RESEARCH OF VEHICLE AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY

BRAKING SYSTEM EVALUATION METHODS

CHEN CHAO, XIA QIN
˄China Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co., Ltd., Chong Qing, 401122˅

Abstract˖Generally, vehicle automatic emergency braking system (AEBS) evaluation is based on traffic accident data
statistics, to calculate the weight of each test condition or directly evaluate it’s qualified or not. Due to each test condition of
choice is typical speed for the accident conditions, thus has certain one-sidedness in the evaluation. Aiming at this problem,
this paper puts forward the theory of analytic hierarchy process (APH) for vehicle AEBS evaluation. Get the following results:
Hierarchical structure model of AEBS evaluation was set up, based which, get the judgment matrix of weight calculation;
Weights of working condition of each test was calculated; According to the theory of hierarchical analysis judgment, calculate
the consistency of judgment matrix is good; Finally, consistency evaluation of same speed and different speed was added in the
AEBS evaluation.
Key words˖
˖AEBS evaluation˗AHP˗hierarchical structure model˗judgment matrix˗consistency judgement˗plus evaluation

1 Introduction of standards and regulations. Euro-NCAP issued AEBS

Increasing car ownership, accompanied by a gradual
increase in traffic, followed by a road traffic accident has
become a global security issues in all over the word, which
caused the widespread concern of the whole society. More
and more road traffic accidents brought huge losses to
people's life and property safety, which affected the people's
standard of living seriously. China, as the superpower car
ownership in the world, with car road traffic accident
frequency at the same time, has high death toll people [1]. To
ensure the safety of road traffic, improve car driving safety
is extremely urgent. Automatic emergency braking system
(AEBS) can identify dangerous car or object ahead by radar
or camera before the driver was not aware of the danger or
wall collision measures offered to help the pilot to brake to
avoid or reduce the collision. It have raising a hot wave
AEBS development and test evaluation around the world.
since the 1990’s of the last century ,Europe, America,
Japan and other developed countries has spared no efforts in
developing ADAS technology, AEBS as an important part of
the ADAS has become a hot research topic. In terms of
AEBS test evaluation, foreign government agencies has
proposed the ADAS system and industrialization route
configuration schedule, and established the strict and
comprehensive system of technical standards and regulations.
Such as ISO, ECE, Euro NCAP, Japan issued a large number
(including test system for FCWS) evaluation method,
specify the AEBS testing method and criteria, and in the
Euro - star rating NCAP as early as 2013[2] [3] [4].The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the
forward collision warning system (FCWS) testing standards
and evaluation methods in 2013[5].The European
commission issued for M2, N2, M3, N3 commercial vehicle
AEBS standard in 2012[6], the international Organization for
Standardization (ISO) issued FCWS test evaluation standard
in June 2013[7].Some institutions abroad also specially made
AEBS test and evaluation methods of research and
promotion. Including the ADAC auto association of AEBS
test evaluation project[8], Daimler, Bosch, Toyota, Germany
Bast, TRW, CHALMERS and other research institutions and
companies of ACSSES project [9] [10] [11] [12]
.IKA, VOLVO,
etc in the eVALUE of project [13]
;The EU's Aspecss projects;
Visteon corporation and U.S.DOT work with NIST IVBSS
ADAS system test projects, projects for light passenger cars
and heavy trucks test and evaluation method of forward
collision warning system [14] [15] [16], etc.
In China, the ADAS system including AEBS relatively
backward compared to abroad, start slowly and scale
development in recent years, is currently in system
development, application and test evaluation period.
Released in the aspect of testing standards and regulations,
the state issued the intelligence transportation system the
vehicle collision warning system, prior to the performance
requirements and test procedures for examination and
approval of draft, promote the development of domestic
[17]
FCWS/AEBS .Relevant scientific research test units such
as CATARC and CAERI buy complete ADAS test
equipment respectively, including AEBS. Not only focus on
AEBS standards have been published, also focused on the
upcoming AEB pedestrian detection in 2016 standards; Not
only focus on regulations/standards test, but also focus on
research and development type test.
Above all, AEBS as made in China-2025, intelligent
made car DA phase of the key technologies, can
significantly improve the traffic safety, is gradually achieve
driving auxiliary, part of the autopilot, highly automated
driving, fully automated driving the underlying key
[18]
technology .And test and evaluation method of AEBS is
also one of the most important aspects of the development,
testing and promotion AEBS, precisely in this respect has
just started in our country, to put forward suitable for China's
AEBS road test evaluation method. AEBS evaluation based
on the existing domestic traffic data statistics, this paper
based on we have proposed AEBS test method (table 1.1),
first introduced the AHP analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
for all kinds of working condition of city road, to assess
weight calculation of the whole system.

No Type of Test Test Conditions

10km/h
20km/h
1 The target vehicle static 30km/h
40km/h
50km/h
40km/h
50km/h
2 The target vehicle at low speed
60km/h
70km/h
40m/2m/s2
40m/6m/s2
3 The target vehicle deceleration
12m/2m/s2
12m/6m/s2
Target vehicle cut in
4 Change lanes Target vehicle cut in
Test vehicle cut in
10km/h
20km/h
30km/h
5 The target vehicle bias
40km/h
50km/h
Target vehicle 20km/h
Sound and light alarm testing, system
6 HMI test
alarm strategy
the test of straight line
7 False alarm test
the test of curve line
consistency of same speed
8 Consistency for testing
consistency of different speed

Tab 1.1: The test methods

2 AEBS Evaluation Method University of Pittsburgh (University of Pittsburgh) professor

[19]
T.L.Saaty in the United States department of defense
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is related to the research "according to the size of each industrial sector's
overall goal of elements into goals, standards, plan three contribution to the national welfare for electric power
levels, on the basis of the decision-making methods of distribution" project, in the mid of 1970s, application of the
qualitative and quantitative analysis. This method is the theory of network system and multi-objective
 7DUJHWYHKLFOHVORZWHVW
comprehensive evaluation method, a hierarchical weighted VSHHGNPK

decision analysis method is proposed. 7DUJHWYHKLFOHVWDWLFDQG

WHVWVSHHGNPK
7DUJHWYHKLFOHVWDWLFDQG
WHVWVSHHGNPK
2.1 Set up Pass class hierarchy model 7DUJHWYHKLFOH
ELDV 7DUJHWYHKLFOHVWDWLFDQG
WHVWVSHHGNPK

AHP analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to establish the 7DUJHWYHKLFOHVWDWLFDQG

WHVWVSHHGNPK
total goal and the relationship between the weight of each 7DUJHWYHKLFOHVWDWLFDQG
element is allowed to establish three layer class time WHVWVSHHGNPK

structure, respectively as the target layer, criterion layer and 7DUJHWYHKLFOHFXWRXWWKH

layer solution. Target layer for the purpose of hierarchical WHVWODQH

structure, the constraint conditions of rule layer is also &KDQJHODQHV

7HVWYHKLFOHFXWLQWRWKH
WDUJHWODQH
known as hierarchy layer, layer is a detailed description of 7DUJHWYHKLFOHFXWLQWRWKH
the target layer. Hierarchy from the top down to govern WHVWODQH

relations, and there is no dominant between peer relationship, PEHWZHHQYHKLFOHWDUJHW

belongs to the parallel relationship and mutual interference. YHKLFOHGHFHOHUDWLRQ6KDUSO\

According to the principle of analytic hierarchy process AEBS 7DUJHWYHKLFOH

PEHWZHHQYHKLFOHWDUJHW
YHKLFOHGHFHOHUDWLRQVORZO\
(AHP system structure AEBS hierarchy evaluation model is Evaluation GHFHOHUDWLRQ PEHWZHHQYHKLFOHWDUJHW
set up as shown in figure 4.1.The hierarchy model is YHKLFOHGHFHOHUDWLRQ6KDUSO\
PEHWZHHQYHKLFOHWDUJHW
described in this paper, the third chapter established urban YHKLFOHGHFHOHUDWLRQVORZO\
road conditions for the element. Calculate the weight of each
criterion layer under the scheme, combined with the specific 7HVWVSHHGNPK

models AEBS evaluation on the actual working condition of 7DUJHWYHKLFOH 7HVWVSHHGNPK

the test result. Because of the false alarm test condition, VORZ
7HVWVSHHGNPK
HMI and conformance testing belong to AEBS functional 7HVWVSHHGNPK
testing, therefore in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
temporarily does not involve the three test conditions. 7HVWVSHHGNPK

7HVWVSHHGNPK
2.2 The construction of judgment matrix and the Target vehicle
static 7HVWVSHHGNPK

calculation of the weight vector 7HVWVSHHGNPK

7HVWVSHHGNPK
Analytic hierarchy structure model is completed, we
need to build more out of the judgment matrix of each
evaluation index. In the hierarchical structure model for a Fig 2.1: Hierarchic APH model
layer element, the relative importance between the
hierarchical element numerical comparison, and in the form In analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the importance of
of matrix, said the judgment matrix. Judgement matrix the matrix elements of the element and element j I more
structure need to be on the two comparison between the value, and both are reciprocal relationship, namely
various indicators, and then press 9 points a ratio scheduled 1
order the relative weight of each evaluation index, construct bij ˄4.3˅
the evaluation index in turn. Assume that figure 2.1 establish
b ji
the hierarchical structure of the model from top to bottom 1 1 1 1
three layers are expressed with A, B, C, namely target layer, Under which take 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, , , , a total of 9
criterion layer B, plan C.The objective judgment matrix for 3 5 7 9
A relative criterion layer B: scale, in turn, said the weight from heavy to light. Table 2.1
for the meaning of the value scale [20] [21]:
§1 b12 b13 b14 b15 ·
¨ ¸
¨ b21 1 b23 b24 b25 ¸ Calibration, bij The meaning of calibration
˄4.1˅
A= ¨ b31 b32 1 b34 b35 ¸ 1 bi and bj have the same importance
¨ ¸ 3 bi is a bit important than bj
¨ b41 b42 b43 1 b45 ¸ 5 bi is Quite important than bj
¨b b52 b53 b54 1 ¸¹ 7 bi is very important than bj
© 51
Similarly, change lanes conditions, for example, 9 bi is extremely important than bj
standard layer relative to the plan B to C of judgment
matrix is: Tab 2.1: scale meaning of APH
§ 1 c12 c13 ·
¨ ¸ ˄4.2˅ According to the national traffic accidents between
B4 = ¨ c21 1 c23 ¸ vehicle traffic accident statistic data to construct the target
¨c ¸ layer and rule layer of comparative judgment matrix. Table
© 31 c32 1 ¹
2.2 is all kinds of working condition of the traffic accident statistic data on average for 2011-2014.

Type of working Target Target vehicle Target vehicle Change Target

condition vehicle static is slow deceleration lanes vehicle bias
ratio 11.08% 50.41% 16.22% 5.68% 16.61%

Tab 2.2: All kinds of working condition of the traffic accident statistical data on average of 2011-2014

Target layer for criterion of the judgment matrix: road speed static conditions (test speed 0 to 50 km/h) and the
comprehensive accident casualty ratio statistics calculation
§ 1 1 1· under the working condition of each accounted for,
¨1 7 2
3
2¸ according to the different degrees of injury serious situation
¨ ¸ different set minor injuries, serious injuries, death in the
¨7 1 5 9 5¸
¨ ¸ ˄4.4˅ proportion of casualties to 1, 1.2, 1.5, after calculating the
1 proportion; Due to traffic accident statistics are not specific
¨2 1 3 1¸
A ¨ 5 ¸ to each working condition of the speed of the car accident
¨1 1 1 1¸ statistics of economic property losses, so can't by accident
¨ 1 ¸
¨3 9 3 3¸ economic loss to calculate weight of the working condition
¨ 1 ¸ of the situation. But in the process of accident statistics
¨2 1 3 1¸ analysis can be found that with the improvement of the
© 5 ¹
speed of the car accident caused economic losses will
increase gradually, so when calculating the economic loss of
Through computing the largest eigenvalue of matrix
weight is introduced into a linear with the increase of the
MATLAB lambda m = 5.0999, the normalized eigenvector k
speed conditions, meter rule layer in the hierarchy analysis
= (0.0878, 0.5888, 0.0878, 0.5888, 0.1389).The car static,
diagram is 1, each working condition of minimum speed
goals, low speed of target, the target car to slow down,
economic loss every time, increase the speed of the car
change lanes and target bias the weight of five conditions
economy loss weight increased by 0.1.Finally using the
were 0.0878, 0.5888, 0.1387, 0.0457, 0.1389.
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to calculate weight of the
The weight of the total target of relative criterion layer
rule of each layer corresponding solutions.
after calculation, weights of criterion layer relative to their

respective solutions are also calculated. Due to the
particularity of AEBS evaluation, when calculating the rule
7KHDFFLGHQWUDWH

layer corresponds to the weight of the package in, in 

addition to consider the weight of each speed conditions,

should also be put in the working condition of the




corresponding traffic accident casualties and property losses,

but can't have a connection between each layer scheme in 

the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), if the number of

casualties and property losses as solution layer elements, it is 
   2WKHUV
 
not in conformity with the principle of analytic hierarchy 6SHHGNPK 0LQRULQMXU(G 6HULRXVO\LQMXUHG 'HDWK
process (AHP).So this paper for each speed under the
condition of the statistical analysis of traffic accident and the
accident caused casualties and property loss proportion into
Fig 2.2: Working condition of a target car static traffic
the working condition of each speed calculation, and then
accidents and casualties statistics histogram
use analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to calculate the weight
of each criterion layer speed conditions.
According to the above principles and rules of table 2.2
˄1˅The target vehicle static condition traffic accident statistics to calculate weights of working
According to the national traffic accident statistics condition of a target vehicle static solution layer as shown in
show that in the working condition of city road stationary table 2.
vehicles each quantity and speed of traffic accident
casualties of situation, as shown in figure 2.2.AEBS urban

Speed km/h 10 20 30 40 50
Ratio of accidents 1.1% 9.5% 23.4% 23.7% 31.6%
Ratio of casualties 1.1% 9.5% 23.4% 29.15% 45%
Ratio of economic
16.7% 18.3% 20% 21.7% 23.3%
losses

Tab 2.3: Target car static condition scheme layer element weights
 AEBS born to solve the problem of driving safety, so 50 km/h the weight of five conditions were 0.0381, 0.0804,
that when calculating the each speed integrated accident of 0.1996, 0.2375, 0.4444.
safety issues should be considered, so this article set weights ˄2˅Target vehicle at low speed condition
number is 0.2, the economic loss of ratio 0.2, casualties of According to (1) the target vehicle scheme layer
more than 0.6.Proportion of weighted scheme layer is shown theory and calculation of the static working condition,
in table 2.4. working condition of low speed target car scheme layer
weights using the same theory and method to calculate.
Speed Figure 2.3 for vehicle ahead slow accident rate and the
    
km/h number of casualties accident statistic histogram, the figure
Ratio      shows as long as the distribution in vehicle ahead slow
traffic accident within 60-70 km/h.
Tab. 2.4 Working condition of a target car static solution 

layer weighted proportion

7KHDFFLGHQWUDWH


Establish criteria for solution layer judgment matrix:




§ 1 1 1 1·
¨1 3 5 6 9¸ 
¨ ¸
¨3 1 1 1¸
1 ˄4.5˅
¨ 3 4 5¸ 
¨ ¸      ަԆ
B1 ¨5 1¸ 6SHHGNPK 0LQRULQMXU(G 6HULRXVO\LQMXUHG 'HDWK
3 1 1
¨ 3¸
¨ 1¸ Fig 2.3: A target car speed and working condition of
¨6 4 1 1 ¸
¨ 2¸ slow traffic accident casualties statistical histogram
¨9 5 3 2 1 ¸¹
©
Through computing the largest eigenvalue of matrix According to figure 2.3 of section on the statistical
MATLAB lambda m = 5.0918, the normalized eigenvector k data of traffic accidents and economic loss of weighted
= (0.0693, 0.1464, 0.0693, 0.1464, 0.8091).Which is 10 to proportion of calculation scheme layer number, the number
of casualties and economic losses are shown in table 4.5.
§ 1 1·
Speed km/h 40 50 60 70 ¨1 1 3 5 ¸
¨ ¸
Ratio of accidents 6.8% 9% 23.1% 34.5% ¨1 1 1 1 ¸ ˄4.6˅
Ratio of casualties 7.6% 9.9% 24.4% 41.6% B2 ¨ 3 5¸
¨ ¸
Ratio of economic ¨3 3 1 1 ¸
21.7% 23.9% 26.1% 28.3% ¨ 2¸
losses ¨5 5 2 1 ¸
© ¹
Tab 2.5: Target car lower speed condition scheme layer
element weights Through computing the largest eigenvalue of matrix
MATLAB lambda m = 4.0042, the normalized eigenvector k
Proportion of weighted scheme layer is shown in table = (0.1629, 0.1629, 0.4674, 0.1629).The 40-70 km/h the
2.6. weight of four conditions were 0.09893, 0.09893, 0.2838,
0.5183.
Spee ˄3˅The working condition of a target vehicle deceleration
d For the working condition of rule layer slows down
40 50 60 70 layer weighting from the front two kind of working
km/
h condition. Because everything slows down operating mode
Rati 10.27 12.51 24.48 37.73 choice is the speed of 50 km/h, so for this rule layer
o % % % % calculated when accounted for only refer to the actual urban
road traffic accident reduction speed of vehicles is
Tab 2.6: Working condition of a lower target car calculated.
solution layer weighted proportion

According to the above-mentioned establish guidelines

for solution layer judgment matrix:
 same target vehicle. So the number of different scheme layer

element, the number of casualties and economic losses than
in the first section in this chapter and the second quarter of
7KHDFFLGHQWUDWH

 the proportion of the value, and then calculated according to

the target layer relative to the standard weighting criterion
layer offset relative to the plan target car accounted for. As



shown in table 2.8.

Speed
10/0 20/0 30/0 40/0 50/0 50/20

km/h

   
Ratio      
7DUJHWYHKLFOHGHFHOHUDWLRQm/s2

Fig 2.4: Working condition of a target car deceleration

Tab 4.8: A target car bias condition scheme layer
deceleration statistical histogram traffic accidents
weighted proportion
Solution is obtained according to the figure 2.4 layer
elements such as shown in table 2.7.
According to the above-mentioned establish guidelines
for solution layer judgment matrix:
category 40m/2m/s2 40m/6m/s2 12m/2m/s2 12m/6m/s2
Ratio of
accident
17.9% 26.25% 17.9% 26.25% § 1 1 1 1 1·
¨1 3 5 6 7 9¸
¨ ¸
Tab 2.7: Working condition of a target car deceleration ¨3 1 1 1 1¸
1
solution layer weighted proportion ¨ 3 4 5 7¸
¨ ¸
¨5 1 1¸ ˄4.8˅
According to the above-mentioned establish guidelines 3 1 1
B5 = ¨ 2 5¸
for solution layer judgment matrix: ¨ 1 1¸
¨6 4 1 1 ¸
§ 1 1· ¨ 2 5¸
¨1 3
1
3¸
¨ 1¸
¨ ¸ ¨7 5 2 2 1 ¸
¨3 1 3 1¸ ˄4.7˅ ¨ 3¸
B3 ¨9 7 5 5 3 1 ¸¹
¨ 1 1¸ ©
¨1 1 ¸
¨ 3 3¸
¨3 Through computing the largest eigenvalue of matrix
© 1 3 1 ¸¹
MATLAB lambda m = 6.2416, characteristic vector k =
(0.0503, 0.0918, 0.2152, 0.0503, 0.0918, 0.8602).Calculate
The largest eigenvalue of matrix by MATLAB the normalized eigenvector for k = (0.0274, 0.0499, 0.1171,
calculation lambda m = 4, characteristic vector k = (0.2236, 0.0274, 0.0499, 0.468).The weight of the working condition
0.6708, 0.2236, 0.2236).Calculate the normalized of the six were 0.0274, 0.0499, 0.1171, 0.1295, 0.2081,
eigenvector is 0.125, 0.375, 0.125, 0.375.The weight of the 0.468.
four conditions were 0.125, 0.375, 0.125, 0.375.
˄4˅Change lanes condition 2.3 Matrix consistency check
Condition similar to slows down conditions change
lanes, due to the use of the speed is 50 km/h, so the three Judgment matrix after established and largest
conditions the number of accidents and casualties and eigenvalues is obtained to examine the consistency of
economic losses are taking a weighted average. Finally get judgement matrix, the definition of the consistency of
the weight of each scheme layer element is 0.333, 0.333, judgment matrix is:
0.333. CR=CI/RI ˄4.9˅
˄5˅The target vehicle bias condition The RI is hierarchy total sorting standard values of the
Rule layer target vehicle bias condition, working mean random consistency index, according to different
condition of a target vehicle static bias element and a target values of different matrix order, its value increases with the
vehicle elements working condition of low speed and bias increase of the matrix order, are shown in table 4.9.
conditions with the working condition of a target vehicle
static criterion layer and low speed working condition of the

Matrix derived 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RI number 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

Tab 4.9: Hierarchy total sorts RI values mean random consistency index
CI value is level, total sorts consistency index is defined as: strategy with the standard of the same score, or reduce the
CI=˄¬P-n˅/˄n-1˅ ˄4.10˅ score accordingly.
The lambda m is the biggest characteristic value of In addition to alarm signal should be red color, voice
judgment matrix, n to judge the order of the matrix. signal should be enough to alert the driver.
Finally it is concluded that consistency indicators:
CI Om  n ˄4.11˅
CR / RI
RI n 1
If CR<0.1ˈThe judgment matrix consistency is good.
In calculating target layer relative criterion layer,
criterion layer relative solution consistency of judgment
matrix is as follows:
Target layer relative criterion of consistency indicators:
CI Om  n 5.0999  5
CR / RI /1.12 0.0222  0.1 Fig 4.5: AEBS best alarm strategy ADAC suggested
RI n 1 5 1
Rule layer target vehicle static condition judgment
matrix consistency indicators: 2.4 Bonus evaluation method
CI Om  n 5.0918  5
CR / RI /1.12 0.0205  0.1 When AEBS evaluation, due to the working condition
RI n 1 5 1 of each test is a test, so there is a chance, this test method is
Rule layer target vehicle working condition of low proposed to increase AEBS points test evaluation method.
speed consistency of judgment matrix indicators: Considering the AEBS algorithm and work stability,
CI Om  n 4.0042  4 increase the working condition of a target vehicle static
CR / RI / 0.9 0.0016  0.1
RI n 1 4 1 repeat test evaluation, test car speed of 30 km/h repeated
Rule layer target vehicle deceleration condition five times test, record test vehicles AEBS alarm time TTC,
judgment matrix consistency indicators: AEB -f TTC, test the consistency of the parameters of the
CI Om  n 44 working condition of each and the consistency of different
CR / RI / 0.9 0  0.1 working conditions, if the consistency is good AEBS
RI n 1 4 1
Rule layer target vehicle bias condition judgment evaluation plus 1.
matrix consistency indicators:
CI Om  n 6.2416  6 3 Results
CR / RI /1.24 0.039  0.1
RI n 1 6 1
In conclusion, the judgment matrix is conforming. (1) The introduction of analytic hierarchy process
(AHP), analytic hierarchy structure model is established, a
2.3 False alarm and HMI evaluation method target vehicle static condition, target vehicle at low speed
conditions, working condition of a target vehicle
AEBS in vehicles in danger, the driver to take the
emergency brake, when braking or insufficient braking deceleration condition and target vehicle bias conditions,
deceleration of the general will reach more than 8 m/s2, so if change lanes rule of five layers.
incurred during the process of actual driving false alarm and
emergency brake will not only seriously affect the driver's (2) According to the hierarchical structure model,
driving experience and comfort, and more likely to cause respectively, set up the total target layer relative to the
traffic accidents such as rail after. In AEBS evaluation, criterion of judgement matrix and guidelines for each
straight false alarm condition and corners false alarm
conditions was not happen false alarm points, in case of scheme layer of judgment matrix.
false alarm will deduct points. (3) Calculates the maximum characteristic value of each
For evaluation of HMI, European ADAC suggested that judgment matrix and weight. Calculated according to the
AEBS alarm strategy adopted as shown in figure 4.5, when
vehicles in danger ahead, AEBS first signal light, sound or theory of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) consistency
vibration alarm to remind the driver in front of the danger, if judging the consistency of judgment matrix is good.
the driver didn't immediately take braking or other risk of
(4) The last increase AEBS HMI, false alarm and bonus
driving behavior, AEBS will adopt a snub braking action
again to remind the driver, if the driver hasn't been any evaluation method.
response, AEBS will be a part of the brake, brake
completely until the vehicle stop collision avoidance or
reduce collisions [65].For this alarm strategy, this article
choose to use this strategy as evaluation AEBS alarm
strategy evaluation method, if the test AEBS use the alarm
References
[1] Gao Yun, Xiao Fen.Factors that affect China's private
car ownership and its change path analysis [J].
Industrial technology economy, 2013, 9:41-47.
[2] AEB vulnerable road user assessment protocol for
inclusion in assessment protocol – pedestrian
protection[S].2014.9.
[3] EUROPean new car assessment programme-test
protocol – AEB VRU systems[S].2014.9
[4] IIHS Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol
(Version I)[S].2013.11
[5] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
forward collision warning system confirmation
test[S].2013.2
[6] European Parliament and of the Council with respect to
type-approval requirements for certain categories of
motor vehicles with regard to advanced emergency
braking systems[S].2012.4.16
[7] Intelligent transport systems — Forward vehicle
collision mitigation systems — Operation, performance,
and verification requirements[S].2013.6.1
[8] ADAC. Comparative test of advanced emergency
braking systems[R].2012.7
[9] ASSESS
D1.1-FINAL-Preliminary_Test_Scenarios-PUBLIC[R].
2009.11.19.
[10] ASSESS Project Overview Active Test
workshop[R].2012
[11] ASSESS D4.1b - FINAL - Action plan pre-crash
evalution PUBLIC[R].2010.03.01.
[12] Assessment methodologies for forward looking
integrated pedestrian and extension to cyclists
safety.D1.3[R].2011.
[13] Assessment methodologies for forward looking
integrated pedestrian and extension to cyclists
safety.D1.4[R].2011.
[14] DOT-HS-810-905-Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety
Systems - Human Factors and Driver-Vehicle Interface
(DVI) Summary Report[R].2008.2.
[15] 100875-IVBSS Verification Test Plans for Heavy
Trucks[R].2008.5
[16] 100876-VBSS Verification Test Plans for Light
Vehicles[R].2008.5
[17] GB Intelligent Transportation Systems — Forward
vehicle collision warning systems — Performance
requirements and test procedures [S]. ICS 03.220.20˗
43.040.20.
[18] Made in China in 2025 - technology innovation green
book of key areas [Z]2015.10:114-116
[19]Satty,T.L.The Analytie Hierarehy
Proeess[M].NewYOrk:MeGraw111,198.
[20] Huang Bin. Evaluation methods of passenger car
driving safety [D].2014.6:27-27.
[21] RI values mean random consistency index [Z].baidu
AHP: http://baike.baidu.com/link?url.
Acknowledgement

Thanks to all the colleagues for contributions to this thesis, evaluation method especially.
thanks to Xia Qin with the help of the calculation of AEB

Chen Chao
Intelligent Vehicle Testing & Evaluation Center Engineer
China Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co, Ltd.
TEL:15730255450
FAX:86-23-63423954
E-mail:chenchao@caeri.com.cn

Xia Qin
Intelligent Vehicle Testing & Evaluation Center Engineer
China Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co, Ltd.
TEL:18623198434
FAX: 86-23-63423954
E-mail:xiaqin@caeri.com.cn