| Literature DB >> 31979141 |
Eldar Šabanovič1, Vidas Žuraulis1, Olegas Prentkovskis2, Viktor Skrickij1.
Abstract
Nowadays, vehicles have advanced driver-assistance systems which help to improve vehicle safety and save the lives of drivers, passengers and pedestrians. Identification of the road-surface type and condition in real time using a video image sensor, can increase the effectiveness of such systems significantly, especially when adapting it for braking and stability-related solutions. This paper contributes to the development of the new efficient engineering solution aimed at improving vehicle dynamics control via the anti-lock braking system (ABS) by estimating friction coefficient using video data. The experimental research on three different road surface types in dry and wet conditions has been carried out and braking performance was established with a car mathematical model (MM). Testing of a deep neural networks (DNN)-based road-surface and conditions classification algorithm revealed that this is the most promising approach for this task. The research has shown that the proposed solution increases the performance of ABS with a rule-based control strategy.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; road type identification; vehicle dynamics; vehicle perception system; video image sensor
Year: 2020 PMID: 31979141 PMCID: PMC7037890 DOI: 10.3390/s20030612
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Deep neural network (DNN) model for road type and conditions classification.
Figure 2Blocks schematic of system implementation.
Figure 3Vehicle dynamic model.
Parameters for mathematical model (MM).
| Parameter | Numerical Value |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stiffness of front wheels, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Weight of centre of vehicle body mass |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4Test vehicle.
Figure 5Selected road surfaces for test braking: (a) asphalt, (b) cobblestone, (c) gravel.
Confusion matrix for road pavement type and condition combinations.
| Predicted | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | Per Class Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual | |||||||||||
| C1: Asphalt dry | 174 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 87.0% | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.89 | |
| C2: Asphalt wet | 3 | 191 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 95.5% | 0.88 | 0.955 | 0.92 | |
| C3: Cobblestone dry | 15 | 3 | 171 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 85.5% | 0.96 | 0.855 | 0.90 | |
| C4: Cobblestone wet | 1 | 9 | 1 | 188 | 0 | 1 | 94.0% | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.93 | |
| C5: Gravel dry | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 151 | 47 | 75.5% | 0.90 | 0.755 | 0.82 | |
| C6: Gravel wet | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 185 | 92.5% | 0.77 | 0.93 | 0.84 | |
Confusion matrix for road pavement type only.
| Predicted | Asphalt | Cobblestone | Gravel | Per Class Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual | ||||||||
| Asphalt | 382 | 12 | 6 | 95.5% | 0.93 | 0.955 | 0.94 | |
| Cobblestone | 28 | 368 | 4 | 92% | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.94 | |
| Gravel | 0 | 2 | 398 | 99.5% | 0.975 | 0.995 | 0.98 | |
Confusion matrix for road conditions only.
| Predicted | Dry | Wet | Per Class Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual | |||||||
| Dry | 519 | 81 | 86.5% | 0.96 | 0.865 | 0.91 | |
| Wet | 20 | 580 | 96.7% | 0.88 | 0.965 | 0.92 | |
Figure 6Numerical values of calculated and experimental data (ED) friction coefficients.
Figure 7Validation of vehicle MM with anti-lock braking system (ABS).
Stopping distance.
| Pavement Type | Max Friction Coefficient | Stopping Distance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without ABS | Conventional ABS | SYSTEM with Preview | ||||
| m | Compared to Conv. ABS, % | m | m | Compared to Conv. ABS, % | ||
| Dry asphalt | 0.15 | 21.37 | −64 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 0 |
| Wet asphalt | 0.11 | 32.45 | −33 | 24.36 | 20.05 | 18 |
| Dry cobble. | 0.32 | 26.78 | −42 | 18.89 | 17.51 | 7 |
| Wet cobble. | 0.20 | 33.30 | −18 | 28.22 | 27.78 | 2 |
| Dry gravel | 0.3 | 25.66 | −14 | 22.53 | 21.83 | 3 |
| Wet gravel | 0.4 | 31.79 | 8 | 34.68 | 30.05 | 13 |
Stopping distance with wrong classification.
| Set Surface | Dry Asphalt | Wet Asphalt | Dry Cobble. | Wet Cobble. | Dry Gravel | Wet Gravel | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Surface | |||||||
| Dry asphalt | 13.05 | 13.51 | 19.40 | 19.17 | 19.40 | 20.37 | |
| Wet asphalt | 24.36 | 20.05 | 30.01 | 27.82 | 29.59 | 31.09 | |
| Dry cobble. | 18.89 | 20.78 | 17.51 | 17.87 | 17.53 | 18.31 | |
| Wet cobble. | 28.22 | 29.55 | 28.34 | 27.78 | 28.16 | 29.24 | |
| Dry gravel | 22.53 | 23.74 | 21.84 | 22.02 | 21.83 | 21.99 | |
| Wet gravel | 34.68 | 38.39 | 30.32 | 32.34 | 30.48 | 30.05 | |
Control strategy.
| Stage | Rule | Stage | Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | ||
| 2 | 7 | if | |
| 3 | if | 8 | if |
| 4 | if | 9 | |
| 5 | if | 10 |