Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Event-triggered shared lateral control for safe-maneuver of intelligent vehicles

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Science China Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the increasing number of cars, road traffic accidents have caused a lot of losses every year and human factors play an important role in many cases. Applying active safety assistance control or shared control techniques in intelligent vehicles is promising to reduce the number of traffic accidents. In this context, the dynamic optimization of the shared control policy and the smooth transitions of control authority between human drivers and intelligent driving systems are critical issues to be solved. Motivated by this, this paper proposes an event-triggered shared control approach for safe-maneuver of intelligent vehicles with online risk assessment. In the proposed approach, a Bayesian regularized artificial neural network (BRANN) is designed to predict vehicle trajectories and build a quantization function to assess the risk level owing to potential collision events. The shared controller dynamically optimizes the shared control policies between the human and the intelligent driving system via solving a model predictive control (MPC) problem. The predicted driving behaviors in the prediction horizon are pre-computed with a finite-horizon model predictor steering the predicted trajectories contributed by human driving. Moreover, smooth transitions back to human driving mode are realized via adding penalties on the shared control of the intelligent driving system. Three simulation scenarios in the PreScan environment, i.e., rear-end collision avoidance, lane-keeping and unskilled driving, are studied to test the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The simulation results, including the comparison with a linear quadratic regulator (LQR)-based shared controller, are reported, which show that the proposed approach can timely evaluate dangerous events and realize safe driving in terms of collision avoidance and lane-keeping. Also, the proposed approach outperforms the LQR-based shared controller in terms of smooth transitions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hu Y, Qu T, Liu J, et al. Human-machine cooperative control of intelligent vehicle: recent developments and future perspectives. Acta Automa Sin, 2019, 45: 1261–1280

    Google Scholar 

  2. Petermeijer S M, Abbink D A, de Winter J C F. Should drivers be operating within an automation-free bandwidth? Evaluating haptic steering support systems with different levels of authority. Human Factors, 2015, 57: 5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamid U Z A, Saito Y, Zamzuri H, et al. A review on threat assessment, path planning and path tracking strategies for collision avoidance systems of autonomous vehicles. Int J Veh Autonom Syst, 2018, 14: 134–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bengler K, Dietmayer K, Farber B, et al. Three decades of driver assistance systems: review and future perspectives. IEEE Intell Transport Syst Mag, 2014, 6: 6–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Saito T, Wada T, Sonoda K. Control authority transfer method for automated-to-manual driving via a shared authority mode. IEEE Trans Intell Veh, 2018, 3: 198–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sentouh C, Debernard S, Popieul J C, et al. Toward a shared lateral control between driver and steering assist controller. IFAC Proc Vol, 2010, 43: 404–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ludwig J, Martin M, Horne M, et al. Driver observation and shared vehicle control: supporting the driver on the way back into the control loop. Automatisierungstechnik, 2018, 66: 146–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang C, Naghdy F, Du H, et al. Shared control of highly automated vehicles using steer-by-wire systems. IEEE/CAA J Autom Sin, 2019, 6: 410–423

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. de Winter J C F, Happee R, Martens M H, et al. Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: a review of the empirical evidence. Transpation Res Part F-Traffic Psychol Behaviour, 2014, 27: 196–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Borroni F, Tanelli M. A weighting approach to the shared-control of lateral vehicle dynamics. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 2018, 51: 305–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nguyen A T, Sentouh C, Popieul J C. Sensor reduction for driver-automation shared steering control via an adaptive authority allocation strategy. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron, 2018, 23: 5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zafeiropoulos S, Tsiotras P. Design of a lane-tracking driver steering assist system and its interaction with a two-point visual driver model. In: Proceedings of the 2014 American Control Conference, Portland, 2014. 3911–3917

  13. Merah A, Hartani K, Draou A. A new shared control for lane keeping and road departure prevention. Vehicle Syst Dyn, 2016, 54: 86–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jiang J, Astolfi A. State and output-feedback shared-control for a class of linear constrained systems. IEEE Trans Automat Contr, 2016, 61: 3209–3214

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Jiang J, Astolfi A. Shared-control for a rear-wheel drive car: dynamic environments and disturbance rejection. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst, 2017, 47: 723–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jiang J, Astolfi A. Shared-control for the lateral motion of vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 2018 European Control Conference (ECC), Limassol, 2018. 225–230

  17. Saleh L, Chevrel P, Claveau F, et al. Shared steering control between a driver and an automation: stability in the presence of driver behavior uncertainty. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2013, 14: 974–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang M, Gao W, Wang Y, et al. Data-driven shared steering control of semi-autonomous vehicles. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst, 2019, 49: 350–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park K, Han S H, Lee H. A study on shared steering control in driving experience perspective: how strong and how soon should intervention be? 2018. ArXiv: 1809.05869

  20. Brandt T, Sattel T, Bohm M. Combining haptic human-machine interaction with predictive path planning for lane-keeping and collision avoidance systems. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Istanbul, 2007. 582–587

  21. Li R J, Li S B, Gao H B, et al. Effects of Human Adaptation and Trust on Shared Control for Driver-Automation Cooperative Driving. SAE Technical Paper, No. 2017-01-1987. 2017

  22. Anderson S J, Peters S C, Pilutti T E, et al. An optimal-control-based framework for trajectory planning, threat assessment, and semi-autonomous control of passenger vehicles in hazard avoidance scenarios. Int J Veh Autonom Syst, 2010, 8: 190–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gray A, Ali M, Gao Y Q, et al. Semi-autonomous vehicle control for road departure and obstacle avoidance. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IFAC Symposium on Control in Transportation Systems, Sofla, 2012. 1–6

  24. Wang Y L, Zheng H Y, Zong C F, et al. Path-following control of autonomous ground vehicles using triple-step model predictive control. Sci China Inf Sci, 2020, 63: 209203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu Y, Ren G P, Zhang H T. Dual-mode predictive control of a rotor suspension system. Sci China Inf Sci, 2020, 63: 112204

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Li Y, Tee K P, Yan R, et al. Shared control of human and robot by approximate dynamic programming. In: Proceedings of the 2015 American Control Conference (ACC), Chicago, 2015. 1167–1172

  27. Lee D N. A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 1976, 5: 437–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang Y, Antonsson E K, Grote K. A new threat assessment measure for collision avoidance systems. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, Toronto, 2006. 968–975

  29. Brannstrom M, Coelingh E, Sjoberg J. Model-based threat assessment for avoiding arbitrary vehicle collisions. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2010, 11: 658–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Althoff M, Mergel A. Comparison of Markov chain abstraction and Monte Carlo simulation for the safety assessment of autonomous cars. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2011, 12: 1237–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Anderson S J, Karumanchi S B, Iagnemma K. Constraint-based planning and control for safe, semi-autonomous operation of vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Alcala de Henares, 2012. 383–388

  32. Wada N, Matsumoto T. Driver assistance for collision avoidance by constrained MPC. In: Proceedings of the 2017 56th Annual Conference of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers of Japan (SICE), Kanazawa, 2017. 90–93

  33. Kitagawa L, Kobayashi T, Beppu T, et al. Semi-autonomous obstacle avoidance of omnidirectional wheelchair by joystick impedance control. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Maui, 2001. 2148–2153

  34. Itoh M, Tanaka H, Inagaki T. Toward trustworthy haptic assistance system for emergency avoidance of collision with pedestrian. J Human-Robot Interaction, 2015, 4: 4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Balachandran A, Brown M, Erlien S M, et al. Predictive haptic feedback for obstacle avoidance based on model predictive control. IEEE Trans Automat Sci Eng, 2016, 13: 26–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rajamani R. Vehicle Dynamics and Control. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Gong J, Jiang Y, Xu W. Model Predictive Control for Self-driving Vehicles. Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology Press, 2014

    Google Scholar 

  38. Martinez J, Black M J, Romero J. On human motion prediction using recurrent neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Hawaii, 2017. 2891–2900

  39. Lefèvre S, Vasquez D, Laugier C. A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles. ROBOMECH J, 2014, 1: 1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim B D, Kang C M, Kim J, et al. Probabilistic vehicle trajectory prediction over occupancy grid map via recurrent neural network. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Yokohama, 2017. 399–404

  41. Agamennoni G, Nieto J I, Nebot E M. Estimation of multivehicle dynamics by considering contextual information. IEEE Trans Robot, 2012, 28: 855–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. MacKay D J C. Bayesian interpolation. Neural Comput, 1992, 4: 415–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ticknor J L. A Bayesian regularized artificial neural network for stock market forecasting. Expert Syst Appl, 2013, 40: 5501–5506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sun Z, Chen Y, Li X, et al. A Bayesian regularized artificial neural network for adaptive optics forecasting. Opt Commun, 2017, 382: 519–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Foresee F D, Hagan M T. Gauss-Newton approximation to Bayesian learning. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN’97), Houston, 1997. 1930–1935

  46. Ercan Z, Carvalho A, Tseng H E, et al. A predictive control framework for torque-based steering assistance to improve safety in highway driving. Vehicle Syst Dyn, 2018, 56: 810–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chen H, Allgöwer F. A quasi-infinite horizon nonlinear model predictive control scheme with guaranteed stability. Automatica, 1998, 34: 1205–1217

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Chmielewski D, Manousiouthakis V. On constrained infinite-time linear quadratic optimal control. Syst Control Lett, 1996, 29: 121–129

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61751311, 61825305) and National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFB1305105).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Intelligence Science and Technology, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, China

    Yan Jiang, Xinglong Zhang, Xin Xu, Xing Zhou & Zhengzheng Dong

Authors
  1. Yan Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xinglong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xin Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xing Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhengzheng Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinglong Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, Y., Zhang, X., Xu, X. et al. Event-triggered shared lateral control for safe-maneuver of intelligent vehicles. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 64, 172203 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-2961-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-2961-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation