IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i7p2545-d783858.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation Methodology for Physical Radar Perception Sensor Models Based on On-Road Measurements for the Testing and Validation of Automated Driving

Author

Listed:
  • Zoltan Ferenc Magosi

    (Institute of Automotive Engineering, Graz University of Technology, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Christoph Wellershaus

    (Institute of Automotive Engineering, Graz University of Technology, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Viktor Roland Tihanyi

    (Department of Automotive Technologies, Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehicle Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME), 1111 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Patrick Luley

    (JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Arno Eichberger

    (Institute of Automotive Engineering, Graz University of Technology, 8010 Graz, Austria)

Abstract

In recent years, verification and validation processes of automated driving systems have been increasingly moved to virtual simulation, as this allows for rapid prototyping and the use of a multitude of testing scenarios compared to on-road testing. However, in order to support future approval procedures for automated driving functions with virtual simulations, the models used for this purpose must be sufficiently accurate to be able to test the driving functions implemented in the complete vehicle model. In recent years, the modelling of environment sensor technology has gained particular interest, since it can be used to validate the object detection and fusion algorithms in Model-in-the-Loop testing. In this paper, a practical process is developed to enable a systematic evaluation for perception–sensor models on a low-level data basis. The validation framework includes, first, the execution of test drive runs on a closed highway; secondly, the re-simulation of these test drives in a precise digital twin; and thirdly, the comparison of measured and simulated perception sensor output with statistical metrics. To demonstrate the practical feasibility, a commercial radar-sensor model (the ray-tracing based RSI radar model from IPG) was validated using a real radar sensor (ARS-308 radar sensor from Continental). The simulation was set up in the simulation environment IPG CarMaker ® 8.1.1, and the evaluation was then performed using the software package Mathworks MATLAB ® . Real and virtual sensor output data on a low-level data basis were used, which thus enables the benchmark. We developed metrics for the evaluation, and these were quantified using statistical analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Zoltan Ferenc Magosi & Christoph Wellershaus & Viktor Roland Tihanyi & Patrick Luley & Arno Eichberger, 2022. "Evaluation Methodology for Physical Radar Perception Sensor Models Based on On-Road Measurements for the Testing and Validation of Automated Driving," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:7:p:2545-:d:783858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/7/2545/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/7/2545/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tirachini, Alejandro & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2020. "The economics of automated public transport: Effects on operator cost, travel time, fare and subsidy," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).
    2. Kalra, Nidhi & Paddock, Susan M., 2016. "Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 182-193.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Bertolini & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Grounding the case for a European approach to the regulation of automated driving: the technology-selection effect of liability rules," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 243-284, April.
    2. Jia Guo & Yusak Susilo & Constantinos Antoniou & Anna Pernestål Brenden, 2020. "Influence of Individual Perceptions on the Decision to Adopt Automated Bus Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Kum Fai Yuen & Ling Qian Choo & Xue Li & Yiik Diew Wong & Fei Ma & Xueqin Wang, 2023. "A theoretical investigation of user acceptance of autonomous public transport," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 545-569, April.
    4. Henry X. Liu & Shuo Feng, 2024. "Curse of rarity for autonomous vehicles," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-5, December.
    5. Militão, Aitan M. & Tirachini, Alejandro, 2021. "Optimal fleet size for a shared demand-responsive transport system with human-driven vs automated vehicles: A total cost minimization approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 52-80.
    6. Barbosa, Luciana & Rodrigues, Artur & Sardinha, Alberto, 2022. "Optimal price subsidies under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 471-479.
    7. Hudson, John & Orviska, Marta & Hunady, Jan, 2019. "People’s attitudes to autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 164-176.
    8. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    9. Cian Ryan & Finbarr Murphy & Martin Mullins, 2019. "Semiautonomous Vehicle Risk Analysis: A Telematics‐Based Anomaly Detection Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1125-1140, May.
    10. Becker, Henrik & Becker, Felix & Abe, Ryosuke & Bekhor, Shlomo & Belgiawan, Prawira F. & Compostella, Junia & Frazzoli, Emilio & Fulton, Lewis M. & Guggisberg Bicudo, Davi & Murthy Gurumurthy, Krishna, 2020. "Impact of vehicle automation and electric propulsion on production costs for mobility services worldwide," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 105-126.
    11. Hazel Si Min Lim & Araz Taeihagh, 2019. "Algorithmic Decision-Making in AVs: Understanding Ethical and Technical Concerns for Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-28, October.
    12. Jara-Diaz, Sergio R. & Muñoz-Paulsen, Esteban, 2024. "Cable cars: From optimal design to optimal pricing," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Delgado-Aguilera Jurado, Raquel & Ye, Xiaojie & Ortolá Plaza, Vicent & Zamarreño Suárez, María & Pérez Moreno, Francisco & Arnaldo Valdés, Rosa María, 2024. "An introduction to the current state of standardization and certification on military AI applications," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    14. Ho, Chinh Q. & Tirachini, Alejandro, 2024. "Mobility-as-a-Service and the role of multimodality in the sustainability of urban mobility in developing and developed countries," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 161-176.
    15. Qingyun Tian & Yun Hui Lin & David Z. W. Wang, 2021. "Autonomous and conventional bus fleet optimization for fixed-route operations considering demand uncertainty," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2735-2763, October.
    16. Lu, Chengqi & Maciejewski, Michal & Wu, Hao & Nagel, Kai, 2023. "Demand-responsive transport for students in rural areas: A case study in Vulkaneifel, Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    17. Talebian, Ahmadreza & Mishra, Sabyasachee, 2022. "Unfolding the state of the adoption of connected autonomous trucks by the commercial fleet owner industry," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    18. Scott Le Vine & You Kong & Xiaobo Liu & John Polak, 2019. "Vehicle automation and freeway ‘pipeline’ capacity in the context of legal standards of care," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1215-1244, August.
    19. Fielbaum, Andrés & Tirachini, Alejandro & Alonso-Mora, Javier, 2023. "Economies and diseconomies of scale in on-demand ridepooling systems," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    20. Luigi Alberto Franzoni, 2024. "Efficient liability law when parties genuinely disagree," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 416-433.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:7:p:2545-:d:783858. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.