| Literature DB >> 36236631 |
Zhuoqun Dai1, Alexander Wolf1,2, Peer-Phillip Ley1, Tobias Glück1, Max Caspar Sundermeier1, Roland Lachmayer1,2.
Abstract
Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) are fundamental sensors that help driving tasks for autonomous driving at various levels. Commercially available systems come in different specialized design schemes and involve plenty of specifications. In the literature, there are insufficient representations of the technical requirements for LiDAR systems in the automotive context, such as range, detection quality, resolving power, field of view, and eye safety. For this reason, the requirements above require to be derived based on ADAS functions. The requirements for various key LiDAR metrics, including detection range, field of view, angular resolution, and laser safety, are analyzed in this paper. LiDAR systems are available with various radiation patterns that significantly impact on detection range. Therefore, the detection range under various radiation patterns is firstly investigated in this paper. Based on ADAS functions, the required detection range and field of view for LiDAR systems are examined, taking into account various travel speeds to avoid collision and the coverage of the entire lane width. Furthermore, the angular resolution limits are obtained utilizing the KITTI dataset and exemplary 3D detection algorithms. Finally, the maximum detection ranges for the different radiation patterns are compared under the consideration of derived requirements and laser safety.Entities:
Keywords: PointPillars; advanced driver assistance system; autonomous driving; laser safety; laser scanning; light detection and ranging (LiDAR); object detection; requirements
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236631 PMCID: PMC9572322 DOI: 10.3390/s22197532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
List of main variables in Equation (3).
| Symbol | Quantity | Units |
|---|---|---|
|
| Received power | W |
|
| Emitted power | W |
|
| Atmospheric transmission | - |
|
| Optical efficiency of the emitter | - |
|
| Beam spread area of the emitter at the target | m2 |
|
| Target cross-section | m2 |
|
| Reflectance of the target | - |
|
| Distance between LiDAR and the target | m |
|
| Optical aperture of the receiver | m2 |
|
| Optical efficiency of the receiver | - |
Figure 1Radiation patterns of LiDAR systems according to [22]: (a) spot irradiation with collimated beam; (b) horizontal blade irradiation; and (c) flash irradiation of the entire FOV.
Range equations concerning a single pixel for various radiation patterns.
| Case | Beam Spread Area | Cross-Section | Range Equation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spot irradiation |
|
|
|
| Blade irradiation |
|
|
|
| Flash irradiation |
|
|
|
Scenarios in FVCWS according to ISO 15623 [29].
| No. | Scenario | Warning Distance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Preceding vehicle travels at ordinary speed |
|
| 2 | Preceding vehicle is stationary |
|
| 3 | Preceding vehicle decelerates with a relative speed |
|
Figure 2Warning distance as a function of the subject vehicle speed or relative speed for three typical scenarios; subject vehicle speed for scenario 3 is 140 km∙h−1.
Figure 3Detection area in a curve: (a) schematic to calculate the horizontal angle to cover the full lane width in a curve with radius R according to [29]; (b) required entire horizontal FOV for different curve radii.
Figure 4Determination of the FOV for the FVCWS function according to [29].
The required opening angle for FVCWS function with different curve radii according to [34].
| Curve Class | Curve Radius | Full Horizontal FOV | Full Vertical FOV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class Ⅰ | ≥500 m | 12.4° | 5.2° |
| Class Ⅱ | ≥250 m | 18.0° | 6.8° |
| Class Ⅲ | ≥125 m | 32.6° | 10.2° |
Comparison of various 3D object detection algorithms based on the KITTI dataset.
| Algorithms | Average Precision | Processing Time per Image (GPU/CPU) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cars | Pedestrians | Bicyclists | ||
| PV-RCNN [ | 94.10% | 66.38% | 75.77% | 0.1837 s/0.1726 s |
| PointRCNN [ | 92.90% | 75.03% | 76.76% | 0.0861 s/0.0851 s |
| SECOND [ | 94.51% | 71.94% | 76.50% | 0.0487 s/0.0488 s |
| PointPillars [ | 93.91% | 65.46% | 72.34% | 0.0270 s/0.0286 s |
Figure 5Detection results for cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians: (a–c) car in rear perspective; (d–f) car in lateral perspective; (g–i) bicyclist in rear perspective; (j–l) bicyblist in lateral perspective; (m–o) pedestrian. The left column shows RGB images of detection objects from the KITTI dataset [38]; the middle column shows raw point clouds of detection objects; and the right column shows the distribution of confidence scores varying with different angular resolutions.
Minimum pixel number to detect main traffic targets under a confidence score of 0.5.
| Object | Perspective | Aspect Ratio (B:H) | Min. Required Points | Min. Pixel Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Car | Rear | 2:1 | 31 | 8 × 4 |
| Lateral | 4:1 | 25 | 12 × 3 | |
| Bicyclist | Rear | 1:3 | 46 | 4 × 12 |
| Lateral | 7:6 | 48 | 8 × 6 | |
| Pedestrian | - | 3:8 | 14 | 3 × 8 |
Figure 6Required angular resolution for quadratic shaped pixels and different objects as a function of distance with a confidence score of 0.5.
Figure 7Maximum accessible emitting energy for (a) spot scanning LiDAR systems; (b) blade irradiation horizontal scanning LiDAR systems; (c) blade irradiation vertical scanning LiDAR systems; and (d) flash LiDAR systems.
Figure 8Detection range as a function of the eye safety distance for different LiDAR systems.
Figure 9Illustration of exemplary problem situations due to a narrow FOV: (a) late detection of a cut-in vehicle; (b) offset of a motorbike; and (c) detection of three lanes.