle conspicuity studies, where a driver must decide to
turn in front of another vehicle, for example.
7.1.6 Test Selection Index Correlation
The purpose of the driver-in-the-loop tests was to calibrate and to validate the SIM tool over
a domain of conditions over which the ACAT is to function and to have some level of safety
effect, with the focus being on quantifying the effects of the driver's reactions to both the ACAT
and to the Collision Partner, as well as the ACATs response to the Collision Partner. These
driver-in-the-loop tests tend to involve greater levels of effort than driver-not-in-the-loop tests,
and involved a sample of typical drivers (in the Driving Simulator tests) as well as an expert
driver. One part of the test selection criteria that was used in order to achieve these objectives
was the Test Selection Index (TSI). This is a combined variable that looks at multiple key
variables when selecting which cases to use for driver-in-the-loop testing.
For the Honda A-CMBS the key variables that were used for driver-in-the-loop test selection
were the absolute value of the heading angle of the conflict partner relative to the Subject
Vehicle (deg) at t
scc
, (
cp
(t
scc
)
sv
(t
scc
) ), the Subject Vehicle and Conflict Partner velocities,
and the Conflict Partner acceleration, all at t
scc
. The "safety critical conflict" time, t
scc,
is defined
to be the last time in the period before impact that the Subject Vehicle can brake at 0.75 g x mu
of the road surface and either avoid the collision or stop. The composite TSI is calculated
according to Eqns (26), (27), and (28) listed in section 6.4.1.2.
Since the TSI involves many of the important conditions in setting up a collision, it was used to
compare the conditions of the Track test collision scenarios to the reconstructed collision
scenario. TSI values were calculated using the Track test data in order to correlate with the
reconstruction TSI values used for test selection. The Track test safety critical conflict time,
t
scc,TT
, was determined to be the time when the Subject Vehicle was at the same position as it was
at t
scc
in the reconstruction, or P(t
scc,TT
) =P(t
scc
).
The calculated TSI values used in test selection have been correlated with the TSI as calculated
from the measured parameters during Track testing, and the results are shown in Table 35.
121
Table 35: Test Selection Index with Variables
Test Selection Index Criteria Reconstruction
Track
testing
TRCT Case
Track
test
Run
No.
RHA
(deg)
Vsv
(km/h)
Vcp
(km/h)
acp
(g) TSI
RHA
(deg)
Vsv
(km/h)
Vcp
(km/h)
acp
(g) TSI
Pedestrian
P978263301 282 89.4 22.6 4.3 0.0 -1.1 89.2 22.1 5.7 0.00 -0.9
P969064201 287 87.4 57.0 4.3 0.0 0.5 87.5 53.6 4.6 0.00 0.4
P967262001 293 83.3 51.0 5.4 0.0 0.3 88.1 49 5.6 0.00 0.4
Rear-End
C001110801 2136 0.1 46.1 25.8 0.3 -0.7 0 44.7 23.7 0.33 -0.7
C001110801 2140 0.1 46.1 25.8 0.3 -0.7 0.8 46.5 27.3 0.36 -0.3
C007613501 2192 1.0 90.3 33.3 0.4 2.2 0.7 90.6 35.9 0.37 2.2
C007613501 2213 1.0 90.3 33.3 0.4 2.2 0.3 79.6 35.1 0.15 1.1
C010305202 2002 0.3 49.2 10.3 0.3 -1.6 1.7 46.5 7.4 0.15 -2.0
C010305202 2005 0.3 49.2 10.3 0.3 -1.6 6 49.1 10 0.28 -1.0
Head-on
C011306501 1829 139.5 65.5 1.6 0.0 -2.9 141.2 60.5 1.5 0.00 -3.1
C011306501 1961 139.5 65.5 1.6 0.0 -2.9 148.9 63.4 1.6 0.00 -2.6
C014513401 2246 155.5 84.2 29.7 0.2 -0.1 152.4 83.7 31.4 0.06 -0.4
Intersecting
Path
C001213102 1898 133.2 56.8 1.8 0.0 -1.5 156.5 55.2 2.3 0.00 -0.9
C001213102 1929 133.2 56.8 1.8 0.0 -1.5 146 55.9 1.3 0.00 -1.2
C017218102 2103 178.4 50.0 41.8 0.3 1.8 179.5 48 40.5 0.00 1.3
C017218102 2110 178.4 50.0 41.8 0.3 1.8 178.9 48.4 40.3 0.00 1.2
C017305501 1845 137.4 77.5 6.4 0.0 -0.2 129.9 74.9 6.3 0.00 -0.6
C017305501 1937 137.4 77.5 6.4 0.0 -0.2 128.9 73.9 6.3 0.00 -0.6
Figure 29 and Table 35 indicate that there is generally close agreement between the TSI values
from the reconstructions and from the Track tests. The correlation coefficient of the Track tests
against the reconstructed test scenarios at the safety critical conflict time was 0.88, as illustrated
in Figure 29.
122
Figure 29: Test Selection Index Correlation Plot
The relatively small level of disagreement that exists between the TSI values is caused by two
factors. First, the GST control system as configured was not able to follow the velocity profile of
the reconstruction exactly, and lagged in building deceleration compared to the reconstruction.
The result was that, at the time of safety critical conflict, the deceleration of the GST was
sometimes less than the level seen in the reconstruction, as seen in runs 2002 and 2213 in
Table 35. It can be seen that in runs 2192 and 2005 (the same case numbers as runs 2213 and
2002, respectively), the GST was able to provide the required level of deceleration at the time of
safety critical conflict, and the TSI value matches much more closely. However, these cases were
repeated for the purpose of averaging driver response parameters, and not to achieve a closer TSI
to the reconstruction. Figure 30 shows an example of this lag in the GST velocity response. In
this figure, the solid traces indicate Track test data of GST velocity and the dashed line indicates
reconstructed collision partner velocity. This lag is adjustable via control gains.
123
Figure 30: Example Time History of GST Velocity Control Lag
A second cause of differences in TSI is that, in several cases the expert driver began decelerating
the Subject Vehicle before the safety critical time. This causes a reduction in the Subject Vehicle
speed at the safety critical time as seen in run 2213 in Table 35.
7.2 Calibration of SIM Model versus Tests
A series of laboratory tests was accomplished to measure the characteristics of the ACAT
warnings as they are experienced by a vehicle driver during a potential conflict event. The results
from these tests were used for creating and calibrating the Driving Simulator setup used during
the tests using 12 typical and one expert driver participants, used to calibrate the ACAT and
driver CSSM models as well as to provide driver parameter values listed in App N for the CSSM
model.
7.2.1 Lab Tests of Warning Display Characteristics
Lab tests were accomplished to measure the warning display characteristics related to human
perception. The results of these tests were used to calibrate the implementation of the warning
displays used in the Driving Simulator and CSSM display model.
7.2.1.1 Lab test versus Driving Simulator
The ACAT visual, audible, and tactile warning laboratory test results used to calibrate and
validate Driving Simulator warnings are presented in this section.
7.2.1.1.1 Visual Warnings
The visual warning display in the ACAT car is located within the primary drivers display
between the speedometer and odometer. This area nominally functions as the odometer display.
When the ACAT warning is active, the odometer display disappears and the area alternately
displays the message BRAKE and a blank area, as shown in Figure 31 through Figure 33.
124
Figure 31: ACAT Vehicle Nominal Driver Display Showing Odometer Display
Figure 32: ACAT Vehicle Driver Display with Warning On
125
Figure 33: ACAT Vehicle Driver Display with Warning Off
7.2.1.1.1.1 Luminance measurements
The main objective of the laboratory tests was to quantify the relative brightness of the warning
for purposes of calibration of the simulator setup and the driver interface model in the CSSM.
The idea was that the visual warning in the simulator or CSSM should have the same overall
intensity and should produce a similar driver response. In order to do this, it was necessary to
measure the intensity of the warning display. This was done by comparing luminance
measurements of the warning display compared to the overall display area and the visual
environment in general. These measurements were taken with a luminance camera. This
equipment is used to capture the appropriate images and, with associated software, is used to
isolate areas within the image and determine average luminance of the relevant areas.
7.2.1.1.1.2 Luminance camera location
The luminance camera was located on the drivers seat using a tripod as shown in Figure 34. The
location was selected to represent the eye location of a typical driver and this was determined
using various SAE protocols. SAE J 4004 is a procedure typically used in determination of an
eye ellipse. This volume is designed to predict, within a high statistical confidence interval, the
range of statures represented by an equal number of U.S. male and female drivers. This accounts
for things such as likely seat Track or seat height adjustment and is based on the location of
accelerator pedal and steering wheel. An illustration of the method is shown in Figure 35.
Dimensional measurements of the various locations within the car volume were accomplished
with a FARO Arm digital coordinate measuring machine and using the location of the front axle
126
as the origin of the axis system. The camera was placed at the resulting Eye Point, which is the
center of the Eye Ellipse.
Figure 34: Luminance Camera Setup in ACAT Car
Figure 35: Illustration of Eye Ellipse Procedure
127
7.2.1.1.1.3 Evaluation of luminance data
Once the luminance images were captured for the various configurations, it was necessary to
determine average luminance values for the selected areas within the images. A typical
luminance image is shown in Figure 36.
Figure 36: Luminance Image Showing Selected Display Areas
Within this image, 2 areas were marked out using the evaluation software as follows:
1. Area encompassing the BRAKE message
2. Overall display area
Luminance measurements of the drivers display areas are shown in Table 36.
128
Table 36: Luminance Measurements of ACAT Car and Simulator Warning Display
Vehicle Location Lighting
Vehicle
Direction
Condition
Overall
Display
(cd/m
2
)
Warning Area
(cd/m
2
)
No
Warning
(Odometer)
Warning
Flash On
Warning
Flash Off
Simulator
Simulator
Bay
Simulated
Daylight
-
Car Display in
Typical Simulator
Configuration,
Daylight
Condition, Cab
Interior and
Exterior
7.90 11.01 24.19 2.55
A-CMBS
Car
Shop
Area
Dark
Car Display In
Darkened Room,
Headlights On
1.54 2.17 3.74 0.91
A-CMBS
Car
Shop
Parking
Daylight,
Mid Day
East
Car Display In
Bright Outdoor
Environment
24.12 35.62 51.40 18.87
A-CMBS
Car
Shop
Parking
Daylight,
Mid Day
South
Car Display In
Bright Outdoor
Environment
25.35 34.29 50.65 20.40
A-CMBS
Car
Shop
Parking
Daylight,
Mid Day
West
Car Display In
Bright Outdoor
Environment
28.00 37.32 50.33 21.33
A-CMBS
Car
Shop
Parking
Daylight,
Mid Day
North
Car Display In
Bright Outdoor
Environment
36.76 35.62 48.25 22.50
Outdoor Average 28.56 35.71 50.16 20.77
From the luminance measurements, it was possible to calculate appropriate Contrast Ratios as
follows:
L L
C =
b
(29)
L
b
where
L is the measured luminance of the selected area
L
b
is the measured luminance of the background or reference area
Contrast Ratio is a measurement of how much light is in one part of an image compared to
another part of the image. In this case, it is a measurement of how bright the display is compared
to the background, and therefore, how noticeable the flashing display would be to the driver. The
calculated Contrast Ratios are shown in Table 37.
129
Table 37: Contrast Ratio Measurements for ACAT Car and Simulator Cab
Contrast Ratio
No
Warning
Display
Average
Flash on
Display
Average
Flash
on
Flash
off
Typical simulator configuration, daylight task 0.39 2.06 8.49
Car display in darkened room, headlights on 0.41 1.43 3.09
Car display in bright outdoor environment 0.48 1.13 1.72
Car display in bright outdoor environment (repeat 1) 0.35 1.00 1.48
Car display in bright outdoor environment (repeat 2) 0.33 0.80 1.36
Car display in bright outdoor environment (repeat 3) -0.03 0.31 1.14
Outdoor Average 0.25 0.76 1.41
The driver display that was used in the simulator cab was a replacement unit for the display in
the ACAT car. Operation of the display was accomplished using digital signals sent over the
CAN communication network. This meant that the display in the simulator cab was essentially
identical to the display in the ACAT car. It also meant that there was not a reasonable way to
make adjustments to the display brightness, for example.
It is evident from the measurements shown in the table that there was considerable variation in
the ACAT car warning display Contrast Ratios depending on the ambient lighting conditions.
The simulator warning display had Contrast Ratios that were generally greater than the ACAT
car. This was in agreement with the subjective sense of the various team members who drove
both the car and simulator. In the future, a greater level of ambient light should be introduced
into the simulator cab instrument panel display, to reduce the warnings Contrast Ratios to those
observed in the ACAT car.
7.2.1.1.2 Audible Warnings
Various sound measurements were accomplished in the ACAT car and simulator cab in order to
evaluate the relative noticeability of the audible warning display. The measurements were
accomplished using a Digital Audio Recorder and microphone together with associated software.
The microphone was located close to the test driver's ear for measurements in both the car and
simulator cab. The measurements included overall sound pressure values as well as sound
pressure spectral analysis. Measurements were made for 3 conditions as follows:
Engine off
Engine at idle
Vehicle at 30 mph
130
For each scenario, measurements were made of the ambient sound level and sound level with
warning on.
The warning horn was located in the dashboard display assembly. As described earlier, this
assembly was identical to the one in the ACAT car, and the warning sound was activated using
the CAN communication network. This meant that the basic sound at the horn unit would
generally be identical between car and simulator. It also meant that there was no practical way to
make adjustments to the basic horn volume. For the installation in the simulator cab, the overall
sound level was adjusted by adding (or subtracting) sound absorbing material around the sides
and back of the display assembly.
The case that was used for calibration of the warning sound was the 30 mph case as this was
most relevant to the selected crash cases. A comparison of the sound measurements for ACAT
car versus simulator is shown in Figure 37.
In this case, the warning horn sound can be seen clearly in the frequency plot at around 2000 Hz.
In this range, the sound pressure measurements show very good agreement. The lower
frequencies show some difference between car and simulator. These lower frequency sounds
may be associated with road noise and chassis rumble and these kinds of differences do not
necessarily impact the simulator experience in a substantial way. Subjectively, the warning horn
in the cab and ACAT car were both clearly noticeable to the various drivers that had driven both
and generally provided similar expert driver behaviors. In the future, the audio Contrast Ratio
could be improved by increasing the amplitude of the low frequency simulated road-engine-wind
noise in the Driving Simulator.
131
ACAT Sound Measurements, A-CMBS Warning at 30 MPH
4 4
x 10 x 10
1 1
66.4 dBA
ACAT Car
S
o
u
n
d

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

R
a
t
i
o
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

(
p
/
p
r
e
f
)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
61.7 dBA
Simulator
S
o
u
n
d

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

R
a
t
i
o
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

(
p
/
p
r
e
f
)0.5
0
-0.5
0.5
0
-0.5
-1 -1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (sec) Time (sec)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
d
B
A
)

ACAT Car
Simulator
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 37: Comparison of 1/3 Octave Sound Pressure Level for ACAT Car and Simulator
Cab
7.2.1.1.3 Tactile Warnings
The ACAT car provides a tactile warning to the driver through the seat belt retraction
mechanism. The warnings come in two modes. The first mode consists of applying 3 tugs to the
belt, with the belt released after each tug. The second mode is a single, more forceful tug that is
not immediately released and tends to act as a pretensioner prior to a possible collision. In the
case of the simulator, an ACAT car replacement pretensioner was installed and was controlled
using the CAN communication network. Because of this, the forces applied at the webbing due
to the pretensioner should be the same for both ACAT car and simulator cab. Measurements of
the web tension were made in both the ACAT car and simulator cab in order to confirm this.
Web tension measurements were accomplished using a seat belt load cell as shown in Figure 38.
132
Figure 38: Seat Belt Web Tension Load Cell
To make the tactile warning measurements, a typical driver was seated with the seat belt fastened
normally. Web tension data was then recorded while a warning command was sent to the belt
pretensioner. This was accomplished for both the Mode 1 and 2 command types. In the case of
the simulator cab, operation of the seat belt pretensioner was accomplished by sending CAN
messages through the communication network. In the case of the ACAT car, the warning
commands were sent to the pretensioner in one of two different ways. For the Mode 1 warning,
the pretensioner was excited using the MABX diagnostic function. However there was no
diagnostic function for commanding the Mode 2 warning. For this warning, it was necessary to
drive the ACAT car directly at and into a foam barrier where the normal response of the ACAT
system was to provide a Mode 2 tactile warning. The tension measurements for Mode 1 and
Mode 2 seat belt warnings are shown in Figure 39 and Figure 40, respectively. These plots show
generally good agreement between ACAT car and Driving Simulator.
133
Figure 39: Comparison of Seat Belt Web Tension Warning, First Level
Figure 40: Comparison of Seat Belt Web Tension Warning, Second Level
7.2.1.2 Lab Tests versus CSSM
The ACAT visual, audible, and tactile warning laboratory test results used to calibrate the CSSM
warning models are presented in this section.
134
7.2.1.2.1 Visual Warnings
The CSSM driver model assumes that the driver can detect a visual warning (provided the driver
is looking at the instrument panel) if the detection index (DI) exceeds a driver-dependent
threshold value, where DI is defined as follows:
W H
DI = CR AA = CR (30)
D
where
CR is the Contrast Ratio.
AA is the angular area of the warning lamp as observed by the driver.
The angular area of the warning lamp is the rectilinear area of the lamp divided by the distance to
the drivers eyes. The values for these parameters, which were estimated from the laboratory test
results described in Section 7.2.1.1.1, are listed in Table 38.
Table 38: Assumed Detection Index Parameters Based on Laboratory Test Results
Symbol Description Value Units
CR Contrast Ratio 1.43 -
W Width 0.031 m
H Height 0.015 m
D Distance 0.815 m
AA Angular Area 0.0007 rad
DI Detection Index 0.0010 rad
Based on the laboratory test results listed in Table 37, it was assumed for the CSSM simulation
that the warning lamp DI was a discrete function of A-CMBS warning state as listed in Table 39.
Table 39: CSSM Warning Lamp Detection Index versus ACAT Warning State
ACAT Warning State DI (rad) Comment
off 0.0 Warning lamp off
on 0.0010 Warning lamp on
7.2.1.2.2 Audible Warnings
The CSSM driver model assumes that the driver can detect an audible warning if the sound
pressure level in the (ACAT-dependent) 2000 Hz 1/3 octave band exceeds a driver-dependent
threshold value. Based on the laboratory test results described in Section 7.2.1.1.2, it was
135
assumed for the CSSM simulation that the sound pressure level was a discrete function of the
A-CMBS warning state as listed in Table 40.
Table 40: CSSM Audible Warning Level versus ACAT Warning State
ACAT Warning State SPL in 1/3 octave 2000 Hz band
(dBA)
Comment
off 48.5 Background noise only
on 58.9 Background noise and buzzer sound
7.2.1.2.3 Tactile Warnings
The CSSM driver model assumes that the driver can detect a tactile warning if the seat belt
tensioner exceeds a driver-dependent threshold value. Based on the laboratory test results
described in Section 7.2.1.1.3, it was assumed for the CSSM simulation that the seat belt
tensioner force was a discrete function of the A-CMBS warning level as listed in Table 41.
Table 41: CSSM Tactile Warning Level versus ACAT Warning State
ACAT Warning Level Seat Belt Tensioner Force (N)
off 0
1 27.5
2 77.4
7.2.2 Track Tests
The Track testing effort comprised three types of testing, each intended to characterize a
different part of the Driver-Vehicle-ACAT system. The three types of testing are listed in
Table 42.
Table 42: Track Testing Activities
Track Test Type Purpose Elements of Test
Vehicle Dynamics Calibration Characterize vehicle response
to driver control inputs
Step Accelerator
Step Brake
Step Steer
Driver-not-in-the-loop ACAT
Calibration
Characterize ACAT response
to Collision Partner in the
absence of driver response
Primary TRCT cases
Expert driver follows
predetermined path
Driver-in-the-loop testing Characterize interaction of
driver with ACAT system
Primary TRCT cases
Expert driver able to respond
to avoid collision if possible
136
Each of these three types of testing are discussed in further detail in subsequent sections.
7.2.2.1 Vehicle Dynamics Calibration
The vehicle dynamics models in the CSSM and DS were defined such that the longitudinal and
lateral response could be closely modeled by measuring a relatively small number of vehicle
parameters and responses. These measurements took place in the lab, and in Track tests on the
VDA.
The calibration effort consisted of the following steps:
Identify required parameters to be supplied for the model structure
Measure required parameters either directly, or determine by best-fit methods
Enter parameters into model and compare resulting responses to those measured in Track
tests
7.2.2.1.1 Geometry, Center of Mass and Aerodynamic Properties
Several parameters for the vehicle dynamics model could be measured directly in the laboratory,
or obtained from manufacturer documentation, and provided as inputs to the vehicle model.
These included geometry, center of mass location and aerodynamic properties of the vehicle.
These were measured in the lab or were obtained from the manufacturer. Table 43 describes the
parameter and values obtained:
Table 43: Summary of Geometric, Mass and Aerodynamics Parameters for Vehicle
Dynamics Model
Parameter Description Value Units
(a +b) Wheelbase of the
vehicle
2.726 m
b Longitudinal distance
from rear axle to center
of mass
1.702 m
A Aerodynamic frontal
area of the vehicle
2.23 m
2
C
D
Aerodynamic
Coefficient of Drag
0.35 -
7.2.2.1.2 Vehicle Dynamic Measurements
For purposes of calibration of the simulator vehicle model, measurements of vehicle response to
steering, brake and accelerator inputs were made. These inputs and maneuvers used to evaluate
the response of the vehicle were:
137
- Slowly increasing steer
- Step steer
- Step accelerator
- Step brake
7.2.2.1.2.1 Slowly Increasing Steer
Slowly Increasing Steer (SIS) inputs were used to determine the quasi-steady-state lateral
acceleration response to steering at various speeds. These measurements aided in the selection of
step steer magnitudes for transient response measurements made subsequently. Table 44
describes the input method, constraints and data channels recorded for this measurement.
Table 45 describes the measurement matrix of speeds and SIS direction.
Table 44: Vehicle Dynamic Test Measurements
Input Method: Expert driver steering input, ramping
linearly from zero
Constraints: Speed held constant by expert driver for
duration of evaluation
Data Recorder: dSpace MABX
Recorded Channels: Steer Angle
Yaw Rate
Ax
Ay
Speed
Table 45: SIS Test Matrix
Steer Direction
Left Right
Speed
(km/h)
20 X X
40 X X
60 X X
80 X X
7.2.2.1.2.2 Step Steer Response
Step steer maneuvers were accomplished to evaluate time constants and steady state yaw rate
gains of the vehicle. Table 46 describes the input method, constraints and data channels recorded
for this measurement.
138
Table 46: Step Steer Response Measurements
Input Method: Expert driver steering input
Constraints: Vehicle to be stabilized at speed prior to input,
then constant throttle
Data Recorder: dSpace MABX
Recorded Channels: Steer Angle
Yaw Rate
Ax
Ay
Speed
Target steering wheel angles for the various lateral acceleration values were determined using
the results from the SIS test. The step steer angles used are listed in Table 47 below.
Table 47: Step Steer Measurement Matrix
Target Lateral Acceleration (g)
0.2 0.4 0.6
Speed
(km/h)
20 - 400 deg -
40 60 deg 120 deg 180 deg
60 40 deg 75 deg 110 deg
80 30 deg 55 deg 80 deg
7.2.2.1.2.3 Step Steer Results
The step steer results were used to determine the understeer coefficient for the vehicle, which is a
key parameter for the lateral response of the vehicle. The understeer coefficient, along with the
wheelbase and longitudinal location of the center of mass, determine the steady state yaw rate
achieved by a vehicle at a particular speed.
The steady state yaw rate response of the vehicle is described as follows:
| r | u
= (31)

o
|
|
2
\ w .
ss
a + b + u K
u
where
r =yaw rate
o
w
=steer angle
u =forward speed
139
a =distance from front axle to center of mass
b =distance from rear axle to center of mass
K
u
=understeer coefficient =D
f
D
r
(difference in front and rear cornering compliance)
Given that speed, steer angle and yaw rate were measured in the step steer maneuvers, and given
that a and b were measured in the laboratory, K can be determined by using a non-linear fitting
algorithm. This process involves varying the parameter K such that the modeled yaw response
best fits the recorded data in the least squares sense.
The results of this analysis indicated that the vehicle exhibited an asymmetrical response, with a
best fit for K =5.02 deg/g for right turns, and K =3.98 deg/g for left turns, as shown in
Figure 41. However, since the mathematical model does not account for this asymmetry, the best
fit for all data combined resulted in K =4.47 deg/g, as shown in Figure 42.
(r/o
w
)
SS
as f(u) Left/Right
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 5 10 15
r
/
o
w
(
1
/
s
e
c
)
Right Measured
Right Calculated
Left Measured
Left Calculated
20 25 30 35
Forward Velocity (m/sec)
Figure 41: Yaw Rate Response as a Function of Speed, Left and Right Turns Separate
140
(r/o
w
)
SS
as f(u)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
20 25 30 35
r
/
o
w
(
1
/
s
e
c
)
0 5 10 15
Forward Velocity (m/sec)
Figure 42: Yaw Rate Response as a Function of Speed, All Data Combined
Confirmation of the calibration was performed by over-plotting the results from the Driving
Simulator (DS) and Crash Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) with the recorded Track test
data. The CSSM and Track test data were compared using the following coefficient of
determination like figure-of-merit
2
(x
s
k
x
t
k
)
2 k
R =1
S
2
(32)
(x x )
t t
k
k
where
1
n
x
s
= x
s
(33)
k
n
k =1
x
t
=
1

n
x
t
k
(34)
n
k =1
and x
s
k
and x
t
k
are simulation and test results respectively.
35
Only the CSSM and Track test
data were compared because the results from the DS and CSSM were numerically identical,
since the Driving Simulator vehicle model was based on the CSSM vehicle model. Figure 43
35
This figure-of-merit is used to measure the differences between simulation and test, as well as the correlation. The
sample correlation coefficient [Box, 1978] is not sensitive to differences in scaling and offset. This figure-of-merit is
similar in concept to the linear regression coefficient of determination, however no regression is actually
accomplished.
141
shows an example three-way comparison for a step steer maneuver. Table 48 lists the R
S
2
values
for yaw rate response between CSSM and Track tests. As can be seen from the results, a very
strong overall calibration for yaw rate response was achieved, with an average R
S
2
value of 0.93.
Table 48: R
S
2
values for Comparison between CSSM and Track test Step Steer Response
Target Lateral Acceleration (g)
Means 0.2
Left/Right
0.4
Left/Right
0.6
Left/Right
Speed
(km/h)
20 - 0.98/0.93 - 0.96
40 0.96/0.92 0.92/0.77 0.93/0.96 0.91
60 0.94/0.93 0.84/0.99 0.98/0.84 0.92
80 0.96/0.95 0.95/0.81 0.99/0.99 0.94
Means 0.94 0.90 0.95 0.93
142
Figure 43: Example Three-way (CSSM, DS, Track) Comparison of Step Steer Response
7.2.2.1.2.4 Step Accelerator Response
Step accelerator inputs were used to evaluate the longitudinal response of the vehicle to driver
input as a function of speed. Table 49 describes the input method, constraints and data channels
recorded for this measurement. Table 50 describes the measurement matrix of initial vehicle
speeds and percent throttle.
143
Table 49: Step Accelerator Response Measurements
Input Method: Expert Driver using Throttle Stop
Constraints: Vehicle to be stabilized at speed prior to input,
steering held straight ahead
Data Recorder: dSpace MABX
Recorded Channels: Steer Angle
Yaw Rate
Ax
Ay
Speed
Table 50: Step Throttle Measurement Matrix
Percent Throttle
33 66 100
Initial
Speed
(km/h)
0 X X X
20 X X X
40 X X X
60 X X X
80 X X X
7.2.2.1.2.5 Step Accelerator Results
The longitudinal response of the vehicle was modeled to be a function of accelerator pedal
position and forward speed. The model was implemented as a series of lookup table gains and a
driver throttle transfer function, resulting in vehicle acceleration as shown in Figure 44.
Confirmation of the calibration was performed by over-plotting the results from the Driving
Simulator (DS) and Crash Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) with the recorded Track test
data. The coefficient of determination like figures-of-merit ( R
S
2
) were computed for the CSSM
results vs. the Track test results. Only the correlation between the CSSM and Track test data was
considered because the results from the DS and CSSM were numerically identical, since the
Driving Simulator vehicle model was based on the CSSM vehicle model. Figure 45 shows an
example three-way comparison for step accelerator response. Table 51 lists the R
S
2
values for
forward speed response between CSSM and Track. As can be seen from the results, a reasonably
strong overall calibration for accelerator response was achieved, with an average R
S
2
value of
0.88.
144
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
4
:

M
o
d
e
l
e
d

L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
o
r

I
n
p
u
t

1
4
5

Figure 45: Example Three-way (CSSM, DS, Track) Comparison of Step Accelerator
Response
Table 51: R
S
2
values for Comparison between CSSM and Track test Step Accelerator
Response
Percent Throttle
Means
33 66 100
Initial
Speed
(km/h)
0 0.37 0.73 0.89 0.66
20 0.74 0.98 0.97 0.90
40 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.99
60 0.96 0.93 0.98 0.96
80 0.74 0.99 0.96 0.90
Means 0.76 0.93 0.96 0.88
146
Note that the modeled response at low initial speeds and small step accelerator inputs does not
match closely with the observed Track test response. For example, in the case of the 33% step
accelerator response from 0 km/h initial speed, R
S
2
=0.37. This relatively weak match is mainly
due to the dynamic effects of the engine and torque converter, which were not modeled in the
current implementation. The result is that, in Track tests, for small throttle openings from zero
initial speed, there is a substantial transient longitudinal acceleration that is not duplicated in the
modeled response. This results in an initial divergence in the agreement between modeled
vehicle speed and observed vehicle speed, as shown in Figure 46. The longitudinal acceleration
as modeled beyond this point matches well, as indicated by the fact that the modeled speed
response parallels the Track test speed response from approximately 6 seconds onward (e.g.
approximately constant offset.) It was decided that since there would be no emergency driving
beginning at zero speed, that the model as implemented was adequate, and captured the
characteristics of the vehicle at the target speeds. If the R
S
2
values for the 33% accelerator step
from 0 km/h initial speed were to be ignored, the overall mean R
S
2
value would become 0.92,
which is within the desired limits set forth in the original calibration plan.
A complete listing of calibration figures is provided in App O.
147
Figure 46: 33% Step Accelerator Input Response from 0 km/h
7.2.2.1.2.6 Step Brake Response
Step brake inputs were used to evaluate the longitudinal response of the vehicle to driver braking
as a function of initial speed. Table 52 describes the input method, constraints and data channels
recorded for this measurement. Table 53 describes the measurement matrix of initial speeds and
target braking levels.
148
Table 52: Step Brake Test Measurements
Input Method Pneumatic Actuator with Pressurized Air
Reservoir
Constraints Vehicle to be coasting (closed throttle) prior
to input, steering held straight ahead
Data Recorder dSpace MABX
Recorded Channels Steer Angle
Yaw Rate
Ax
Ay
Speed
Brake pedal force required to achieve the target deceleration values were determined in a series
of pre-tests. This was accomplished by achieving the target initial speed, releasing the
accelerator, and applying the pre-charged braking force level. The pre-charge level was then
adjusted, and the process repeated such that the target braking level in 'g' was achieved.
Table 53: Step Brake Measurement Matrix
Target Braking Level (g)
0.4 0.8
Speed
(km/h)
40 X X
80 X X
The vehicle dynamics model assumed a linear relationship between brake effort (brake master
cylinder pressure) and vehicle acceleration, and was not considered to be a function of speed,
e.g.:
A = K P
(35)
x b MC
where:
A
is the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle
x
K
b
is the brake gain (g/MPa)
is the pressure in the brake master cylinder
P
MC
149
Confirmation of the calibration was performed by over-plotting the results from the Driving
Simulator (DS) and Crash Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) with the recorded Track test
data. The correlation figure-of-merit ( R
S
2
) was computed for the CSSM results vs. the Track test
results. Only the CSSM and Track test data were compared because the results from the DS and
CSSM were numerically identical, since the Driving Simulator vehicle model was based on the
CSSM vehicle model. Figure 47 shows an example three-way comparison for step brake
response. Table 54 lists the R
S
2
values for step brake response between CSSM and Track. As can
be seen from the results, a very strong overall calibration for brake response was achieved, with
an average R
S
2
value of 0.98.
Figure 47: Example Three-way (CSSM, DS, Track) Comparison of Step Brake Response
150
Table 54: R
S
2
Values for Comparison Between CSSM and Track test Step Brake Response
Target Braking Level (g)
Means
0.4 0.8
Speed
(km/h)
40 0.99 0.98 0.99
80 0.99 0.96 0.98
Means 0.99 0.97 0.98
7.2.2.2 Driver-not-in-the-loop ACAT Calibration
The driver-not-in-the-loop ACAT calibration effort is designed to confirm that the A-CMBS
system that was used in the Track testing provides similar results to the A-CMBS model that is
used in both the Driving Simulator tests and the CSSM for the primary TRCTs.
The calibration process requires that the A-CMBS inputs as seen by the MABX during Track
testing should be re-created in the Driving Simulator and in the simulation environment so that
the A-CMBS model outputs can be compared to the A-CMBS outputs from Track testing.
Additionally, a comparison of the Driving Simulator and CSSM outputs should have a high
correlation value. The goal of the calibration effort is to achieve an r
2
value
36
of 0.9 or greater.
In order to re-create the A-CMBS inputs, the physical signal measurements from the Track
testing were converted into a format that could be used by both the Driving Simulator and the
CSSM. These formatted files specified the position, velocity, heading, and yaw rate for both the
Subject Vehicle and the Collision Partner. By using this information to control the physical states
of the objects in the simulator or CSSM simulation, the inputs to the A-CMBS will be as close as
possible to the inputs from Track testing.
36
The correlation coefficient between x and y is defined as [Box, 1978],

n
(x
k
x)(y
k
y)
k =1
r(x, y) =
n n
| || |
2 2

(x
k
x)
|
|

(y
k
y)
|
|
\ k =1 .\ k =1 .
1
n
1
n
where x = x
k
and y = y
k
. Note that the correlation coefficient does not depend on differences in
n n
k =1 k =1
scaling or offset of the x and y values.
151
Figure 48 shows an example of the calibration results for a single case. The figure shows the
three A-CMBS outputs as a function of time, where zero time indicates the collision time or the
time when the two objects are at their minimum distance. The A-CMBS outputs include the
warning alarm, A-CMBS braking, and the seatbelt tensioner. The r
2
value for each A-CMBS
output and each comparison is shown in the figures for the other cases in App P. Table 55 and
Table 56 show the r
2
values for each run as well as averages for the Track versus DS and Track
versus CSSM calibrations respectively, for each case and each A-CMBS signal as well as an
overall average. Missing r
2
values indicate an undefined correlation resulting from one of the
signals being zero for the duration of the time window.
152
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
0
0.5
1
A
C
A
T

W
a
r
n
i
n
g
/
A
l
a
r
m
A-CMBS Activity, C007613602, Run 1417
R
2
DS vs = 0.638
R
2
DS vs CSSM = 0.894
R
2
vs CSSM = 0.713
CSSM
DS
TT
TT
TT
A
C
A
T

B
r
a
k
i
n
g

(
G
)
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
0
0.5
1
R
2
DS vs = 0.991
R
2
DS vs CSSM = 0.998
R
2
vs CSSM = 0.997
CSSM
DS
TT
TT
TT
0
1
2
A
C
A
T

S
e
a
t
b
e
l
t

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
r
R
2
DS vs = 0.973
R
2
DS vs CSSM = 0.978
R
2
vs CSSM = 0.973
CSSM
DS
C0076136_1417.DAT
TT
TT
TT
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
Time (sec)
Figure 48: Driver-not-in-the-loop A-CMBS Calibration Plot
153
0
Table 55: Driver-not-in-the-loop A-CMBS Calibration Correlations, Track test versus DS
TRCT Run No.
2
r
Warning Braking Seatbelt Average
Rear-end 650 0.422 0.733 0.339 0.498
Rear-end 722 0.574 0.405 0.251 0.410
Rear-end 1447 0.822 0.954 0.990 0.922
Rear-end 1658 0.021 1.000 1.000 0.674
Rear-end 1725 0.585 0.788 0.539 0.637
Rear-end 1783 0.430 0.692 0.417 0.513
Head-on 784 0.746 0.746
Head-on 803 0.685 0.685 0.620 0.663
Head-on 1013 0.650 0.821 0.566 0.679
Head-on 1063 0.766 0.779 0.903 0.816
Intersecting Path 633 0.690 0.786 0.713 0.730
Intersecting Path 1078 0.288 0.064 0.002 0.118
Intersecting Path 1188 0.275 0.503 0.193 0.324
Intersecting Path 1248 0.863 0.384 0.349 0.532
Intersecting Path 1273 0.930 0.894 0.940 0.921
Intersecting Path 1417 0.638 0.991 0.973 0.867
Pedestrian 213 0.843 0.947 0.943 0.911
Pedestrian 216 0.515 0.854 0.790 0.720
Pedestrian 228 0.643 0.419 0.300 0.454
Pedestrian 239 0.609 0.763 0.788 0.720
Pedestrian 241 0.524 0.930 0.739 0.731
Pedestrian 277 0.492 0.492
Pedestrian 302 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Average 0.609 0.733 0.636 0.658
154
Table 56: Driver-not-in-the-loop A-CMBS Calibration Correlations, Track test versus
CSSM
TRCT Run No.
2
r
Warning Braking Seatbelt Average
Rear-end 650 0.525 0.835 0.540 0.633
Rear-end 722 0.772 0.860 0.759 0.797
Rear-end 1447 0.700 0.646 0.860 0.735
Rear-end 1658 0.016 0.016
Rear-end 1725 0.893 0.915 0.864 0.891
Rear-end 1783 0.714 0.411 0.441 0.522
Head-on 784 0.631 0.631
Head-on 803 0.443 0.500 0.425 0.456
Head-on 1013 0.580 0.737 0.364 0.560
Head-on 1063 0.723 0.643 0.873 0.746
Intersecting Path 633 0.902 0.680 0.650 0.744
Intersecting Path 1078 0.291 0.809 0.354 0.485
Intersecting Path 1188 0.216 0.451 0.128 0.265
Intersecting Path 1248 0.516 0.319 0.300 0.378
Intersecting Path 1273 1.000 0.959 0.940 0.966
Intersecting Path 1417 0.713 0.997 0.973 0.894
Pedestrian 213 0.452 0.882 0.789 0.708
Pedestrian 216 0.572 0.893 0.935 0.800
Pedestrian 228 0.186 0.464 0.460 0.370
Pedestrian 239 0.636 0.755 0.838 0.743
Pedestrian 241 0.309 0.395 0.460 0.388
Pedestrian 277 0.516 0.103 0.111 0.243
Pedestrian 302 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Average 0.579 0.679 0.622 0.625
The average r
2
values in the preceding tables do not meet the goal of 0.9. The models and data
were analyzed in order to understand this result and the cause was found to be related to the
sensor model. Figure 49 shows a functional depiction of the relevant aspects of the calibration
process for Track tests and Driving Simulator tests.
155
Collision
Partner
Sensor
A-CMBS
Model
Sensor Data
SV Data
Warning
Braking
Seatbelt
MABX Software
Hardware
Sensor
Model
A-CMBS
Model
Sensor Data
SV Data
Warning
Braking
Seatbelt
Collision
Partner
States
Vehicle States
Driving Simulator/CSSM Software
Track Tests
DS
Figure 49: Diagram of A-CMBS Components
For Track testing, the physical sensor was able to detect the Collision Partner as well as other
objects. Analysis of the data shows that the sensor was able to detect the Base Station, the
camera operator, and the vegetation at the end of the test area. In addition to the additional
objects, there is some level of noise in its object tracking capabilities, which can be caused by
fluctuation of objects edge detection and can result in variation especially of objects lateral
position and velocity. All of these additional signals were observed to have a variable effect on
the timing of the A-CMBS warning. The sensor model portion of the A-CMBS simulation model
assumes that the sensor can perfectly track the Collision Partner as long as it is within the range
of the sensor. There are no noise effects or additional objects unless these are explicitly
defined. Updating the sensor model to account for these effects was beyond the scope of this
project and should be further considered in the future.
In an effort to understand the differences caused by these effects, an alternate version of the
A-CMBS simulation model was provided that would use actual sensor data from the Track tests
instead of a sensor model that sensed only the Collision Partner. Figure 50 shows a diagram of
the model structure.
156
Collision
Partner
Sensor
A-CMBS
Model
SV Data
Warning
Braking
Seatbelt
MABX Software
Hardware
Sensor
Model
A-CMBS
Model
SV Data
Warning
Braking
Seatbelt
Collision
Partner
States
Vehicle States
Driving Simulator/CSSM Software
Track Tests
DS
Sensor Data
Figure 50: Diagram of A-CMBS Components without Sensor Model
This approach allows the A-CMBS model used in the Driving Simulator and the CSSM
simulations to be separated from the sensor model for the purpose of validating the A-CMBS
algorithms. Figure 51 shows the time history overlay of Track test results and the output of the
simulation model whose model structure is depicted in Figure 50. This high level of correlation
resulting from this analysis confirms that the primary source of variation between the Track test
results and the A-CMBS simulation is introduced by the sensor model (i.e., a simplified model
that only senses the CP, versus a more elaborate model that senses other objects and that contains
noise sources).
157
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
A
C
A
T

W
a
r
n
i
n
g
/
A
l
a
r
m

A-CMBS Activity, C018101401, Run 650
CSSM
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time (sec)
A
C
A
T

B
r
a
k
i
n
g

(
G
)

TT
Figure 51: A-CMBS Without Sensor Model
In addition to correlating the CSSM simulations with the Track test data, the Driving Simulator
and CSSM simulation were correlated to confirm that the same Driving Simulator and CSSM
conflict scenarios produced the same A-CMBS response. The r
2
value between the Driving
Simulator and the CSSM time histories is larger than the r
2
value of either one against the Track
test time histories, partly because both the Driving Simulator and the CSSM are using the same
2
sensor model. The r results are shown in Table 57.
158
Table 57: Driver-not-in-the-loop A-CMBS Calibration Correlations, DS versus CSSM
TRCT Run No.
2
r
Warning Braking Seatbelt Average
Rear-end 650 0.391 0.660 0.604 0.552
Rear-end 722 0.667 0.299 0.429 0.465
Rear-end 1447 0.851 0.702 0.865 0.806
Rear-end 1658 0.814 0.814
Rear-end 1725 0.658 0.930 0.826 0.805
Rear-end 1783 0.603 0.724 0.419 0.582
Head-on 784 0.894 0.881 0.627 0.801
Head-on 803 0.622 0.893 0.710 0.742
Head-on 1013 0.377 0.527 0.495 0.466
Head-on 1063 0.933 0.891 0.942 0.922
Intersecting Path 633 0.765 0.965 0.947 0.892
Intersecting Path 1078 0.987 0.346 0.597 0.643
Intersecting Path 1188 0.804 0.956 0.776 0.845
Intersecting Path 1248 0.433 0.975 0.864 0.757
Intersecting Path 1273 0.916 0.965 0.955 0.945
Intersecting Path 1417 0.894 0.998 0.978 0.957
Pedestrian 213 0.513 0.956 0.745 0.738
Pedestrian 216 0.934 0.971 0.806 0.904
Pedestrian 228 0.498 0.947 0.700 0.715
Pedestrian 239 0.958 0.611 0.896 0.822
Pedestrian 241 0.594 0.606 0.827 0.676
Pedestrian 277 0.976 0.976
Pedestrian 302 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Average 0.743 0.800 0.762 0.768
There are some substantial differences between the Driving Simulator and CSSM results caused
by the way in which the Track test data are used by the respective models. For driver-not-in-the-
loop calibration purposes only, the vehicle dynamics models for the Collision Partner and the
Subject Vehicle in the Driving Simulator were bypassed and the position, velocity, heading
angle, steering wheel angle, and yaw rate data generated in each crash reconstruction case were
used directly. The CSSM simulation used this same method with the Collision Partner states
only. For the Subject Vehicle states, the vehicles path and velocity from the Track tests were
used as inputs to the CSSM driver model, which attempted to follow the path and speed profile
as closely as possible. Using this calibration method meant that, in order to maintain the desired
path and velocity, the driver model must have the authority to modulate steering and braking,
which were also inputs to the A-CMBS model and therefore had an effect on the A-CMBS
outputs. Additionally, because the Subject Vehicle dynamics are necessarily included in the
159
simulation, the A-CMBS braking affects the ability of the driver model to maintain the specified
speed profile.
Figure 52 shows the variables that are inputs to the A-CMBS model for a specific run for the
Driving Simulator and CSSM time histories for a given example case. The graphs on the left
illustrate the Subject Vehicle variables and include speeds (longitudinal and lateral), yaw rate,
steering wheel angle, and brake pressure. The graphs on the right illustrate the Collision Partner
variables relative to the Subject Vehicle and includes relative speeds (longitudinal and lateral),
positions (longitudinal and lateral), yaw rate, and heading angle. Before the A-CMBS braking
begins at -0.5 seconds there are differences between the DS and CSSM variables in terms of the
Subject Vehicle yaw rate, steering wheel angle, master cylinder pressure, and in the relative
heading angles between the two vehicles. These differences are likely the cause of the variation
between the DS and CSSM A-CMBS outputs.
Figure 52: A-CMBS Model Inputs, DS versus CSSM
The structure of the CSSM simulation does not allow the inputs to the A-CMBS model for the
Subject Vehicle to be manually controlled as they are in the Driving Simulator, which makes
160
reproducing the exact scenario from the Driving Simulator a difficult task. However, the
A-CMBS software that was used in the Driving Simulator is the same as what was used in the
CSSM simulation and did, therefore, produce identical A-CMBS responses for the same input
signals.
Overall, the level of correlation between the DS and CSSM in the driver-not-in-the-loop tests is
not high (i.e., the average r
2
for each of the four variables is between 0.74 and 0.80), and does
not achieve the targeted level of correlation ( r
2
=0.9). The primary factors limiting the
correlation are 1) the interaction between the CSSM driver model (which is acting as the expert
driver to follow the path and speed needed in the calibration test) and the A-CMBS, and 2) the
difference in the way that the physical sensor provides information to the ACAT algorithm as
compared to the idealized way in which information is provided to the algorithm in the DS by
the sensor model. The A-CMBS algorithm appears to be very sensitive to small differences in the
very low-level signals which were not modeled in the DS. In the future, additional driver-not-in-
the-loop test runs should be accomplished in order to quantify the repeatability of the physical
system. This may assist in determining the realistically achievable level of correlation and,
maybe more importantly, whether statistically significant differences occur between Track test
and DS test results. Additionally, further efforts could be applied to more closely modeling the
physical characteristics of the sensor, but this was outside the scope of the current project.
7.2.2.3 Driver-in-the-loop Expert Driver With and Without ACAT: Track versus DS Test
Results
The driver-in-the-loop ACAT Track tests were intended to measure the response of the expert
driver in the presence of the response of the ACAT system, when involved in a set of
representative conflict scenarios. These results are used to validate both the expert drivers
Driving Simulator tests (involving the ACAT model and vehicle model previously calibrated
against Track tests) and the CSSM model of the ACAT, expert driver and vehicle acting together
as a system. Like the driver-not-in-the-loop vehicle tests, these tests involve the expert driver and
either a vehicle Guided Soft Target or the Pedestrian GST functioning as the Collision Partner.
Driving Simulator and Track tests for the driver-in-the-loop tests were accomplished in order to
validate (i.e., establish the level of comparability and any factors limiting it) the total system
response in the DS tests against that measured in the Track tests, with the expert driver. This was
done for 11 scenarios that represented four different primary technology relevant crash types
(TRTCs) as follows:
- Head-on
- Intersecting path
- Pedestrian
- Rear-end
161
Note that although 12 scenarios were selected for Track and DS testing, it was decided in the
course of Track testing that case C018105302 posed too great a damage risk to the SV and car
GST to attempt. In this scenario, with driver braking, the SV could come to a stop and be struck
by the fast-moving GST. Since the SV wheels would not be rotating, it would not have the
capability to roll over the GST, and it was feared that in such a condition, the GST could damage
the SV (puncture a tire, cause suspension damage) or could damage the GST itself. This speed
combination (i.e., higher speed GST impacting a nearly stationary SV) remains a limitation of
this GST design. This condition was discovered during testing and, as were other infeasible test
conditions (e.g., nighttime for which there is no lighting on the GST; or very high closing speeds,
etc.) should be added to the test feasibility filter in the SIMs Test Case Selection Module 2.3.
For each of the 11 scenarios, there were runs for both ACAT on and off. Additionally, there were
2 repeats for most scenarios. There were several Track test cases with only one repeat and these
included all of the pedestrian runs, and one of the head-on cases (i.e., in the most severe impact,
the repeat run was eliminated to limit damage to the SV). The goal was that the run sets
encompassed the same scenario with the same driver and the only difference was the type of test
(DS vs. Track). Comparison of these runs would serve to validate the equivalence of DS and
Track test in general.
The driver parameters that were determined using the expert driver runs for the Track test and
driving simulator tests include:
- Brake Delay
- Brake Rise Time
- Brake Pressure Magnitude
- Steer Delay
- Steer Period
- Steer Magnitude (absolute value shown)
Table 58 shows the calculated values of these driver parameters for these runs. This table allows
a comparison between expert driver parameter values for Driving Simulator versus Track tests.
162
Table 58: Measured Values of Driver Parameters for Expert Driver Runs for the Driving
Simulator and Track Tests
Number
of
Samples
Mean
Brake
Delay
(sec)
Mean
Brake
Rise
(sec)
Mean
Brake
Mag
(Mpa)
Mean
Steer
Delay
(sec)
Mean
Steer
Period
(sec)
Mean
Steer
Mag
(deg)
Track Test
Brake Only 18 1.01 0.39 7.84
Steer Only 10 0.81 1.24 86.70
Brake +Steer 7 0.88 0.17 6.31 0.78 1.33 114.72
Driving
Simulator
Brake Only 2 0.70 0.27 6.56
Steer Only 7 0.80 0.56 43.97
Brake +Steer 25 0.97 0.26 5.30 0.98 1.73 69.60
For some of the comparison cases, the apparent result may be somewhat misleading. For
example, when comparing mean brake delay for the brake only model cases, the simulator value
of 0.70 seconds appears substantially smaller than the corresponding value for Track tests which
is 1.01 seconds. However, the 0.70 value was based on only two Driving Simulator test runs.
When the Brake and Steer cases are considered, however, there are 25 Driving Simulator runs
compared to 7 Track test runs (a more robust sample) and the simulator mean brake delay is
observed to be slightly greater than the corresponding Track test mean brake delay. In general,
there is a limited level of correspondence between expert driver parameter values from the
Driving Simulator as compared to the Track tests. This can be attributed to the differences in
timing of the alerts (as discussed in section 7.2.2.2), the differences (between DS and Track) in
headway distance to the GST at the end of distraction (as discussed in section 7.1.6) due to
current speed control capabilities of the GST and the current variability of the A-CMBS in the
Track tests, and other factors. In the future, as noted previously, consideration should be given to
increasing the correlation between Track and DS scenarios by, for example, more closely
matching GST speed profiles, and addressing the run-to-run repeatability of the Track tests.
In addition to comparing the expert driver model parameter values, it was possible to:
- Compare resulting ACAT collision probability reduction for DS versus Track with the
expert driver
- Compare expert driver response across run pairs (e.g., does expert driver respond in a
similar way between DS and Track)
- Compare expert driver response within run repeats (e.g., does expert driver respond in a
similar way when runs are repeated)
- Compare expert driver outcomes across run pairs (e.g., does expert driver achieve similar
outcomes between DS and Track)
- Compare expert driver outcomes within run repeats (e.g., does expert driver respond
achieve similar outcomes when runs are repeated)
163
Table 59 offers a comparison of the ACAT collision probability reduction for the DS versus
Track test runs as observed by occurrence of collisions. It is observed that for all runs with the
ACAT off, there is a higher frequency of collision for the DS versus the Track test (86% versus
63%). Activating the ACAT reduced the number of collisions to approximately the same
frequency (41% for DS versus 37% for Track test).
Table 59: Comparison of ACAT Collision Probability Reduction for Expert Driver Runs,
Driving Simulator versus Track Tests
Driving Simulator Track Test
Number of
Collisions Total
Exposures
ACAT
Probability
Reduction
37
Number of
Collisions Total
Exposures
ACAT
Collision
Probability
Reduction ACAT on ACAT off ACAT on ACAT off
All 9 19 22 53% 7 12 19 42%
Head-on 2 4 4 50% 2 3 4 33%
Intersecting
Path
2 6 6 67% 3 6 6 50%
Pedestrian 4 5 6 20% 2 3 3 33%
Rear-end
38
1 4 6 75% 0 0 6
It was also possible to consider the outcomes of the various runs on a case by case basis as
shown in Table 60.
Table 60: Comparison of Run Outcomes for DS versus Track test as Indicated by
Occurrence of Collision
Same
Outcome
(DS,
Track)
Different
Outcome
(DS,
Track)
All 35 9
Head-on 6 2
Intersecting Path 11 1
Pedestrian 11 1
Rear-end 7 5
37
Probability reduction is defined as the difference, divided by the baseline value, multiplied by 100%.
38
Due to currently unmodeled sensor characteristics described in Section 7.2.2.2, the system tended to warn earlier
in Track testing than in the Driving Simulator for rear-end collision scenarios. This effect led to fewer collisions in
Track testing than in the Driving Simulator.
164
It is observed in this table that when all expert runs are combined (e.g., ACAT on and off), then
the collision outcome of the runs match in 35 out of 44 cases (80%). It should be noted that in
the cases where there were only one repeat done for the Track test case, that one run was
duplicated so that it could be compared with both of the corresponding DS runs. We can see that
when the outcomes are compared for DS versus Track test runs, they match in the majority of,
but not all cases.
In order to evaluate whether the type of driver response was similar for DS versus Track test
runs, the driver response types were tabulated for each run according to model type as follows:
- Brake only
- Steer only
- Brake and steer
- No Response
Table 61 shows how well the driver response types match when comparing DS and Track test
runs.
Table 61: Comparison of Driver Response Type Between DS and Track
Same
Model
Type
(DS,
Track)
Different
Model
Type
(DS,
Track)
All 8 36
Head-on 1 7
Intersecting Path 4 8
Pedestrian 2 10
Rear-end 1 11
It is apparent from this table that the expert driver did not generally respond in the same way in
the simulator versus the Track tests. To further look at the repeatability, driver response and run
outcome were compared for the pairs of identical runs. These results are shown in Table 62.
165
Table 62: Comparison of Driver Response Type and Outcome within Pairs of Identical
Runs
Response Type for
Pairs of Runs
Outcome
(collision/no
collision) for Pairs
of Runs
DS Track DS Track
All Same 11 11 18 12
Different 11 4 4 3
Head-on Same 3 2 4 1
Different 1 1 0 2
Intersecting Path Same 2 3 6 5
Different 4 3 0 1
Pedestrian Same 2 5
Different 4 1
Rear-end
Same 4 6 3 6
Different 2 0 3 0
It is observed from this table that the expert driver response type was repeated for only one half
(11 of 22) of the simulator runs and 11 of 15
39
of the Track test runs. The collision outcome
summary shows much better repeatability with 18 of 22 DS runs matching and 12 of 15 Track
test runs matching. It is apparent from these tables that the driver response type is not very
repeatable between identical runs or when comparing DS to Track tests, but that the outcome as
measured by occurrence of collision is much more repeatable. In other words, the expert driver
may respond in an identical way (between DS and Track, or even a repeat run) only about 50% -
66% of the time when faced with a possible collision, but the outcome of his actions is generally
repeatable about 80% of the time.
40
It was not possible to compare the "overall" variability of the
expert driver's response or performance in the DS tests versus the Track tests as the latter did not
involve repeats of pedestrian tests.
7.2.3 CSSM vs. DS (Driver-in-the-loop Expert and Typical Drivers With and Without ACAT)
The driver-in-the-loop scenarios that were tested in the Driving Simulator were also simulated in
the CSSM. This section compares the results of the simulations to the actual driver and A-CMBS
responses as measured during the simulator tests. The purpose of this comparison is to get an
overall measurement of how well the CSSM (which includes parameters extracted from the DS
tests) matches the test outcomes. The CSSM includes the vehicle model, A-CMBS model, and
39
While a total of 18 full-scale runs were accomplished, the pedestrian scenarios were not repeated in the Track
tests, meaning that there were no pedestrian pairs to compare in this analysis.
40
This seems generally consistent with the classical manual control principle that states that human operators will do
whatever is necessary in order to achieve a relatively constant level of performance.
166
driver model, all of which have an effect on the variables of interest. For this analysis the
outcome variables that were compared are:
- Subject vehicle speed
- ACAT Warning
- ACAT Braking
- Driver Braking
- Driver Steering
- Driver Object Gaze
Each simulator participant was exposed to each scenario four times, two with the A-CMBS on
and two with it off. During the driver parameter extraction, each exposure was classified as a
brake only (B), brake and steer (BS), or steer only (S). Additionally, each scenario was run
through the CSSM three times for each participant using the B, BS, and S parameters. For this
analysis, the driver action classification used during parameter extraction was also the CSSM
driver action that the run was compared to and is noted in the legend on each plot.
The data for each run is analyzed up to the point of collision. If no collision occurred, the data is
analyzed up to the point when the minimum distance is reached or the subject vehicle comes to a
stop. The plots indicate a collision by a red x and a miss by a red o. The subject vehicle
speed at the time is noted on the plot as well. An example A-CMBS Off and On plot are
provided in Figure 53 and Figure 54. The full set is present in App R.
The correlation values for these runs are calculated for each run and each variable. The full table
of correlation values by run is included in the App Q. Summary tables have been provided
showing the correlation of each variable by driver, scenario, and A-CMBS state. The correlation
in Table 63 between the CSSM and the DS for the driver speed and braking responses and the
ACAT braking and warning responses are relatively higher (0.602 to 0.849) while the correlation
for the driver steering and gaze responses are relatively lower (0.085 to 0.463), probably due to
the less predictable manner in which drivers steer and gaze as opposed to brake in an emergency.
In order to calculate a correlation value for the driver object gaze, the objects were assigned
numerical values. For example, Road =0, Radio =1, and Obstacle =2. Note that for the Driving
Simulator, the driver looking at the distraction light is the same as the driver looking at the radio
in the CSSM.
167
Figure 53: A-CMBS Off Example Time History Plot
168
Figure 54: A-CMBS On Example Time History Plot
169
Table 63: Correlation by Driver
2
r
Participant
SV
Speed
ACAT
Warning
ACAT
Braking
Driver
Braking
Driver
Steering
Driver
Gaze
437 0.602 0.707 0.684 0.767 0.327 0.195
484 0.615 0.720 0.771 0.754 0.274 0.181
549 0.636 0.729 0.778 0.748 0.085 0.203
738 0.680 0.734 0.723 0.849 0.423 0.200
777 0.648 0.705 0.726 0.735 0.303 0.271
827 0.629 0.723 0.747 0.791 0.341 0.143
887 0.631 0.666 0.734 0.614 0.364 0.171
954 0.685 0.724 0.784 0.785 0.463 0.175
1009 0.669 0.751 0.769 0.736 0.236 0.226
1103 0.686 0.733 0.719 0.637 0.378 0.246
1113 0.636 0.739 0.731 0.701 0.380 0.250
1136 0.706 0.767 0.809 0.830 0.207 0.322
Expert
9996 0.672 0.687 0.789 0.626 0.389 0.374
Table 64: Correlation by Scenario
2
r
Case
SV
Speed
ACAT
Warning
ACAT
Braking
Driver
Braking
Driver
Steering
Driver
Gaze
C001110801 0.661 0.643 0.835 0.644 0.306 0.306
C001213102 0.637 0.787 0.785 0.336 0.391 0.112
C007613501 0.856 0.751 0.645 0.715 0.258 0.360
C010305202 0.880 0.853 0.917 0.819 0.349 0.343
C011306501 0.730 0.874 0.919 0.836 0.366 0.127
C014513401 0.533 0.816 0.748 0.381 0.261 0.282
C017218102 0.503 0.532 0.512 0.120 0.218 0.146
C017305501 0.593 0.793 0.888 0.866 0.404 0.131
C018105302 0.561 0.570 0.603 1.000 0.423 0.329
P967262001 0.584 0.660 0.624 0.831 0.188 0.127
P969064201 0.748 0.610 0.686 0.931 0.212 0.240
P978263301 0.542 0.748 0.865 0.575 0.527 0.256
170
Table 65: Correlation by A-CMBS State
2
r
A-
CMBS SV Speed
ACAT
Warning
ACAT
Braking
Driver
Braking
Driver
Steering
Driver
Gaze
Off
On
0.441
0.866
1.000
0.431
1.000
0.472
0.811
0.676
0.311
0.334
0.210
0.252
In addition to the correlation values, a scatter plot of the subject vehicle speed at the minimum
distance or collision point is illustrated in Figure 55. The plot has the speed in the DS and CSSM
on separate axes so that points on the line with unity slope indicate agreement between the DS
and CSSM. This figure illustrates that the CSSM vehicle-driver model and the DS are in
moderate agreement, with r
2
=0.727. The data indicate that the subject vehicle driver model in the
CSSM displayed general but not very strong agreement with the speed performance of the
drivers in the DS.
Figure 55: Subject Vehicle Speed at Collision/Minimum Distance
171
As a measure of collision severity, the resultant relative velocity (RRV) of the subject vehicle
and the collision partner at the time of the collision is documented in App S and App T for the
Driving Simulator tests and the CSSM simulations, respectively. If no collision occurred, the
resultant relative velocity is calculated at the time of minimum distance.
As previously noted, the limited level of correlation seen between the DS and CSSM results (i.e.,
in Table 63, Table 64 and Table 65) for the driver steering and gaze responses is probably due to
the less predictable manner in which drivers steer and gaze as opposed to brake in an emergency.
In particular, the modeled driver reaction only allows for one level of steering amplitude for each
driver across all scenarios, speeds, and runs. Further refinement of the driver steering and gaze
models should be considered and directed towards accounting for differences among scenarios
and speeds.
7.3 Conversion of Test Case Sub-Sample into Driving Scenarios for Driving Simulator Tests
Each selected test case represents a scenario that has been reconstructed using the AART and
then selected using the Test Selection Tool. The objective of the Test Selection Tool is to
identify a set of cases that spans the range of relative Subject Vehicle to Collision Partner
motions that are encompassed in the overall set of technology relevant cases. With this selected
set of test cases, it is possible to make measurements that are then used to characterize the
response of both the vehicle ACAT system and the driver. These response measurements are
utilized for calibration of the ACAT model that is used for simulation (CSSM) and for the
Driving Simulator. Additional measurements are used to determine driver model parameters.
7.3.1 Driving Simulator Description
The DRI Driving Simulator is a research grade motion base Driving Simulator. Shown in
Figure 56, it is a dynamically realistic, moving base, "driver-in-the-loop" research device. It has
a 180 deg forward field of view, a fully instrumented cab with a control force steering loader,
and surround sound audio system. Six degree of freedom motion cues are provided by a
McFadden Model 611B (48 in stroke) electro-hydraulic hexapod motion system. The use of a
Driving Simulator offers advantages in the areas of test safety (participant and vehicle),
experimental efficiency, controlled test conditions, flexibility, repeatability and reproducibility.
172
Figure 56: DRI Driving Simulator
7.3.2 Driving Simulator Scene Generation
The Driving Simulator scene generation for the driver-in-the-loop tests consisted of two
elements: the graphics roadway virtual circuit of the 12 selected test case sites, and the driving
scenario control, involving the movement of the Collision Partner relative to the roadway and
relative to the Subject Vehicle, for each of the 12 test cases.
7.3.2.1 Roadway Graphics
The graphics virtual roadway circuit modeled included all 12 selected driver-in-the-loop test case
sites (i.e., crash scenes). 2-D images of the NASS/CDS scene diagrams were used as a template
for creating the Driving Simulator road geometry at each scene. The detailed modeling of each
173
scene included inspection of scene photos (if available) for each site, in order to model any
important 3-D aspects (e.g., occluding objects including buildings, trees, etc.). Figure 57,
Figure 58, and Figure 59 show examples of the scene diagram, actual scene site photograph, and
the modeled simulator scene site, respectively, for an intersecting path case (C017305501).
Figure 59 through Figure 62 show examples of the simulator scene sites for each of the four
primary TRCT's. In consideration of the goal of developing future standardized NCAP-like
simulator procedures, a rule-based modeling scheme was used to model each scene by means of
standardized shapes, colors, textures (e.g., brick textured boxes for buildings; green leaf textured
sphere for bushes and trees, etc.)
Figure 57: Example NASS/CDS 2-D Scene Diagram
174
Figure 58: Example Scene Photograph for Intersecting Path (case C017305501)
175
Figure 59: Example Modeled Scene Site for Intersecting Path (case C017305501)
176
Figure 60: Example Modeled Scene Site for Rear-End (case C010305202)
177
Figure 61: Example Modeled Scene Site for Head-On (case C014513401)
178
Figure 62: Example Modeled Scene Site for Pedestrian (case P978263301)
Instead of the 12 modeled driver-in-the-loop case scenes being connected in a continuous circuit,
which would be more labor intensive and prevent randomized ordering of scenes, a method was
developed for connecting each scene by a standardized transition roadway where the Subject
Vehicle, while driving on the transition, was switched to another standardized transition
roadway which was connected to another scene. A light layer of fog was superimposed in the
switch zone in order to eliminate the sudden appearance of a new scene. Essentially, each test
scene represented a stand-alone roadway tile which enabled creation of a very large number of
scene orderings, essentially enabling the scene order to be quasi-randomized.
The following modeling rules were used for generating the virtual roadway circuit (see
Figure 63):
1. Create each scene per available scene diagrams and photos.
2. Connect scenes with straight entry and exit roadway segments (i.e., 2-lane transitions).
3. Each transition corresponds to 1 minute of driving.
179
4. Each scene exit transition needs to end with a 2 lane roadway (approaching the switch
zone).
5. After the switch zone, each scene entry transition must have a lane expansion, no
change or lane reduction to match the number of lanes in the upcoming scene.
6. All switch zones must have identical appearance.
Scene 2 Scene 1
SWITCH ZONE
FOG
TRANSITION (EXIT) TRANSITION (ENTRY)
Figure 63: Example Virtual Roadway Circuit Segment
7.3.2.2 Collision Partner and Pedestrian Models
The Collision Partner vehicle graphics model was modeled after a Volkswagen Golf in order to
be consistent with the shape and size of the GST model used for the Track tests. A low contrast
grey color was used, in order to minimize peripheral detection by the visually distracted driver
participants. Note that the image of the Collision Partner shown in the driving scenarios of
Figure 64 through Figure 75 is an enhanced, shaded window version of the Collision Partner
model used in the driving simulator tests.
Similarly, the pedestrian graphics model was modeled so as to appear similar to the pedestrian
GST used for the Track tests. As in the Track test Pedestrian GST, the color of the pedestrian
model was medium grey, so as to make it less conspicuous to the driver participants, consistent
with the objective of presenting a driver visual distraction (i.e., an illuminated light ahead of the
passenger seat cushion of the Subject Vehicle) that would be less likely to be interrupted (e.g., by
a highly contrasting, highly conspicuous pedestrian in the roadway scene). Note that the
pedestrian graphics model shown in the driving scenarios of Figure 73 through Figure 75 is an
enhanced version of the image used in the driving simulator tests.
7.3.2.3 Driving Scenario Control
The Driving Simulator driving scenarios consisted of the following elements:
Entry to and exit from each intersection, with fog buffer switching zone between each
transition exit and the next transition entry.
180
The fog along the transition roadway started to fade in when the Subject Vehicle was
at a location which was 1200 ft beyond the test case scene site. The fog fade-out
occurred when the Subject Vehicle was at a location which was 2800 ft before the
next test case scene site. The fade-in-fade-out period was 4.6 sec in duration.
The .a13 format files (i.e., one for each case) were used to set up the Collision Partner
position time histories (i.e., as in the Track tests beginning with position control mode
and then switching to velocity control mode as the POI was approached).
During the test case scene event, the trajectory of the Collision Partner was defined
by the crash reconstruction. Initially when the Collision Partner first became visible
(which was 1 sec after the distraction task started (see Section 7.3.4.2), its trajectory
was a function of the Subject Vehicle position (i.e., position mode), based on the
reconstruction. When either the A-CMBS issued a warning or the resultant
acceleration magnitude of the Subject Vehicle was greater than 0.3 g, the Collision
Partner was switched to the velocity mode. In this mode, the trajectory of the
Collision Partner did not depend on the Subject Vehicle. Instead it began to follow its
own trajectory from the crash reconstruction, achieving its reconstructed speed at the
POI, regardless of what the SV did.
Cruise control to crash speed.
To ensure that the test case scene event happened at the correct Subject Vehicle speed
which affects timing and comparability of exposures, cruise control was used for the
Subject Vehicle. The cruise control speed was set to the test case dependent crash
speed at 1500 ft before the test case scene site. At 500 ft beyond the test case scene
site, the cruise control speed was set to 55 mph. This arbitrarily greater speed was
used in order to reduce the amount of time between events.
Distraction task timing.
The visual distraction task light was turned on at 2.0 sec prior to the start of the first
expected A-CMBS warning,
41
based on pre-runs of the CSSM with A-CMBS on. It
was turned off at 0.82 sec
42
prior to either the pre-calculated start of A-CMBS
braking, or the reconstructed time of impact to the Collision Partner if there was no
A-CMBS braking. All A-CMBS warning times and braking times for scenario timing
purposes were based on CSSM runs with A-CMBS on, in the original crash
reconstruction. Note that in the Track tests, and therefore in the DS for the expert
41
From pilot tests, 2.0 sec was found to be an adequate but not excessive duration for most drivers to fixate on the
distraction light, following the distraction audio (i.e., bell ring) cue.
42
0.82 sec was the mean delay time measured in a previous study for a sample of 12 typical drivers, between a
CMBS first warning and application of braking.
181
driver only, the visual distraction task light was turned on at 0.82 sec prior to the start
of the first expected A-CMBS warning.
The series of figures below shows the typical path of the Subject Vehicle (i.e., white colored car)
and the reconstructed path of the Collision Partner (i.e., grey colored car or pedestrian) for the
12 driver-in-the loop test cases developed for the driving simulator tests for TRCT's involving:
intersecting path (Figure 64 through Figure 66), rear-end (Figure 67 through Figure 69), head-on
(Figure 70 through Figure 72), and pedestrian (Figure 73 through Figure 75). The vehicle images
are shown at 1 second intervals during the last 3 seconds prior to impact in the baseline (i.e.,
ACAT off) case. Note that sequences in which there are fewer than four images of both Collision
Partners indicate cases in which one of the Collision Partners came to rest (i.e., there is non-
movement of its image).
182
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
4
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

P
a
t
h

C
a
s
e

C
0
1
7
3
0
5
5
0
1

1
8
3

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
5
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

P
a
t
h

C
a
s
e

C
0
1
7
2
1
8
1
0
2

1
8
4

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
6
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

P
a
t
h

C
a
s
e

C
0
0
1
2
1
3
1
0
2

1
8
5

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
7
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d

C
a
s
e

C
0
1
0
3
0
5
2
0
2

1
8
6

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
8
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d

C
a
s
e

C
0
0
1
1
1
0
8
0
1

1
8
7

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
9
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d

C
a
s
e

C
0
0
7
6
1
3
5
0
1

1
8
8

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
0
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

H
e
a
d
-
O
n

C
a
s
e

C
0
1
4
5
1
3
4
0
1

1
8
9

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
1
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

H
e
a
d
-
O
n

C
a
s
e

C
0
1
8
1
0
5
3
0
2

1
9
0

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
2
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

H
e
a
d
-
O
n

C
a
s
e

C
0
1
1
3
0
6
5
0
1

1
9
1

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
3
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

C
a
s
e

P
9
7
8
2
6
3
3
0
1
1
9
2

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
4
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

C
a
s
e

P
9
6
7
2
6
2
0
0
1
1
9
3

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
5
:

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

P
a
t
h
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

L
a
s
t

3

S
e
c
o
n
d
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r

C
a
s
e

P
9
6
9
0
6
4
2
0
1
1
9
4

7.3.3 Driving Scenario Participants
For the Driving Simulator tests, a sample of 12 typical drivers was used, in order to measure
driver response (i.e., glance, brake and steer time delays and amplitudes) to the ACAT warnings,
and overall driver-vehicle-ACAT system performance. Note that a sample size of 12 participants
is near the minimum size for which quantities such as mean and standard deviation have
meaningful interpretations for the scalar variables of interest (such as reduction in Fatality
Equivalent injuries, or subjective ratings). In addition, a jury of 12 is traditionally considered
representative in other contexts. Similarly, the concept of an evaluation jury of 12 participants
is often used in automotive product evaluations.
7.3.3.1 Participant Selection
Participant selection for this study was based on the United States annually weighted crash
scenarios from the NASS/CDS and PCDS databases [Kahane, 1997]. Gender and age were used
as the main demographic variables of interest for the typical driving population. Table 66 shows
the 2000 2001 percentages based on age and gender. The gender and age breakdown for the 12
participants is shown in Table 67.
Table 66: 2000 - 2001 NASS/CDS Weighted Crash Scenarios
Percent of US cases based on
weighted estimates
Male Female
Gender 57 43
16-25 years 33
26-41 years 33
>41 years 33
Table 67: Number of Individuals in Driver Test Sample in Each Gender and Age Category
Based on NASS/CDS data
Age Category Male Female Totals
16-25 years 3 1 4 (33%)
26-41 years 2 2 4 (33%)
>41 years 2 2 4 (33%)
Totals 7 (57%) 5 (43%)
7.3.3.2 Participant Protocol
The participants were selected after screening from a large participant database. A description of
the participants age and gender characteristics is found below. The screening process included a
195
brief phone interview and screening questionnaires administered on the first test day for each
participant. The recruitment dialog and screening questionnaires can be found in App U.
7.3.3.3 Participant Summary
Twelve typical drivers participated in this study along with the same expert driver that
participated in the Track tests. The typical participants were not familiar with, nor technically
knowledgeable about the specific ACAT under investigation. The participants were licensed in
the class of vehicle being studied (i.e., passenger car). Participant numbers, ages, and genders are
listed in Table 68. The overall average age of the participants was 35.1 years old. The average
age of the female participants was 39.8 years old and the average age of the male participants
was 31.7 years old.
Table 68: Typical-Driver Participant Summary
Male Female
Age
Group Age
Participant
No. Age
Participant
No.
16-25 25 827 25 954
23 1113
23 1136
26-41 26 1009 29 437
32 1103 30 484
>41 42 887 67 549
51 777 48 738
7.3.4 Driving Simulator Procedures
The purpose of the Driving Simulator tests with the expert driver and typical drivers was to
measure drivers response characteristics (in order to provide driver parameters for the CSSM
model) as well as the Driver-Vehicle-ACAT system response to Collision Partners motions (in
order to calibrate the CSSM model against the DS tests, and the DS tests against the Track tests).
A description of the Driving Simulator set up and driving scenarios were discussed in Section
7.3.2. The details of the driver-in-the-loop simulator driving task including participant
information, testing protocols and procedures, and subjective data are described here.
Before driving for this study, participants were given the study instructions and information
about the tests including eye-tracker information and instructions on the primary and secondary
tasks. For this study the primary task as instructed to the participants was to use cruise control to
drive on the road in the lane designated by the experimenter who was seated in the passenger
seat, while using steering and braking to avoid collisions as necessary. The secondary task, or the
distraction task, involved the participant turning their head and looking (away from the roadway
196
and) towards an illuminated light in the simulator cab when directed by an auditory distraction
alert. A more detailed description of the protocols is given below and in App U.
Once in the simulator cab, participants were required to complete a practice drive. The practice
road was intended to familiarize the driver with the steering, speed control and braking of the
simulator car, the roadway graphics, and the secondary task. During the practice drive the
participants drove for approximately 5 minutes on a roadway similar to the transition roads used
in the 12 driver-in-the-loop cases. After the practice drive, participants were fitted with a pair of
eye-tracking frames which included a forward scene camera and a pupil camera. The frames
were used to collect eye-tracking data during the tests. Once fitted with the eye-tracking frames,
the eye-tracker was calibrated by instructing the participant to fixate on a series of reference
points on the Driving Simulator center screen. Following this calibration the participants began
the first of their two driving sessions.
7.3.4.1 Driver-in-the-Loop Driving Simulator Tests
The driver-in-the-loop tests involved the primary driving task and the standardized secondary
distraction task. An outline of the driver protocol is given below. Full driving procedures are
listed in App U.
Participants were told to accelerate to the desired initial speed and drive in the correct
Subject Vehicle (SV) path lane. Cruise control was automatically engaged in order to
maintain the correct reconstructed speed. However, as a consequence of using cruise
control, 65% of the participants were measured to have their foot off the accelerator at the
instant of distraction. This might have resulted in measured pedal delay times for some
drivers that were atypically short (or rather that were more typical of cruise control
operation). Further consideration should be given in any future research to refinements of
this protocol and procedure, which was intended to achieve correct speeds and timing
entering each conflict, however without resulting in the driver prematurely removing
his/her foot from the accelerator pedal.
At a particular time during the scenario the driver was aurally alerted to begin the
secondary task. This consisted of turning their head and looking at a red light mounted on
the right (passenger) door, resulting in looking away from the roadway. The red light was
located on the passenger door at 60 degrees to the right and 30 degrees downward from a
horizontal plane through a typical drivers eye with his/her head oriented in the forward
direction. This was a greater rightward angle than used in the Track test expert driver
tests, as it was discovered in the Track tests that when the distraction light was located at
45 degrees to the right the driver had some awareness of the Collision Partner presence
via peripheral vision.
The participants were instructed to react as they would normally react if a potential
hazard or collision became apparent to them. This awareness could be the result of
sensing something in their peripheral vision or an ACAT visual, audio or tactile warning.
197
The typical reaction to this would then involve abandoning the secondary task, looking at
the roadway environment, and steering and/or braking as necessary to avoid any possible
collision while staying on the road surface. However, the participants were free to react
as they wished.
7.3.4.2 Distraction Task Timing
Table 69 shows the start and stop of the distraction (i.e., secondary task) timing by case number.
A diagram of the timing of the ACAT warning, secondary task, and braking force is shown in
Figure 76. This illustrates the distraction timing and how it synchronizes with various elements
of the critical event. The mean latency and transition time of distraction shown (0.60s and 0.15s,
respectively) are look-up times from [Perez, 2009]. The 1.25s initial distraction interval was
selected to give a workable 2.0s total distraction time for typical drivers. The CP image
appeared 1.0 sec after the beginning of the distraction light on period, to allow for drivers
delay in looking down at the distraction light. The duration of the distraction light on period
was selected so that it lasted until after the first ACAT warning that occurred in the preliminary
CSSM simulations run with the ACAT on.
Note that includes different distraction start times for typical and expert drivers. As stated
previously, the distraction interval used in Track tests was determined to be too short in duration
for use with typical drivers in the DS. The shorter distraction interval was used in the DS for
only the expert driver in order to maximize similarity in the experimental setup between Track
tests and the DS.
Table 69: Driver Distraction Timing
Case Number
Typical Driver
Distraction Start, s
Expert Driver
Distraction Start, s
Distraction Stop, s
P978263301 -3.1 -1.9 -1.0
P967262001 -4.3 -3.1 -0.8
P969064201 -3.0 -1.8 -0.8
C010305202 -4.1 -2.9 -2.0
C001110801 -4.8 -3.6 -0.8
C007613501 -4.5 -3.3 -2.2
C014513401 -3.4 -2.2 -0.8
C018105302 -3.4 -2.2 -0.8
C011306501 -4.1 -2.9 -0.8
C017305501 -3.9 -2.7 -0.8
C017218102 -3.5 -2.3 -0.8
C001213102 -4.5 -3.3 -0.8
198
CP visually appears
CSSM ACAT warning
Distraction light
Forward road scene
Distraction light scene
Brake pedal force
1.00 s
0.60 s
0.15 s
1.25 s 0.82 s
Varies
between
scenarios
AARTs emergency
Braking
(if any) or impact
Figure 76: Distraction Timing Diagram (Note: braking time history (including the 0.82 s
delay after the end of distraction) is that from the accident reconstruction and is shown for
illustrative purposes only).
7.3.4.3 Eye-Tracker Data Reduction
Eye tracking frames were used to collect driver eye glances in the field of view of the head-
mounted camera. Drivers eye glance locations were digitized for the last five seconds before the
collision. In cases where participants avoided a collision, the last five seconds before the Subject
Vehicle and Collision Partner were closest together was digitized. The following glance
locations were recorded:
Forward road scene (anything on the road, including the road itself, trees, etc, that is not
the Collision Partner)
Distraction light
Collision Partner
Instrument panel (includes speedometer, tachometer, and the general area immediately
above the steering wheel, but below the view of the roadway)
Other (anything the participant was looking at that was not one of the above locations)
Figure 77 shows an example of the image recorded during the driving simulator evaluation.
199
Figure 77: Example Image of Driving Simulator Recorded Participant Video (Note green
cross hair on taillight of lead vehicle indicating driver's glance location)
7.3.5 Driving Simulator Test Matrix
Table 70 shows the randomized test matrix used for determining the order of appearance of the
NASS/CDS case intersections. Each run consisted of two critical (i.e., active conflict) events
(highlighted in blue) from the 12 scenarios described in App J and six null events derived from
those scenarios for a total of eight intersections per run. Participants completed 24 runs where
runs 1 through 12 have an ACAT On condition and runs 13 through 24 have an ACAT Off
condition.
Participants were placed in one of two groups. Group 1 completed all ACAT On runs (1-12) in
their first session and all ACAT Off runs (13-24) in their second session. Group 2 ran ACAT Off
first, followed by ACAT On condition in their second session. All participants completed one
condition at a time before beginning the next session.
200
Table 70: Test Matrix
Run 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
1 N03 N11 02 N01 06 N02 N12 N08
2 03 N04 N02 N07 N09 04 N05 N06
3 N10 N09 N07 01 N08 N11 N02 10
4 N05 N01 N06 N08 11 N04 12 N12
5 N03 09 N02 N09 N06 05 N10 N07
6 08 N03 N10 N11 N12 N07 N01 07
7 N04 01 N05 N12 N02 N10 03 N09
8 N11 N10 05 09 N05 N01 N08 N04
9 12 N12 N03 N05 02 N08 N04 N10
10 N06 06 N09 N03 N07 N05 N11 04
11 N07 N01 N08 07 N11 10 N06 N02
12 N12 N06 11 N04 N03 N09 08 N01
13 N04 01 N05 N12 N02 N10 03 N09
14 N11 N10 05 09 N05 N01 N08 N04
15 12 N12 N03 N05 02 N08 N04 N10
16 N06 06 N09 N03 N07 N05 N11 04
17 N07 N01 N08 07 N11 10 N06 N02
18 N12 N06 11 N04 N03 N09 08 N01
19 N03 N11 02 N01 06 N02 N12 N08
20 03 N04 N02 N07 N09 04 N05 N06
21 N10 N09 N07 01 N08 N11 N02 10
22 N05 N01 N06 N08 11 N04 12 N12
23 N03 09 N02 N09 N06 05 N10 N07
24 08 N03 N10 N11 N12 N07 N01 07
7.3.6 Driving Simulator Measurements
7.3.6.1 Objective Measurements
Many vehicle and driver variables were recorded in the Driving Simulator tests in order to enable
identification of driver parameter values for the typical driver models used in the CSSM, as well
as to facilitate analysis and calibration of the response and collision probability reduction
associated with the ACAT system. All variables were collected at a rate of 50 samples per
second. Table 71 lists the variables collected in the Driving Simulator tests.
201
Table 71: List of Driving Simulator Variables Collected
Variable Name Units Description
Time sec Time elapsed since the beginning of a run
Forward speed km/h Forward speed of the Subject Vehicle
Steering wheel angle deg Subject Vehicle hand wheel angle
Heading angle deg Subject Vehicle absolute heading angle +/- 180
Yaw rate deg/sec Subject Vehicle yaw rate (angular rate about vertical
axis)
Brake pedal force kg
f
Force exerted by driver on brake pedal pad
Throttle % Percent deflection of accelerator pedal
Lateral acceleration g Subject Vehicle lateral acceleration
Longitudinal acceleration g Subject Vehicle longitudinal acceleration
Vehicle x position m Subject Vehicle global X position
Vehicle y position m Subject Vehicle global Y position
Scenario Car1 x position m Collision Partner Car X position
Scenario Car1 y position m Collision Partner Car Y position
Scenario Car1 heading angle deg Collision Partner Car heading angle
Scenario Car2 x position m Diagnostic Car X position
Scenario Car2 y position m Diagnostic Car Y position
Scenario Car2 heading angle deg Diagnostic Car heading angle
Scenario Car3 x position m Collision Partner Pedestrian X position
Scenario Car3 y position m Collision Partner Pedestrian Y position
Scenario Car3 heading angle deg Collision Partner Pedestrian heading angle
Collision Partner speed km/h Speed of Collision Partner (either car or pedestrian)
ACAT On 0/1 ACAT system Power Switch
ACAT Warning Status 0/1 A-CMBS warning sound and light off/on
ACAT seatbelt mode 0/1/2 Seat belt pre-tensioner level
ACBMS brake g A-CMBS braking level
ACAT distraction on 0/1 Distraction LED off/on
ttcSV sec Subject Vehicle Time-to-collision
ttcOV sec Collision partner Time-to-collision
fwa for calibration rad Front wheel angle of Subject Vehicle used for model
calibration purposes
brk pressure for calibration MPa Brake master cylinder pressure used for model
calibration purposes
lateral speed m/sec Subject Vehicle lateral speed used for model calibration
purposes
Event channel - Encoded channel describing scenario, null on/off
CVR_b0 - A-CMBS warning state output
CVR_b1 - A-CMBS warning state output
CVR_b2 - A-CMBS warning state output
ModeCMBS - A-CMBS warning/braking mode output
202
Variable Name Units Description
obj_property X position m Position of CP relative to SV along SV longitudinal
axis, from CG of SV to CG of CP
obj_property Y position m Position of CP relative to SV along SV lateral axis,
from CG of SV to CG of CP
obj_property Length m Length of CP, if rectangular
obj_property Width m Width of CP, if rectangular
obj_property Radius m Width of CP, if circular
obj_property Height m Height of CP
obj_property Psi rad Heading of CP relative to SV
obj_property r rad /sec Yaw rate of CP
obj_property u m/sec Speed of CP relative to SV along SV longitudinal axis
obj_property v m/sec Speed of CP relative to SV along SV lateral axis
7.3.6.2 Subjective Measurements
Following the Driving Simulator tests, participants were asked to fill out a subjective
questionnaire with a series of ratings regarding the ACAT system. These were used to collect
subjective ratings regarding the participants impressions of the ACAT system as it was
implemented and functioned in the Driving Simulator tests. A complete copy of the
questionnaire is contained in App U. The results from the subjective data collection are shown in
Figure 78, Figure 79, and Figure 80 below.
203
Figure 78: Overall Quality of Collision Warning and Braking System
204
Figure 79: Noticeability of Alarm Features
Figure 80: How much would you be willing to pay to have this collision warning and
braking system in your car?
205
7.3.7 Limitations of Driving Scenario Test Procedures
In the course of preparation for and execution of the Driving Simulator testing, several
limitations were either purposely imposed on the test scenarios for reasons of practicality, or
were observed as a result of unforeseen participant responses. Table 72 is a list of such
limitations and the reasoning for each:
Table 72: Driving Simulator Test Procedure Limitations
Limitation Purpose/Reason
Distraction was achieved through the use of a
simplified artificial visual distraction,
comprising a red LED, placed such that the
driver has little or no view of the forward
roadway and potential Collision Partners while
focusing on it.
It was determined that a more interactive
distraction, such as keypad entry, would have
allowed the driver participants to break up (i.e.,
chunk) the distraction task and thereby
glance toward the forward road, possibly
seeing the conflict before the intended end of
the distraction or start of ACAT warning.
Collision Partner was made to be invisible to
the driver participant until 1 sec after initiation
of distraction interval.
Many reconstructed crash scenarios presented
conflicts well in advance of the reconstructed
collision time. This would have necessitated
very long distraction intervals, in which the
Subject Vehicle could have strayed from the
intended path by such an amount as to miss the
intended conflict/collision.
Subject Vehicle speed was controlled via
cruise control until the first occurrence of:
Driver braking or ACAT activity
This was found to be needed in order to
maintain repeatable and comparable timing and
occurrence of each conflict and of the resulting
ACAT warning and braking sequence.
7.3.8 Applicability of Driving Simulator Test Procedures to Other Safety Technologies
Due to the flexibility, repeatability and inherent safety of the Driving Simulator, the test
procedures used herein can readily be applied to testing other advanced crash avoidance
technologies (ACATs). Virtually any ACAT can be tested in this manner. The simulator can use
reconstructed conflict scenarios, and model and record the dynamic states of a wide variety of
vehicle types, and can interact with active safety systems either by means of math models, or
through hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) integration. In either case, the active safety system can be
treated as a black box to which the simulation provides inputs and receives the system outputs.
This can be used for a wide variety of ACATs including:
- Rear-end collision mitigation/avoidance systems
- Head-on collision avoidance assistance systems
- Pedestrian collision avoidance systems
206
- Intersecting path collision avoidance systems
- Lane departure warning systems
- Lane keeping assistance systems
- Electronic stability control systems
- Geographically dependent safety systems (curve speed warning systems)
A suitable Driving Simulator can also be used in any study where collision between two vehicles
is possible or likely, and where one vehicle is driven by a human. In this case, human perception
is key, and a vehicle-based sensor/actuator system is not present. This can include, but is not
limited to vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems or vehicle conspicuity studies, where a
driver must decide to turn in front of another vehicle, for example.
7.3.9 Test Selection Index Correlation, Driving Simulator
The purpose of the driver-in-the-loop test cases was to "calibrate" and validate the SIM tool
and Driving Simulator (DS) over a domain of conditions over which the ACAT is to function
and to have some level of collision and fatality probability reductions, with the focus being on
quantifying the driver's response to both the ACAT and to the Collision Partners. As in Section
7.1.6 part of the calibration involved comparing the Test Selection Index values based on crash
reconstruction with those based on the DS tests for primary TRCT cases.
Corresponding TSI values were calculated using the DS data in order to correlate them with the
TSI values (from the crash reconstructions) used for test selection for primary TRCT cases. The
DS safety critical conflict time, t
scc,DS
, was determined to be the time when the Collision
Partner was at the same position as it was at t
scc
in the reconstruction, or P(t
scc,DS
) =P(t
scc
).
The reconstruction TSI was correlated with the TSI as calculated from the measured parameters
during DS testing and the results are shown in the scatter-plot of Figure 81. The resulting R
S
2
value was 0.95. Note that there are 624 data points in this figure, the vast majority of which are
very closely spaced so as to be indistinguishable from each other. Furthermore, 160 data points
were clustered near the ideal line in Figure 81, which explains the relatively high value observed
for R
S
2
.
207
Figure 81: Correlation Between Reconstruction TSI and DS TSI
Differences between DS TSI and reconstruction TSI values are primarily due to differences in
SV speed at t
scc
. If the driver participant recognized the conflict and began to react before the
original crash-involved driver reacted, the SV speed would vary from the reconstruction value,
leading to a difference in TSI value. Small differences in relative heading angle were also
observed, which are as a result of the driver participant controlling this variable directly
throughout the run. As would be expected for the automatically controlled Collision Partner,
very good agreement is seen when comparing CP vehicle variables, such as CP speed and
acceleration at t
scc
.
208
8 CSSM MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS
8.1 Status of Originally Planned Extensions to Pre-Existing Honda-DRI SIM
This section describes the status of the extensions of the existing Honda-DRI SIM tools under
the ACAT project. Table 73 summarizes the status of the initially planned extensions at the
outset of the project. Table 74 summarizes the status of the other extensions that were either
requested by NHTSA after initiation of the project, or were otherwise found to be desirable
during the current stage of development.
Table 73: Status of Initially Planned Extensions of the HondaDRI SIM Tool
Item Planned extension Status at end of project
Crash Scenario Database Development Tools (Module 1)
1 Expanded in scope to include non-conflict
(or pre-conflict), benign conflict, and safety
critical conflict events. Possible sources of
data include the VTTI 100-Car study
[Dingus, 2006] and/or the UMTRI ACAS
FOT [UMTRI/GM, 2005] databases.
CDS and PCDS have been extended to
include pre-conflict through crash phases.
VTTI cases include pre-conflict through near-
crash phases. (see Section 6.2.2)
2 Replacing ISO 13232 based Equivalent Life
Units with NHTSA Fatality Equivalent
injury indices.
Completed (see App A and B)
3 Further automate and update Module 1.2 to
download and extract CDS and PCDS scene
drawings.
Completed (see Section 6.2.1)
4 Investigate and refine download satellite
images for cases with latitude-longitude data.
Completed for VTTI cases only (see Section
6.2.2)
Automated Accident Reconstruction Tool (Module 1.3)
5 Refine the crash reconstruction and
supporting tools in Modules 1.3 and 1.4.
Completed (see App B). Features of Module
1.4 were integrated into Module 1.3.
6 Integrate the digitizer and solver steps so the
user can see the reconstructed case during
the digitizing process, in order to mitigate or
eliminate the late swerve effects observed
in the existing reconstructions (see Section
4.2.2).
Completed (see App B and Users Manual
Vol. IV).
Due to time and scope constraints, the revised
AART was not used to generate new
reconstructions that mitigated or eliminated
the late swerve effect.
7 Refine the initial reference trajectory for the
Kalman Filter-Smoother estimate to
eliminate rubber banding effect.
Completed (see App B and Users Manual
Vol. IV)
209
Item Planned extension Status at end of project
8 Extend the Kalman Filter-Smoother estimate
to include the impact and post-impact
phases, in order to mitigate or eliminate the
late swerve effects (see Section 4.2.2).
Completed (see App B)
9 Integrate the occluding object digitizer
(Module 1.4) into the AART.
Completed (see Users Manual)
10 Refine the AART fits in general. Completed (see App B)
Technology Relevant Crash Type Specification and Case Sub-sampling tools (Module 2)
11 Semi-automate the definition of the
Technology Relevant Crash Types (Module
2.1)
Completed (see App C)
12 Generate a sub-sample of cases for
simulation purposes (Module 2.2).
Completed (see App C)
13 Investigate automating the selection of test
cases.
Completed, Module 2.3 (see App C)
Collision Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) (Module 3)
14 Further refine the driver model (Module 3.5)
to better represent the cognitive driver model
illustrated in Figure 84. This includes the
object recognition, and threat estimation, and
decision making procedures in Figure 85;
and driver vehicle control procedures for
normal/benign conflict driving and
emergency driving illustrated in Figure 86.
Further refine the driver steering and braking
control algorithms and procedures.
Completed at simplified levels, except for the
benign conflict driving.
15 Partition Module 3.6 into separate ACAT
and non-ACAT modules.
Completed (see App D)
16 Refine the injury models in Module 3.10. Completed (see App D), including Fatality
Equivalent injury index, and updated crash
calendar years.
17 Extend to support single vehicle collision
with a single pedestrian.
Completed (see App D)
18 Automate the Technology Effectiveness
Estimator in Module 3.11, and extend to
include Exposure Ratio and Prevention Ratio
terms based on estimated conflict
occurrence.
Completed (see App D), assuming that
conflict always occurs, i.e., Exposure Ratio
equals 1.00.
210
Item Planned extension Status at end of project
19 Revise the graphical user interface to support
different ACATs and use driver behavior
matrix based on multiple drivers.
Completed (see App D), at least for A-CMBS
type ACATs.
211
Table 74: Status of Additional Extensions of the SIM Tool
Item Planned extension Status at end of project
Crash Scenario Database Development Tools (Module 1)
1 Re-coded the VTTI near-crash event data
[Neale, 2005] so as to be compatible with
NASS-type variables and formats.
Completed (see App B and F).
Automated Accident Reconstruction Tool (Module 1.3)
2 Revise assumed pre-crash speed trajectory
form, to incorporate more NASS/CDS-
coded variables.
Completed (see Figure 15 and App B).
3 Extended the AART so as to be able to
reconstruct VTTI near-crash cases [Neale,
2005], based on recorded Subject Vehicle
GPS speed and position time history data
and downloaded satellite images of sites.
Completed (see Section B.3.6 in App B).
Technology Relevant Crash Type Specification and Case Sub-sampling tools (Module 2)
4 None
Collision Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) (Module 3)
5 Add crash avoidance steering mode
prevention logic when another vehicle in
adjacent lane is present; manually code all
reconstructed CDS cases for this new
variable.
Completed (see Section B.3.5 in App B
and Section D.2.2 in App D).
6 Implement expanded driver parameter
matrix, based on Driver Simulator test
results.
Completed (see App D and App N).
7 Revise vehicle model to add drag, to give
more realistic driver pedal behavior.
Completed (see App D).
Overall Safety Effects Estimator (OSEE) (Module 4)
8 Extend so as to include in the output table
the overall safety benefits, in terms of
collisions and fatalities, via the Graphical
Users Interface.
Completed (see App E).
212
8.2 Modifications of CSSM as a Result of Testing
Modifications to the CSSM as a result of testing include the following:
The A-CMBS function may be affected by driver braking. Without aerodynamic drag and
tire drag, the driver model may brake during normal driving for speed control. Therefore
aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance were added to the vehicle model so the driver
model would compensate by pressing the accelerator pedal during normal driving.
The driver's brake and steering input to the A-CMBS model were reviewed, in terms of
conversion factors and units, as these inputs may have an effect on A-CMBS function.
The set of parameters that describe the sample of individual driver response parameters
measured in the Driving Simulator tests was revised and expanded. This was
implemented as a table which is input to the CSSM.
8.3 Description of the Final CSSM
A functional block diagram of the final CSSM is illustrated in Figure 82. The core function of
the CSSM is a time domain simulation of the driver (Module 3.5), vehicle (with and without the
ACAT) and environment (Module 3.6), in order to simulate the effects of the ACAT and
assumed driver response characteristics on crash occurrence and injury consequences in real-
world crash scenarios. Module 3.5 is a driver model which is based on NASAs Apex human
operator modeling tool, which is illustrated in more detail in Figure 83 to Figure 86. Module 3.6
is a Simulink model of the vehicle, environment, and ACAT model. Module 3.7 is a display of
the virtual world comprising the scene diagram, vehicle, and crash partner for reference by the
user. The Apex and Simulink models are linked together with a TCP/IP interface, providing
visual object information to the driver model and driver control to the vehicle model. The virtual
reality display is driven by the Simulink model.
The CSSM has a graphical user interface (Module 3.1) which enables the user to select the
desired crash scenarios and driver behaviors (e.g., response to warnings, crash avoidance
maneuver types and response times) to simulate, with and without the ACAT. The CSSM then
initializes and runs the time domain simulations for all desired combinations of crash scenarios
and driver behaviors specified by the user in Module 3.1. Modules 3.2 to 3.4 initialize the time
domain simulation Modules 3.5 to 3.7 respectively. Simulation post processing is accomplished
in Modules 3.8 to 3.10. Module 3.8 creates a graphical summary of the driver behavior and other
time domain outputs. Module 3.9 is an ATB crash simulation which estimates the crash delta-V
based on the impact conditions, if an impact occurs. The ATB crash simulation is similar to the
simulation in the AART (Module 1.3). Module 3.10 then estimates the injury outcome (i.e.,
probability of driver fatality or Fatality Equivalent injuries) based on the crash delta-V.
The effectiveness of the ACAT technology in eliminating crash occurrence or reducing fatalities
in each technology relevant crash type is then estimated in Module 3.11, which is implemented
as a separate software module (Module 3.11). The modules of the CSSM are described in more
detail in App D.
213
Driver and Crash Scenario Database
Technology Case
Vehicle
Relevant Geometry Sub-sample
Test Data
Scene Coded
and Time
Crash Type (eg., Driving IDs and
Diagrams Data
Simulator, Full
Histories
Criteria Weightings
Scale Test)
3 Crash Sequence
Simulation Module
Graphical User
Interface
Run
Initialization
APEX
Initialization
Vehicle and
Environment
Model
Driver
Model
(APEX 3.0)
Animation
Driver
Behavior
Pert Chart
Technology
Simulation
TCP
Crash
Simulation
Injury
Outcome
Estimator
Technology
Effectiveness
Estimator
ATB
Cases and simulation parameters
Probability of Fatality, Fatality Equivalents
Virtual World
Initialization
e.g.,
maneuvers,
response times
Case IDs
Case Weightings
Impact Conditions
Delta V
Crash Occurrence
3.1
3.2 3.3 3.4
3.5 3.6 3.7
3.8 3.9
3.10
3.11
Exposure Ratios (ER
i
),
Prevention Ratios (PR
i
),
FataIity Ratios (FR
i
)
Figure 82: CSSM Functional Module Diagram
214
APEX Driver ModeI
Run Data
3.5
Driver Model
Pert Chart Data
Feedback gains and feedforward response
Open loop response
command front
wheel angle
command
throttle
acceleration
Long Term Memory
Sensing/
Perception
Visual
Declarative Knowledge
Object Knowledge*
3.5.1
Procedural Knowledge
Auditory
Tactile*
Working Memory
(Apex Action Selection
Architecture)
C
o
n
t
e
x
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
a
s
k

A
g
e
n
d
a

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
A
g
e
n
d
a

M
a
n
a
g
e
r
P
l
a
n

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
r

Motor
Response
Eyes*
Hands
Right Foot
Speech*
3.5.3 3.5.2 3.5.4
APEX 3.0.11.1
OCAST 2.1.5.7
visual object size
and bearing
angle
heading and
lateral path error,
location, speed
radio distraction
ACAT warning
*Not implemented
command brake
deceleration
Figure 83: Apex Driver Model
215
APEX Driver ModeI
Run Data
Feedback gains and feedforward response
Open loop response
3.5
Cognitive Driver Model
Memory
Long Term Memory Working Memory
APEX 3.0.11.1
ACAT SIM Tool OCAST
Procedural Knowledge
Declarative Knowledge
Task Agenda
Current Context
A
P
E
X

Mission Planning
Object
Vehicle Control
Secondary Tasks
Sensing
Motor
Figure 84: Cognitive Driver Model Structure
216
C
t
Visual warnin
Visual objects
(horizontal an
vertical angles
visual angle,
contrast C,
shape)
SPL (dB)
t
F (N)
t
g

d
,
3.5
Driver Model
Object Procedures
Visual
Object
Detection
Estimate
Environment
Uncertainty/
Risk
Conflict
Estimation
Threat
Estimation
APEX 3.0.11.1
ACAT SIM Tool
Object
Recognition
Collision
Avoidance
Decision
Making
Glance
Decision
Making
Glance
direction
Collision
Avoidance
Mode
Choice
Situational
Awareness
Object
shape
Horizontal angle and rate
Bearing angle and rate
Object type
(e.g., car)
P(Collision)
TTC
"Threat" index
Audio
Detection/
Recognition
Audio warning
Warnings,
Distractions
Tactile
Detection/
Recognition
Tactile warning
Glance
Time Delay
Radio
distraction
Eye
(foveal angle,
visual angle,
contrast C,
shape)
F
1
0
C
1
0
SPL
1
0
Figure 85: Driver Model Object Procedural Knowledge
3.5
Driver Model
Vehicle Control Procedures
Normal Driving (non-conflict or benign conflict)
APEX 3.0.11.1
ACAT SIM Tool
+
+
-
+
Emergency Driving (safety critical conflict)
( ) u K

s
K K
i p
u u
1
+
( ) u K
C
delay
2
( ) u K
y
delay
1
Precognitive commands
Driving
mode
Normal pedal
commands
Emergency braking
Emergency steering
Emergency pedal
commands
Normal steering
commands
Emergency steering
commands
Precognitive mode
Pursuit mode
t
t
u
c
(desired speed)
u
(perceived speed)
perceived location
C
(perceived path
curvature)
y
e
(perceived
lateral path error)
+e
(perceived
heading error)
Time since start of
emergency driving
TTC
Reaction to ACAT
warning (yes/no)
Braking or
Accelerating g's
Steering Wheel
Angle
Figure 86: Driver Model Vehicle Control Procedural Knowledge
217
8.3.1 Details (Including Parameters) of Resulting Models of Driver Performance
The driver pre-cognitive (i.e., open loop) emergency driving procedures in the CSSM Apex
driver model were empirically developed using driver response data from the Driving Simulator
experiments using the selected crash scenarios. The idea was to have a collection of emergency
driving procedure models to represent the varied response of each simulator participant that
could be used in the CSSM. In principle, there are four types of pre-cognitive emergency driving
procedures in response to collision likelihood determination: brake only, steer only, brake-and-
steer and no action. Additionally, it was necessary to determine a model distribution to represent
the likelihood that the driver would respond with each of these pre-cognitive control inputs when
exposed to a conflict scenario. The process for developing the driver pre-cognitive (i.e., open
loop) emergency driving procedure models involved:
- Developing the form of the procedure model in order to best describe driver response,
- Fit measured data for selected simulator runs to the model form to generate parameters,
- Make adjustments to the model form or selection process to provide for improved or
more appropriate parameters.
The assumed driver pre-cognitive (i.e., open loop) emergency driving braking procedure model
consists of a trapezoidal brake pedal force (as measured using brake fluid pressure) as illustrated
in Figure 87. The parameters describing this model are:
- Delay time (t
delay
) Time from first glance at CP to the start of control input activity
- Rise time (t
rise
)
- Glance time (t
glance
) Time from either the end of the distraction, or from the start of
ACAT warning, to first glance. The glance is the point in time when the driver starts to
look away from the distraction display
- Maximum master cylinder pressure (P
max
)
218
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
P
m
c

(
M
P
a
)

t
delay
t
rise
P
max
E
n
d

o
f

D
i
s
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

O
R
F
i
r
s
t

A
C
A
T

W
a
r
n
i
n
g
F
i
r
s
t

g
l
a
n
c
e

t
o

C
P

t
glance
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (sec)
Figure 87: Parametric Form of the Assumed Driver Pre-Cognitive (i.e., Open Loop)
Emergency Braking Procedure
The implementation of the driver braking model is shown in the following formula:
0 if t < t
delay

| P |
max
P
mc
=

(t t
delay
)

|
| if t
delay
< t < t
delay
+ t
rise
(36)
t
\ rise .
P if t + t < t

max delay rise


The assumed driver pre-cognitive (i.e., open loop) emergency driving steering procedure model
consists of a sinusoidal steering wheel angle as illustrated in Figure 88. The parameters
describing this model are:
- Delay time (t
delay
) Time from first glance at CP to the start of a control input
219
- Glance time (t
glance
) Time from either the end of the distraction, or from the start of
ACAT warning to first glance. The glance is the point in time when the driver starts to
look away from the distraction display
- Steer period (t
steer
) Period for one steer cycle
- Steer amplitude (A
steer
)
-100
-50
0
50
100
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g

W
h
e
e
l

A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
F
i
r
s
t

g
l
a
n
c
e

t
o

C
P

t
delay
T
steer
A
steer
E
n
d

o
f

D
i
s
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

O
R
F
i
r
s
t

A
C
A
T

W
a
r
n
i
n
g

t
glance
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (sec)
Figure 88: Parametric Form of the Assumed Driver Pre-Cognitive (i.e., Open Loop)
Emergency Steering Procedure
The driver pre-cognitive emergency braking and steering models were fit to the observed driver
behavior in the Driving Simulator tests. As noted above, it was assumed that each of the 12
typical drivers (and one expert driver) might have up to four different types of emergency
driving responses:
- Brake only,
- Steer only,
- Brake and steer, or
220
- Do nothing;
for a total of 48 possible different typical driver-behavior combinations. Since no action was a
common possibility for all drivers, this in actuality comprises 37 possible driver-behavior
combinations (i.e., 3 active behaviors times 12 drivers, plus no action for all drivers). In
addition, some drivers did not exhibit all 3 active behaviors so in practice the total number of
unique driver-behavior combinations was less than 37. It was also assumed that the response
behavior depended on whether the driver was reacting to the ACAT warnings or not. The
probability that the driver would react with each response type was also estimated along with the
brake and steering parameters that described the reaction.
The weighting for each driver-behavior combination is the probability of that driver response
type divided by the number of participants. Therefore, the sum of all of the driver-behavior
weightings is one. Since the do nothing response is the same for all drivers, the do nothing
response for each of the driver was combined into a single do nothing driver-behavior
combination for simulation purposes. The weighting for the do nothing driver-behavior
combination is the sum of the probabilities that each driver would do nothing, divided by the
number of participants.
The resulting parameters and weightings for the driver-behavior combinations are listed in
App N. There were a total of 30 different driver-behavior combinations observed in the simulator
test results for the 12 typical driver participants. This is less than the total possible of 37 noted
above because some drivers did not have all four response types (e.g., braking and steering) in
these tests. If a response type was not observed in the Driving Simulator tests, then the
probability of the response type was assumed to be zero and corresponding weighting is zero. Of
the 30 different typical driver-behavior combinations, there were 26 unique driver-behavior
combinations observed without the ACAT and with non-zero weighting, and 28 unique driver-
behavior combinations observed with the ACAT and non-zero weighting.
The total number of CSSM simulations is a function of the number of driver-behavior
combinations as well as the number of unique simulation cases. The number of simulations
based on 266 unique simulation cases (Table 25) is:
266 cases x 26 unique driver-behavior combinations without the ACAT +
266 cases x 28 unique driver-behavior combinations with the ACAT
=14,364 simulations
43
On a Dell Latitude D820 laptop computer running Windows XP with an Intel processor and 2GB
RAM, the average time per simulation run was 1.5 minutes resulting in a total simulation run
time of 360 CPU-hours or 15 CPU-days.
43
This is the minimum number of required simulation runs. The actual number is slightly greater due to cases with
non-zero driver weightings.
221
8.3.2 Details (Including Parameters) of Resulting Models of Vehicle Motion
The vehicle dynamics model in the CSSM was constructed as a MathWorks Simulink model.
Simulink is a graphically based simulation tool, which allows a user to construct a model as a
block diagram. Constructing the vehicle model in this environment allows the vehicle dynamics
simulation to interact directly with other aspects of the simulation also constructed in Simulink.
The vehicle dynamics model uses three primary control inputs and a number of vehicle-specific
parameters to calculate the vehicle state for each time step. The control inputs, vehicle states and
vehicle parameters are:
- Primary Control Inputs:
o Steering wheel angle (rad)
o Brake master cylinder pressure (MPa)
o Accelerator pedal displacement (%)
- Vehicle States:
o X,Y position (m)
o Forward speed, u (m/sec)
o Lateral speed, v (m/sec)
o Heading angle (rad)
o Yaw rate (rad/sec)
- Parameters:
o Vehicle mass
o Steering gain
o Front and rear cornering compliance (D
f
and D
r
)
o Longitudinal location of vehicle center of mass with respect to rear axle (b)
o Wheelbase
o Driver throttle control lag
o Driver brake control lag
o Vehicle brake gain (g/MPa)
o Environmental parameters
Coefficient of friction ( )
o Aerodynamic parameters
Coefficient of drag (C
D
)
Vehicle frontal Area
Density of air
o Accelerator pedal to throttle position function (non-linear lookup table)
o Throttle position to longitudinal acceleration as a function of speed (non-linear
lookup table)
The major vehicle dynamics model subsystems are:
- Forward velocity (u) calculation
- Stability parameters
222
- Yaw rate calculation (r)
- Heading angle () calculation
- Lateral velocity (v) calculation
- X and Y position calculation
Complete details of the vehicle model structure and parameters used in the CSSM simulations
are provided in App V.
8.3.3 Details (Including Parameters) of Resulting Models of Countermeasure Intervention
The countermeasure intervention model or A-CMBS model in the CSSM was constructed as a
MathWorks Simulink model. Simulink is a graphically based simulation tool, which allows a
user to construct a model as a block diagram as illustrated in Figure 89. The model uses a
combination of primitive graphical blocks and pre-compiled code during model execution.
Constructing the A-CMBS model in this environment allows it to interact with other aspects of
the simulation that use Simulink, such as the vehicle model, and allows for interaction with other
programs though program specific interfaces, such as the interface with the APEX driver model.
Figure 89: A-CMBS Simulink Model
223
The model uses information from the subject vehicle and data from the sensor to determine the
state of its outputs. The Subject Vehicle information provided to the A-CMBS model is
- Longitudinal and lateral speed
- Yaw rate
- Master cylinder pressure
- Steering wheel angle
In addition, it is provided information about multiple possible Conflict Partners. This information
is used to assess the threat level of each object. The information provided about the objects is
- Position relative to the subject vehicle
- Velocity relative to the subject vehicle
- Path angle relative to the subject vehicle
- Path angle rate
- Object size
There are many intermediate outputs of the A-CMBS model. Some of these outputs need to be
further processed in order to get the physical A-CMBS signal. The decoding occurs in the
Physical Signal portion of the model. The resultant outputs of the A-CMBS model are
- ACAT Braking Level
- ACAT Warning
- ACAT Seatbelt Tensioner Mode
These outputs will be used by the vehicle model to determine changes in speed caused by the
ACAT braking and will be used by the driver model to alert the driver of a conflict. Both actions
should result in a reduction in occurrences of collisions and/or severity of collisions.
8.4 Description of Final CSSM Input Data
The CSSM uses the following inputs, all of which are selected using the Graphical User Interface
illustrated in Figure 90.
The Simulink model of the ACAT
The crash scenario data file created by Module 1.1
The crash scene diagrams downloaded by Module 1.2
The AART reconstruction files created by Module 1.3
The simulation case sample file created by Module 2.2 (App I)
The driver parameter file with Driving Simulator test results listed in App N.
224
Figure 90: CSSM Graphical User Interface
8.5 CSSM Resulting Output Data
The main CSSM module (Module 3) creates a summary output file and two output files for each
run. The summary output file, which has the .a31 filename extension, contains a run summary
table in tab-separated data format. This table lists the values for the variables in Table 75 which
summarize the results for each simulation run. This file is used by the simulation postprocessor
(Module 3.11) to estimate the effectiveness results for each TRCT.
225
Table 75: CSSM .a31 Summary Output File Variables
Column Heading Description
ACID 10 Character Vehicle Case Identifier
ACATon 0=ACAT off (not present), 1=ACAT on
ACATdetecttime Time of the 1
st
ACAT warning (999 indicates no warning)
DriverID Driver behavior ID
MinimumDistance Minimum distance (m)
Collision 0=no collision, 1=collision
CVvel Subject vehicle impact velocity (km/h)
CPvel Collision partner impact velocity (km/h)
CVdVx Subject vehicle delta-Vx (km/h)
CVdVy Subject vehicle delta-Vy (km/h)
CVdVtot Subject vehicle total delta-V (km/h)
CPdVx Collision partner delta-Vx (km/h)
CPdVy Collision partner delta-Vy (km/h)
CPdVtot Collision partner delta-V (km/h)
CVFE Subject vehicle driver Fatality Equivalent injuries (life units)
CPFE Collision partner driver or pedestrian Fatality Equivalent injuries (life units)
TOTFE CFVE +CPFE (life units)
CVPOF Subject vehicle driver probability of fatality (life units)
CPPOF Collision partner driver or pedestrian probability of fatality (life units)
TOTPOF CFVE +CPFE (life units)
In addition, the CSSM also creates two additional files for each simulation run, as follows:
AAAAAAAAAA_B_C. a32 a Matlab .mat file with time domain simulation results
AAAAAAAAAA_B_C. t gz a tar gzip archive file containing
Apex driver model input files
Apex driver model output files
ATB input files
where
AAAAAAAA represents the 10 character (e.g., NASS-based or other) vehicle case
identifier
B represents the driver identifier
C is 0 if the ACAT is off (not present) or 1 if the ACAT is on.
The simulation postprocessor (Module 3.11) uses the .a31 files to estimate the effectiveness
results for each TRCT and saves the results as an .a33 file. The .a33 file is a tab-separated ASCII
file which specifies the Exposure Ratio (ER), Prevention Ratio (PR), and Fatality Ratio (FR) for
each TRCT, identified in the file by the TRcat (i.e., the TRCT) number. The file also provides
226
the file names for the .a21 and .a22 files as well as the driver parameter file. An example .a33
file is listed in Figure 91.
# Cr ash Scenar i os: \ ACAT\ SI M\ Cr ashScenar i os\ cs0001_20090113. dat
# TRCS: \ ACAT\ SI M\ Resul t s\ ACMBS_20080718a. a21
# TR Si mul at i on Sampl e: \ ACAT\ SI M\ Resul t s\ ACMBScases. a22
# CSSM: 1. 8. 8
# OCAST: 2. 2. 2 ( Added f eat ur es)
# ACAT: ACMBS_080922m_dbg
# St ar t : 2009- 07- 24 20: 40: 52
# CSSM out put summar y: \ ACAT\ SI M\ Resul t s\ ACMBScases\ Al l \ ACMBS_eval uat i on. a31
# Maxi mumAART J : 2000
# Dr i ver par amet er s: \ ACAT\ SI M\ 3_CSSM\ CSSM_1_8_8\ Dr i ver s\ dr i ver _ACMBS_t ypi cal . dat
TRcat ER PR I Rsv I Rcp FRsv FRcp
1 1. 000 0. 937 1. 000 0. 800 1. 000 0. 869
2 1. 000 0. 955 0. 951 1. 000 0. 905 1. 000
3 1. 000 0. 351 1. 466 0. 888 1. 030 0. 861
4 1. 000 1. 000 0. 994 0. 974 0. 998 0. 995
5 1. 000 0. 976 1. 005 1. 004 1. 002 0. 989
6 1. 000 0. 925 1. 056 0. 953 1. 023 0. 927
7 1. 000 0. 351 1. 466 0. 888 1. 030 0. 861
Figure 91: Example CSSM Technology Effectiveness Estimator .a33 output file
8.5.1 Driver
The driver CSSM output data for each simulation are saved in the .a32 file. App W shows the
data structure and describes the data.
8.5.2 ACAT
The ACAT CSSM output data for each simulation are saved in the .a32 file. App W shows the
data structure and describes the data.
8.5.3 Vehicle
The vehicle CSSM output data for each simulation are saved in the .a32 file. App W shows the
data structure and describes the data.
8.5.4 System
The system CSSM output data for each simulation are saved in the .a32 file. App W shows the
data structure and describes the data.
227
8.6 Some Suggested Further Extensions of the SIM Tool
This section describes some suggested, further extensions to the SIM tool, beyond those not fully
completed items listed in Table 73 and Table 74, as a result of issues uncovered during ACAT
extensions, calibrations against tests and assessment of the example A-CMBS ACAT advanced
technology. These suggested further extensions are summarized in Table 76.
Table 76: Some suggested further extensions of the SIM tools
Item Suggested extension
Crash Scenario Database Development Tools (Module 1)
1 None.
Automated Accident Reconstruction Tool (Module 1.3)
1 Constrain velocity change to CDS values and reconstruct Ayaw rate based on coded
damage profile.
2 Add intended path function and additional object function.
3 Add DOCTRAJ check to reconstructable case criteria
4 Add option to use EDR pre-crash speed data if available
5 Impose constraint that vehicle shadows do not overlap (i.e., contact) prior to single
impact event
Technology Relevant Crash Type Specification and Case Sub-sampling tools (Module 2)
1 Implement Universal Descriptors of crash types [Burgett, 2008]
Collision Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) (Module 3)
1 Explicitly and separately model driver control manipulator outputs (i.e., hand wheel
angle, brake pedal force, accelerator pedal displacement); and implement drivers
adaptive gain to account for other Subject Vehicle MMY.
2 Extend so as to compute the injury effectiveness (in NHTSA Fatality Equivalent injury
units) due to the safety technology.
3 Expand estimates of uncertainty to include the CSSM results.
4 Refine the emergency driving steering model (add offset to eliminate any step
discontinuity)
Overall Safety Effects Estimator (OSEE) (Module 4)
1 Extend so as to output to the Graphical Users Interface the overall benefits in terms of
injuries (in units of NHTSA Fatality Equivalent injuries).
2 Expand estimates of uncertainty to include the uncertainty in the CSSM results.
3 Extend US vehicle fleet to include other manufacturers.
228
9 SIM DATA FLOW (INPUTS, CONTROL (E.G., BATCH VS SINGLE),
OUTPUTS))
The Honda-DRI SIM tool has been developed to work within the generalized SIM framework
illustrated in Figure 9 [Carter, 2009], which is implemented as the main Graphical User Interface
for the SIM tool. The colors of the modules in this figure correspond to the four main SIM tool
modules illustrated in Figure 10. The four main SIM modules are described in detail in
Appendices B, C, D and E. A SIM Users Manual is in Volume IV. Table 77 cross-references the
NHTSA SIM Framework Modules with the SIM Tool Modules. Table 78 lists the output files
created by the SIM tool modules.
Table 77: NHTSA Framework Functions and SIM Tool Modules
NHTSA Framework Function SIM Tool Module
1 Archival Data (CDS, PCDS) 1.1 Extract coded data
1.2 Download
2 Real World Data (VTTI data) Extract coded data
Download satellite images
3 Corporate Body of Knowledge * Not implemented in software
4 Technology Characteristics * Not implemented in software
5 Breakdown of Scenario Characteristics * Not implemented in software
6 Crash Characteristics: Roadway /
Vehicle
1.3 AART
7 Countermeasure relevant crash
scenarios
2.1 Define TRCT classification criteria
2.2 Select simulation case sample
2.3 Select Track test case sample
8 Driving Simulator * Not implemented in software
9 Driver-not-in-the-loop Tests * Not implemented in software
10 Driver-in-the-loop Tests * Not implemented in software
11 Human factors Tests * Not implemented in software
12 Lab Tests * Not implemented in software
13 Model Logic * Not implemented in software
14 Distributions for Parameters * Not implemented in software
15 Validation / Calibration of Model * Not implemented in software
16 Tests for Model Adequacy * Not implemented in software
17 Initial Scenarios Conditions
18 Computer Simulation 3 Crash Sequence Simulation Module
19 Without Countermeasure
20 With Countermeasure
21 System Effectiveness 3.11 CSSM Technology Effectiveness Estimator
22 Safety Benefits 4 Overall Safety Effects Estimator
229
Table 78: SIM Tool Output Files
SIM Module Output Format Filename
extension
1.1 Extract coded data Coded crash scenario table TSD
(a
.dat
Accident text summaries ASCII .txt
1.2 Download
Accident scene diagrams
GIF .gif
J PG .jpg
1.3 AART Time histories Matlab MAT .a13
2.1 Define TRCT classification criteria TRCT classification criteria specialized .a21
2.2 Select simulation case sample Simulation case sample TSD .a22
2.3 Select Track test case sample Printouts ASCII .res
(b
3 Crash Sequence Simulation Module
Simulation run summary table TSD .a31
Simulation run time histories Matlab MAT .a32
Simulation run archive files tar gzip .tgz
3.11 CSSM Technology Effectiveness Estimator Printouts ASCII .res
Effectiveness ratios TSD .a33
4 Overall Safety Effects Estimator Printouts Postscript .ps
Notes:
a)
TSD indicates tab separated ASCII data file.
b)
Module 2.3 ASCII printout is appended to the Module 3.11 ASCII printout.
9.1 Crash Scenario Database Development Tools
The crash scenario database development tools in Module 1 are used to construct a representative
database of conflict and crash scenarios comprising coded data, scene diagrams or satellite
images, and time-domain reconstructions of the time-space relationships of the conflict and
Collision Partners relative to the environment, to the extent that this information is available. The
variables in the resulting coded database are described in App F. The database is representative
because each vehicle case
44
has a US annual case weighting which is inversely related to the
probability that the vehicle case was sampled in the US in one year. There are three main sub-
modules.
Module 1.1 is used to extract a coded dataset from the archival NASS CDS and PCDS data. The
dataset variables are described in App F. This dataset is saved in a tab separated data file (e.g.,
cs0001.dat) for use in most of the other SIM modules. In addition, crash case summaries are
saved in separate ASCII text files, one file for each crash (e.g., C0002070.txt).
Module 1.2 is used to download scene diagrams for the individual crash cases listed the crash
scenario data file. The CDS scene diagrams are downloaded directly from the NASS CDS case
viewer website. The PCDS scene diagrams are extracted from PDF case reports, which are
44
There is one vehicle case for each vehicle involved in a crash or conflict event. A crash involving one vehicle
would have one vehicle case record in the coded scenario dataset. A crash involving two vehicles would have two
separate vehicle case records in the coded scenario dataset.
230
downloaded from the PCDS case query website. The results are saved in J PG or GIF image files,
one file for each crash (e.g., C0002070.gif). These image files are used in Module 1.3 and 3,
and for Track test and Driving Simulator scenario development.
The AART (Module 1.3) is used to reconstruct the individual crash cases listed in the crash
scenario data file, based the scene diagrams, text summaries, and coded data from Modules 1.1
and 1.2. The results are saved in a Matlab mat file, one file for each crash (e.g.,
C0002070.a13). The AART reconstruction files are used in Module 3.
9.2 Technology Relevant Crash Type Specification and Case Sampling Tools
Module 2 is used to specify the technology relevant crash types (TRCTs) and sample cases for
simulation and testing purposes. It comprised 3 main sub modules.
Module 2.1 is used by the ACAT designer to specify the ACAT specific TRCTs in terms of
coded variable classification rules. The classification rules are saved in a specially formatted
ASCII file (e.g., ACMBS.a21). The resulting .a21 file is used in Module 2.2 and 4. The
resulting .a21 file created for the A-CMBS is listed in App G.
Module 2.2 is used by the ACAT evaluator to select a set of cases for simulating with the CSSM.
The evaluator enters the number of simulation cases desired, and the resulting list of cases is
written to a tab-separated ASCII file (e.g., ACMBScases.a22). This file is used by the CSSM
(Module 3). The resulting .a22 file created for the A-CMBS evaluation is listed in App I.
Module 2.3, which is implemented with Module 3.11, is used by the A-CMBS evaluator to select
a sample of cases for driver-not-in-the-loop and driver-in-the-loop Track tests and Driving
Simulator tests. The result is a table listing the selected cases that can be printed.
9.3 Crash Sequence Simulation Module
The CSSM uses various inputs from Modules 1 and 2 as described in Section 8.4. The outputs
from the CSSM are described in Section 8.5.
9.4 Overall Safety Effects Estimator
The Overall Safety Effects Estimate (Module 4) uses the input files described in App X. These
files include:
A OSEE configuration file (OSEE.dat),
R.L. Polk NVPP registration data files,
FARS ASCII Sequential Analysis files,
NASS/GES ASCII flat files,
Effectiveness functions for other safety technologies, vehicle parameters, and human and
environmental factors (App Y),
231
The ACAT .a33 file from Module 3.
Results from the OSEE include displayed tables that can be saved to a postscript file (.ps) that
can be printed on a postscript printer or converted to a PDF file.
232
10 COUNTERMEASURE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
This section describes the formulation and results of the safety technology's performance, based
on the CSSM simulation described in the previous section. This includes the description of the
benefits equation and its inputs, and the estimation of system effectiveness.
10.1 Benefits Equation
The safety benefits were computed based on the benefits equations described in Section 3.4
[Burgett, 2008]. Restated here, the benefits are defined as:
B = N
WO
N
W
(37)
where,
B is the benefit, (which can be the number of crashes, number of fatalities, harm,
or other such measures);
N
WO
is the value of this measure (e.g., the number of crashes) that occurs without the
system; and
N
W
is the value of the measure with the system fully deployed.
The value for N
W
is usually unknown for pre-production or early-production systems. Therefore
it is necessary to estimate the effectiveness of a countermeasure and combine it with the known
value of N
WO
, according to the following equation:
B = N
WO
SE (38)
where SE is the overall effectiveness of the system.
The overall benefits can then be expressed as the sum of benefits across a number of specific
scenarios according to the equation:
B = B = N E
i

WO i
i
(39)
i i
where,
"i" is an index referring to a specific crash-related scenario type;
E
i
is the effectiveness of the system in reducing the number of crashes (or fatalities)
in the ith scenario type;
233
N
WO
i
is baseline value of the number of crashes (or fatalities) in the ith scenario type;
and
B
i
is the benefit in the ith scenario type.
Depending on the type of benefits (the number of conflicts, crashes, Fatality Equivalent injuries,
or fatalities) the effectiveness term ( E
i
) in Eqn (39) is
1 ER
i
for conflicts

1 ER PR for crashes
E
i
=

i i
(40)

1 ER
i
PR
i
IR
p,i
for fatality equivalent injuries
1 ER PR FR for fatalities

i i p,i
where:
~
S
W
i
ER =
i ~ (41)
S
WO
i
~
A
W
i
ER PR =
i i ~ (42)
A
WO
i
~
FE
p,W
i
ER
i
PR
i
IR
p,i
=
~ (43)
FE
p,WO
i
~
F
p,W
i
ER
i
PR
i
FR
p,i
=
~ (44)
F
p,WO
i
and where
~ ~
S
W
i
and S
WO
i
are the estimated number of conflicts with and without the ACAT,
~ ~
A
W
i
and A
WO
i
are the estimated number of crashes with and without the ACAT,
~ ~
FE
p,W
i
and FE
p,WO
i
are the estimated number of Fatality Equivalent injuries for person
type p, with and without the ACAT, and
~ ~
F
p,W
i
and F
p,WO
i
are the estimated number of fatalities for person type p, with and
without the ACAT,
234
ER
i
is the estimated Exposure Ratio,
PR
i
is the estimated Prevention Ratio,
IR
p,i
is the estimated Injury Ratio for person type p,
45
FR
p,i
is the estimated Fatality Ratio for person type p,
for TRCT i.
The person types are the subject vehicle driver and collision partner person. The collision partner
person is either a pedestrian or the driver of the other vehicle in a two-vehicle collision.
In the current example evaluation, it was assumed that the prototype A-CMBS does not effect the
number of conflicts (i.e., it is not intended to be a conflict avoidance system), and
therefore ER
i
=1.
The number of crashes with and without the ACAT in each TRCT was estimated from the CSSM
Driver-Vehicle-ACAT-Environment simulation results according to the equations:
| |
~
A = w P a
W
i

k

W
j
W
k, j
|
|
(45)
ke{TRCT }
\
j
. i
| |
~
A
WO
i
= w
k

P
WO
j
a
WO
k, j
|
|
(46)
ke{TRCT
i
}
\
j
.
where
w
k
is the US level case weighting for the kth simulated crash scenario as listed under
ACWGHT2 in App I,
46
P
W
j
and P
WO
j
are the probabilities of the jth driver-behavior combination occurring
(e.g., Driver 437 with Brake and Steer response) with and without the ACAT, as
determined by the Driving Simulator test results, as described in App N,
45
The Injury Ratio is computed in Module 3, but was not used in Module 4.
46
The weightings in Eqns (45) and (46) are not adjusted herein for the probability that the cases are AART
reconstructable because it is not necessary to do so. It is not necessary to adjust the weightings because the results
~ ~
(e.g., A
W
i
and A
WO
i
) are only used in Eqn (42). The adjustment to the weightings in order to account for
reconstructability would, if they were to be introduced, scale both the numerator and denominator in this equation,
thus canceling out.
235
a
W
k, j
and a
WO
k, j
are the crash outcomes in the kth crash scenario with and without the
ACAT for the jth driver-behavior combination.
The numbers of Fatality Equivalent injuries and fatalities with and without the ACAT were
estimated using the same basic equations using the estimated total Fatality Equivalent injuries
and probability of fatality outcome for each crash, for both the subject vehicle driver and the
collision partner driver or pedestrian.
The separate Exposure, Prevention, Injury and Fatality Ratios (ER, PR, IR
sv
, IR
cp
, FR
sv
, and
FR
cp
) can then computed from the results of Eqns (41) to (44).
10.2 Inputs To The Benefits Equation
The inputs to the benefits equation are:
1) the estimated effectiveness of the system in reducing the number of crashes, Fatality
Equivalent injuries, and fatalities, in each crash-related scenario (e.g.,
E
i
=1 ER
i
PR
i
);
2) the number of baseline crashes, Fatality Equivalent injuries, and fatalities, in each crash
related scenario (e.g., A
WO
i
).
The inputs to the equations for effectiveness (e.g., Eqn (42) in combination with Eqns (45) and
(46)) are:
1) the crash occurrence and probability of fatality from the CSSM driver-vehicle-ACAT-
environment simulation,
2) probability values for the different driver-behavior combinations, where the total
probability for each of N drivers is 1/N.
10.2.1 Tracing the Data/Parameters Supplied as per the Data Generation Process that
Generates the Outputs for the Measures of Performance With and Without the ACAT Safety
Technologies
Results from the CSSM simulation are listed in Table 79, Table 80, and Table 81 for the vehicle
MMY occurring in the original, sampled NASS/CDS crashes. These tables list the estimated
numbers of collisions, Fatality Equivalent injuries, and fatalities for each TRCT. Table 80 and
Table 81 are further subdivided by person type: the subject vehicle driver and collision partner
(driver or pedestrian). The first column in these tables is a description of the TRCT. The second
column is the unique number of crash cases that were simulated. The third and fourth columns
are the estimated numbers of collisions, Fatality Equivalent injuries, and fatalities without and
~ ~ ~
with the A-CMBS (i.e., N
i
, FE
i
, and F
i
) respectively. The last column of Table 79 is ER x PR
computed according to Eqn (42). The last column of Table 80 is ER x PR x IR computed
according to Eqn (43). The last column of Table 81 is ER x PR x FR computed according to Eqn
236
(44). The numbers in square brackets indicate the number of individual values that were used to
estimate the results.
For example, the annual numbers of vehicles (based on the computer simulation sample)
involved in the prototype A-CMBS technology relevant pedestrian crashes with and without the
A-CMBS technology were estimated to be 19,139 and 20,428 respectively according to Eqns
(45) and (46). These results, which are listed in Table 79, are based on simulation results from 72
different pedestrian crash scenarios, corresponding to the k index in Eqns (45) and (46), each
with up to 30 different driver behaviors
47
, corresponding the j index in Eqns (45) and (46), for a
total of 2160 different crash scenario x driver-behavior combinations.
48
Of these 2160 different
possible combinations, the results without the A-CMBS were estimated from 1872 combinations
with non-zero driver-behavior weightings (i.e., there were 26 unique typical driver-behavior
combinations in App N with non-zero without ACAT weightings). Of the 2160 different crash
scenario x driver-behavior combinations that were simulated, the A-CMBS warning occurred in
548 simulations.
The ERxPR product can then be computed for pedestrian crashes according to Eqn (42) based on
these results. This product is 0.937, which is equal to 19,139 crashes with the A-CMBS divided
by 20,428 crashes without the A-CMBS. Assuming that the Exposure Ratio is 1, the Prevention
Ratio for this A-CMBS technology in this pedestrian TRCT is then 0.937.
The annual numbers of pedestrian fatalities (in this computer simulation sample) with and
without the A-CMBS technology were estimated to be 1,630 and 2,003 respectively. These
results were estimated using the same basic approach as previously described for crashes, but
replacing the simulated crash outcomes in Eqns (45) and (46) with estimated probabilities of
pedestrian fatality. The estimated probability of a pedestrian fatality is 0 if no crash occurs or a
function of the impact speed if a crash does occur. This function is described in App B. It is
assumed that the probability of SV occupant fatality in pedestrian crashes is zero. The resulting
ERxPRxFR product can then be computed according to Eqn (44). This product is 0.814, which is
equal to 1,630 fatalities with the A-CMBS divided by 2,003 fatalities without the A-CMBS. The
Fatality Ratio can then be determined by dividing the ERxPRxFR product by the ERxPR
product, resulting in FR=0.869.
The Exposure, Prevention, Injury, and Fatality Ratios results for each of the TRCTs are listed in
Table 82. The Injury and Fatality Ratios are further broken down by person type: the subject
vehicle driver, collision partner, and combined total. The results are derived from the results in
47
There were 37 possible unique typical driver behavior combinations (i.e., 12 participants X 3 active behaviors
(i.e., brake only, steer only, and brake-and-steer) plus do nothing). However, not all participants exhibited all
possible driver behaviors throughout the course of testing. Therefore, the total number of driver behavior
combinations is less (i.e., 30) than the possible number (37).
48
It was not necessary to simulate all 2160 crash scenario x driver-behavior combinations with and without the
ACAT because some cases had zero driver-behavior weighting and in other cases the ACAT did not detect the
collision partner.
237
Table 79, Table 80, and Table 81. The numbers in square brackets indicate the number of cases
used to compute the ratios.
Note the injury and fatality ratios can be greater than 1.0 if the ACAT tends to reduce the
number of non-injury collisions more than the number of injury and fatality collisions. In this
case the total numbers of Fatality Equivalent injuries and fatalities are also reduced, even though
the respective ratios are greater than 1.0.
238
T
a
b
l
e

7
9
:

E
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

A
-
C
M
B
S

o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s

b
y

T
R
C
T

A
-
C
M
B
S

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

U
n
i
q
u
e

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
a

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

E
R

x

P
R
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n


C
a
s
e
s

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

A
C
A
T

W
i
t
h

A
C
A
T

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
P
)
(
b

7
2

2
0
,
4
2
8

[
1
8
7
2
]
(
c

1
9
,
1
3
9

[
5
4
8
]

0
.
9
3
7

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

(
S
)

2
2

6
,
1
1
0

[
5
7
2
]

5
,
8
3
4

[
3
0
2
]

0
.
9
5
5

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d
,

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

(
P
)

5
4

5
7
,
4
7
7

[
1
4
0
4
]

2
0
,
1
7
2

[
1
3
4
4
]

0
.
3
5
1

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

(
S
)

6

7
,
8
3
1

[
1
5
6
]

7
,
8
2
8

[
5
4
]

1
.
0
0
0

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

h
e
a
d
-
o
n

(
P
)

4
1

2
1
7
,
9
2
3

[
1
0
6
6
]

2
1
2
,
5
9
5

[
6
9
0
]

0
.
9
7
6

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

p
a
t
h

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
)

7
1

1
,
0
1
4
,
2
4
4

[
1
8
4
6
]

9
3
8
,
4
7
4

[
6
6
2
]

0
.
9
2
5

N
o
t
e
s
:


a
)

T
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

h
i
g
h

n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

e
n
a
b
l
e

r
e
a
d
e
r
s

t
o

t
r
a
c
k

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

f
l
o
w

a
n
d

t
o


v
e
r
i
f
y

t
h
e

t
a
b
u
l
a
r

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
,

a
n
d

a
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
i
s
,

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

r
o
u
n
d
-
o
f
f

e
r
r
o
r
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

a
t

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

s
t
a
g
e
s

o
f

t
h
e


a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.

S
e
e

F
o
o
t
n
o
t
e

6
.

b
)

L
e
t
t
e
r
s

i
n

p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s

d
e
n
o
t
e

(
P
)
r
i
m
a
r
y

T
R
C
T

a
n
d

(
S
)
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

T
R
C
T
.


c
)

N
u
m
b
e
r
s

i
n

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s

[

]

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n
s

3

a
n
d

4

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
i
.
e
.
,

c
r
a
s
h

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s

x

d
r
i
v
e
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
)

t
h
a
t

w
e
r
e

u
s
e
d

t
o

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
h
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
;

t
h
e

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
e
d

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n

4

a
r
e

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n

3

b
e
c
a
u
s
e


t
h
e

A
C
A
T

w
a
r
n
i
n
g

d
i
d

n
o
t

o
c
c
u
r

i
n

s
o
m
e

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

a
r
e

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

A
C
A
T
.

2
3
9

T
a
b
l
e

8
0
:

E
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

A
-
C
M
B
S

o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

D
r
i
v
e
r

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

I
n
j
u
r
i
e
s

b
y

T
R
C
T
A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

U
n
i
q
u
e

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

C
a
s
e
s

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

D
r
i
v
e
r

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

I
n
j
u
r
i
e
s

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
a

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

E
R
x
P
R
x
I
R
s
v

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

A
C
A
T

W
i
t
h

A
C
A
T

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
P
)
(
b

7
2

0
.
0

[
1
8
7
2
]
(
c

0
.
0

[
5
4
8
]

(
d
)

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

(
S
)

2
2

9
2
6
.
3

[
5
7
2
]

8
4
1
.
3

[
3
0
2
]

0
.
9
0
8

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d
,

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

(
P
)

5
4

1
2
4
.
3

[
1
4
0
4
]

6
3
.
9

[
1
3
4
4
]

0
.
5
1
4

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

(
S
)

6

7
.
9

[
1
5
6
]

7
.
8

[
5
4
]

0
.
9
9
4

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

h
e
a
d
-
o
n

(
P
)

4
1

8
,
6
7
6
.
1

[
1
0
6
6
]

8
,
5
0
4
.
8

[
6
9
0
]

0
.
9
8
0

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

p
a
t
h

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
)

7
1

2
6
,
1
7
3
.
6

[
1
8
4
6
]

2
5
,
5
8
1
.
8

[
6
6
2
]

0
.
9
7
7

A
-
C
M
B
S

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

U
n
i
q
u
e

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

I
n
j
u
r
i
e
s

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
a

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

E
R
x
P
R
x
I
R
c
p

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n


C
a
s
e
s

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

A
C
A
T

W
i
t
h

A
C
A
T

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
P
)
(
b

7
2

3
,
2
6
9
.
4

[
1
8
7
2
]

(
c

2
,
4
5
1
.
5

[
5
4
8
]

0
.
7
5
0

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

(
S
)

2
2

0
.
0

[
5
7
2
]

0
.
0

[
3
0
2
]

(
e
)

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d
,

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

(
P
)

5
4

8
1
.
8

[
1
4
0
4
]

2
5
.
5

[
1
3
4
4
]

0
.
3
1
1

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

(
S
)

6

8
.
5

[
1
5
6
]

8
.
2

[
5
4
]

0
.
9
7
4

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

h
e
a
d
-
o
n

(
P
)

4
1

9
,
7
0
8
.
6

[
1
0
6
6
]

9
,
5
0
6
.
1

[
6
9
0
]

0
.
9
7
9

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

p
a
t
h

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
)

7
1

5
,
3
4
6
.
8

[
1
8
4
6
]

4
,
7
1
6
.
7

[
6
6
2
]

0
.
8
8
2

N
o
t
e
s
:


a
)

T
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

h
i
g
h

n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

e
n
a
b
l
e

r
e
a
d
e
r
s

t
o

t
r
a
c
k

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

f
l
o
w

a
n
d

t
o


v
e
r
i
f
y

t
h
e

t
a
b
u
l
a
r

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
,

a
n
d

a
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
i
s
,

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

r
o
u
n
d
-
o
f
f

e
r
r
o
r
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

a
t

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

s
t
a
g
e
s

o
f

t
h
e


a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.

S
e
e

F
o
o
t
n
o
t
e

6
.

b
)

L
e
t
t
e
r
s

i
n

p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s

d
e
n
o
t
e

(
P
)
r
i
m
a
r
y

T
R
C
T

a
n
d

(
S
)
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

T
R
C
T
.


2
4
0

c
)

N
u
m
b
e
r
s

i
n

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s

[

]

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n
s

3

a
n
d

4

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
i
.
e
.
,

c
r
a
s
h

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s

x

d
r
i
v
e
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
)

t
h
a
t

w
e
r
e

u
s
e
d

t
o

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
h
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
;

t
h
e

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
e
d

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n

4

a
r
e

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n

3

b
e
c
a
u
s
e


t
h
e

A
C
A
T

w
a
r
n
i
n
g

d
i
d

n
o
t

o
c
c
u
r

i
n

s
o
m
e

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

a
r
e

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

A
C
A
T
.

d
)

E
R
x
P
R
x
I
R
s
v

i
s

u
n
d
e
f
i
n
e
d

f
o
r

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

d
r
i
v
e
r

i
n

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

d
r
i
v
e
r

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
o

b
e

u
n
i
n
j
u
r
e
d

i
n

t
h
e
s
e


t
y
p
e
s

o
f

c
r
a
s
h
e
s
.

e
)

E
R
x
P
R
x
I
R
c
p

i
s

u
n
d
e
f
i
n
e
d

f
o
r

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

i
n

1
-
v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

n
o

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n


p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s

t
o

b
e

i
n
j
u
r
e
d
.

2
4
1

T
a
b
l
e

8
1
:

E
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

A
-
C
M
B
S

o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

D
r
i
v
e
r

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

b
y

T
R
C
T

A
-
C
M
B
S

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

U
n
i
q
u
e

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

D
r
i
v
e
r

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
a

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

E
R
x
P
R
x
F
R
s
v

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n


C
a
s
e
s

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

A
C
A
T

W
i
t
h

A
C
A
T

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
P
)
(
b

7
2

0
.
0

[
1
8
7
2
]
(
c

0
.
0

[
5
4
8
]

(
d
)

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

(
S
)

2
2

4
7
7
.
4

[
5
7
2
]

4
1
2
.
5

[
3
0
2
]

0
.
8
6
4

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d
,

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

(
P
)

5
4

4
0
1
.
9

[
1
4
0
4
]

1
4
5
.
2

[
1
3
4
4
]

0
.
3
6
1

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

(
S
)

6

3
3
.
9

[
1
5
6
]

3
3
.
8

[
5
4
]

0
.
9
9
8

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

h
e
a
d
-
o
n

(
P
)

4
1

9
,
4
4
7
.
1

[
1
0
6
6
]

9
,
2
3
3
.
8

[
6
9
0
]

0
.
9
7
7

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

p
a
t
h

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
)

7
1

2
1
,
3
9
9
.
2

[
1
8
4
6
]

2
0
,
2
4
7
.
6

[
6
6
2
]

0
.
9
4
6

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

U
n
i
q
u
e

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n


C
a
s
e
s

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
t
n
e
r

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
a

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

E
R
x
P
R
x
F
R
c
p
W
i
t
h
o
u
t

A
C
A
T

W
i
t
h

A
C
A
T

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
P
)
(
b

7
2

2
,
0
0
2
.
6

[
1
8
7
2
]

(
c

1
,
6
3
0
.
0

[
5
4
8
]

0
.
8
1
4

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

(
S
)

2
2

0
.
0

[
5
7
2
]

0
.
0

[
3
0
2
]

(
e
)

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d
,

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

(
P
)

5
4

3
8
8
.
9

[
1
4
0
4
]

1
1
7
.
5

[
1
3
4
4
]

0
.
3
0
2

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

(
S
)

6

3
4
.
7

[
1
5
6
]

3
4
.
4

[
5
4
]

0
.
9
9
4

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

h
e
a
d
-
o
n

(
P
)

4
1

6
,
6
3
4
.
5

[
1
0
6
6
]

6
,
3
9
9
.
4

[
6
9
0
]

0
.
9
6
5

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

p
a
t
h

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
)

7
1

1
2
,
6
5
0
.
9

[
1
8
4
6
]

1
0
,
8
5
5
.
2

[
6
6
2
]

0
.
8
5
8

N
o
t
e
s
:


a
)

T
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

h
i
g
h

n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

e
n
a
b
l
e

r
e
a
d
e
r
s

t
o

t
r
a
c
k

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

f
l
o
w

a
n
d

t
o


v
e
r
i
f
y

t
h
e

t
a
b
u
l
a
r

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
,

a
n
d

a
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
i
s
,

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

r
o
u
n
d
-
o
f
f

e
r
r
o
r
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

a
t

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

s
t
a
g
e
s

o
f

t
h
e


a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.

S
e
e

F
o
o
t
n
o
t
e

6
.

b
)

L
e
t
t
e
r
s

i
n

p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s

d
e
n
o
t
e

(
P
)
r
i
m
a
r
y

T
R
C
T

a
n
d

(
S
)
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

T
R
C
T
.


2
4
2

c
)

N
u
m
b
e
r
s

i
n

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s

[

]

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n
s

3

a
n
d

4

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
i
.
e
.
,

c
r
a
s
h

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s

x

d
r
i
v
e
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
)

t
h
a
t

w
e
r
e

u
s
e
d

t
o

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
h
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
;

t
h
e

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
e
d

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n

4

a
r
e

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

i
n

c
o
l
u
m
n

3

b
e
c
a
u
s
e


t
h
e

A
C
A
T

w
a
r
n
i
n
g

d
i
d

n
o
t

o
c
c
u
r

i
n

s
o
m
e

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

a
r
e

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

A
C
A
T
.

d
)

E
R
x
P
R
x
F
R
s
v

i
s

u
n
d
e
f
i
n
e
d

f
o
r

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

d
r
i
v
e
r

i
n

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

d
r
i
v
e
r

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
o

b
e

u
n
i
n
j
u
r
e
d

i
n

t
h
e
s
e


t
y
p
e
s

o
f

c
r
a
s
h
e
s
.

e
)

E
R
x
P
R
x
F
R
c
p

i
s

u
n
d
e
f
i
n
e
d

f
o
r

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

i
n

1
-
v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

n
o

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s

t
o

b
e

f
a
t
a
l
l
y

i
n
j
u
r
e
d
.

2
4
3

T
a
b
l
e

8
2
:

A
-
C
M
B
S

E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
,

P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o
s

b
y

T
R
C
T

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e

R
a
t
i
o

P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
i
o

I
n
j
u
r
y

R
a
t
i
o

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o

S
V

C
P

S
V

C
P

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

1

0
.
9
3
7

1
a

0
.
8
0
0

1
a

0
.
8
6
9

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

1

0
.
9
5
5

0
.
9
5
1

1
b

0
.
9
0
5

1
b

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d
,

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

1

0
.
3
5
1

1
.
4
6
6

0
.
8
8
8

1
.
0
3
0

0
.
8
6
1

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

1

1
.
0
0
0

0
.
9
9
4

0
.
9
7
4

0
.
9
9
8

0
.
9
9
5

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

h
e
a
d
-
o
n

1

0
.
9
7
6

1
.
0
0
5

1
.
0
0
4

1
.
0
0
2

0
.
9
8
9

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

p
a
t
h

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

1

0
.
9
2
5

1
.
0
5
6

0
.
9
5
3

1
.
0
2
3

0
.
9
2
7

N
o
t
e
s
:


a

T
h
e

I
n
j
u
r
y

a
n
d

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

d
r
i
v
e
r

i
n

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

a
r
e

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
o

b
e

1

(
i
.
e
.
,

t
h
e

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
)

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

d
r
i
v
e
r

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
o

b
e

u
n
i
n
j
u
r
e
d

i
n

t
h
e
s
e

t
y
p
e
s

o
f

c
r
a
s
h
e
s
.

b

T
h
e

I
n
j
u
r
y

a
n
d

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

i
n

1
-
v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

a
r
e

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
o

b
e

1

(
i
.
e
.
,

t
h
e


m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
)

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

n
o

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s

t
o

b
e

i
n
j
u
r
e
d

o
r

k
i
l
l
e
d
.

2
4
4

10.2.2 Estimate of Effectiveness by TRCT
The estimated collision and fatality effectiveness of the prototype A-CMBS for each of the
TRCTs are listed in Table 83. These results were calculated according to Eqns (7), (10), (11). For
example, the effectiveness of the A-CMBS in avoiding pedestrian TRCT crashes is 6.3%, which
is equal to (1-1 x 0.937) x 100%. The effectiveness of the A-CMBS in reducing pedestrian
fatalities in pedestrian TRCT crashes is 18.6%, which is equal to (1-1 x 0.937 x 0.869) x 100%.
The effectiveness of the A-CMBS in reducing the total fatalities depends on the relative
proportions of subject vehicle and collision partner fatalities without the ACAT. This combined
value is estimated in Column (H) of Table AB-5 and summarized in Table AB-6 in App AB. The
effectiveness of the A-CMBS in 3-vehicle chain collisions with the subject vehicle in the rear is
assumed to be the same as the 2 vehicle rear-end collisions.
App Z contains the collisions and fatality effectiveness values for the A-CMBS as well as the
collision probability reductions of the A-CMBS for the Track tests, Driving Simulator tests, and
the CSSM driver-in-the-loop cases with the expert driver and typical drivers.
Figures illustrating the A-CMBS warning zones are located in App AA. These figures illustrate
where the collision partner is located, relative to the subject vehicle,
when the A-CMBS warnings occurs, for each warning mode,
when the A-CMBS warning occurs, for each warning mode, for cases where the collision
was avoided,
when the A-CMBS 1st warning first occurs, for different levels of fatality effectiveness.
245
T
a
b
l
e

8
3
:

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

A
-
C
M
B
S

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

b
y

T
R
C
T

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
a
,
f

(
1
-
E
R
x
P
R
)

I
n
j
u
r
y

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
a
,
f

(
1
-
E
R
x
P
R
x
I
R
)


F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
a
,
f

(
1
-
E
R
x
P
R
x
F
R
)

S
V

C
P

S
V

C
P

T
o
t
a
l
g

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
P
)
b

6
.
3
%

6
.
3
%
c

2
5
.
0
%

6
.
3
%
c

1
8
.
6
%

1
8
.
6
%

1

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

(
S
)

4
.
5
%

9
.
2
%

4
.
5
%
d

1
3
.
6
%

4
.
5
%
d

1
1
.
2
%

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d
,

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

(
P
)

6
4
.
9
%

4
8
.
6
%

6
8
.
9
%

6
3
.
9
%

6
9
.
8
%

6
5
.
1
%

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e

(
S
)

0
.
0
%

0
.
6
%

2
.
6
%

0
.
2
%

0
.
6
%

0
.
3
%

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

h
e
a
d
-
o
n

(
P
)

2
.
4
%

2
.
0
%

2
.
1
%

2
.
3
%

3
.
5
%

2
.
7
%

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

p
a
t
h

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
)

7
.
5
%

2
.
3
%

1
1
.
8
%

5
.
4
%

1
4
.
2
%

1
0
.
5
%

3

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

c
h
a
i
n

c
v

r
e
a
r

(
S
)
e

6
4
.
9
%
e

4
8
.
6
%

6
8
.
9
%

6
3
.
9
%

6
9
.
8
%

6
9
.
8
%

N
o
t
e
s
:


a

T
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

i
s

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

E
q
n

(
4
0
)

a
n
d

e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

b
y

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
y
i
n
g

b
y

1
0
0
%
.


b

L
e
t
t
e
r
s

i
n

p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s

d
e
n
o
t
e

(
P
)
r
i
m
a
r
y

T
R
C
T

a
n
d

(
S
)
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

T
R
C
T
.


c

T
h
e

i
n
j
u
r
y

a
n
d

f
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

o
f

t
h
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

d
r
i
v
e
r

i
n

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
o

b
e


e
q
u
a
l

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

(
i
.
e
.
,

F
R

a
n
d

I
R

a
r
e

1
)

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

d
r
i
v
e
r

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
o

b
e

u
n
i
n
j
u
r
e
d

i
n

t
h
e
s
e

t
y
p
e
s

o
f


c
r
a
s
h
e
s
.

d

T
h
e

i
n
j
u
r
y

a
n
d

f
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

i
n

1
-
v
e
h
i
c
l
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
o

b
e

e
q
u
a
l

t
o

t
h
e


c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

(
i
.
e
.
,

F
R

a
n
d

I
R

a
r
e

1
)

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

n
o

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s

t
o

b
e

i
n
j
u
r
e
d

o
r

k
i
l
l
e
d
.


e

I
t

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

o
f

t
h
e

A
-
C
M
B
S

i
n

3
-
v
e
h
i
c
l
e

c
h
a
i
n

c
v

r
e
a
r


c
r
a
s
h
e
s

i
s

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

a
s

i
n

2

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

r
e
a
r
-
e
n
d


f
o
r
w
a
r
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

c
r
a
s
h
e
s
.

f

T
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

m
a
y

u
n
d
e
r
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
h
e

a
c
t
u
a
l

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

c
r
a
s
h
e
s
,

i
n
j
u
r
i
e
s
,

a
n
d

f
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

a

l
a
t
e

s
w
e
r
v
e

a
r
t
i
f
a
c
t


a
s


d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
2
.
2
,

w
h
i
c
h

c
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
e
d

t
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

H
o
n
d
a

p
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e

A
-
C
M
B
S

s
a
f
e
t
y

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
.


g

T
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

d
e
p
e
n
d
s

o
n

t
h
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

a
n
d

c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

f
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

A
C
A
T
.

T
h
i
s

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d

v
a
l
u
e

i
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

i
n

C
o
l
u
m
n

(
H
)

o
f

T
a
b
l
e

A
B
-
5

a
n
d

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

A
B
-
6

i
n

A
p
p

A
B
.


2
4
6

11 SAFETY BENEFITS ANALYSIS
The overall effects of installing the prototype Honda A-CMBS on all 2005 model year US Light
Passenger Vehicles in the 2005 calendar year were estimated using the Overall Safety Effects
Estimator (Module 4), using the relative risk ratios reported in Table 82 of Section 10.
11.1 Estimation of Number of US Crashes Prevented and Fatalities Reduced (i.e., last item in
the SIM flowchart) (US counts for collisions, vehicles involved and fatalities)
The benefits of the Honda A-CMBS if it were installed on the entire US Light Passenger Vehicle
Fleet in the 2005 calendar year were estimated based on the size of the crash problem listed in
Table 2a and estimates of effectiveness for each TRCT from the Overall Safety Effects Estimator
that are presented in Table 83. The overall effectiveness for each crash type is calculated by
multiplying the value of each TRCT effectiveness in Table 83 by the corresponding ratio of the
number of TRCT crashes in Table 24 to the total number of crashes in Table 2a. Eqn (39) is used
to combine these estimates of overall effectiveness, which are presented in Table 84, and the
corresponding baseline problem size from Table 2a to produce the estimate of benefits for each
TRCT. Detailed intermediate step-by-step results in the calculation of Tables 24, 84, and 85
using the OSEE Fleet Systems Model and the FARS and GES results in Tables 2a and 2b are
located in App AB.
The estimated safety benefits results, which are summarized in Table 85 indicate that a device
like the Honda A-CMBS would reduce the number of crashes by 511,336 per year, number of
vehicles involved in crashes by 1,013,208 per year, and the number of fatalities by 1,623 per
year, if this ACAT was installed on all Light Passenger Vehicles in the US in the 2005 calendar
year.
247
T
a
b
l
e

8
4
:

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

O
v
e
r
a
l
l

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

o
f

A
-
C
M
B
S

i
f

I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

E
n
t
i
r
e

U
S

L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

F
l
e
e
t

i
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
5

C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r

Y
e
a
r

M
e
t
r
i
c

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

b
y

N
o
n
-
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e

S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

(
N
o
n
-
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
)

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e


O
v
e
r
a
l
l

P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

F
o
r
w
a
r
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d

S
i
d
e

S
w
i
p
e

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g

P
a
t
h

3

o
r

M
o
r
e

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

O
t
h
e
r

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e
s

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

4
.
0
%
a

3
.
5
%
a

2
8
.
1
%
a

0
.
0
%
a

1
.
8
%
a

4
.
2
%
a

3
.
3
%
a

0
.
0
%
b

8
.
3
%
a

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

4
.
0
%
a

3
.
5
%
a

2
8
.
1
%
a

0
.
0
%
a

1
.
8
%
a

4
.
2
%
a

3
.
3
%
a

0
.
0
%
b

9
.
3
%
a

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

1
2
.
0
%
a

2
.
1
%
a

3
5
.
1
%
a

0
.
2
%
a

2
.
0
%
a

5
.
7
%
a

0
.
6
%
a

0
.
0
%
b

3
.
7
%
a

N
o
t
e
s
:


T
h
e

(
N
o
n
-
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
)

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e
s

a
r
e

d
e
f
i
n
e
d

i
n

A
p
p

A
C
.

S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:


a

O
v
e
r
a
l
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

=

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

i
n

r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

T
R
C
T

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

(
T
a
b
l
e

8
3
)

t
i
m
e
s

t
h
e

r
a
t
i
o

o
f

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

T
R
C
T

(
T
a
b
l
e

2
4
)

t
o

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

T
R
C
T

(
T
a
b
l
e

2
a
)
.

T
h
i
s

v
a
l
u
e

i
s


a
l
s
o

e
q
u
a
l

t
o

t
h
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

8
5

d
i
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

c
r
a
s
h
e
s

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

2
a
.

b

A
s
s
u
m
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
.


2
4
8


2
4
9
T
a
b
l
e

8
5
:


O
v
e
r
a
l
l

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

o
f

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

A
-
C
M
B
S

i
f

I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

E
n
t
i
r
e

U
S

L
i
g
h
t

P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

F
l
e
e
t

i
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
5

C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r

Y
e
a
r

M
e
t
r
i
c

S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d





E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

U
S

B
e
n
e
f
i
t


A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e


O
t
h
e
r

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e
s

(
N
o
n
-

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
)

T
o
t
a
l

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

B
e
n
e
f
i
t



P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

(
P
)


F
o
r
w
a
r
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

(
S
)

R
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
,

F
o
r
w
a
r
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

T
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

(
P
)

S
i
d
e

S
w
i
p
e

(
S
)

H
e
a
d
-
O
n

(
P
)

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g
P
a
t
h
,

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
)

3
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
,

C
h
a
i
n
,

S
V

r
e
a
r

(
S
)

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

2
,
4
4
4

a

2
1
,
3
4
0
a

4
0
7
,
5
3
8
a

0
a

2
,
3
2
5
a

6
5
,
5
9
4
a

1
2
,
0
9
6
a

0
b

5
1
1
,
3
3
6
a
,
c

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

2
,
4
4
4

a

2
1
,
3
4
0
a

8
1
5
,
0
7
6
a

0
a

4
,
6
5
0
a

1
3
1
,
1
8
7
a

3
8
,
5
1
0
a

0
b

1
,
0
1
3
,
2
0
8
a
,
c

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

5
1
6

a

5
5
a

5
6
4
a

1
a

1
1
3
a

3
5
6
a

1
8
a

0
b

1
,
6
2
3
a
,
c

N
o
t
e
s
:


T
h
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

a
r
e

e
q
u
a
l

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

o
f

t
h
e

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

s
i
z
e

f
r
o
m

T
a
b
l
e

2
a

a
n
d

t
h
e

O
v
e
r
a
l
l

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

f
r
o
m

T
a
b
l
e

8
4
.

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

a
r
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

G
E
S

a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t

a
n
d

F
A
R
S

f
a
t
a
l
i
t
y

d
a
t
a
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

O
S
E
E

F
l
e
e
t

S
y
s
t
e
m
s

M
o
d
e
l

u
s
i
n
g

c
r
a
s
h

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

2
0
0
0

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

2
0
0
3

N
A
S
S
/
C
D
S
,

1
9
9
4

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

1
9
9
8

P
C
D
S
,

a
n
d

2
0
0
0

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

2
0
0
3

G
E
S

d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
s
.

T
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

h
i
g
h

n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

e
n
a
b
l
e

r
e
a
d
e
r
s

t
o

t
r
a
c
k

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

f
l
o
w

a
n
d

t
o

v
e
r
i
f
y

t
h
e

t
a
b
u
l
a
r

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
,

a
n
d

a
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
i
s
,

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

r
o
u
n
d
-
o
f
f

e
r
r
o
r
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

a
t

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

s
t
a
g
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.

S
e
e

F
o
o
t
n
o
t
e

6
.


T
h
e

A
-
C
M
B
S

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

C
r
a
s
h

T
y
p
e
s

a
r
e

d
e
f
i
n
e
d

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

2
3
.


L
e
t
t
e
r
s

i
n

p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s

d
e
n
o
t
e

(
P
)
r
i
m
a
r
y

T
R
C
T

a
n
d

(
S
)
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

T
R
C
T
.

S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:

a

C
o
l
u
m
n

(
G
)

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

A
B
-
5
.

b

A
s
s
u
m
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
.

c

S
u
m

o
f

a
l
l

c
r
a
s
h

t
y
p
e
s
.


12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The goals of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Advanced Crash
Avoidance Technologies (ACAT) program were twofold. These were:
To develop a standardized Safety Impact Methodology (SIM) tool to evaluate the
effectiveness at a US level of advanced crash avoidance technologies in mitigating
specific types of crashes; and
To develop and demonstrate objective tests that are used in the SIM to verify the safety
impact of a real system.
This report describes results of the Honda-DRI ACAT project, supported by NHTSA and Honda,
and performed by Dynamic Research Inc (DRI). This particular ACAT study extended earlier
work by Honda and DRI to develop evaluation tools similar to those of interest in the ACAT
project. The existing Honda-DRI SIM [Sugimoto, 2005; Suzuki, 2006] comprised:
Downloading large samples of crash cases from the NASS/CDS crash database;
Automated reconstruction of the crash sequences involved in those cases;
For a given safety technology, defining and sampling the reconstructed cases for each
Technology Relevant Crash Type (TRCT);
Using a driver-vehicle-environment-ACAT simulation model to predict the conflict
outcome (i.e., whether a collision occurred, and if it occurred, the delta-V and the
correlated injury severity and probability of fatality) when running the simulation through
each of the sampled cases, both with and without the safety technology;
Calculating the percentage changes in the outcomes across all of the sampled cases
within each TRCT;
Projecting the percentage changes in outcomes within each TRCT to the US level, by
taking into account the number of US cases in each TRCT as well as those outside the
TRCT's (for which the effectiveness was assumed to be zero), and projected information
regarding exposure, safety technology installation rates, the interaction with and
effectiveness of other installed safety technologies, vehicle attrition rates, effects of the
main vehicle design variables, etc., to produce a US level estimate of effectiveness (i.e.,
percentage reduction in collisions and fatalities) as well as benefits (i.e., count reduction
in collisions and fatalities), assuming all vehicles were fitted with the safety technology.
In the current study, three underlying assumptions were made as follows:
For SIM evaluation purposes, the hardware and software of the ACAT being evaluated is
provided by its developer to the evaluator as "black boxes" with defined inputs and
outputs;
Safety effectiveness values (i.e., percentage reductions in collisions and fatalities) assume
that none of the Collision Partners are fitted with the ACAT being evaluated (Note that if
the ACAT was fitted to all relevant Collision Partners, it could have an effect on the
safety effectiveness of the ACAT being evaluated);
250
US level safety benefits (i.e., count reduction in collisions and fatalities) are estimated by
scaling the counts calculated for the modeled fleet (from the estimated safety
effectiveness for that fleet) for each non-technology specific crash type to the counts at
the US level in the calendar year of interest. The number of crashes and vehicles involved
by crash type were queried from the NASS/GES database and the fatalities were queried
from FARS. The non-technology specific crash types are defined in App AC.
12.1 Extensions of the SIM Achieved in this Study
Two major categories of SIM extension were achieved in this ACAT study, namely:
Refinement and extension of the SIM sub-models, algorithms, database compatibilities
and associated software, and standardization of these within the NHTSA SIM framework
and benefits equations; and
Development and application of objective test procedures (for Lab, Track and Driving
Simulator tests) and associated test systems, including a Guided Soft Target test system.
As a result, more than 30 substantial SIM extensions and refinements were achieved in the
current study. Some of the main extensions are described as follows, under each of the four main
modules.
The extensions to the Crash Scenario Database Development Tools (Module 1) included:
extending NASS/CDS and PCDS case modeling to include the pre-conflict through the crash
phase; refining and further automating modeling for 700 near-crash cases from the VTTI 100-
car study to include pre-conflict through the near-crash phase; automating the download of
satellite images for the VTTI near-crash case sites, to support their future reconstruction; re-
coding the VTTI cases so as to be compatible with NASS-type variables and formats; further
automating the download and extraction of CDS and PCDS scene drawings; and replacing ISO-
type Equivalent Life Units with NHTSA Fatality Equivalent injury indices.
The extensions to the Automated Accident Reconstruction Tool" (AART) (Module 1.3)
included: revising the assumed CDS and PCDS pre-crash speed trajectory form, to incorporate
more coded variables (e.g., pre-conflict braking); extensively revising the reconstruction
methods, including the Kalman Filter-Smoother techniques in order to improve accuracy and to
eliminate various artifacts; extending to support pedestrian crashes; adding "occluding object to
the AART digitizer; and extending it so as to be able to reconstruct VTTI near-crash cases, based
on recorded Subject Vehicle GPS position and speed time history data and downloaded satellite
images of sites.
The extensions to the Technology Relevant Crash Type Specification and Case Sub-sampling
tools" (Module 2) included: providing user tools to support defining the Technology Relevant
Crash Types; and automating both the sub-sampling of cases for simulation purposes, and the
process for objectively selecting and specifying test cases for Track and Driving Simulator
testing. The extensions to the Collision Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) (Module 3)
251
included further refining the driver model to better represent cognitive behaviors. This included
eye fixation and object recognition, threat estimation and decision making procedures, and driver
vehicle control procedures for normal driving and emergency driving. It also involved further
refining the driver normal and emergency steering and braking control algorithms and
procedures; extensions to support 1-vehicle collisions with a single pedestrian; automating the
Technology Effectiveness Estimator; and extension of outputs to include Exposure Ratio and
Prevention Ratio terms based on estimated conflict occurrence; and adding crash avoidance
steering mode prevention logic when another vehicle is in adjacent lane; and manually coding
all reconstructed CDS and PCDS cases for the latter new variable.
The extensions to the Overall Safety Effects Estimator" (Module 4) included adding to the
output table the overall safety benefits, in terms of US collision and fatality count reductions.
The development of Objective Tests involved developing and demonstrating a Guided Soft
Target (GST) test system, comprising a car GST and a pedestrian GST. The car GST consists of
a self-propelled, self-steering and braking, GPS-guided, low-profile, hardened turtle chassis, to
which soft, 3D targets of a Light Passenger vehicle (constructed of separable foam panels or
potentially an inflatable vehicle shape) are attached. The pedestrian GST consists of a cable-
driven, low-profile, hardened turtle trolley, the longitudinal position of which is GPS-guided,
and to which an inflatable pedestrian form is attached. The input to each GST is the Collision
Partners specified trajectory, relative to the Subject Vehicle, for a reconstructed (or recorded or
hypothetical) crash (or conflict) case. The GST controls its longitudinal position and speed
taking into account those of the Collision Partner (in the original case) and the actual progress of
the Subject Vehicle, so that GST arrives at the specified minimum distance point (e.g., impact
point) from the original case with its correct (e.g., impact) speed from the original case,
regardless of the crash avoidance actions of the Subject Vehicle ACAT and driver. The
development of Objective Tests also involved development and demonstration of: Lab tests for
measuring warning amplitude, frequency and location for visual, audio and tactile (belt)
warnings; Track tests with an expert driver tests to measure the response: 1) of the vehicle-
ACAT system (i.e., with so-called driver-not-in-the-loop tests); and 2) of the driver-vehicle-
ACAT (and -non-ACAT) system to the Collision Partners trajectory; and Driving Simulator
tests with 12 NASS cases, 12 typical drivers and one expert driver to measure parameters
describing each driver's response to the Collision Partner and to the ACAT, with and without the
ACAT active. In addition, a preliminary SIM calibration methodology was developed and
demonstrated, to compare by means of time history correlations the outputs of the SIM model
(i.e., from the vehicle, ACAT, and driver-vehicle-ACAT models) to those measured in the Lab,
Track and Driving Simulator tests.
12.2 Application of the Extended SIM
The SIM tool and objective tests were used to evaluate Hondas prototype Advanced Collision
Mitigation Brake System (A-CMBS), the next generation of the already deployed Honda
Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) that responds to impending rear-end collisions
using three progressively more severe modes of warning and intervention. The A-CMBS
252
responds to other types of impending collisions (e.g., head-on, intersecting path, pedestrian and
others) as well as to rear-end collisions.
The results of calibrating the SIM driver-vehicle-ACAT model against the Objective Tests
indicated that some portions of the model (e.g., vehicle response to driver control inputs)
achieved high correlation coefficient values, while others (e.g., ACAT response to Collision
Partners) had smaller correlation coefficient values (probably due to not modeling ACAT sensor
noise and sensing of extraneous objects).
In the Objective Tests, the prototype A-CMBS was found to have substantial safety effects. In
the expert driver Track tests and Driving Simulator tests, the measured collision probability
reduction of the prototype A-CMBS was substantial across approximately 12 cases
49
representing the four primary Technology Relevant Collisions Types (e.g., an overall collision
probability reductions of 42% in Track tests (for n=19 test pairs); and 53% in Driving Simulator
tests (for n=22 test pairs). In Driving Simulator tests with 12 typical drivers, the measured
collision probability reduction across all 12 cases representing four primary Technology
Relevant Collisions Types was 31%.
In the calibrated simulations of the sample of 266 NASS/CDS and PCDS cases
50
representing six
primary and secondary Technology Relevant Collisions Types
51
, the estimated collision
effectiveness for each of these TRCTs was determined.
The ACAT program was a proof-of-concept effort that sought to determine the feasibility of
developing estimates of effectiveness for specific safety technologies in the absence of data from
real world crashes or field operational tests. This project was successful at developing and
demonstrating a methodology that could be used to estimate the safety benefits of the particular
crash countermeasure evaluated in this research project.
The Safety Impact Methodology (SIM) tool developed was used to provide an estimate of safety
benefits in terms of reduction in crashes and fatalities. Although these estimates are provided, the
focus of this project was on the development of the SIM and linking it to the results of the
objective tests. The SIM used the data available at the time of the study to estimate safety
benefits, the calculation of which involved various assumptions and limitations. A follow-on
effort would be required to incorporate any new data and this in turn could change the estimated
safety benefits generated in this study.
When projected to the US level (including all non-TRCT crashes) in calendar year 2005, this
corresponded to estimated total collision and fatality effectiveness values for all police-reported
49
There were 12 cases used in the Driving Simulator tests. Only 11 of these cases were used in the Track tests for
reasons described in Section 7.2.2.3.
50
Based on pre-existing accident reconstructions, some of which contained a late swerve artifact, discussed in
Section 4.2.2. This artifact, when present, can reduce the effects of the subject technology.
51
The simulations were calibrated based on the four primary TRCTs. It is assumed that the calibrated simulations
are also valid for simulating the secondary TRCTs.
253
crashes of 8.3% and 3.7% respectively, and this corresponds to estimated safety benefits of
511,336 fewer collisions and 1,623 fewer fatalities, as summarized in Table 85. These overall
safety benefits are estimated based on more detailed safety benefits and effectiveness results by
TRCT described in App AB.
12.3 Conclusions
The extension, enhancement and refinement of the SIM in this study has resulted in a more
robust, accurate, general and user friendly suite of software tools for estimating safety benefits of
advanced safety technologies. The advantage of this particular SIM is that it is applicable to
and has already been used to evaluate -- a broad range of advanced safety technologies for crash
avoidance, mitigation, crashworthiness and compatibility.
Overall, both the Track tests and the Driving Simulator tests indicated substantial collision
probability reduction of the A-CMBS technology in the sample of cases tested; and varying
levels of correlation among the Track tests, Driving Simulator tests and CSSM simulation
models in terms of response and performance.
12.4 Broad Limitations
An ideal method to assess the safety impact of advanced safety technologies is by means of
analyzing existing crash data. However, since there are no crash data for newly emerging safety
technologies as they typically involve prototype (or pre-production) systems which have not yet
been deployed, estimation of their likely effectiveness necessarily involves various assumptions
and limitations.
The confidence intervals reported herein do not include all sources of uncertainty. The current
SIM estimates the uncertainty due to crash scenario sample size used in the systems model
52
and
due to MMY-specific crash and fatality rates. The SIM should be further developed to be able to
estimate the effects of more of the sources of uncertainty.
12.5 Recommendations
The robustness, accuracy, confidence intervals, generality and user-friendliness of the SIM
should be further enhanced in terms of both the SIM software and the objective test procedures
and test systems. Specifically, further work on the following aspects is suggested by the results
of the current research.
52
Namely, a four-year sample comprising approximately 13,934 CDS cases and 134,039 non-CDS applicable GES
cases.
254
12.5.1 For General Aspects
Further simplify and streamline the Graphic User Interface and the ease of use of the SIM
software.
As an alternative, consider how to further enhance the black box approach to advanced
technology evaluation used herein, so that only hardware from the OEM is needed for the
evaluation. Specifically, consider whether ACAT hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) methods
could be used in the Driving Simulator and CSSM simulation models. This might also
necessarily involve receiving hardware input/output specifications from the manufacturer
for the key variables (instead of ACAT software). As part of this, prepare and provide
more generalized interfaces that would enable SIM functioning with other manufacturers'
ACATs.
Further clarify and attempt to standardize the input/output specifications for all aspects of
the SIM, to facilitate use with other crash databases and other manufacturers ACATs.
Extend the SIM to address safety benefits in safety-related conflicts. Demonstrate this
capability with a suitable conflict avoidance safety technology.
12.5.2 For Crash Scenario Database Development Tools (Module 1)
Complete the SIM support for importing and extracting needed variables from the GES
database.
Provide SIM support for importing and extracting needed variables from the
NMVCSS-EDR case database.
12.5.3 For Automated Accident Reconstruction Tool (AART) (Module 1.3)
Implement the newly developed method for constraining the reconstruction so as to
closely match CDS-coded delta-V values.
Update the reconstructions of the 2000-2001 CDS cases, using the current AART
software, in order to remove the swerve effect (i.e., see Section 4.2.2) and other
limitations of the 2005 version of AART.
Reconstruct using the current AART software, and enter into the SIM database the 800
VTTI near-crash cases, in order to provide data for evaluating ACATs in this category of
exposure.
Reconstruct using the current AART software, and enter into the SIM database more
recent (e.g., 2006-2007) CDS cases.
Consider the feasibility of reconstructing and entering into the SIM database NMVCCS
cases having EDR data (as none of the NMVCCS cases have calculated delta-V data
which are needed for AART reconstructions).
Complete the extension of the pre-crash equations of motion to include understeer and
cornering compliance terms for cases involving loss-of-control without wheel lift prior to
the crash.
Consider the feasibility of including on-road rollover loss-of-control cases (occurring
either in 1-vehicle crashes, or prior to first impact in 2-vehicle crashes) in the AART.
255
Complete the investigation of replacing the USAF ATB impact simulation with a
closed-form impact model.
Integrate the intended path solution into pre-conflict portion of the pre-impact solution,
so that information about the drivers most likely intended path can be considered in the
reconstruction.
Formalize the digitizing and reconstruction protocols and test them for repeatability and
reproducibility.
Integrate the adjacent lane coding into the AART graphical user interface, and further
refine the coded categories and coding protocols.
12.5.4 For Technology Relevant Crash Specification and Case Sub-Sampling Tools (Module 2)
Implement Universal Descriptors of crash types [Burgett, 2008]
12.5.5 For Objective Test Procedures and Test Systems
Investigate the feasibility of using inflatable Light Passenger Vehicle bodies on the GST,
and related requirements of detectability by sensor, durability, aerodynamic disturbance
(i.e., flutter) suppression, variation of body size and type, etc.
Investigate the feasibility of further increasing the speed and range capabilities of the car
GST.
Construct a copy of the car GST and pedestrian GST test systems for use by other
NHTSA-associated teams.
Improve the user-friendliness of the car GST and pedestrian GST operation, including
preparing a User Manual.
Investigate the feasibility of preparing a motorcycle GST, as motorcycles comprise an
increasing percentage (i.e., more than 12%) of total US fatalities.
Implement the test versus CSSM calibration (i.e., correlation) procedures in software, and
integrate this into the SIM.
Perform a statistical ANOVA analysis of the driver parameter values extracted from the
individual test runs, to better address how they might be grouped and averaged, with
confidence intervals, and thereby generalized. The current method was an initial ad hoc
approach toward generalization.
12.5.6 For Collision Sequence Simulation Module (CSSM) (Module 3)
Consider how to more rigorously include the effects of driver parameter variation (based
on the aforementioned ANOVA) on the ACAT evaluation process by means of the SIM.
Provide means for running the CSSM on a (e.g., CONDOR-like) multi-PC network, in
order to shorten the batch simulation run time.
Add benign conflict driving mode to the CSSM, as it is vital for predicting the
transition from benign conflict to safety related conflict, in ACATs, and in particular
in conflict avoidance type ACATs.
256
Further enhance, extend and validate the driver model by means of Driving Simulator
testing.
Explicitly and separately model driver control manipulator outputs (i.e., hand wheel
angle, brake pedal force, accelerator pedal displacement); and implement drivers
adaptive gain in order to automatically account for various Subject Vehicle MMY's.
Extend so as to compute the injury effectiveness (based on NHTSA Fatality Equivalent
injury units) due to the safety technology.
Add conflict occurrence as a predicted output of the CSSM; and evaluate with a conflict
avoidance type ACAT. Also add the needed related support for computing the
Prevention Ratio from these data.
12.5.7 For Overall Safety Effects Estimator (Module 4)
Extend the modeled US fleet beyond the currently modeled sub-fleet of light passenger
vehicles so as to include all vehicles for the six largest LPV manufacturers.
Extend so as to output to the Graphical Users Interface the overall benefits in terms of
injuries (in NHTSA Fatality Equivalent (FE) injury units).
In conclusion, the extension, enhancement and refinement of the SIM in this study has resulted
in a more robust, accurate and user friendly suite of software and testing tools for estimating
safety benefits of advanced safety technologies. The advantage of this particular SIM is that it is
applicable to and has already been used to evaluate -- a broad range of advanced safety
technologies for crash avoidance, mitigation, crashworthiness and compatibility.
257
13 REFERENCES
Anon., Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies Program Cooperative Agreement, Opportunity
DTNH22-06-H-00077, with Dynamic Research, Inc., National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., September 2006.
Anon., APEX Reference Manual 3.0 Beta, NASA Ames Research Center, 2005.
Anon., Automotive Collision Avoidance System Field Operational Test Report: Methodology
and Results, DOT HS 809 900, Performed by the University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute and General Motors for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, August 2005.
Anon., MATLAB Function Reference, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, March 2007.
Anon., National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System, 2000 Coding and
Editing Manual, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Anon., National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES),
Analytical Users Manual (1998-2005), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, D.C., 2006.
Anon., National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Pedestrian Crash Data Study, 1996 Data
Collection, Coding, and Editing Manual, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, D.C., 2002.
Anon., National Vehicle Population Profile, Source: Copyright 2002, R. L. Polk & Co.,
2004.
Anon., Not-in-Traffic Surveillance 2007 Highlights, A Brief Statistical Summary, DOT HS 811
085, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington DC, J anuary 2009.
Anon., Passenger Vehicle Identification Manual, 79th Edition, National Insurance Crime Bureau,
Des Plaines, Il, 2008.
Anon., Special Issue: Speed, Status Report, Vol. 43, No. 1, 31, Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, J anuary 2008.
Anon., Traffic Safety Facts 2006, DOT HS 810 818, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, March 2008.
258
Bondy, N. and Rhea, B., Reweighting of the Primary Sampling Units in the National Automotive
Sampling System, Research Note, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, September 1997.
Braver, E., Kyrychenko, S., Efficacy of Side Airbags in Reducing Driver Deaths in Driver-Side
Collisions, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, August 2003.
Bryson, A.E., and Ho. Y.C., Applied Optimal Control, Revised Printing, Hemisphere Publishing,
Washington, 1975.
Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G., and Hunter, J .S., Statistics for Experimenters, J ohn Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1978.
Bundorf, R.T., and Leffert, R.L., The Cornering Compliance Concept for Description of
Vehicle Directional Control Properties, Technical Paper 760713, Society of Automotive
Engineers, 1976.
Burgett, A., Srinivasan, G., and Ranganathan, R., A Methodology for Estimating Potential Safety
Benefits for Pre-Production Driver Assistance Systems, DOT HS 810 945, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington D.C., May 2008.
Cannon, M.W., A Multiple Spatial Filter Model for Suprathreshold Contrast Perception,
Vision Models for Target Detection and Recognition, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995, pp. 88-
116.
Carter, A.A., Burgett, A., Srinivasan, G., Ranganathan, R., Safety Impact Methodology (SIM):
Evaluation of Pre-Production Systems, Proceeding of the 21st International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper Number 09-0259, Stuttgart, J une 2009.
Cheng, H., Rizer, R.L., and Obergefell, L.A., Articulated Total Body Model Version V Users
Manual, AFRL-HE-WP-TR-1998-0015, Biodynamics and Protection Division, Human
Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB OH, February
1998.
Dang, J .N., Preliminary Results Analyzing the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control
(ESC) Systems, DOT HS 809 790, NHTSA, Washington, September 2004.
Dang, J ., Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems -
- Final Report, Report No. DOT HS 810 794, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC, J uly 2007.
Dingus, T. A., et al., The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II Results of the 100-Car
Field Experiment, DOT HS 810 593, Accomplished by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute,
for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, April 2006.
259
Farmer, C.M., "New Evidence Concerning Fatal Crashes of Passenger Vehicles Before and After
Adding Antilock Braking Systems," Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 33, 2001,
pp 361-369.
Fleck, J .T., and Butler, F.E., Validation of the Crash Victim Simulator, Vol. 1: Engineering
Manual Part 1: Analytical Formulation, DOT HS 806 279, US DOT, Washington, D.C., 1981
Fleiss, J .L., Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Second Edition, J ohn Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1981.
Freed, M.A., Simulating Human Performance in Complex, Dynamic Environments, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1998.
Grover, C., et. al., Automated Emergency Brake Systems: Technical Requirements, costs and
benefits, PPR 227, TRL Limited, Wokingham, Berkshire, UK, April 2008.
Hart, S.G., Dahn, D. Atencio, A. and Dalal, K.M., "Evaluation and Application of MIDAS v2.0,"
SAE 2001-01-2648, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2001.
Hellman, K.H., Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through
2004, Technical Report No. EPA420-R-04-001, US Environmental Protection Agency,
April 2004.
Hertz, H., Analysis of the Crash Experience of Vehicles Equipped with All Wheel Antilock
Braking Systems (ABS)-A Second Update Including Vehicles with Optional ABS, Report No.
DOT HS 809 144, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US DOT, September 2000.
ISO 13232-5, Motorcycles Test and analysis procedures for research evaluation of rider crash
protective devices fitted to motorcycles Part 5: Injury indices and risk/benefit analysis,
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2005.
Kahane, C. J ., Relationships Between Vehicle Size and Fatality Risk in Model Year 1985-93
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, DOT HS 808 570, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., J anuary 1997.
Kalman, R.E., A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems, J ournal of Basic
Engineering, ASME, 1960.
Koopman, J .F., and Najm, W.G., "Analysis of Off-Roadway Crash Countermeasures for
Intelligent Vehicle Applications," Paper No. 2002-01-0396, SAE, Warrendale, PA, 2002.
Kuchar, A.C., A Systems Modeling Methodology for Estimation of Harm in the Automotive
Crash Environment, Paper No. 354, 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles, 6 J une 2001.
260
Lagarias, J .C., J . A. Reeds, M. H. Wright, and P. E. Wright, Convergence Properties of the
Nelder-Mead Simplex Method in Low Dimensions, SIAM J ournal of Optimization, Vol. 9
Number 1, pp. 112-147, 1998.
Lu, S., "Vehicle Survivability and Travel Mileage Schedules," DOT HS 809 952, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., J anuary 2006.
McCullough, C.A., et al., Applications of NHTSAs Vehicle Parameter Database, Paper No.
950360, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, 1995.
Monson, K. L. and Germane, G. J ., Determination and Mechanisms of Motor Vehicle Structural
Restitution from Crash Test Data, 1999-01-0097, SAE, Warrendale, 1999.
Najm, W.G., daSilva, M.P., and Wiacek, C.J ., Safety Benefits Estimation of an Intelligent
Cruise Control System Using Field Operational Test Data, Technical Paper 1999-01-2950,
SAE, Warrendale, 1999.
Najm, W.G., daSilva, M.P., and Wiacek, C.J ., Estimation of Crash Injury Severity Reduction
for Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems, Technical Paper 2000-01-1354, SAE, Warrendale, 2000.
Najm, W., Koopman, J ., Boyle, L., and Smith, D., "Development of Test Scenarios for Off-
Roadway Crash Countermeasures Based on Crash Statistics," DOT HS 809 505, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US DOT, Washington, September 2002.
Najm, W.G., Smith, J .D., and Smith, D.L., "Analysis of Crossing Path Crashes," DOT HS 809
423, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US DOT, Washington, March 2003.
Najm, W.G., and Smith, D.L., Definition of a Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Vehicle Safety
Research, Paper No. 07-0412, 20
th
ESV Conference, Lyon, France, J une 2007.
Neale, V.L., et al., An Overview Of The 100-Car Naturalistic Study and Findings, Paper No.
05-0400, 19
th
ESV Conference, Washington, D.C., J une 2005.
Niehoff, P., The Accuracy of Energy-Based Crash Reconstruction Techniques Using Event Data
Recorder Measurements, Master of Science Thesis, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Rowan
University, May 2005.
Obergefell, L.A., Gardner, T.R., Kaleps, I., and Fleck, J .T., Articulated Total Body Model
Enhancements, Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, AAMRL-TR-88-
009, J anuary 1988.
261
Ogden, C.L., Fryar, C.D., Carroll, M.D., and Flegal, K.M., "Mean Body Weight, Height, and
Body Mass Index," United States 1960-2002, Number 347, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, October 27, 2004.
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf)
Perez, M.A., Kiefer, R. J ., Haskin, A, Hankey, J .M., Evaluation of Forward Collision Warning
System Visual Alert Candidates and SAE J2400, 2009-01-0547, Society of Automotive
Engineers, April 2009.
Rde, L., and Westergren, B., Beta Mathematics Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1989.
Robson, J .G., and Graham, N., Probability Summation and Regional Variation in Contrast
Sensitivity Across the Visual Field, Vision Research, Vol. 21, 1981, pp 409 to 418.
Sen, B., Najm, W.G., and Smith, J .D., Analysis of Lane Change Crashes, DOT HS 809 571,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US DOT, Washington, March 2003.
Sugimoto, Y, and Sauer, C.W, Effectiveness Estimation Method for Advanced Driver Assistance
System and its Application to Collision Mitigation Brake System, Paper Number 05-0148, 19
th
ESV Conference, Washington, D.C., J une 2005.
Suzuki, H, Sugimoto, Y, Van Auken, R.M., Zellner, J .W., Development of a Prototype Safety
Analysis System to Assess and Forecast Vehicle Safety, Paper Number 2006-01-0718, Society of
Automotive Engineers World Congress, Detroit, April 2006.
Swanson, J ., T. Rockwell, N. Beuse, L. Summers, S. Summers, and B. Park, Evaluation of
Stiffness Measures from the U.S. New Car Assessment Program, Paper Number 527,
Proceedings of 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles,
2003.
Tessmer, J .M., FARS Analytic Reference Guide 1975 to 2006, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2006.
Tsongos, N., Crash 3 Technical Manual, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, D.C., 1986.
Ulman, M.S., and Stalnaker, R.L., Evaluation of the AIS as a Measure of Probability of Death,
Proceedings of the 1986 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact,
1986, pp 105-119.
Van Auken, R.M., Zellner, J .W., A Further Assessment of the Effects of Vehicle Weight and
Size Parameters on Fatality Risk in Model Year 1985-98 Passenger Cars and 1985-97 Light
Trucks, DRI-TR-03-01, Dynamic Research, Inc., J anuary 2003.
262
Van Auken, R.M., Zellner, J .W., An Assessment of the Effects of Vehicle Weight on Fatality
Risk in Model Year 1985-98 Passenger Cars and 1985-97 Light Trucks, DRI-TR-02-02,
Dynamic Research, Inc., February 2002.
Wards Automotive Yearbook, annual publication, Wards Communications, Detroit, 2002.
Weir, D.W., and Chao, K.C., Review of Control Theory Models for Directional and Speed
Control, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modelling Driver Behaviour in
Automotive Environments, Ispra, Italy, May 25-27, 2005.
Wilcox, Rand R., Statistics for the Social Sciences, Academic Press, San Diego, 1996.
Wilson, T., IVHS Countermeasures for Rear-End Collision, Task 2-Functional Goals, DOT HS
808 513, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US DOT, Washington, May 1996.
263
14 ACRONYMS
A
AART
ABS
ACAS
ACAT
A-CMBS
AIS
ANOVA
APEX
ATB
A/VRY
CAST
CDC
CDS
CIB
CMBS
COTR
CP
CR
CRASH3
CSSM
CST
CV
CY
delta-V
DGPS
DOT
DRI
DS
EDR
EPA
ER
ESC
ESV
F
FARS
Number of vehicles involved in property damage accidents
Automated Accident Reconstruction Tool
Anti-lock Braking System
Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems
Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies
Hondas prototype Advanced Collision Mitigation Brake System (includes
driver collision avoidance warnings)
Abbreviated Injury Scale
Analysis of variance
Architecture for Procedure Execution, NASA software for human
behavioral modeling
United States Air Force Articulated Total Body multi-body impact
simulation program
A measure of crash avoidance risk (vehicle accident rate per vehicle
registration year)
Crash Avoidance Simulation Tool
Collision Deformation Classification, an abbreviated means of
communicating or describing vehicle collision damage (see SAE J 224)
Crashworthiness Data System, tow-away crash database within NASS
Collision Imminent Braking
Collision Mitigation Brake System, Honda production collision warning
and automatic brake system
Contract Officers Technical Representative
Collision Partner
Contrast Ratio
Predecessor to WINSMASH
Crash Sequence Simulation Module
Case Selection Tool
Case Vehicle aka Subject Vehicle
Calendar Year
Change in velocity of vehicle involved in a crash
Differential Global Positioning System
United States Department of Transportation
Dynamic Research Inc.
Driving Simulator test
Event Data Recorder
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Exposure Ratio
Electronic Stability Control
Enhanced Safety Vehicles
Number of Fatalities
Fatality Analysis Reporting System
264
FAS Fatality Analysis System
FE Fatality Equivalent injury
FR Fatality Ratio
F/A A measure of crashworthiness and compatibility risk
F/VRY Fatality rate per vehicle registration year
GES General Estimates System, database within NASS based on police reports
GPS Global Positioning System
GST Guided Soft Target
HIL hardware-in-the-loop
Honda Honda R&D Co. Ltd.
HMI Human Machine Interface
IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
IR Injury Ratio
ISO International Organization for Standardization
KABCOU Injury severity classification scale (K - killed, A - incapacitating injury,
B - non-incapacitating injury, C - possible injury, O - no injury, and
U - injury, severity unknown).
LPV Light Passenger Vehicle, passenger car or light truck or van
MABX Micro Auto Box computer that runs the A-CMBS in the Subject Vehicle
MIDAS Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System, human operator
model of NASA
MMY Make-Model-Model Year
MY Model Year
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASS National Automotive Sampling System
NCAP New Car Assessment Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMVCCS National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey
NVPP National Vehicle Population Profile, database of R.L. Polk & Co.
OCAST Driver model implemented using NASA Apex Human Operator Modeling
Software
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OSEE Overall Safety Effects Module
PCDS Pedestrian Crash Data System, database within NASS
PD Property Damage accident
PERT chart Program Evaluation Review Technique, operator task schedule which
graphically represents resource usage over time
PMP Program Management Plan
POC Probability of Collision
POF Probability of Fatality
POI Point of Impact
POR Point of Rest
PR Prevention Ratio
PGST Pedestrian Guided Soft Target
265
R Relative Risk
RHA Relative Heading Angle
RT Reaction Time
RTD Real Time Devices, the computer that controls the GST
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SIM Safety Impact Methodology
SIS Slowly Increasing Steer
SMASH Predecessor to WINSMASH
SPL Sound Pressure Level
SV Subject Vehicle, in which the effectiveness of the ACAT system is being
evaluated
TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
TRCT Technology Relevant Crash Type
TSI Test Selection Index
TT Track test
UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, which collected
ACAS Field Operational Tests comprising a naturalistic driving database
USAF United States Air Force
VDA Vehicle Dynamics Area
VRY Number of Vehicle Registration Years
VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which collected a one year, 100 car
naturalistic driving database
WINSMASH NHTSA computer software to estimate the change in velocity, delta-V
266
DOT HS 811 454A
June 2011

You might also like